** WARNGING ** HOW CHILDREN ARE PLACED FOR ADOPTION When they have GOOD parents and Families. IT HAPPENS EVERYDAY.

By Sandra Ami

Sadly, there is a huge cover up, there is a small (and I do mean SMALL) amount of personnel who are claiming to correct the problems; I do also believe that it’s only a front to show people they are trying to do something, this is partially why:

Over and Over we hear of “no funds available” yet if the dollars where truly accounted for, one would find just the Children alone bring in TRILLIONS of dollars.

Again, as I have said, as the REALITY goes (and there is even more)… :

1) First a Child’s name and address come up to Social Services. It could be by anyone, and more often by doctors these days. Once Social Services has a name and address, they then start the process of stealing the child(ren) from the home. Usually in the Public Schools, as it’s easier to get cooperation from the staff when taking children, especially because they too are Govt. Employees.

2) They attempt to interview the parents and EACH WORD THE PARENTS SAY is used in creating the reports AGAINST THEM (and I can give several examples).

3) The SW goes back to the office and (through a pre-formatted form), types ALL THEY CAN negative about the parents, in the reports they will have compiled a list of things the parents have told them that they can use against them, the shock only comes after you appear in court when you realize you have told them things which can include but most definitely not limited to: if the parents drink Soda or Coffee; if the parent(s) were verbally or physically abused (explaining a pattern of abuse in the family to substantiate any claims the SW conjures up); If you dropped out of College- that too can be used against you; They want to know if your parents were divorced, that will be used about your mental stress or inability to connect as you had/have issues with the divorce that you have never dealt with; do you EVER drink alcoholic beverages (you will be deemed a drinker PERIOD); do you work? if you are a mother that stays home, they will report that the ‘stress of being a full time mom’ even if you claim no stress; they will ask if you EVER argue with your spouse (if you are a single parent WATCH OUT) if you EVER argue, that will be held against you as STRESS giving you the INABILITY TO PARENT YOUR CHILD..The list goes on, and their lists in their reports go on. The idea is to put so many allegations against you that it is virtually impossible for you to defend. The things you find to be meaningless (which in actuality are) are in fact things they take advantage of and use against you. IF you take ANY prescription medications, you are automatically deemed, dependent or mentally ill. Therefore they then can recommend you for Mental Health Care, and Counseling which they get paid extra for (it’s all part of the payment plan from the govt.) It doesn’t matter if you have personal Health Care, because the do NOT allow you to use it, they put you on Govt. Health Care Plans so that they can control and monitor all your records, without you having access. Your children will ALSO be placed on these plans to prevent you from accessing your children’s records. AFTER the report is made against you, and the children have been taken, these children feed into the Mental Health (DHHS) industry as well, by placing them on drugs to calm them as they have been traumatized by their kidnapping from schools and are not able to see their parents or go home, but instead thrusted into a place with a group of strangers who, really don’t care about them, as they are just another kid being brought in for money. The child cries profusely, therefore it’s justified they need medication and Counseling (which is more funding, and deeming the child(ren) as “special needs” (more funding). They don’t tell you, that also one criteria for being a Special Needs child is simply being 6 yrs of age or older.

4) There is a TDM (Team Decision Meeting) with the parents to “determine where the children will be placed IF not with the parents” though they have NO INTENTION of placing the children with the parents OR any of those discussed in the TDM. The purpose of the TDM is basically to abide by the law in having one, there is absolutely no other purpose for it. Everything that is said in the TDM will NOT be placed in the reports as required by law. In fact, they can, do and have put into the report that, after the meeting “No FAMILY AVAILABLE” “REQUEST CONFIDENTIAL FOSTER CARE” even after you had discussed family and/or friends for placement, even if those family and friends were present in that meeting.

5) The case goes to court, and in ALMOST ALL cases, the parents are NEVER ALLOWED TO SPEAK, and in Orange County CA, the parents wait outside while the cases are being discussed, leaving NOTHING for the Court Record. The parents are SOMETIMES called in when the FINDINGS are decided upon outside of the parents presence. The parents are in that courtroom for a total of 20 seconds to state they were there and hear the findings read.

6) The parents are told “if you plea guilty, they will allow your children to come home (or with a family member) if you do not plead your child will go into a foster home where he/she is 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE”. Parents then substantiate all the claims, even though they are all false and grossly exaggerated, by pleading to protect their children from harm or death. Only to find.. they lied, and your child IS PLACED IN A FOSTER HOME, and NOT sent home with you. You can complain as much as you like, and tell anyone they lied to you, however it was all only words and not in writing, therefore none of what they said matters ((((( THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I TELL PARENTS TO ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN in a Journal.. RECORD EVERYTHING digital recorder if possible, and ALWAYS COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL when you can )))

But remember, in these “secret courts” no one is allowed Cameras or any recording devices what so ever, UNLESS YOU ARE THE ADOPTIVE PARENTS adopting the child (your child).

7) Now that they have to show that they have TRIED to “RE-UNIFY” the parents, because it’s the law, they will then put the parents through a battery of “services” telling the parents “if you take (ie.) Parenting classes, abuse classes, counseling etc. AND TAKE MEDICATIONS (in most cases) WE WILL GIVE YOU YOUR CHILDREN BACK UPON COMPLETION” these services must be facilitated by the Social Worker, and they fail to tell you they WONT START THESE SERVICES in most cases until it’s too late for you to complete them in time for the TERMINATION of Parental Rights Hearing. They also fail to tell you that IF you should miss even ONE of your appointments that you have FAILED to comply with the Re-Unification process. AND YOUR CHILD IS ADOPTED..

They put the parents through these “services” because (and ONLY because) it brings their Organization more Federal Funding and PRIVATE Non Profit Grants.

The courts, in most cases, provide your child with their own attorney called The Guardian et Lidem or GAL, with whom  generally never meet the child.

Each parent is given their own attorney (so they can not form an alliance, while they are being plotted against one another with accusations). Each parent is told they will be able to get the child(ren) if they side with the Social Worker against the other, which actually only to substantiates their case for ADOPTION, however the parents comply to protect their children. (IF you admit your wife/husband is ___ then you will be able to take the children home.. the same is told to the other parent). The parents are desperate to protect the child and get them out of the Children’s home or Foster Home. The parents are also told they are not allowed to discuss the case with ANYONE but their attorneys, not even each other. They are told this from the first day of court. THE SECRETS BEGIN to protect THE GUILTY.

Parents want to tell everyone, they want to scream at the top of their lungs for help.. yet.. even if they do mention it to anyone, the first responses are “you must have done something wrong, they are after all protecting children.. they are CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES” and no one will listen. While Social Services laughs knowing their marketing scheme has worked and people BELIEVE they are there to Protect children.. but little do people know, CPS is FOR REVENUE CORP. ((Many of the Judges, Social Workers and others involved, have started their own Foundations that get funds and Grants when children are taken.. Judges profit off the adoptions they order, Judges, DHHS workers and others involved in this process are on the Board of Directors for agencies such as United Way and other Foundations.

Child Protective Services does Fund Raisers for Untied Way and other Foundations, Untied Way then gives Grants to CASA (the child avocacy hired by the courts to be suposedly unbias on the Child’s behalf after they have been taken) CASA gives grants to Child Protective Services, and CASA (in CA) is in the State Building right next door to the head Child Protective Services office. )

Once 12 months has gone by, there is a REVIEW hearing, the children are STILL NOT HOME, as they have promised over and over and over each month that “if” you do ___, the children will most likely come home after the next hearing.. the next hearing has come and gone, and the parents are told they must do ___ now, all creating more services and more money prolonging the case as much as possible till the 18 mos has run out.. the 18 month hearing.. is THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS hearing.. The law states they must place the child in a PERMANENT HOME.. and you have a good chance betting it wont be that of the parents, or any other family member..

(In over 70% of the cases, the children should NEVER have been taken in the first place.. as said by former L.A. Director of Child and Family Services, as well as SOME honest Social Workers and others within the system brave enough to place their jobs in jeopardy to make such statements)

They also fail to tell the parents that it will be likely that the Gay/Lesbian social worker will be or has placed your child with a Gay/Lesbian couple who wishes to Adopt. ((YOUR CHILD)) (boys are often placed with Gay men, and girls with Lesbian couples)

Remember.. in “THE OC” (Orange County, CA) there are between 3000 and 5000 children taken each MONTH, those numbers are higher in San Diego County and Los Angeles County, I’ve been told by a head of the Appealate courts… So.. that’s Souther California alone.. it’s safe to say that an estimated amount of children is in the 10’s of thousands EACH MONTH.. One portion of one state. Other states are equally as bad and it’s argued could be even worse. States I know about that are horrible for these practices and make huge profits off the abduction of children are: CA, OR, FL, NH, CO, TX, TN, KS, KY, NY, NC, NJ, VA, GA; These are just a few, that I have personally found to be so brazen. If you live in another state, don’t think that you are immune from it.

It doesn’t matter who you are, or what you do, they can still take your child. Attorneys have had their own children taken, when they have tried to defend the parents in these courts. Neighbors and Family members have also been threatened by the Social Workers that their children will also be taken if they don’t give information to them about the ones in question.

The threats are in abundance. After all .. who are you going to plea to, for the safe return of your child(ren)? The only people you can, are those who Kidnapped them in the first place.

(Keep in mind.. that Doctors are contracted with Social Services, and will lose their contracts if they do not substantiate the claims made against a parent, MANY social workers and people in positions connected are even adopting children.

MANDATED reporters ; nurses, teachers, doctors, councilors, school personnel etc. are all threated with their licenses if they do not substantiate claims, or turn parents in. Many of these professionals are using CPS to retaliate against parents who they do not get along with. Doctors are calling CPS if a parents gets a second opinion, teacher are calling if parents don’t like the teacher, nurses are if there are conflicts with the nurses.. these Mandated Reporters are nothing more than SCOUTS for CPS, to obtain children for Federal and State Funds and Grants from both as well as Non Profits, such as United Way and others. There is so much more..

I was personally told, by a government official, “CPS MUST obtain more and more children each month in order to justify their Budget”

I’ve been told that Social Workers have a quota to fill each month, for children being placed up for adoption. Where are all these children going to come from? Ask yourself, do you really believe there are THAT many parents who abuse or neglect their children?

Social Services (CPS, DCFS and by other names) claim most of their cases are “Neglect” cases. Neglect is defind broadly from a simple sunburn, to a missed doctor’s visit. Neglect can be an unbathed child, or toys left out in plain view. Neglect can be anything the Social Worker wants to define it as.

AND most Social Workers don’t even carry a license in any field of Social Work.

YOU NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH.. YOUR CHILD ”’CAN”’ BE TAKEN AT ANY TIME FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN FUNDING.

Social Workers Doping up our Children

Orlando Sentinel
August 31, 2009

The state’s Department of Children and Families is under fire again, and rightly so.

Recently, a task force issued its final report documenting how weak oversight and lax compliance with guidelines fostered a culture where officials often blindly doled out powerful drugs as chemical pacifiers to help caregivers manage difficult children.

These troubling concerns aren’t new to DCF. But in the wake of the withering report, DCF Secretary George Sheldon concedes lapses and vows to heed and fund task-force proposals.

Such accountability is encouraging. But we expected reform before. In 2003, the Statewide Advocacy Council report made similar findings, and concluded, “…unnecessary dispensing of psychotropic medication remains a threat to [foster children]. Until there is more information regarding the safety and efficiency of these drugs, Florida’s foster care children should be monitored closely.”

That report’s proposals were largely ignored. Now, six years later, only swift reforms and a strong mandate to comply with existing rules that govern psychotropic drugs will shelve suspicions that this is déjà vu all over again.

Gabriel Myers becomes the latest Florida foster child whose tragic end led to familiar calls for DCF reform. The boy was removed from his drug-addled mother and turned over to state custody on June 29, 2008. Gabriel hopscotched between a relative and a foster home over the next 10 months. While in state care, he received several psychotropic drugs without valid parental or court consent, as state law requires. One of the drugs, Symbyax, an adult antidepressant, can lead to suicidal thoughts or actions.

On April 16, Gabriel put a shower cord around his neck in the bathroom of his Margate foster home.

Shortly afterward, Mr. Sheldon convened the Gabriel Myers Work Group to investigate the tragedy. The group’s 26-page report outlined 148 systemic breakdowns in Gabriel’s death.

It notes the egregious disregard of safeguards for foster children that are well “articulated in statute, administrative rule, and operating procedures.” Breakdowns in communication, advocacy, supervision, monitoring and oversight only exacerbated matters.

Gabriel was repeatedly evaluated while in care, and often saw therapists, including one who noted, “It is clear that this child is overwhelmed with change and possibly re-experiencing trauma.” Somehow, though, caregivers missed the red flags.

And the report backs child advocates who long have insisted the state overmedicates kids: “Psychotropic medications are at times being used to help parents, teachers, and other caregivers calm and manage, rather than treat, children.”

In Florida, 15.2 percent of foster kids take at least one psychotropic drug, compared with a 5 percent rate among the general population.

DCF must junk the “fix-it with pharmaceuticals” mentality that, for the sake of expediency, often skirts safer avenues for taming disorderly behavior. Adopting the task force’s call for “a higher requirement for due diligence prior to seeking approval for administering these drugs” would be a step forward.

The task force outlines a raft of reforms that include beefing up therapeutic services, adding court-appointed guardians, and bringing on a medical director to direct the use of psychotropic drugs.

Mr. Sheldon says he’ll free up resources within DCF to act on the suggestions. And despite austere budgets, he vows to cajole the Legislature to fund such options as behavioral therapy as an alternative to drug therapy. But a will to change must follow words.

Mr. Sheldon told the Fort Myers News-Press that in the past, “Regrettably, I’m afraid people said, ‘We dodged a bullet’ and it [reforms] never got out into the field. That cannot be the case this time.”

It better not. Or DCF almost assuredly in the months to come will experience another tragic case of déjà vu.

Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel

Direct link: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edped-dcf-drugs-report-083109083109aug31,0,7590536.story

State Care / CPS “Why Are These Children Dying?”

San Francisco Chronicle

Persuasive Writing and Commentary

Entry: Why are these children dying?

A three-piece editorial package
Credit: Editorial Writer Caille Millner
Date: December 3, 2006
Pages: E4, E5

Page E4

EDITORIAL

On Foster Care Reform
Why are these children dying?

THE STATE OF California cannot say how many foster children die each year, even though a state law that took effect in 2004 requires counties to release the names, dates of birth, and dates of death for these children. The new law is not being followed by all: The Children’s Advocacy Institute, a San Diego-based research and lobbying group that co-sponsored the 2004 law, requested the names for 2005 from all 58 counties. Nearly a year later, they’re still waiting for two counties to respond.

The names that they do have for 2005 — 48 so far — offer more questions than answers. What does it mean, for example, that nine of the deaths were children age 17 or older, five of whom were within six weeks of their 18th birthday? Are 17-year-olds simply more likely to get in car accidents? Suffer drug overdoses? Skateboard without helmets? Or does it mean the fulfillment of our worst fears — that some children, facing the harsh realities of homelessness and desperation when they “age out” of the system at 18, are taking their own lives instead?

“There’s no way to get more information without going to the courts,” said Christina Riehl, staff attorney for the Children’s Advocacy Institute.

There is absolutely no reason why an advocacy group, a newspaper, an elected official, or any other concerned member of the public should have to go to court to find out what happened when a foster youth dies.

But due to California’s baffling policies on disclosure, it’s extraordinarily difficult for the public to learn who in the system is dying and why. Nearly every bill that has come through the Legislature in the past several years has been stonewalled by the County Welfare Directors’ Association.

Take AB1817, a very modest bill sponsored by Assemblyman Bill Maze, R-Visalia, three years ago. Concerned about a wave of foster children’s deaths in his district, Maze simply wanted legislators to be allowed to review the case files of deceased children in the system. But he couldn’t get his bill out of the Judiciary Committee.

“They said that, as an elected official, I’d just use these cases as a political forum,” said Maze. “I think it’s just baloney. We need to know if there’s some kind of pattern or trend or lack of oversight in case management, because, until we know that, we won’t know how to fix the problem. But needless to say, I’ve been fought against on this issue tremendously by the welfare directors of this state.”

Maze is not the only one frustrated by the lack of information about child deaths from California’s social-services bureaucracies. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services determined that the state was violating federal law by failing to file reports about the deaths and near-deaths of children due to abuse or neglect. Threatened with the loss of $60 million in child-welfare funds, this summer the state began requiring counties to file these reports. But — and here’s the rub — the Department of Social Services keeps all names confidential, even in the case of foster children.

Imagine — our state’s most vulnerable children, betrayed by a state system that was supposed to protect them — and we have no idea who they are. A look at the questionnaires the state started providing this July offer only haunting glimpses of their fates:

— On July 30, a 15-year-old foster child died after either jumping or being pushed from a moving car in a suspected sexual assault.

— On Aug. 17, a 2-year-old foster child drowned after her foster parents left her alone in a bath tub.

— On Aug. 24, a 16-year-old committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after telling his sibling that he couldn’t take their legal guardian’s abuse anymore.

Confidentiality is important, especially when it comes to protecting the identities of family members and abuse reporters. We understand, as well, that it’s important to protect the names of abused children who suffer near-fatalities but are expected to recover. But there are no good reasons why the full case files — including names, counties and histories — for dead foster children shouldn’t be open to all of us. There can’t be any accountability without transparency.

When we asked Sue Diedrich, assistant general counsel for the state Department of Social Services, why they couldn’t tell us more, she said that the state could risk its federal funding.

That’s simply not true, according to a federal official who tracks the issue.

“Federal law doesn’t require that a state release (those details), but it doesn’t prohibit those disclosures either,” said Susan Orr, associate commissioner of the children’s bureau in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Indeed, there are at least two states, Georgia and South Carolina, which offer up just the sort of connect-the-dots information that an informed public needs — and unlike California, they haven’t had any threats of a funding cut-off.

There is a solution to this, and this year Assembly members Sharon Runner and Karen Bass even tried to offer it. It was AB2938, which required the release of juvenile court records, and county and state files, in the case of a child death pertaining to abuse or neglect. AB2938 should be expanded to include the deaths of foster children, regardless of whether or not they died as a result of abuse or neglect.

Unfortunately, although the governor and Legislature worked together to pass many important pieces of child-welfare legislation this year, AB2938 wasn’t one of them. The county welfare directors’ association voiced its opposition again, and it didn’t go past its first committee.

For some reason, there are still people who seem to believe that if we don’t get the information, we won’t pay attention to the fact that our children are dying.

They’re wrong. It’s time to resurrect — and expand — AB2938. What we don’t know can hurt us. It’s unconscionable to let children pay the price.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/03/EDGRMLJJ091.DTL

Page E5

EDITORIAL

Foster Care Reform
These deaths drew news coverage.

But we need to know what happened

whenever a foster youth dies.

Conrad Morales

When Conrad Morales’ relatives sent him to live with his aunt and uncle in the mountainside town of Randle, Wash., they thought they were providing him with a better life.

After spending his first 11 years in Los Angeles motels with his mother or relatives’ homes in La Puente, the idea was that the boy might benefit from forests, meadows, fresh air, animals — from the concept of an innocent childhood that his parents, both of whom had spent time in jail on drug and assault charges, hadn’t been able to provide for him.

Two years later, the police pulled Conrad’s body out of a trash can.

The suspects in his murder case are the very same aunt and uncle who were supposed to shelter and protect him. The boy — a high-spirited, popular student and avid birdwatcher — told his best friend weeks before his death during the summer of 2005 that he was being sexually abused and beaten. Now that best friend — and the entire town of Randle — is still wondering how they could have failed to miss the warning signs: the filthy house, the erratic school attendance, Conrad’s requests for make-up to cover the bruises on his face and neck.

Months before his death, Conrad began making desperate calls to his older sister, Vanessa Gallardo, in the Los Angeles area. Gallardo, who had already fought unsuccessfully for custody with Los Angeles County Child Protective Services, was perhaps the only one who called social workers and asked that someone check on the boy. She never found out about that check, but the police estimate he was killed weeks before they received a missing person’s report.

Kayla Lorrain Wood

The life of Kayla Lorrain Wood has a made-for-after-school-TV-special quality to it: She was sexually abused, schizophrenic and depressed. She bounced around in Child Protective Services while her mother racked up drug charges. She was suspected of prostitution. And she died a terrible death — this September, the Moreno Valley police discovered her stabbed and abandoned body after firefighters came to put out a fire in a building where transients gathered.

But beneath this tale of woe lies a 16-year-old girl who loved art, music and animals. Tall and thin, she dreamed of becoming a model — an appropriate choice, perhaps, for a young woman who her mother describes as girly, pretty and frilly. In her foster-care placements, she ran away frequently — to find her family.

Eventually, the police found her body instead.

Could anyone have saved her? In 2005, after an evaluation showed that Kayla was suffering from a mental disorder, Child Protective Services recommended that she be committed to a secure psychiatric facility. She ran away from her group home four days later. Though she later returned, no one followed up on the recommendation.

Although Kayla went missing at least 10 times during her two years in the foster-care system, social services admitted to losing contact with her parents. They didn’t know she was missing until she was already dead.

Jerry Hulsey

The life and death of Jerry Hulsey shows how difficult it is for social workers to make the right calls when it comes to protecting children — and how important it is that they do.

Jerry’s biological mother and father were habitual drug users. His first brush with the Department of Social Services came at the age of nine months, when his biological mother passed out from a heroin overdose with him in the car. She was charged with child endangerment and ordered into drug treatment, where she met Vicki Lynn Hulsey, Jerry’s future foster mother.

Though his biological mother couldn’t stay out of trouble — she didn’t complete her treatment program and left her son in the care of anyone who would take him — she did notice that Hulsey treated the boy well. So when she went to prison in 1996, she asked that he be left in Hulsey’s care in Monterey.

Hulsey acted quickly to be certified as Jerry’s foster parent, and by the accounts of friends and neighbors, treated him with love. When she petitioned for adoption, social workers weighed that more heavily than Hulsey’s other problems — namely, her background as a child-abuse survivor, her struggles with drug and alcohol addiction, and her bipolar disorder. In the end, Hulsey’s past caught up with her — she beat 10-year-old Jerry to death this year. An autopsy showed that he had cocaine in his system and that, at 4 feet 9 inches, he weighed 60 pounds.

Hulsey’s deterioration and Jerry’s tragic death shows how difficult it is to predict what will happen in an adoption. But it also shows how important it is for the public to understand social workers’ choices.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/03/EDGRMLJJ0B1.DTL

Page E5
EDITORIAL
Foster Care Reform
It works in South Carolina

FOR MORE than 10 years, South Carolina has had one of the nation’s strongest policies about public disclosure for the deaths of foster children. South Carolina’s clear and succinct policies stand in stark contrast to California’s confusing and disjointed disclosure system.

“We review all the records and talk about what the agency did or didn’t do in a specific case — was there a failure to make a home visit? Did someone not follow a policy concerning documentation?” said Virginia Williamson, general counsel for South Carolina’s Department of Social Services. “The reports talk about agency activities instead of laying out the family’s dynamics or revealing information about siblings or other relatives.”

A public request yields plenty of information. They sent us a document containing summary information about the circumstances of death for children who died in 2004. The document included not just children who had died of suspected abuse or neglect while in active protection, but also children whose deaths were the result of accidents or natural causes and received no public attention. By listing this last group without names, their privacy is protected — but the public can still do comparisons.

Composed in a simple, clear format, each entry is easy to read and analyze. For example, we learned that in 2004, there were nine child deaths due to abuse and neglect while in active protection, one well-publicized child death due to homicide, and 28 accident- and natural cause-deaths. Of the nine abuse and neglect deaths, one was a foster child — Lakeysha Tharp, a 10-year-old in Richland County, of probable asphyxiation. We learn that the foster mother has been charged with homicide by child abuse, and that the foster mother’s son (unnamed, because he is a minor) has been charged with the murder as well.

It’s all there: the case, the lost child, and what’s being done to ensure that her death was not in vain. And the sky hasn’t fallen in South Carolina as a result of such disclosure. If they’re worried about “privacy,” or “liability” or “politics,” the excuses that certain authorities offer in California, it hasn’t stopped law enforcement from serving or social services from protecting. Nor has it stopped the public from carrying on with their private lives. The only difference is that the public also has the knowledge to ask questions and push for improvement.

“It’s always a delicate balance between being accountable to the public for how we do business, the privacy interests of families, and protecting the state from lawsuits,” said Williamson. “But ultimately we feel that transparency and accountability are important.”

So do we.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/03/EDGP8MNBBT1.DTL

About the series

California legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made progress this year by approving a series of measures to upgrade the level of consistency and oversight in the state’s troubled foster-care system — but there is much work to be done.

Today’s editorials were researched and written by editorial writer Caille Millner. You can e-mail her at cmillner@sfchronicle.com.

To read earlier editorials on this topic, go to SFGate.com

— John Diaz, editorial page editor jdiaz@sfchronicle.com

Casket for a small child's Funeral

Government Ran Kidnapping Ring? NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!

Recently, I ran across the question on LegallyKidnapped.com  ‘Is Child and Family services a Government ran Kidnapping Ring?’ I have to answer this question with a firm “yes”. I’m not the only one who has done investigations of CPS, DCFS, DFS, DHS, or whatever they call themselves in your area, there have been many.

As parents have access to the internet, and are asking the questions “why was MY child(ren) taken away?” they are discovering a bleak and traumatic truth.

There are hundreds of websites, if not thousands, that parents have created to get the message out to unsuspecting parents out there, with information they have discovered.

Parents have experienced that in these “Secret Courts” that are ran and administered by the same people that are taking the children, that it is in fact a “Tribunal Court”. There is virtually no possible way the parents can win. In these courts, parents are placed with Gag Orders, as to ‘not discuss the case’, this way, the social workers can conduct their business outside of scrutiny, and they can lie on the reports and to the Judges free to perjure themselves without question, after all who will complain?. Parents are often not even allowed in the court rooms while their cases are being discussed. All the people involved are playing the parents like a fiddle. Social Workers are very nice, claiming they are there to “help you” and they are sure ‘you’ll probably get your children back’, however each time you express any type of conflict with them or their decisions; something to either expose them, or to prove your innocents, they threaten that they will and can “put your child up for adoption”. This is not a false story,, this is a fact.

The children are being taken at an alarming rate, and although they are only investigating ONE child… they will take them all, regardless of the circumstances. They are stealing the children legally. Social Workers (SW) have no problems falsifying documents, lying about parents and extended family members, they threaten the parents into so called “services” which by parents taking these services is an automatic admission of guilt (even if they have done nothing); SW’s will do whatever it takes to ensure your child WILL be placed up for adoption.

Children are often placed into care and deemed “special needs” ensuring more Federal Funding and Non Profit Grants for these children. New Hampshire’s Social Services website states that one criterion to be deemed for a Special Needs child is simply to be of age 6 or more.  It has been documented that babies as young as a few months old are deemed to have “mental issues” and are given strong psychotropic drugs. With each medial issue that can be found (or created) the state and Federal Government gets more money, not just from the demand for more taxes, but also from the Non Profit Grants that you so kindly donate to.

The Governments motto is “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” I don’t believe this is only meant to be a slogan for Educationm as most children are taken, from schools… “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” a slogan most likely used by Social Services.. a slogan for all government, after what I’ve seen, experienced, researched and learned I believe this to be true.

No Child Left Behind, means that the Social Workers, the State, and Federal Government  including the Non Profit groups, Adoptions Agencies and all their agents and affiliates have a guaranteed income, and I can tell you the economics involved is one of the highest in America.

Just as Cancer will not be cured, due to the amount of job losses and business losses, government investments and Mental Health, too many doctors would be out of business, along with the countless Oncology Hospitals popping up, Child Stealing by the Government will also only increase.

I was told by a Government Official, during my investigation, that Social Services does in fact “have a quota, and are REQUIRED to increase their child intake each year” per County.

Does this scare you? If you have children or are thinking of having children, or even have grand children, this should scare you. I’ve had a few social workers tell me that “the majority of the children they take come from really good homes, and never go back”

I was also told “if you don’t make the claims against the parents, you lose your job”

I have spent approximately 3 years worth of time (in 1 ½ years time) looking into this, as I wanted to know why my own son was taken, and I was appalled at my discovery.

Please feel free to ask questions, I have many answers.. Though there are many more that still need to be discovered.

Sandra Ami

children of all ages - kidnapped by the Government and SOLD

Baby’s picture used in Adoption Scam

ABINGTON – A local mother says she found a picture of her baby boy in a Craiglist advertisement saying the child was available for adoption. FOX25’s Shirley Chan reports. Inside:  See the ad

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/1044256

also on News22 WWLP.com: http://tinyurl.com/mb4jto

Most Adoptions (especially by Social Services) IS A SCAM

Criminals are being given Social Worker Jobs Taking YOUR Children

False allegations are nothing new to these brasen criminals. Many Social Workers are encouraged to lie on reports in order to take your children and are backed by their Supervisors. You have no way of complaining; who would you complain to anyway? The kidnappers are the ones parents have to negotiate with. The children have a bounty and the parents pay with their lives and still lose in court, as there is no one to defend them.

Unfortunately, parents believe their Public Defenders are going to “take care of them”, little do they know….. it will rarely if ever happen.

Robert G. Rother was charged with taking custodial indecent liberties with a teenage boy. (Photo courtesy of Fairfax County Police)

Social Workers (CPS) are “hardened to these cases, and don’t care about the parents” as I personally was told by a Social Worker.

They are given bonus’ and have Quotas to take children. Yours COULD be next!

These are the people making life decisions for you and your children!

Sandra

Former CPS director sentenced to 10 years for child molestation

JACOB JONES | THE DAILY WORLD Gary E. Anderson, a former supervisor with Child Protective Services, was sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison Friday after pleading guilty to first-degree child rape and molestation.

Judge rejects recommendation of 1 year in jail and treatment

Gary E. Anderson leaned into the podium, his head lowered and the blue jail jumpsuit draping off his thin frame.

The 67-year-old former Child Protective Services director told the court he did not understand how he could spend 36 years of his life defending children, including his own, and now stand guilty of raping a 9-year-old girl and molesting another girl of the same age.

“I’ve broken a sacred trust not only with these children, but those who love them,” he said Friday. “I broke their hearts. … I am sorry for what I’ve done.”

Anderson pleaded guilty to first-degree child rape and first-degree molestation last year for “numerous” times when he touched the two girls inappropriately, according to court records. He admitted his conduct in a plea agreement recommending an alternative sentence of one year in jail as well as sex offender therapy and supervision upon release.

Superior Court Judge Mark McCauley rejected the recommended Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative on Friday, saying Anderson deserved prison despite pleas from the victims’ families to grant treatment.

“I have really struggled with this decision,” the judge said. “There was such a trust. There are multiple victims. His conduct went on for years.”

McCauley sentenced Anderson to a minimum of 10 years to life in prison with annual reviews to determine whether he can ever be released.

Anderson’s eyes dropped to the table. His supporters in the audience wept softly.

“These crimes, from my point of view, are horrific crimes,” McCauley said, noting he had given substantial prison sentences to other offenders who never even touched a child.

The judge said the victims and their families have to live with the consequences of Anderson’s actions for the rest of their lives. He said he is also concerned about any chance Anderson could re-offend, despite his age.

“I just can’t in good conscience grant a (sentencing alternative),” McCauley said.

Court records stated Anderson first acknowledged he had touched the girls inappropriately when confronted by their parents in January of 2008. He was charged with raping one girl and molesting the other.

The state Department of Social & Health Services said he worked for Child Protective Services for 36 years and retired in 2000. He supervised social workers, but rarely interacted with children.

Anderson was arrested in March of 2008 and unanswered questions about other possible victims delayed his sentencing for months.

Deputy prosecutor Katie Svoboda said everyone involved should be better off with the long case finished.

“It took a lot of work,” she said. “This is a hard case and a hard call (by the judge).”

Svoboda had joined the defense in recommending the alternative sentence with therapy, but said a prison sentence was “well-warranted.”

Defense attorney Brett Purtzer called a polygraph examiner and a psychotherapist to the stand Friday to testify about Anderson’s chances of benefiting from treatment.

“If Mr. Anderson is not an individual that qualifies for (the alternative sentence),” Purtzer argued, “then that person does not exist.”

The attorney presented several letters of support for Anderson and one of the victim’s parents asked the court to allow for treatment instead of prison.

Anderson said he had taken full responsibility and wanted the chance to understand why he had done such things. He believed the alternative sentence and treatment would give him that chance.

“This (sentencing alternative) truly is a privilege,” McCauley told him. “There’s no right to go through this treatment.”

[ I’d like you to ask yourself, what Foundation are you donating to? Most of the Foundations (if not all) that you are donating to, fund this sort of behavior and give Grants to CPS, such as United Way just as an example. Foundations have become the small business of the modern generation by government officials, Judges, an those within the DHHS organization; either directly or indirectly.. so next time you Donate.. ask yourself.. who are YOU hurting?.. I will do an article on Foundations one day, hopefully soon]

is 90 Days enough for a Lying Social Worker Who destorys a life?

Texas: Is a 90 Day Sentence Enough for a Lying Social Worker?

On May 22, 2009 a Corpus Christi TX judge sentenced Grizelda Lopez-Hess, 38, to 90 days in jail. I wonder if she’s out yet. She plead guilty to making a false report of abuse.

According to reporter Mary Ann Cavazos, Grizelda Lopez-Hess phoned the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services on October 9 to make a false report of “indecency with a child”. She accused Ricardo Jimenez of molesting his girlfriend’s daughter, claiming she learned about the abusive situation from her daughter, a friend of the supposed child victim.

But Grizelda Lopez-Hess doesn’t even have a daughter! She made the whole thing up! And she was an investigator for the Children’s Advocacy Center – a former CPS caseworker, child-taker, and supervisor! What a manipulator!

The victim of this lie, Ricardo Jimenez, is called upon to testify as an expert witness, and this false allegation has already been brought up in criminal cases wherein he’s been asked to testify as an expert. But this was not Grizelda Lopez-Hess’ motivation for making such a sick and dreadful false accusation of child abuse.

Grizelda Lopez-Hess said she made the false accusation in retaliation against Ricardo Jimenez’ girlfriend, Misty Guajardo. Grizelda Lopez-Hess blamed Misty Guajardo for a job transfer forced on Lopez-Hess’ husband. But county officials said that the job transfer (a demotion?) was done because Grizelda Lopez-Hess and her husband did yet another dirty deed: they tipped off a suspect in a criminal case. The suspect and his family members testified that indeed they had been tipped off by Grizelda Lopez-Hess and her husband.

Grizelda Lopez-Hess plea bargained. She was to get a two year prison sentence, but that was changed to three years probation and the 90 days in jail. Plus she has to pay a fine and complete 100 hours of community service and attend anger management classes.

Hess’ husband tried to get her off easy. He testified that Grizelda Lopez-Hess would be in danger because while she was in a holding cell two fellow prisoners recognized her as a child-taking CPS agent! But she went to jail anyway and was to be isolated from the other prisoners. Solitary confinement for 90 days? I hope she’s still serving the entire 90 day sentence and that she’s had plenty of time to think about what it means to LIE and falsely accuse people of child abuse.

So there you have it, folks… the truth coming out about a really bad character that the county used against American families. The put Grizelda Lopez-Hess in a position of power and she used it to knowingly harm and harass decent people.

This is the tip of the iceberg! There are THOUSANDS of false accusations happening in this country… and it is time for all these lying idiots to get investigated, prosecuted, and IMPRISONED. Forget jail! One year isn’t enough to pay for all the massive amounts of grief they’ve caused!

Every child taken away from a parent due to a false accusation of child abuse is a child that is being abused by the government child protective services agency and its agents.

So now you have my opinion. What’s yours? What would be the proper sentence for a child protective services social worker who knowingly makes a false accusation of child abuse or neglect?

(taken from fightcps.com)

Arkansas Mother ARRESTED after Protecing Children from Foster Care

By Sandra Ami

Suzanne McHenry from Arkansas, originally from the UK was Arrested Monday after signing over Temporary Guardianship to her in-laws.

Suzanne and husband Calvin received a visit from at 11am Thursday June 4th regarding their 4 month old little girl Bethany’s safety. What the McHenry’s did not know was that the other two children Amie age 5 and Lee age 3 were already being detained by Social Services on trickery when the Grandparents were asked to bring them in so that they could be observed and to “speak” to the Grandparents about the validity to the allegations.

During the time the Grandparents were being interrogated, the children were taken into another room out of the sight and ears of their Grandparents. Upon any conclusions of the so called interview, the Grandparents were told they would NOT be taking their little one’s home.

After the Family Services Assessor Rhonda Bohamon left the home of the McHenry’s stating that Bethany “appeared fine” they were then visited yet again by Social Services just hours later to “take the baby”. The Social worker stated to Suzanne “Supervisor said ‘take one take all'”.

Calvin McHenry stated they “might get their children back within 72 hours.. but need to hold the children until their investigation is complete”  as this is what he was told by Social Services.

What the McHenry’s didn’t know was the Child Welfare Laws in their state.

They didn’t know that one the law state in Arkansas:  9-30-104.State Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board (a)The State Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board is created as an autonomous agency”; which for those of you who may not understand what that mean, it’s SELF GOVERNING and independent and subject to their own laws.

The McHenry’s, as with every other parent faced with such tragedy, believed the Social Workers would do as the laws state and would find the allegations “unfounded”.  The McHenry’s were unaware of the policies and practices of Social Service. They were unaware of the Corporation they were dealing with.

On Friday June 5th, as ordered to appear in court they were faced with a decision to either give up temporary custody to Calvin’s parents (which they felt completely comfortable in doing) or face their children going into a Foster Home. So before court started all attorneys went into back chambers with the Judge to discuss the turn over in guardianship; it was granted and the children were now safe from Foster Care. However, Social Services WAS NOT HAPPY!

On Monday a police car showed up on the McHenrys doorstep stating they wanted to “ask some questions in regards to the children” both Suzanne and Calvin stated they would not without council, thus making the police officers angry where upon immediate handcuffs were slapped on Suzanne stating they had a warrant for her arrest. No reason was given, no warrant was shown and the police refused to give out any information to either party as to court dates or reasons. It was also stated by Calvin that there was no Myranda rights given to his wife. The officer sweared expletives to Calvin when Calvin started asking him about his rights and the Constitution the officer only stated “Shut the F*** Up..Don’t say another F****ing word!”

It wasn’t until the following day Calvin learned from Suzanne that there has been supposedly a warrant issued on May 22 for her arrest, prior to any inquiry by Social Services.

The case is still in it’s beginning stages but the McHenry’s are asking for any help they can get and would like to have any journalists to take on the challenge in helping them. Calvin McHenry said “I will be willing to open up my life and hand over any and all evidence a Journalist requests to prove our innocents and get my babies back”.

They can be reached through facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113480075624&ref=mf#/topic.php?uid=113480075624&topic=9603

“Hi I’m Suzannes sister in the UK. Calvin has set up a “chip in” site for donating to help Suzannes case and FREE HER! Please if anyone can donate then please donate. Thank you xxxx”

http://suzannemchenryfund.chipin.com/suzanne-mchenry-fund

** UPDATE: I spoke with Calvin McHenry today June 10th and I was informed that a reporter from the Local TV WMCTV/(NBC) in his area has taken on his story.. It’s still not enough, he still needs to have the truth come out since he can not afford an attorney. ALSO they are CHARGING HIS WIFE WITH A FELONY BATTERY CHARGE whis is giving her a 25 to LIFE sentence…***

** UPDATE: June 12, 2009 The McHenry’s were contacted by an Attorney willing to take the case and has promised the McHenry’s he would take the case and “UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION”. This will be interesting to follow. More good news, Calvin McHenry stated this new attorney is aggressive and plans to take the case ALL THE WAY. He plans to get the Bail reduced immediately.

GREAT NEWS: Mr. McHenry stated the children were taken to the Hospital for an evaluation on their so called Burn Marks and 3 doctors CONFIRMED the marks were that of A STAFF INFECTION!!!

July 10, 2009 UPDATE:
Calvin has told me that Suzanne is being deported back to the UK, on an expired Visa. They were unaware she violated the visa since they had gotten married. Suzanne is in a FEDERAL PRISON awaiting deportation.  CPS agrees the child’s marks are that of a Staff Infection, but state they believe it is a result of Cigarette Burns, which Calvin believes is because they are afraid of liability. Calvin has been put on Monitored Visitations with his children, Monitor must be a CPS worker, according to Social Services; CPS is afraid he is unstable and will try to take the children out of the county to be with their mother.  Calvin had posted bail for his wife, but she was immediately remanded to the Federal Prison. Calvin was unable to get his bail back as the bail bondsman refused to refund his money, even though Suzanne didn’t come home.

Children Committing Suicide in CPS/DCFS Care

“… laws, according to state documents, encourage counties and their private contractors to earn money by placing and keeping children in foster care. The county receives $30,000 to $150,000 in state and federal revenues annually for each child placed.”

[While reading this, please keep in mind the age of the story. The statistics have not decreased in the past 9 years, but on the contrary have increased.
Although the beginning doesn’t give the full impact of the article,  please do read on as you will find it increasingly interesting and somewhat enlightening. ]

December 28, 2003
Troy Anderson
Staff Writer

Children committing suicide at younger age

Los Angeles County’s child protective system is one of the most
violent and dangerous in the nation, and its foster children are up
to 10 times more likely to die from abuse or neglect than elsewhere
in the country, a two-year investigation by the Daily News has found.

In 2001 in the United States, 1.5 percent of the 1,225 children who
died from abuse and neglect were in foster care, but in the county
14.3 percent of the 35 children who died of mistreatment that year
were in foster care, government statistics show. The percentage in
the county from 1991 to 2001 averaged 4.23 percent.
The taxpayer-funded county and state systems are so overwhelmed with
false allegations – four out of every five mistreatment reports are
ruled unfounded or inconclusive – and filled with so many children
who shouldn’t even be in the system, experts say, that social workers
are failing in their basic mission to protect youngsters. Nationally,
two out of three reports of mistreatment are false.

Since 1991, the county Coroner’s Office has referred more than 2,300
child deaths to the county’s child death review team – and more than
660 of those dead children were involved in the child protective
system, including nearly 160 who were homicide victims.

In many of these deaths, county Children’s Services Inspector General
Michael Watrobski made recommendations to the Department of Children
and Family Services to conduct in-house investigations to determine
if disciplinary action was warranted against those workers involved
in the cases.

Of 191 child deaths Watrobski investigated since 2001, he made a
total of 63 recommendations to address systemic problems to improve
the way the system works in an effort to reduce the number of child
deaths.

Despite spending more than $36 million on foster care lawsuit
settlements, judgments and legal expenses since 1990, DCFS
disciplined less than a third of the social workers responsible for
the lawsuits, most of which involved families who alleged social
workers’ negligence contributed to the deaths and mistreatment of
their children in foster care.

“That’s pathetic,” county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said.
“When you have a department that is responsible for the health and
safety of children there is no excuse to have a dismal record of
accountability like this.”

Meanwhile, in the various facilities that make up the county’s foster
care system, between 6 percent and 28 percent of the children are
abused or neglected – figures comparable to the rate in New Jersey,
which many experts have long called the state with the most dangerous
child welfare system in the nation.

In the general population, only 1 percent of children suffer such
mistreatment.

“When I stepped into this job, I said that too many kids are hurt in
foster care,” said DCFS Director David Sanders, who started in March
after the forced resignations of the previous four directors. “That
is absolutely glaring and the fact this department has never been
willing to say that is a huge problem.

“It is clear when you compare us to other systems, we have more kids
being hurt in our care than in other systems. That is absolutely
inexcusable. I can’t say that more strongly. If is a reflection of a
system that isn’t working.”

Despite the staggering number of child deaths and mistreatment of
thousands of children, Sanders said the department’s efforts have
saved the lives of hundreds of children over the years. He also noted
that the vast majority of foster parents don’t mistreat children.

And child advocates say for the first time in the county’s history
the DCFS director is taking unprecedented steps to reduce the number
of deaths and percentage of foster children who are mistreated.

“In the past, the system has failed to protect children in its
care,” said Andrew Bridge, managing director of child welfare reform
programs at the private Broad Foundation. “The new leadership at the
department has been left with that legacy and is taking aggressive
steps to fix it and protect children.”

DCFS statistics show the percentage of foster children abused and
neglected averages about 6 percent, but in the foster homes
supervised by private foster family agencies, an average of 10
percent of children are mistreated. However, the rates range up to 28
percent in some homes, Sanders said.

Statewide, the rate averages close to 1 percent.

In New Jersey, the foster care mistreatment rate ranges from 7
percent to 28 percent in different parts of the state, said Marcia
Lowry, executive director of the New York City-based Children’s
Rights advocacy organization.

Of 20 states surveyed in 1999, the percentage of children mistreated
by foster parents averaged a half percent. The rate of abuse ranged
from one-tenth of a percent in Arizona, Delaware and Wyoming to 1.6
percent in Illinois to 2.3 percent in Rhode Island, according to
federal statistics.

Susan Lambiase, associate director of Children’s Rights, was
surprised to learn of the percentage in Los Angeles County, calling
it “absolutely horrendous.”

“(Los Angeles County is) a child welfare system in crisis because
the children are getting pulled from their homes to keep them safe
and the system cannot assure that they are being kept safe,” said
Lambiase, whose organization has filed about 10 class-action lawsuits
to place state child welfare systems under federal consent decrees
and is considering what action it might take in Los Angeles County.

“It’s unacceptable,” she said. “This is a malfunctioning foster
care system given that its role in society is to protect children
from abuse and neglect.”

Critics say social workers are so busy filling out paperwork and
investigating false reports that they are overlooking the warning
signs of many children in the community in real danger and are not
able to properly ensure the safety of children in foster care.

“When you overload your system with children who don’t need to be in
foster care, workers have less time to find the children in real
danger,” said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National
Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Alexandria, Va.

The Daily News investigation found that up to half of the 75,000
children in the system and adoptive homes were needlessly placed in a
system that is often more dangerous than their own homes because of
financial incentives in state and federal laws. These laws, according
to state documents, encourage counties and their private contractors
to earn money by placing and keeping children in foster care. The
county receives $30,000 to $150,000 in state and federal revenues
annually for each child placed.

Adrianna Romero Cram, Oregon foster child who was murdered in Mexico at age 4

Some examples of settled cases involving the deaths of foster
children include:

–Long Beach resident Jacquelyn Bishop, whose twins were taken away
because she hadn’t gotten her son an immunization. Kameron Demery, 2,
was later beaten to death by his foster mother.

The foster mother was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced
to prison. In 2000, the county settled a wrongful death case with
Bishop for $200,000.

–Gardena resident Debra Reid was awarded a $1 million settlement
last year for the death of her 9-year-old son Jonathan Reid, who had
been in foster homes in El Monte and Pomona. He died of an asthma
attack in 1997 after social workers didn’t notify the foster mother
of his severe asthma and diabetes conditions – a tragic irony,
because the boy was placed in foster care after county social workers
alleged Reid was neglecting her son by not providing appropriate
medical care for his diabetes and asthma.

Reid’s other son, 10-year-old Debvin Mitchell, who received $100,000
as part of the settlement after he was wrongfully detained, said his
foster parents were “brutal” to him during his one-and-a-half years
in multiple foster homes.

“I thought that it was cruel and unusual for being beaten like that
for no reason,” said Mitchell. “When I came home, I had bruises
everywhere. I feel good to be back with my family where I don’t get
beaten for silly things for no reason and most of all I’m glad to be
back with my mom.”

Anthony Cavuoti, who has worked as a DCFS social worker for 14 years,
said the department does a poor job of protecting children.

“The nominal goal is to protect children, but the real goal is to
make money,” he said. “A caseworker used to have 80 to 100 cases.
Now we have 30, but we have to file five times as much paperwork. If
the workers put kids before paperwork and administration, they are
going to be forced out or harassed. With such a mentality, children
are always in danger.”

In a historic step to address the problem at the root of the system’s
failures, Juvenile Court Presiding Judge Michael Nash recently called
for a historic reevaluation of half of the 30,000 cases of children
in foster homes to determine who could be safely returned to their
families or relatives.

If properly done by providing the services families need, experts say
this step combined with the DCFS request for a federal waiver to use
$250 million of its $1.4 billion budget on services to help keep
families together could ultimately reduce the number of children in
foster care and social workers’ large caseloads, giving them more
time to help protect children in truly dangerous situations.

“The court system itself should only be for those cases that reflect
serious cases of abuse and neglect,” Nash said. “We have to have
more of a talk first, shoot later mentality rather than a shoot
first, talk later mentality. We can do a much better job.”

Sanders said more than 25 percent of those children will probably be
able to return home. Concerned that two-thirds of his 6,500-employees
are working behind desks, Sanders said he plans to move 1,000 staff
promoted to office jobs by previous directors back to the streets as
social workers, which will reduce caseloads and give workers more
time to spend with families, a critical element to assure the safety
of children.

Keywords: LOS ANGELES COUNTY – FOSTER CARE – CHILD – DAILY NEWS –
PROBE –

VIOLENCE – DEATH – MURDER – US – STATISTIC – COMPARISON – REPORT –
DEPT OF

CHILDREN FAMILY SERVICES – DCFS – REACTION – ABUSE – ISSUE – LIST –
SAFETY –

CALIFORNIA – REFORM

———————————————————————-
———-
All content © 2003- Daily News of Los Angeles (CA) and may not be
republished without permission.

Nazis A Chilling Comparison Between Nazi Program and Child Protective Services (CPS)

Nazis And CPS by Suzanne Shell

We are all aware of the Nazi eugenics programs.  What we aren’t aware of are the chilling comparisons between the Nazi Lebensborn program and contemporary American Child Protective Services (CPS) programs.  Simplistically, it can be described as follows:  In the U.S. parens patriae is the legal principle used to justify state sanctioned kidnapping of children from their families in order to ‘protect’ them.  In Nazi Germany, the Lebensborn program was legally used to justify the kidnapping of ‘Aryan’ looking children from occupied territories to be Germanized’; to be raised as good Germans (younger children) or designated as breeders for the German race – to produce 2 – 3 racially pure children then be killed (older children).  But, in reality, the comparison is more complicated – and more horrifying – than that. PARENS PATRIAE is a legal term in American law that is defined as – The right of the government to take care of minors and others who cannot legally take care of themselves.

In a Nazi booklet published by SS Gruppenführer Rediess, The SS for Greater Germany – with Sword and Cradle, speaking about the recently Nazi occupied country of Denmark as it related to the Lebensborn program, the German position is stated as, “This people is a Germanic people, and hence it is our duty to educate its children and young people and to make the Norwegians a Nordic people again as we understand the term.”

The similarity between these two principles is that a government has assumed a certain authority, either by law or by fiat, over the population.  This authority can be as extensive or limited as the government chooses and as the population will endure. In both stated instances, the governments assumed authority over children.

Pseudo-Sciences

The majority of reasonably intelligent people today recognize that Nazi attempts to designate one race as superior to others based on physical racial characteristics was nothing more than superstitious bigotry unsupported by science.  The Nazis actually created a ‘science’ of racial studies, endorsed by ‘experts’ and supported with manufactured ‘scientific evidence,’ in order to support their pet theory that the so-called Aryan race was superior to all others.  They had panels of experts, advisory councils, college courses, and specially trained bureaucrats to develop and implement their ‘racial hygiene’ policies.  This cadre of ‘experts’ would devise, implement, oversee, evaluate and propagandize the various racial hygiene programs, including Lebensborn.  Nazi society abounded with popular literature, textbooks, and manuals touting this most important Nazi platform.  Nazi Germany was inundated with racially based propaganda which extolled the virtues of the Aryan and justified the ‘solutions’ imposed on inferior races.

Of Pure Blood by Marc Hillel and Clarissa Henry is a 1976 book detailing the Nazi Lebensborn program.  “Doctors specializing in ‘racial knowledge’, all members of the SS or the police, were out in charge of racial testing at the reception centers. . .The children’s heads, bodies, arms and legs were measured, as well as the pelvis in the case of girls and the penis in the case of boys, and they were then divided into three groups: a – those representing a desirable addition to the German populations: b – those representing an acceptable addition to that population, and c – the unwanted. . .More than 200,000 Polish children were thus declared . . to be ‘racially useful’.

In the United States, the state cannot legally evaluate a person based on their race, or use physical or racial characteristics to judge them.  CPS agencies use something much more subtle, but no less specious than Nazi racial hygiene measurements; they use psychological measurements to determine how defective (dangerous to his own child) a parent has been or is likely to be.  Under the mechanism of court ordered or coerced ‘voluntary’ psychological evaluations, many parents are being ‘diagnosed’ as a ‘risk’ to their children based on psych eval findings from service providers who are paid for by the state; who conduct their evaluations based on a tainted family history provided by the state; and who, by their own admissions, stand to lose their contract with the state if they submit any findings that are contrary to what the caseworker has ordained.

American law has already established protections for persons who are disabled by virtue of their psychology.  Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, ( 42 U.S.C 12101, 12102, & 12131 et seq), disability is a physical or mental impairment the substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; having a record of such impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. Caring for, nurturing and raising their children is undoubtedly on of the most important major life activities of a parent.  This country, through CPS, has raised psychology to the exalted status of Nazi Racial Studies on no more scientific evidence than the Nazis had to support their theories and programs.  This pseudo-science is used to demonize parents and justify the legal kidnapping of their children in order to satisfy the state’s need for adoptive children.

For example, the most popular psychological test given today is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Index (MMPI II).  According to one whistle blower evaluator, the completed test is fed into a computer that analyses the responses and returns a list of diagnoses to choose from. It is then up to the evaluator to decide which diagnosis applies to the subject.  This is not a scientifically-based, measurable, objective diagnosis if it is left up the subjective interpretation of the ‘expert.’  The selected diagnosis is based on a gut hunch, intuition, or maybe wishful thinking, or perhaps a state-contracted fee.  Whatever it is based on, it is not based on measurable science in any instance; nor even the most rudimentary common sense in the hands of many self-serving psychological evaluators.

Psycho-sexual evaluations for allegations of child sexual abuse are used by caseworkers as tool of making a determination whether or not the accused was a perpetrator.  Many psychological experts will assert that these tools are not designed to be used on anyone who has not admitted guilt.  However, caseworkers continue to use this tool inappropriately to validate allegations.

There are volumes of tests employed against parents.  This process is inherently flawed based on the fact that once the children have been taken, the parents are depressed, suspicious, angry, anxious, traumatized, worried, frightened, and more.  Requiring any person to submit to any psychological evaluation under these horrendous emotional circumstances is clearly setting them up for failure.  There is no hope they could present as being ‘normal.’  Naturally, psychological ‘deficiencies’ will show up, and those deficiencies are effectively used by the experts against the parents.

However, none of the findings from psychological tests were ever designed to indicate that the parents actually are mentally impaired or that they legitimately justify the application of any psychological label upon the parents.  Experts will admit that the findings of the parents’ tests show that they share some of the same characteristics with others who are so psychologically labeled does not mean that any findings are proof positive that the diagnosis is scientifically accurate.

The United States has a powerful industry backing up this ‘science.’  There are schools and seminars that teach and accredit the psychology of child abuse/child abusers; advisory councils against child abuse that advise powerful political figures and who lobby for intrusive and offensive legislation that undermines the sanctity of the family; cadres of ‘experts’ who analyze, devise, implement, oversee, evaluate and propagandize child abuse and prevention programs in the private and public sector and whose livelihoods depend on the perpetuation of this pseudo-science; and millions of service providers who provide ‘voluntary’ or court ordered services and whose livelihoods literally depend on the removal of children from their homes.  There are many ‘expert’ tomes on the subjects of the psychology of children, parents, child abuse, risks of abuse, and prevention of abuse. Parents have no credibility in the face of this multi-billion dollar industry.

These people take this pseudo science very seriously, sometimes with deadly consequences.  The May 24, 2000 Rocky Mountain news reported about a therapy technique used on a troubled child in Evergreen, Colorado.  The 10 year-old child had been adopted in 1996 and died as a result of this ‘therapy.’  “Sheriff’s investigators say Watkins and Ponder, both therapists, wrapped Candace in a flannel blanket to simulate a womb that the girl should be “born” from.  Then, in an attempt to mimic birth contractions, all four allegedly pushed against pillows Candace was lying under.

“Rebirthing is a controversial technique Watkins has used for about a year.  It is used to treat children who suffer from attachment disorder, which prevents children from bonding with their [adoptive] parents. Critics of the technique call the treatment radical and say it hasn’t been researched well.”  However, these ‘experts’ fail to acknowledge what anyone with common sense can see – that perhaps removing this child from her mother precipitated the attachment disorder in this child; that they caused this child’s psychological problems by employing this pseudo science in the first place.

Traditional parenting practices are under massive attack with responsible parents being targeted for their refusal to conform to this pseudo-science.  The ‘virtuous’ parents are those who do not spank or punish or subject their children to any undesirable circumstances such as an argument; and who casually inflict their consciousless brats on decent society saying, “Oh, isn’t my darling so cute?” when he’s really too bratty to bear.  Conspicuous by its absence is any expert acknowledgment for the self-evident consequences of this pseudo-science – as demonstrated by offensive childhood behavior from the regular cacophony of temper tantrums in department stores; to bratty kids running out of control in inappropriate places; to children’s complete lack of respect for others; all the way to the extreme of kids mowing down their classmates with guns because they were ‘teased.’

Demonstrating a callous lack of common sense, the practice of this ‘science’ is based on the premise that removing a child from his parents presents less trauma to the child than being merely ‘at risk’ of future abuse if he remained with his family in a dirty house.  People often say, ‘They don’t remove a child for a dirty home!” shocked that anyone could even suggest such a vile act.  But there are volumes of documented cases where not only were the children removed for a dirty home, but parental rights were terminated based on that initial removal and the resultant, non-scientific ‘risk assessment’ administered by the intake caseworker.

Legalizing Kidnapping Of Children

In Of Pure Blood, the authors report “ . . . many Norwegian women were trapped into going to Germany against their will.  The kidnapping process was given a semblance of legality by a Nazi ruling that defied the fundamental laws of a sovereign nation and legalized the separation of mother and child against the mothers’s will.”

Heinrich Himmler, in a speech to officers of the Deutschland division, November 8, 1938 stated, “I really intend to take German blood from where it is to be found in the world, to rob and steal it wherever I can.”  Orders were issued to implement this ‘stealing’ of children.  These orders had the force of law in Nazi occupied territories.

A Top Secret order, no. 67/1, 1941 from SS Gruppenführer Ulrich Greifelt, head of the Central Office of the SS and SD in Poland ordered: “The children who are recognized as bearers of blood valuable to Germany are to be Germanized. . . .between the ages of six and twelve in state boarding schools, and between ages of two and six with families to be indicated by the Lebensborn society.”

“ . . .the Lebensborn Society will see to the distribution of these children among the families of childless SS men with a view to subsequent adoption.  The Lebensborn Society will assume guardianship of the children accommodated in the Lebensborn Children’s homes.

In a Reichsfürher circular dated June 14, 1941: “I think it right that young children of especially good race belonging to Polish amilies should be gathered together and brought up by us . . .health reasons should be given for taking the children away. . . .After a year consideration should be given to handing such children to be brought in childless families of good race.”
Of Pure Blood – “ . . .the Lebensborn organization was the obvious agency for Germanizing the children abducted from Eastern Europe.  The program was initiated as early as 1940 . . . .it was decided, in agreement with the Reichsfürher, that it was preferable for the organization to deal with children under six.  There was a simple reason for this: Whether Polish, Russian or Yugoslav, at this age they would be more receptive to Nazi indoctrination than the older children . . .Because they were so young, they would remember less which would enable Dr. Tesch, the Lebensborn legal expert, to falsify their identify the more completely. . . .By 1941 in Germany, Party and SS members were falling over themselves in their wish to adopt a child of good blood . . .and so demand had outstripped supply.  Withing a few months the round-ups of children in the occupied territories would make it possible to satisfy the demand of childless couples. . .

Who were children targeted by the Lebensborn Society?  “. . .all places were children were assembled; children of Polish adoptive parents or unmarried mothers; children having Polish guardians; children of mixed (Polish-German) marriages; children whose parents opposed Germanization; children of mixed marriages whose parents had divorced; children of deported, liquidated, or banished parents (the great majority); children picked up at random; children born in concentration camps, women’s labor camps or children of mothers deported for forced labor; abandoned children; children to whom special orders applied, children sent to Germany for forced labor.”  Danish, English, Russian and other eastern European countries all lost children to this legalized kidnapping campaign.

Abducted children were ‘skimmed’ or evaluated according to racial purity, and the acceptable ones, approximately 10%, were Germanized.  The others became slaves of the Reich.

“The technique of approaching children in the street did not vary greatly. A hungry child would be offered biscuits (cookies), sweets, sometimes even a bar of chocolate or a slice of bread, thus creating an opportunity to question it about its parents, its home, the color of its brothers’ and sisters’ hair. That same evening they submitted their list of names and addresses to special teams of kidnappers . . .Several days would elapse, and then the child would be taken, the abduction generally taking place at night. The child’s parents would never see it again.

“The kidnapping game does not seem to have been played in accordance with any fixed rules. The decision whether a child was to be sent to its death or back to its parents depended on the whim of a medical examiner or even of the SS man on guard at the door.”

“. . .in 1942, and 1944 . . .kidnappings [in Russia] grew steadily more numerous. In the street, at school, at home, at kindergartens and even in public parks children were the victims of raids which nobody dared oppose. A climate of terror prevailed. . . .[Kurt Heinze, head the Oberweiss home] escorted whole train-loads of children whom the Lebensborn organization rapidly placed in State schools or families.”

One account was remembered by a kidnapped child, “The chief of them immediately insisted that the women, who had a long and tiring journey to a labor camp ahead of them, should let the children go first by bus. . .He also insisted that the mothers should hand over their children voluntarily. Obviously none of the them were willing to be parted from their children. To show he meant business, he fired a shot in the air with his revolver. This of course caused panic among the mothers and children. The Germans took advantage of this to go for the mothers and snatch us from their arms.

“Believe me, that was a moment that none of us will ever forget, even in forty of fifty years’ time. It’s like a horrible, brutal film that keeps on passing before our eyes.”

According to recent government statistics, 67% of child abuse reports are false right off the top. As much as 60-90% of the ‘substantiated’ reports do not meet the statutory definition of abuse or neglect according to anecdotal data. This happens because parents are poorly represented by counsel and threatened, intimidated or coerced by their attorneys and caseworkers into falsely admitting guilt as a condition of seeing their children. By this action, the parents are forced to give the state legal authority to kidnap and keep their children. Once this occurs, the state does not have to prove the child was abused or neglected in order to terminate parental rights. Parents who do resist find themselves having to prove their innocence in order to win their children back, and it often takes months to accomplish.

In America, the presenting incident, which is the report of abuse or neglect, becomes the mechanism to gain access to the child and the family. This is the contemporary ‘skimming’ process. The American CPS ‘skimming’ tool is called a risk assessment. Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the primary concern is now the ‘safety of the child.’ Thus, the mere, speculative risk of abuse or neglect satisfies the legal requirements to take custody of children without any evidence of abuse or neglect. This country has effectively legalized the separation of parent and child against the will of both parents and children.

There is a virtual army of people out there looking for children to target. Under mandated reporting laws, anyone who has regular contact with children (teachers, counselors, doctors, dentists, etc.) are required to report suspected child abuse or neglect. The schools are especially effective at reporting suspected child abuse or neglect – not based on statutory definitions but on subjective assessments. They will also provide caseworker access to the children in the school and allow the caseworker to legally ‘kidnap’ the children from the school without notifying the parents, no questions asked. Hospital emergency rooms also provide many children for CPS.

There seem to be no fixed rules for determining which children are taken and which are not regardless of statutory requirements. It depends on the whim of the caseworker, many of whom falsify reports in order to support her claims. The children are subjected to intimidating and often professionally incompetent questions by the caseworkers. They will use coercion, threats, leading questions and even lie in order to validate the report of abuse. They excuse these tactics by rationalizing that a child often is unwilling to disclose abuse and they must use pressure to extract an accusation. They also object vehemently to having all interrogations video taped stating that it would traumatize the child. What it would do is expose their incompetence and predispositions.

The laws do not allow a caseworker to take a child without a court order. Only police can do that. However, under the color of law, they will often take the children by force. Parents routinely report their children being dragged, screaming, from their arms without having been presented with any evidence of abuse or neglect. Midnight raids on unsuspecting, sleeping families are not uncommon.

If an agency suspects the parents might resist their requests to question the children, S.W.A.T. teams have been used to circumvent the fourth amendment in Utah and other states. Michigan is actually considering legislation that allows force if a parent asserts their constitutional rights – which is being defined as uncooperative. One Arizona mother held a police S.W.A.T. Team off for 24 hours until they jumped her and took her toddler by force. All criminal charges were dropped but she never got her daughter back. Her frantic initial phone call to an associate, audio taped before her phone lines were cut, demonstrated her fear as the police kicked their way into her home and pulled weapons on her as she was nursing her baby.

Turning Children Against Their Parents

We must remember that an important element in brainwashing anyone involves trauma. It’s pretty easy to traumatize a youngster simply by denying him his mom and dad.

From Of Pure Blood – “When children were taken for Germanization, “ . . .Psychological methods were used to make a child forget or even hate its parents. He would be told they were dead, and there was nothing honorable about the way they died. The mother would be said to have been of doubtful morality and to have died of tuberculosis, drink or other shameful disease, while the father had died of cancer or drink, or been killed by Polish bandits. The object was to give the child a sense of inferiority about its origins and of gratitude to the Germans who had rescued it from the degeneracy of its home environment.

“In the German Federal Republic we met a young woman who, at the age of five, had been taken to a church by the Germans and shown a bishop’s coffin and told it was her mother’s. Some years later the child was traced, but she refused to go back to her mother, who had survived deportation. ‘I had stood by my mother’s coffin once,’ she said, ‘and I did not want to do that again.’”

Sigismund Krajeski, born in Poznan on April 17, 1933 told Hillel and Henry, “I was taken by force from my family on 20 May 1943.” He went on to describe what they were told by the Nazis, “. . .The child would be told his parents were dead and that he was going to get new ones.”

Mrs. Witaszek, survivor of Auschwitz, whose 4 and 6 year-old daughters were adopted when she was arrested. “Years afterwards my younger daughter told me she had often been kept awake at night, wondering why I had sold her to a foreign family. Did I have so little money that I had to sell her? Children at that age were simply incapable of understanding what had happened to them.”

Kidnapped Aryan children would be subjected to intensive German language classes and were forbidden to speak their native language after a couple of weeks. Discipline was described as ‘very, very strict.’

Children who refused Germanization had to stay in the chapel “ . . .in the dark on their knees with their arms crossed for hours. They wept, and soon fainted. They were punished like that for saying something in Polish or talking about their parents. They were beaten and deprived of food. But even apart from that, the children were always sad. They lived in fear and were homesick . . .”

Many don’t believe we would treat our children so harshly in America. To those I suggest that they talk to the children who have been ‘protected’ by CPS agencies.

I have interviewed many former and current foster children. In the most benign cases, the children are often punished by exasperated foster parents when they cry for their mom and dad by being sent to isolation in their rooms. Children report being punished with isolation and withholding food for praying to be returned home. They are denied affection and understanding and feel depressed and homesick and frightened. When they see their parents, they often act out after the visit out of their natural frustration and impotence to change what they perceive to be unfair and cruel. As a result, they are punished by being denied their next visit with their parents.

They describe being told that their parents aren’t able to take care of them because their parents are ‘sick’ and need help. That it isn’t safe for them to live with their parents. Many children are told that their parents aren’t trying hard enough to complete the case plan and the children live in uncertainty as to what their future holds for them. They are actually told that their parents don’t want them or can’t afford to keep them. Children report that they are told their mothers are prostitutes, or drug users when they know it is false. They are psychologically manipulated until they begin to believe. They begin to resent their parent’s failures and imperfections that prevent reunification. But many of them are ultimately diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder and others similar emotional problems as a direct result of state efforts to undermine their bonds with their parents.

One young boy in Elbert County, Colorado, under the supervision of caseworker Holly Sielaff, was repeatedly forced to deal with the ‘issue’, under the guise of therapy, that his mother had cross-dressed him. The child had no memory of that event, and mom denied doing it. He reports he was verbally abused by his therapist during his court-ordered therapy sessions for his refusal to admit that his mother forced him to wear girl’s clothing. Sielaff then reported to mother in this reporter’s presence and on tape, that they were addressing this issue ‘because it was the child’s reality’ and whether or not it was true, it must be treated as if it were true. Since mom was forbidden to speak of that allegation to the boy, she never learned that he consistently denied it until he was returned home. Many children are not strong enough to resist this kind of abusive psychological pressure.

Many of the children I have spoken with have been runaway foster children. They report being told that they must accuse their parents in order to return home. They are promised that if they accuse, they will be allowed to return home and the state will provide ‘help’ to their parents. If they do make a false accusation based on these promises, they are often denied all access to their parents. This isolation from their parents is used in the vast majority of cases. Besides being used to emotionally traumatize the children to make them more receptive to state suggestions, it also has the effect of preventing the child from reporting to his parents any problems, lies or abuses that are being covered up by state agencies under confidentiality laws and ‘in the best interests of the child.’

If children in state custody are fortunate enough to see their parents, it is usually under supervision, where their every word is scrutinized. They are forbidden to hug, to whisper, or to display too much affection. They are forbidden to speak about what happens in their foster home, and to even report any abuse they suffer there. Many parent-child bonding rituals that have been established in the home, such as singing favorite songs or tickling games are forbidden between the parents and children during these visits for specious and/or undefined reasons.

There are documented cases where the psychological experts and caseworker not only actively subvert the parent-child bond, but actually employ dubious and traumatic methods in order to brainwash the child to bond to his foster parents. In once instance, a five-year-old child in Weld County, Colorado, was forcefully ‘regressed’ to infancy by being placed in diapers and forced to break potty training, forced to crawl rather than walk, fed only from a bottle and denied all access to her mother in an effort to make this child bond to her foster parents. The mother’s act of abuse? She fell asleep after major surgery with her toddler at home, having been denied daycare assistance by Social Services until she recovered, and the child got into a bottle of Tylenol in mom’s purse. No treatment was provided at the hospital for the alleged overdose in spite of mom’s timely response to the emergency.

The most heinous of tactics is to place the child in residential treatment. This often happens to children who are resistant to caseworker indoctrination and especially where there is a risk the child will divulge a truth that is damaging to the caseworker, the CPS agency, the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) or other service provider. Often, caseworkers will predetermine a ‘diagnosis’ of the child in order to facilitate this placement. They can find an ‘expert’ who will validate the diagnosis and present this information to an unsuspecting court or a court who acts with complicity. The court will order the child to the residential treatment facility were they are often drugged. This drugging renders them more susceptible to suggestion and compliance at the expense of the emotional well-being of the child. Since the facility is only provided with the state’s version of the child’s history, the treatment is based on that tainted information.

In Pueblo County, Colorado, there is a story of a young boy who has been institutionalized for four years at La Junta Boys Ranch based on a caseworker diagnosis of psychotic behavior. Mom has been unable to obtain a release for the child, and all reports of the brutality he suffered at the hands of the staff are covered up. He finally had endured all he could and killed some of the turkeys on the ranch. He was shipped to the State Hospital in Pueblo, where for over a month the doctors there insisted he wasn’t psychotic and that he had been misdiagnosed and improperly medicated. The caseworker began lobbying for the original diagnosis because, ‘she would lose the funding for him if he weren’t psychotic.’ The doctors at the State Hospital finally began to capitulate under funding pressure. Meanwhile, this child, now 15, clings to his mother during visits and the doctors are telling him that is inappropriate and denying him this only comfort in his life. This child has been sacrificed on the alter of psycho babble disguised as child protection. Too many foster children would never have been forced to endure such levels of psychological abuse at the hands of their parents from whom the state was ‘protecting’ them.

Social Work

The women charged with kidnapping children in Nazi occupied territories were called the “Brown Sisters.”

“Actually these women belonged to the NSV, established in 1933 to devote itself to the welfare of the German people. . .To those who suffered under them, these fanatical Nazi women, totally dedicated to the Fuhrer, were perhaps even more loathsome than the killers of the SS or the SD; stony-hearted robots was one description. The sight of these women . . .brutally snatching from its mother’s arms a baby who was smiling at her remains an intolerable memory to those who experienced it.

“The special training of the ‘Brown Sisters’ included intensive courses in which they were taught the racial criteria by which Nordics could infallibly be distinguished, and they were instruct in how to observe a child without being noticed themselves; they were also taught ways of abducting it in the street, at home or at school. . .” Of Pure Blood.

Caseworkers in America also receive highly specialized training pertaining to popular culture parenting techniques, child abuse, child abuse prevention and more, all based on theory rather than science. They are trained on the job to put pet theories into practice, with children and families being the guinea pigs. The good ones become disgusted in short order and leave for greener pastures.

Many ‘protected’ children actively hate the caseworkers who control their lives and their access to their parents. Once free of caseworker control, they often vent their anger in very expressive ways. I have one pair of sisters who opened up in front a video camera with threats and gestures all directed at their Arapahoe County, Colorado caseworker, Dawn Shields. They accused Shields of lying in order to obtain the court order terminating their parents’ parental rights. All of the children I have spoken to express the highest level of disdain, distrust and anger toward their caseworkers and GALs.

Parents universally describe caseworkers as heartless, soulless, evil, deceitful, arrogant, two-faced and more. I have personally seen caseworkers utter the most vicious false statements against a parents on the witness stand in court, then embrace the numb parents in the hall with apologies for what she ‘had’ to do to them. This feigned concern for the parents is abhorrent. At least the Nazis were honest about their bigotry and evil plans.

I have had one caseworker tell me, “I’m sorry for [your son being taken] but that was years ago. Get over it.” It is incomprehensible to a parent that anyone could be so callous and hardhearted to even consider they’d ever ‘get over’ having their child kidnapped by the state for whatever length of time, but especially if the parent-child relationship was destroyed as a result. This attitude clearly demonstrates their lack of understanding of the depths of the bonds that exist between parent and child and how their meddling is, too often, more destructive than helpful.

For an indication of the state of mind of the affected families decades after the children were taken, let’s look to Of Pure Blood, “. . .Parents did everything possible to trace children who were unaware of their existence and will never know the distress the absence still causes. In some Polish villages the grief is still so vivid after thirty years that one ends by wondering how such a thing can be possible.” It is not unreasonable to presume that the pain inflicted by contemporary caseworkers will be comparable and equally unforgettable for millions of American parents. This pain is compounded in many cases by the caseworkers’ casual use of deceit and manipulation of their undeserved credibility with the court in order to win their cases. Many parents not only despise caseworkers, but hate the people they themselves have become as a result of their constant, unpleasant and threatening contact with these toxic bureaucrats. As a result of these abuses, there is little sympathy from victimized families for caseworkers who are assaulted and killed in the course of their work.

Abuse In State Custody

In one indoctrination home, where children were taken before being sent for adoption to Nazi families, there “ . . .is a cemetery in which most of the graves are of ‘victims of Nazi barbarism’. Tadeus Martyn, a member of the Polish commission for Hitlerite Crimes . . .told about the authors about a child named Zygmunt Swiatlowski: ‘He was taken from his parents against their will at Poznan and brought here. . .He felt himself to be Polish and would not be Germanized. . .One day, after refusing to greet a German in German, he was killed on the spot by the woman in charge of the invitation, Johanna Sander. The children who died in the home were buried anonymously, but the German who buried Zygmunt revealed his name to the Polish woman caretaker of the cemetery. So this grave remains the only memorial to the martyrdom of Polish children and Kalisz.’”

Alycia Sosinka, born at Lodz in 1935, taken from her mother in September 1942. “ . . .for months, when my [adoptive] mother came to tuck me in at night I used to jump out of bed and stand at attention . . .” due to abuses suffered during her indoctrination period.

When a Lebensborn home tended by SS ‘nurses’ was liberated by allied forces, a nun who was subsequently charged with caring for the children observed, “These children did not know what tenderness was. They were used to being in bed or living in groups, and were frightened of any grownups who approached them. . .The older children, the three and four-year-olds could not even talk. They merely expressed them onomatopoeically, like young animals. That is typical of children brought up in institutions. Also they were very backward in Mental development in comparison with other children of the same age.

According to Department of Health and Human Services statistics, approximately 50% of the children who die of child abuse, die in foster care. Children in foster care are also subjected to more severe abuse in foster homes than they ever endured in their own homes. The Denver Post began a five part series of articles exposing the unsafe nature of foster care on May 21, 2000. They report that abuses are perpetrated by foster parents, biological children of foster parents, and other foster children. This finding supports the overwhelming number of reports of foster care abuse nationwide received by parents and family rights advocacy groups.

In the summer of 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens commissioned a task force to look into the foster care and child welfare issue due to the deaths of four children, three of whom were in foster care. The task force returned their findings if0.20early in 2000, months prior to the Denver Post series, but nothing has been done by Colorado Department of Human Services (DHS) to insure that children are safer in state custody than in the homes they were removed from. Foster care providers are not held to the same standards of safety as parents are. In fact, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) applies only to parents. CPS agencies, foster care providers, and institutions do not fall under the jurisdiction of CAPTA even though they are charged with keeping children safe under CAPTA. The standards of care and safety that foster care providers are required to keep are only defined vaguely in CPS policy manuals.

Abuse of children in foster care is drastically under reported because there is no independent investigative body to whom foster care abuse or neglect is reported. The CPS agency places the children; and chooses, licenses and oversees the foster homes. Reports of foster care abuse and neglect are made to CPS agencies. Abuse and violations of standards of care are investigated by CPS agencies. As a result, most reports are determined to be ‘unfounded;’ after all, how good would it look if they were to expose the level of abuse that occurs in their own foster homes and contract institutions? Even if abuse is substantiated, the providers do not lose their own children or their foster care license, and the abused children will often remain in the foster home. Occasionally, the alleged abuse will rise to the level of a crime, but even then it is not consistently prosecuted and foster care providers openly acknowledge that any penalties imposed on them will be minor at most.

An Adams County, Colorado mother reported that when her children were returned home after over a year in foster care, she caught her 7 year-old son humping her 5 year-old daughter. She was terrified that the children would be removed again. Since she had never been accused of sexually abusing her children, they could only have learned of this in the foster home. An El Paso County, Colorado, twelve year old had his arm broken in a group home while being restrained. He was lucky. Some restrained children die. A youth in DHS custody who resided at the Colorado Boys Ranch was locked up in his room for 23 hours a day, and during his recreational hour, he was shackled and chained. He had not been charged or convicted of any crime. 13 year-old Veronica from Larimer County, Colorado was repeatedly coerced to falsely accuse her father. Upon her return home, she was unable to fall asleep without her bedroom light on and her mother by her side for six months. She’d hide in a closet whenever someone knocked at the door.

Taler Barnes, was taken from his mother at birth due to a false hospital social worker report. While in Kansas foster care, he suffered broken ribs, broken hip, constant bruising, his eyes were gouged until he is legally blind, and he suffered shaken baby syndrome resulting in brain damage. He was emaciated and starving when he was finally returned to his family at 22 months old. During the course of her visits, his mother would photograph the injuries, but the judge ordered her to stop and to remove her web site that documented her case and the abuse her son suffered at the hands of the state. Even the courts cover up foster care abuse.

At the very least, parents report that the children who are returned to them from foster care are not the same children that were taken. They are easily frightened, clingy and needy, they act out sexually or are physically and verbally abusive, they wet the bed, they test their parents’ love and violate established rules, schoolwork suffers, they are haunted and distrusting, and more. Evidently, foster care is not the warm and fuzzy panacea it’s cracked up to be.

Throwaway Children

Of Pure Blood – 21 September, 1942 – Notes on an SS discussion “ . . .after the sifting has been carried out the children will be separated from the mothers. . .so that no irresponsible hatred will develop among these children. . .children with a good capacity for Germanization will be handed over to the Lebensborn Society, which will arrange for the adoption of these children by pure German families.”

Himmler, recognizing the threat posed by children who were not properly conditioned against their parents, said to Max Sollman, on June 21, 1943, “The children of good race, who obviously could become the most dangerous avengers of their parents if they are not humanely and correctly brought up, should . . .be admitted to a Lebensborn children’s home for a probationary period, where as much as possible about their character should be discovered, and then be sent to German families as foster-children or adopted children.”

“ . . .Children who passed the tests were taken to a Lebensborn reception center; the others generally disappeared without trace, often being dispatched to a concentration camp. Luckier children might be returned to their parents without explanation.”

“ . . .many children became ‘orphans’ when they were taken from their parents . . .”

Leo Twardecki, 11, roused from sleep and kidnapped by three SS men with Alsatian dogs, were herded to a train observed. “I was never adopted. I was too big and too Polish, and no one wanted me.”

German Nazis who adopted the Lebensborn children were told that the children were orphans of German parents and if it was found out that they had a child of inferior race, they would often refuse to keep the child.

Lebensborn children came with a monthly government payment to subsidize their care and upkeep. Their records were falsified and their names Germanized; new birth certificates were issued to support the stories told to the adoptive parents. The Nazi occupied countries never knew about the Lebensborn program until after the war. They all presumed that the children were exterminated or enslaved. In fact, the vast majority were. They were the Nazi’s throwaway children.

CPS agencies, in taking children who do not meet the statutory definition of abuse or neglect from loving homes is creating more throwaway children than they are legitimately saving. Anyone who doubts this only has to look at the adoption web sites, adoption fairs, and adoption catalogs sponsored by CPS agencies. These listings present huge quantities of children available for adoption who have problems that make them difficult to adopt. Virtually all of them are on medications to treat behavioral or emotional problems, they are generally over six years old, and they are not blonde-haired and blue-eyed. Some of them are sibling groups that shouldn’t be separated. Their birth certificates are altered to remove their birth parents names. Sometimes their names are changed making it impossible to trace them. These children come with adoption subsidies – a monthly check from government – medicaid, food stamps, a hefty tax break and intensive support services. Just think what the biological parents could have doh those resources. Since the vast majority of the children are taken due to poverty related issues, the money provided to foster parents and adoptive parents could have prevented the removal of the children in the first place.

Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Federal government pays a $4000 bounty for every child adopted out of foster care who exceeds the 1997 baseline. If the child is ‘special needs’ – and most of them are by virtue of the psychological trauma they suffer at being separated from their parents – the bounty goes up to $6000.

There are many childless couples and others who desperately want to adopt. CPS is the legalized adoption mill. With the law requiring permanency planning in twelve months for children under six, most of these children become adoptable within a year and a half of being taken. Is it coincidence that the Nazi Lebensborn program advocated placement of the children within a year of their abduction and focused on blond-haired, blue-eyed children under six?

In taking the younger children, many older siblings are left to languish in foster care. The real tragedy is that many of these children were very much loved and wanted by their biological parents. These parents fought with everything they had in too many cases only to lose their children. Since the state saw fit to take these children from these loving parents, these children are now alone, unloved and unwanted by the rest of the world. They are the throwaway children, and don’t think they don’t know it.

The two sisters from Arapaho County, Colorado reported that their foster mother told them she wanted their baby sister but didn’t want them. Nobody wants the older, troubled child who knows they were kidnapped. Even the children who are adopted often know that they should never have been taken from their parents. All adopted children exhibit some of the same issues to resolve; abandonment or the fantasy that they were, in reality, kidnapped against their loving parents’ wills. The kidnapping fantasy is, in fact, the truth in many of these cases anymore. And when these children grow up and learn their real parents fought tooth and nail to keep them, they will resent their adoptive parents as being willing participants in their abductions. This is too obvious to deny.

But worse, 25% of state adoptions disrupt. This literally means the children are returned like defective merchandise, creating even more throwaway children. When an adoptive parent returns a child, CPS will offer higher subsidies or threaten to take all other children in order to prevent the adoption from disrupting. Our children are treated like commodities, to be bartered and sold by CPS agencies.

Returning Children Home

The U.S. obstructed the repatriation of kidnapped children. June 11, 1948, Zycie Warszawy reports, “ . .the attitude of the British and American occupation authorities. . .These authorities are not satisfied when a child is tracked down, when evidence of its identity is produced and even its parents (if they are alive) claim it. All that is not enough for them. They do their best to insure that the child is not returned to Poland . . .”

“ . . .there was the ‘interest of the child’ to be considered, that famous interest in the name of which they had been taken from their families in the first place. The British, American and French investigators, often motivated by the most generous feelings, hesitated to create new dramas in the minds of young children who could remember only their adoptive parents. . .No one knew whether children who were being brought up in comfortably-off families would find similar conditions if they were sent [home].

“Thus, the post-war files contained a multitude of reasons why [kidnapped children] stayed in Western Germany.” “Dr. Roman S. Hrarbar, a lawyer who in 1945-7 was head of the Polish mission responsible for repatriating Polish children “It was also claimed that is would be a shock to the child to be returned to its real family. That turned out to be false. . . .[the military authorities in the Western Allied occupation zones] took the view that it was preferable to leave the child in its present surroundings – in the interest of the child – instead of making it get used to new surroundings, unknown to the child. These were humanitarian explanations which covered essentially politically motives.

“Reactions [of children who were identified] varied. Younger ones, who remembered nothing, were surprised. They had to be prepared for the change. The others, the older ones . . .accepted the situation with delight, particularly when we were able to tell them that their parents were still alive and waiting for them.”

This sounds suspiciously like today’s CPS excuse for whatever they do: “The best interest of the child.” While they trot that phrase up at every opportunity, they never define it or describe exactly why a recommended action is in the child’s best interest. They are not even qualified to judge what is in an individual child’s best interest since they don’t know the children as individuals; they don’t know anything personal about the children they kidnap. Many of them even admit that they act for the best interests of children in general, not necessarily for the individual.

The best interests of the child has become the equivalent of the Nazi’s ‘Final Solution;’ a phrase that sound good and justifies their destructive and abusive actions. Clearly, the U.S. has an extensive history of plugging other people’s children into whatever slot they feel is best, the child’s and the families needs notwithstanding, placing political expediency above the humanitarian issue of truly protecting children.

CPS will also say the children need a ‘reunification’ process before being returned home. Why was it acceptable to remove children precipitously from their parents, but they can’t be returned in the same manner? Could this be reverse brainwashing time? Or is it merely a mechanism to extend more control over the family? Whatever it is, CPS is extremely reluctant to allow foster children to return to their birth parents even if they haven’t proven abuse or neglect.

Evaluating The System

As far as the Nazi’s were concerned, the Lebensborn program was a great success. They were evaluated by their experts and their superiors. They were rounding up and distributing valuable Aryan bloodlines. As far as they were concerned, the end justified the means.

It is important to note, that at no time during the Nazi regime, were the subjects and victims of these programs ever consulted for their assessment, evaluation or input into the effectiveness and reliability of the racial hygiene programs; the effects of those programs upon the individuals and families involved; or the moral implications of what was occurring in Nazi Germany and the countries it occupied as it implement its master plan.

Today, CPS agencies undergo the same kind of evaluations as to the effectiveness and efficiency of their programs. The same experts who devise and operate child protection also evaluate it. There is no mechanism whereby an evaluation is conducted by an independent agency or that the clients of this system are ever contacted for their input.

Client complaints are often covered up. David Berns, Director of El Paso County DHS reported to the county commissioners that his agency had received only one complaint for the year ending June, 1999. This reporter knows of seven that were filed during that time. When I protested his report, he amended it a few weeks later to two complaints. He stated that the second complaint had not been filed on proper form, forgetting that their complaint process did not require filing in writing and not knowing that all seven complaints that were unreported were filed in writing.

Later, a Denver paper reported that most counties in Colorado had no complaints against DHS; that the citizens review panels had only heard three complaints for the entire state in the previous year. They speculated that either DHS was virtually perfect, or more likely, that they were stonewalling complaints.

Many family advocacy groups are demanding independent investigations into CPS agencies nationwide. These agencies respond by requesting an internal investigation, or failing that, an outside ‘expert’ in the field. The advocacy groups are resisting, saying that’s like having the Gestapo investigate a concentration camp.

Until there is independent public oversight over CPS agencies; until the confidentiality laws are eliminated; until caseworkers are held accountable and liable for abuses against families; until child abuse is treated like a crime and investigated by law enforcement; our children will continue to be more horribly abused in state custody than they ever were in their own homes. if0.00

Our population of legal orphans will continue to grow and we will produce more human fodder for prisons and mental institutions as a direct result. If we don’t learn our lessons from history, we are doomed to repeat the failures. American CPS agencies are well on their way to becoming the Nazi child kidnappers of the new millennium.

Story copyright 2000, Suzanne Shell –

http://www.profane-justice.org

Child Protection System Operates in ABSOLUTE SECRECY

If you think this can’t happen to you, you better start doing some homework.. this is the exact same thing that’s happening where you life. Yes even in America!

Province’s child protection system operates in absolute secrecy

A mother who’s had her children seized cannot speak to them and will not be informed if they die

By Darcy Henton, The Edmonton Journal April 6, 2009

Rachel Notley

It was her son’s birthday, but Brenda was having a horrible day.

“My son will be six today, which is normally a very good thing, but I am worried sick about him,” the 26-year-old single mom explained last week.

Brenda, whose real name can’t be used because it would identify children in care, lost her children three years ago when they were seized by the province.

She says she is not allowed to contact them — even a birthday card is forbidden — and would not be informed if they died.

“If I saw them on the street, I would have to go the other way,” she says.

The province seizes hundreds of children annually and if their birth homes can’t be made safe, they are raised in foster homes or awarded for permanent adoption. It all happens quietly because the system is shrouded in secrecy.

Recently, a foster mother killed a foster child and neither the name of the killer nor the victim has been made public, which seems astonishing in a democratic society.

Some Albertans, like NDP MLA Rachel Notley, argue there should be more openness and transparency in the system to ensure it is taking all the necessary steps to protect children.

Brenda says she made “a mistake” that led to her son and daughter being seized, but they were never abused in the home. She says even court officials noted it was evident she loved her children and they loved her, but the court deemed she couldn’t care for them. Brenda, who suffers from agoraphobia or a fear of crowds, says she has since done everything she can to change that, cleaning up her life and taking parenting courses.

Brenda’s world came crashing down after she took in a homeless relative and his family.

“I was really naive,” she says. “I had my cousin and his wife and their three kids and dog show up to my house one night. They said they needed to stay only one or two nights.

“It ended up being six weeks. I was stupid and let them stay. It was an absolute nightmare. I wound up looking after their three kids as well as my own and I got completely overwhelmed and my house went to hell. It was awful.”

Brenda says she finally kicked them out and the next day, child welfare showed up. She believes her cousin reported her to child protection officials out of spite.

“They came and seized both kids,” she says. “I had a bit of a breakdown and it took me a long time to get the house cleaned up. It was really bad. I just couldn’t deal with it. My doctor had me on Valium because all I could do was cry all the time.”

When she finally snapped out of it and cleaned her house, Brenda was given permission to have her son and daughter come for supervised visits. But Brenda and her mother became alarmed at the condition of the children.

They say the little boy and girl “didn’t smell clean” and appeared to have developed skin conditions from not being bathed routinely.

Her two-year-old daughter had bite marks and scratches on her shoulder, back and neck.

“When questioned about it, they said it was from the dog,” says the children’s grandmother, Jenny.

Jenny says during one visit she noticed her grandson had blistering burns on his neck, ear and chest. When her daughter questioned child services about it, she was told the little boy, then three, had “pulled a cup of coffee off a tray in a food court.”

Brenda says she filed formal complaints, but is not aware of anything being done about it.

After a four-day trial in 2007, the children were placed in permanent custody.

Brenda was given a “termination visit” to say goodbye to them. She says it was painful beyond words. “How do you tell your kids that you can’t see them anymore?”

Brenda has a steady job and plans to get married this year. It is her mission in life to get her children back. “I am much more stable now. I am not on my own and I am not vulnerable.” She is saving money to hire a lawyer.

“My daughter is a wreck,” says Jenny. “She loved those children. Nobody has ever loved her children more than she loved those two. She is an awesome mother.”

Under current provincial child protection legislation, reporters can’t look at the files and can’t get details from department officials, since they are not allowed to comment on specific cases. Court documents are sealed.

So who is scrutinizing the system? The NDP says the province’s watchdog, the child advocate, has been leashed, if not muzzled. That’s because he reports not to the legislature like in other provinces, but to the minister of Child and Youth Services, who is his boss.

Hopefully that, at least, will change soon.

dhenton@thejournal.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

YOUR Children are being Drugged to Keep Quiet by CPS for Government Money and YOU CAN’T DO A THING ABOUT IT!

by Sandra Ami

Children are being taken by Child Welfare, Social Services, CPS workers, the parents are lied about in order to obtain the children, then.. YOUR

Drugs never intended for children.

CHILDREN ARE DRUGGED! Do you think you have the right to say NO? Do you think you then have medical rights? Parental Rights? Once Social Workers take your children YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! NONE!! Regardless of what you may think, or even think you may know.. You will have NO RIGHTS.. not even in court.. You will have NO rights to your children, No rights to ANY decisions of  your child… No right to SPEAK to your child, No rights to DEFEND YOURSLEF IN COURT.. You will become a prisoner, You will be THREATENED, Your child WILL BE DRUGGED!!

.. AND YOUR CHILD COULD DIE!

Social Workers AGAINST Child Protecive Services

Child (or agency) Protection?
By Rich Rigney
November 17, 2008

Photo © Reed Hoffmann

“You guys do more damage to kids than the parents!”

The above observation uttered by a loving parent is echoed by many.  Most Child Protective Services Supervisors and caseworkers would consider it malicious slander.

As a Child Protective Services caseworker of eight years, however, I know it to be true.

I’m not alone.

Consider the following irony lamented by Duke Law Professor, Doriane Lambelet Coleman (2006):

“…in the name of saving children from the harm that their parents and guardians are thought to pose, states ultimately cause more harm to many children than they ever help.”

Few in the field argue that Child Protective Services (“CPS”) nationally has myriad problems that are well documented in the form of media, research, congressional sub-committees and expert reports. Documentation supporting this fact is ubiquitous and readily available on-line.

However, the most grievous problem is that those who can most benefit from this knowledge, those who might use it pragmatically to improve the lives of children and families – the caseworkers and supervisors of CPS – appear either ignorant of or indifferent to the damage that removal of children perpetuates.

That is: the most profound problem with “Child Welfare” is that it is not about the welfare of the child.

Rather, it is about the welfare of the agency itself.

The internal paranoia that a “Cover-Your-Agency” (CYA) mentality creates has become so pervasive that most caseworkers and supervisors are determined not to make any decision that might jeopardize their career… and the children are afterthoughts.

The agency hierarchy itself reinforces this CYA mentality due to its’ understandable desire to remain off the front page of newspapers.

This “defensive social work” is helpful in preventing bureaucrat heads from rolling.

“…it has become undeniable that despite many saintly foster parents, the government makes a poor parent. The research shows unequivocally that CPS should be loathe to remove kids from their homes because, in most cases, there is nowhere better to put them.”

The tragic wake of this status quo, however, is strewn with the lives of children and parents.

Estimates I’ve come across in my research reckon that between one-third and two-thirds of those children currently in foster care nationally should be living with their parents.

Furthermore, it has become undeniable that despite many saintly foster parents, the government makes a poor parent. The research shows unequivocally that CPS should be loathe to remove kids from their homes because, in most cases, there is nowhere better to put them.

As a result, the state is stuck between a rock and a hard place: remove children from marginal parents, causing well documented, irrevocable emotional damage (not to mention the physical and sexual abuse that occurs more frequently in foster care), or leave these children with parents who, arguably, should never have had kids in the first place— the “lesser of two evils” if you will.

Enter the “Safety Model.”

The state of Oregon has become one of the last ten percent of our nation’s states to adopt a “Safety Model” guide to protecting our children, created by Wayne Holder, the man Oregon CPS has called the “foremost expert in child protection in the nation.” (I encourage anyone interested to visit his website at www.actionchildprotection.org to understand Mr. Holder’s credentials and the Safety Model as a whole.)

“What do I have to do to get my kids back?”

Those of us in CPS have all heard it. It is inevitably the first question our clients have and it is echoed frequently until the kids are returned.

The Safety Model forces Child Welfare to quantify their answer to this question.

In my experience, most families don’t care how long CPS monitors (or micromanages) their family as long as their kids can live with them in the process. Mr. Holder would probably cite this as THE driving force behind the creation of the Safety Model.

In quantifying their answer to parents’ most pressing question, CPS must delineate for all parties and the court, the necessary “behaviors, conditions or circumstances” in the home required to “manage”- not eliminate- the safety threats that necessitated the removal of the children.

The agency’s answers must be “specific” (i.e. quantifiable). They must be “well articulated.” They must be “least intrusive.” They must be “well defined.” They must provide a “benchmark” (i.e. they must be measurable). They represent the “official record and expectation” for parent-child reunification.

The parents themselves need not change at all prior to the children being returned to the home.

” The Safety Model provides a useful tool that, if used correctly, can save many children from the fate of CPS being their only perpetrator.”

The Safety Model, in addition to its dictates that CPS be as “least intrusive” as possible in intervening to control threats to child safety, requires that these threats be “observable and specific,” “out of control,” “imminent” and expected to cause “severe” harm to a “vulnerable” child.

No doubt for many of you this is a hard pill to swallow. These are unreasonably low standards for our most precious resource.

You, like me, think children deserve more.

The fact remains, it is irresponsible at best and abusive at worst to remove and/or withhold a child from his or her home upon the speculation that a “threat” of danger exists, when we know from the research that removal and placement of children in foster care is always detrimental.

I’m not talking here about severe neglect or physical/sexual abuse.

In five years with Oregon CPS (I worked for three in California previously) I have had only one case with such abuse (and the research puts this type of abuse at about 15 percent combined).

The Safety Model is merely a tool, an attempt to minimize the trauma to children inflicted by their own government. There is no tool or legislation that will ever completely expunge child maltreatment or child deaths so long as the only requirement for parenthood is a capacity for coitus.

I believe that if the state institutes a model, a tool envisioned by the “foremost expert in child protection in the nation,” the state should actually use it.

That is, if CPS is making the rules, they should follow them.

Currently CPS (at least in Oregon) is not, or not consistently.

The sad yet necessary truth is that it is not the job of Child Protective Services to pick the best available situation for kids and place them there permanently.

That would literally be kidnapping.

Rather, it is the job of CPS to work with marginal parents and make them “safe” or capable of providing a “minimum standard of adequate care.” It is CPS’s job to make parents “safe,” not “good.” Again, it is also our job to be “least intrusive” in our intervention.

In America we must accept freedom’s costs with its benefits. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “There is nothing new in the realization that the Fourth Amendment [illegal search and seizure] protections come with a price.” This is true of many other “protections,” such as the right to procreate and parent.

Unfortunately, Child Welfare is not held accountable for the unattributable damage to children caused by removal from their families to foster care.

However, it is well-documented damage.

Shouldn’t we, like doctors, use our professional judgment to “first, do no harm,” rather than using it to forecast the future?

It is the children who pay the ultimate price for this unqualified prophesying.

The Safety Model provides a useful tool that, if used correctly, can save many children from the fate of CPS being their only perpetrator.

Rich Rigney
Child Protective Services
Coos Bay, Oregon

Meet Rich at MySpace

Social Services Kidnaps Children-Employees living LAVISH lifestyles off Funds

Posted By Sandra Ami

Lavish Lifestyles, planes, yachts, expensive cars, around the world trips, all at the expense of Children and Families, thanks to Child Protective Services, DHHS and YOUR Tax dollars and Non-Profit donations!

(Stick around for an up-coming post about

how Judges are profiting BIG, ordering Adoptions, Non-Profits cash in on Adoptions,

a CONFLICT OF INTEREST?)

[Keep in mind, these issues need to be evaluated all over the nations. Abuses happen, and Children Suffer! Children in Orange County California are taken, at a very high rate of between 3000 and 5000 PER MONTH. This is to Justify the Budgeting; Justify lavish lifestyles?

Thanks to Troy for sticking to this subject he has brought home 10’s of THOUSANDS of children in Los Angeles County ALONE by his reporting the truth! But this is STILL  happening!]

Audits find parties, vacations, more

By Troy Anderson
Staff Writer

Since 1998, county auditors have found more than $9 million in unallowable or questionable expenses by the private foster-care agencies that have contracts with Los Angeles County.

The audits revealed taxpayer funds were used to pay off Las Vegas gambling debts, call psychic hot lines and pay for jewelry, parties, lottery tickets, alcohol, vacations, antiques, artwork and even a cremation.

“They have abused both children and taxpayers,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “Particularly in these tough economic times, the fact that money is being misspent this way is absolutely appalling. Local governments are screaming for more revenues, yet they are grossly misspending these funds, frittering away this money without any accountability at all.”

Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said the county should be reimbursed for those misappropriated funds.

“There is no excuse for using money intended for foster children to cremate one’s father-in-law or to use those funds at Victoria’s Secret,” he said.

Some of the executives of the private foster care agencies that oversee the children receive up to $310,000 a year in salaries and benefits, enjoy extravagant lifestyles and drive luxury cars provided to them at public expense, the county audits reveal.

Some directors of foster-family agencies and group homes drive around in head-turning vehicles Jaguars, a Land Rover, a Cadillac Escalade SUV, Mercedes and Lexus provided to them at public expense, according to the audits.

One official billed the taxpayers more than $12,000 for membership dues and a banquet party at the Beverly Hills Country Club.

“I think it suggests Los Angeles County is a national scandal,” said Richard Wexler, an author, former university professor and executive director of the National Coalition For Child Protection Reform in Alexandria, Va. “There are lots of troubled foster care systems in the United States. But Los Angeles County is always on people’s lists.”

Department of Children and Family Services Director David Sanders, who earns $175,000 a year and is among the nation’s highest-paid public child welfare agency directors, said taxpayer dollars should be spent ensuring the safety of children.

“When we have that kind of credibility issue, it’s little wonder people can raise questions about our ability to get the work done,” said Sanders, who took over the department in March. Since 1985, the four previous DCFS directors have resigned under pressure from top county officials.

As private foster care agencies made millions of dollars off the children under their care, critics say the Board of Supervisors looked the other way. From 1995 to 2002, foster family agencies, group homes and others spent more than $262,000 lobbying and making campaign contributions to the supervisors, including more than $67,000 in campaign contributions.

“I think it’s clear that foster care has become an industry in some parts of Los Angeles County,” said child advocate Nancy Daly Riordan, founder of United Friends of Children and wife of former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. “There is definitely a financial incentive to keep kids in foster homes way beyond what is necessary.”

Troy Anderson, (213)974-8985 troy.anderson@dailynews.com

MISUSED FUNDS
The group homes and foster family agencies that care for most of Los Angeles County’s foster children have misused more than $9 million in taxpayer funds since 1998, paying off debts at Las Vegas casinos, buying lingerie and even paying for the cremation of an executive’s father-in-law, county audits reveal.

Based on the audits, the Department of Children and Family Services reviewed $6 million of the unallowable and questionable costs from March 1998 to May 2001 and required the agencies to pay back $1.5 million. So far, the department has received about $600,000.

Here are examples of the disallowed spending:

Group home directors paid $4,500 in debts at two Las Vegas casinos and spent $54,472 on lease payments for a luxury home.

Foster family agency directors bought $1,814 worth of lingerie and racked up $6,113 on 116 restaurant meals, even sticking taxpayers with the tab for their alcoholic beverages.

An agency director spent $774 to cremate his father-in-law.

Officials spent $12,247 for a membership at the Beverly Hills Country Club and a $6,013 banquet party for 150 employees.

Agency officials spent $57,379 on legal fees and to settle sexual harassment lawsuits by three former employees.

Directors purchased or leased two Jaguars, a Range Rover, Mercedes, Lexus, Ford Expedition, GMC Suburban SUV and a Cadillac Escalade SUV, which cost $1,083 a month to lease.

An official made $4,715 in credit card charges for various unidentified items during trips to the Czech Republic, Great Britain and Panama, and $989 in purchases made in Las Vegas at the MGM Grand Hotel, Luxor and Rio hotels.

Auditors found agency executives purchased $3,800 worth of pantyhose, razors, suits, shoes, pet supplies and jewelry and beauty supplies in Las Vegas.

Officials billed the county $2,950 a month for a child who had left the facility four years before, collecting a total of $35,400.

Payments for a president’s 1998 Land Rover and credit card charges for trips to London and New Orleans.

The audits showed the agencies seemingly missed no opportunity to bill the taxpayers for personal items, no matter how trifling. One audit noted $152 was spent on cigarettes, liquor, pet food and a church donation

CHILD TRAFFICKING, Secret Courts, Judges make MILLIONS on children’s lives

By Sandra Ami
via NY Times

It all started in June 2000 with a simple business proposition, according to the judges’ indictment and more than 40 interviews with courtroom workers, authorities and others.

Robert J. Powell, a wealthy personal-injury lawyer from Hazleton and longtime friend of Judge Conahan, wanted to know how he might get a contract to build a private detention center. Judge Ciavarella thought he could help.

In what authorities are calling the biggest legal scandal in state history, the two judges pleaded guilty to tax evasion and wire fraud in a scheme that involved sending thousands of juveniles to two private detention centers in exchange for $2.6 million in kickbacks.  

The conspicuous wealth Judge Ciavarella enjoyed in Florida was a far cry from the rough East End neighborhood in Wilkes-Barre where he grew up and is still known as “the local kid who made it big.”

“You get enough power and you’re bound to start abusing it, I suppose,” Mr. Monaco said.

Parents who arrived with their children typically left without them.

Nicknamed Mr. Zero Tolerance in the courthouse, he once put a father in jail after he could not pay court-imposed fees for his daughter, whom the judge had previously locked up.

“In the end,” Mr. Dallas said, “it all came down to what the judge decided.”

[I just want you all to keep in mind, this is not just an isolated case, this is happening everywhere. Judges are making a fortune off of the children in ever capacity. Children are worth everything.  And children are also not given independent council in Dependency cases, the entire courtroom is hired by one administration, that includes the parents council. Private Attorneys are not allowed to defend in these courtrooms.  This IS happening where you are, it just has to be investigated and reported, rarely is someone brave enough to do so. Sandra Ami ]

Read the whole story here:   http://tinyurl.com/cxeg9b

America emulates Nazi-Germany with CPS

By Sandra Ami

As you watch this video, keep in mind this is the same thing that is happening in America today. The agenda is to control the children to grow up obedient to the Government and not the parents. I know this first hand as the same allegations were made against me, and I don’t even Home School (yet).

In the allegations against me, one of the things CPS said about my children was that they were to obedient and loyal to me. They made the allegations that making reference that they didn’t think that my children should listen to me. I’d love to give the exact quotes here, but unfortunately I do not have my paperwork with me.

I can assure you, while you are watching this video, this is NOT just happening in Germany, and it IS part of the Government agenda.

Dr. Charles Smith pathologist for CPS – LIED! Destroying Parents

Mother Tastes Freedom after 14 years in Prison as a result of Dr. Charles Smith’s lies.

By Sandra Ami

Could it be that Dr. Charles Smith was working on the side of Social Services to destroy the lives of parents for money? Could it be to pump up the public opinions of Social Workers and the Department? One must ask, to who’s benefit, or what benefit is there in convicting parents on false accusations, lies, deception and erroneous reports?

I suppose if you look at the financial benefits, there were many who reaped in the economic venture. Yes, Dr. Charles Smith was kept in his position, but there were several others that are employed as well. Attorneys would never have been called in, Social Workers were given the positions to “investigate” and “provide services” as they do. Those “services” employ many people from Mental Health professionals, councilors,  doctors, court staff and we can’t discount the amount of money put into the Correction’s facilities to house the so-called perpetrators.

There is quite a bit of job security in falsifying documents and fabricating a the facade over a healthy, law-abiding, caring, loving parent. If a parent can be accused of  abuse, neglect or even murder to one child, that gives (almost by default) any more children she may have prior or future to Social Services, feeding into this illegal economic system.

Each time an accusation or allegation is made, and a criminal is fabricated, there are several people employed. Sheriffs, therapists, doctors, clerks, vendors, social workers.. OHHH I’m sure you could think of a few more.. just remember you are worth more money in ‘from court to finish’ then you are free on the streets!

THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES

Click on the image to the right  to view the original Report Document

THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICES

BY: Nancy Schaefer
Senator, 50th District

“I have come to the conclusion:

· that poor parents often times are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;

· that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are always to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and that’s where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;

· that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while they are at work and while their children are separated from them. This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by “the system” that makes a profit for holding children longer and “bonuses” for not returning children;

· that caseworkers and social workers are oftentimes guilty of fraud. They withhold evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights. However, when charges are made against them, the charges are ignored;

· that the separation of families is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;

· that Child Protective Service and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing.

There should be open records and “court watches”! Look who is being paid!”…

To read more of Senator Nancy Schaefer’s report, please click on the report document above.

I would also like to add that so many people ask the question “Why is it that many children are NOT removed when they are in fact in danger, even where there have been several reports made?” I have posed this question to the County Board of Supervisor’s office, and was told that “if a child is difficult to place, or if a child is moved more than 3 or 4 times, Social Services gets docked funds and audited on that case” indicating that a combative or “difficult child” would potentially or probably moved several times per year, thus that child is not economically lucrative to the Department and employees.

(Foster Parents and Adoptive Parents are also employees in that they will continue to get paid a check each month they keep that child, until that child is either removed or 18, 21 or no longer in need of services beyond 18. The child is FULLY SUPPORTED by the government even after adoption has been granted.. it’s a guaranteed pay check for the child(ren))

post by Sandra Ami

Nancy Schaefer on CPS “Children in States Custody FOR JOB SECURITY”

By Sandra Ami
Nancy Schaefer is trying to bring to the attention the corruption of Social Services, Child Protective Services. She discusses how the Department engages in “Legal Kidnapping”, and how there is “No Accountability” “Case Workers are guilty of Fraud.. Fabricate Evidence”. This is BIG BUSINESS! Stealing children creates many jobs, and are looking for “Children in states custody for job security”

ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES BY THE GOVERNMENT For Your MONEY and YOUR CHILDREN!

By Sandra Ami

If you didn’t believe before that your children can be taken on false allegations; if you didn’t believe before that many parents did nothing wrong to have their children taken and put into foster homes, where they are brutally abused and sometimes killed, or put up for adoption all to boost Federal and Non-profit Grants, you might now believe.

You may be a good parent, a good care giver to your family member. You may trust your attorney, but… Your attorney CAN NOT DEFEND YOU against Social Services!!!!

If you don’t believe NOW, then makes some calls to Family Attorneys, call out of the phone books, call University Professors, ask them. You will see these are SECRET COURTS, where, if YOU have your child taken away.. YOU WILL NOT EVEN BE ALLOWED IN THE COURT ROOMS when they discuss your case, when they RAILROAD you into False allegations. And if you do decide to fight them.. YOU PUT YOURSELF IN JEOPARDY OF BEING JAILED!!! And sometimes imprisoned, so does your attorney.

Have any questions? Ask me, I’ll be happy to tell you what I have learned.

How Foster Care DAMAGES Kids

By Sandra Ami

They want YOUR CHILDREN too!

http://www.geocities.com/amiablyme/Oregon_Wexler.pdf

The link above will give you some very valuable incite. If anyone with even a fragment of empathy can imagine this too can happen to them, their children, their grandchildren, nieces or nephews; these are children. Little girls that grew up with the dreams of being a mommy someday, only to later have those children ripped away. The happy little faces, the sweet little voices, the pitter-patter of tiny feet, the children taken.

Please click the link above, and read a fraction of what is going on.

The Truth!

You are not immune! This COULD HAPPEN TO YOU TOO!
This is not just a “poor peoples” problem, this happens to the upper class, the middle class, FBI agents, Attorneys.. it can happen to you too!

You don’t have to be a drug addict, you don’t have to be an alcoholic, or a stressed out parent. You don’t have to be a bad parent. This isn’t happening to just the lower-class, or just the ethnic. Look at the case with Deanna Hardwick out of Orange County,  California. Or to really see the sickness of this, look at the Gaston case out of Oregon. Those are just two cases. I could list you plenty more.

Christians are deemed “delusional” and “schizophrenic”, for believing in God.  If you have EVER seen a psychiatrist, you have “Mental Issues that prevent you from parenting your child”. If you are out of a job you are deemed to have “stressors” that prevent you from parenting your child, and you are deemed financially unable to parent your child (and if you haven’t lost your job yet, Social Services will have NO PROBLEM helping you there).  If you have ever gotten into an argument with a family member, Social Services will be happy to tell the court you have “anger management problems” which could be detrimental to the children.

Don’t think for one second, you are immune! The statistics are far to high.

If you have beautiful, sweet children,

THOSE ARE THE MOST VALUABLE
and
EASIEST TO ADOPT OUT!

Be careful, Be aware!

http://www.geocities.com/amiablyme/Oregon_Wexler.pdf

Half Way Home

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/virginia02132008.pdf

Please see the link above, to better understand how we got into this mess, and how it can affect you, it’s a very important link.

Audit Reflects Tragedy of Child Welfare System

By TIM TALLEY Associated Press
Published: 3/1/2009  12:32 PM
Last Modified: 3/1/2009  12:32 PM

OKLAHOMA CITY — A critical performance audit of the Department of Human Services says the state takes too many children from their homes, keeps them too long and rotates them among foster homes too frequently to adequately meet their needs and prepare them for adulthood.But Buddy Faye doesn’t need to read the 170-page report to understand the depth of the childhood tragedies created by Oklahoma’s child welfare system. She’s seen plenty of tragedies with her own eyes. “This is not a new problem,” said Faye, a court-appointed special advocate for abused and neglected children in Oklahoma City since 1995 who has also served on post-adjudication review boards.

“This has been going on ever since I got involved in the system,” Faye said. “It’s not like they haven’t known about this situation. They study it to death, but there’s never any meaningful change.”

But that’s exactly what state lawmakers are promising with legislation that would implement some of the 25 recommendations in the DHS audit to fix problems in the child welfare system that prevents it from improving the lives of thousands of Oklahoma children who are in DHS custody every year.

Lawmakers say the recommendations would resolve most of the allegations leveled against DHS by a federal court lawsuit filed last year on behalf of nine foster children that accuses the state of victimizing its foster children and inadequately monitoring their safety.

“Our system is broken,” said Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, a frequent critic of DHS who has called for the agency

CM8ShowAd(“336×280”);

to be broken up into three separate parts to better focus its resources on children and families.”The Department of Human Services is a mess. It’s terrible for kids,” Morrissette said. “We still have children dying. We still have children being moved around. The more we ignore the reality of this, our children are going to pay.”

Morrissette opposed the $400,000 DHS audit when it was first proposed by House Republican leaders. But he praised the reports findings and urged implementation of its recommendations.

Morrissette also called for the resignation of DHS Director Howard Hendrick, a former state senator who has received support from legislative leaders since the audit’s release.

“The present status quo is not sufficient,” Morrissette said. “Let’s rebuild this thing with a new team in place.”

A spokesman for DHS, George Johnson, declined to comment directly about Morrissette’s demand.

“We’ll be back at work Monday morning and working as hard as we can to do the people’s business,” Johnson said.

Among other things, the independent audit found that the rate of out-of-home maltreatment of children in DHS care is more than three times the national average. Over two and one-half years, about 1.2 percent of children in DHS care were being abused or neglected compared to a national standard of 0.32 percent.

“There’s all kinds of abuse,” said Faye, who said problems with the state’s child welfare system are well documented in the cases of 11 children she has worked with since they were removed from two different abusive homes.

Nine of the children have left the system after turning 18, but only one graduated from high school and none have job skills, she said. Some have been incarcerated several times and are homeless.

“Out of the 11, I have one who I hope will become a productive citizen. And she’s really struggling,” Faye said.

One girl taken into DHS custody at the age of 3 was placed in 42 different locations before aging out of the system including psychiatric placements although she had no diagnosed mental illness, just defiant behavior, Faye said.

“She was angry. She was very frustrated,” Faye said. “They were moved frequently. They didn’t maintain any placements very long. They didn’t get their educational needs met. They certainly didn’t get any independent living training.

“That’s the kind of thing that is not uncommon.”

Nationally, 70 percent of people who age out of a child welfare system do not have a high school or general equivalency diploma, she said.

The DHS audit found that the state takes children from allegedly abusive homes almost twice as much as the national average and takes too long to have them reunified.

Laurie McClanahan of Edmond experienced firsthand those problems. Her two children, now 6 and 4, were taken from her for more than three years after she said she was accused of abusing her newborn son, who had a diagnosed bowel ailment that required two surgeries.

She said DHS officials suspected her of Munchausen by proxy syndrome, a form a child abuse that involves the exaggeration of illnesses or symptoms by a primary caretaker. The diagnosis was rejected when a judge ordered her children returned to her in February.

“For three and one-half years I didn’t even have a visit,” said McClanahan, a disabled veteran. She said one son “was bounced around from foster home to foster home to foster home.

“I think I was treated horribly,” she said. “They didn’t look at the facts. They were extremely judgmental.

“I made a lot of people angry. But I’m sorry — no one is going to mess with my children.”

The DHS spokesman, Johnson, said state law prohibits the department from openly discussing child welfare matters.

The audit found that DHS does not have the full scope of legal authority granted to protective agencies in other states and some of the basic resources it needs to perform its duties.

Also, the agency attempts to control the course of events so tightly that it presents an overbearing and even disrespectful face to its own workers and clients, according to the audit.

Among the recommendations lawmakers plan to implement are removing children from their homes only if there is an imminent safety threat, being involved with law enforcement officials whenever children are removed and shifting funding from out-of-home care to in-home services for the families of children not in imminent danger.

“This is the year to do it,” Morrissette said. “This body has to have the political will to make these hard decisions.”

By TIM TALLEY Associated Press

YOUR LIFE AND THE LIFE OF YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN JEOPARDY! NO ONE IS IMMUNE!

By Sandra Ami

Both these videos above, are not special to their area. This problem is infecting the entire country, and if one has done research as I have, will notice this is not just an American problem. Though I focus on American Families and children most. This is a disease within this country that MUST BE  STOPPED!  The only way we will be able to stop this, is by those who have not YET had their children taken.  By the time I hear from parents who are in a complete tailspin from CPS, it is almost to late. There are very important things one must know, BEFORE the knock on the door, or the phone call.

For example, when your children are FIRST TAKEN, upon your FIRST hearing in court.. you MUST file an “Answer” it’s an Answer to the allegations. The petition states:

“Your parental rights may be permanently terminated. To protect your rights, you must appear in court and answer this petition”

What most people assume, is that you must appear in court and stand before the judge and tell them what happened.. NOT TRUE.. This is HOW THEY KEEP YOUR CHILDREN!

What it really means is… FILE A PAPER  “ANSWER” in court with the Clerks office PRIOR to the court hearing, give a copy to your attorney (if you don’t have one, have a copy to give to the attorney you will be presented with) a copy to the judge, a copy to each child’s attorney, a copy to County Council, a copy for yourself, and an extra copy just in case.

The “Answer” must state the explanations to the allegations. Unfortunately, you will not even know what those are until you appear in court the first time, therefore, it’s ALWAYS BEST to file an extension, or a “continuance”, most parents do not want to do this.. because that appears longer time your children are away from you.. but trust me.. without this YOU MAY NEVER GET YOUR CHILDREN, THEY MAY (AND PROBABLY WONT) EVER SLEEP IN THEIR BEDS AGAIN! You will not be able to EVER cook them dinners, go shopping, experience the park and feeding the ducks.. your children MAY NEVER be a part of your home AGAIN.

(( keep in mind also.. on that first hearing.. Child Protective Services/ Social Services / Depart. of Human Service.. (or whatever they are going by) will request of the court that YOU BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN AND THEY BE REINBURSED FOR WHATEVER FEES AND FUNDS THEY DECIDED TO USE FOR YOUR CHILD.. (and trust me.. they will bank that up into the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars.. you will lose your job, and you WILL  lose your homes!.. then.. they will present to the court that “YOU HAVE INADIQUITE HOUSING FOR YOUR CHILDREN, therefore they feel it is in the BEST INTEREST of the child(ren) to be PERMENANTLY PLACED either in Foster Care or UP FOR ADOPTION. .. Don’t even get into your head that you may have family to take the child(ren) because THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN (the chance is less than 20% in my opinion) It is not financially in their best interest to place the children in a home of a family member. )

For more information, or if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. If I do not have the answer, I will see what I can do to GET them for you, or guide you to where to go for them.

SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE CRIMINAL BACKROUNDS

By Sandra Ami 

ASSAULT – THEFT – PROSTITUTION – SELLING ALCOHOL TO HONORS – BURGLARY – DWI / DUI – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE –  INDECENT EXPOSURE – POSSESSION OF COCAINE AND MARIJUANA

This problem is everywhere, even as in the UK where a former social worker put a girls body into kebabs in their restaurant. These are just some of the charges against almost 400 Social Workers that are in charge of the cases against many parents that DID NOTHING to deserve their children being taken away. These are the people writing up reports against GOOD parents and families, to justify putting the children up for adoption. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE.. HIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT… TO DETERMINE THE FATE OF OUR CHILDREN.. YES OUR CHILDREN… YOURS AND MINE… You are No better and No worse than those accused. In fact, they are you.. they are just like you. Many come from wealthy families, many from poor. Many Blond haired, red haired, dark haired. Children in Baseball, Wrestling, Karate, Theater, Ballet, Dance.. the list goes on.

There is no criteria, as some may suggest, in the ‘kidnapping’ of our children. The only criteria is that they are under 18 years of age. Attorneys have had their children taken, even police have had their children taken. All on false allegations. Oh sure, I’m sure you are thinking ‘how can this be’, well I would have thought that too, until I saw how the process works. I’ve spoken to Police officers, Firemen; I’ve spoken with CPS workers (the non corrupt ones – who I might add, are BLIND) I’ve spoken to many Governmental officials, some aware of what is going on, some in complete disbelief. But I can assure you no matter which view you are looking at this system from, it is NEVER.. “IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN”. The only “best interest” is the Money brought in and paid out to the people in the positions to make the policies, and implement them. How? In the way of BONUS’. Yes.. MILLIONS of dollars in Bonus’ for your children. Oh sure, the social workers are the low man on the totem pole, and they are expendable, but they are given incentives and bonus’ too, they are trained to be careless, and heartless. Their thought process is exactly that of a Bill Collector, who has had the job for several years. Uncaring, and out for only ONE PURPOSE.. THE COMMODITY. Collecting Children, is the same as Collecting Money.

Those who do even a small bit of homework, research, investigating, will find all the same answers I do, and many other parents who have been cheated on, lied to, seen the court deceived before their eyes, and the court allowing it.. This is NOT what we grew up thinking America “the land of the Free, Home of the Brave” was all about. Free? Who’s free? The government is FREE to lie, cheat and steal away from you through deceit, coercion, to create duress, put you under distress, through THREATS of your life. Think it’s not true? Give me YOUR phone number and address, let me call CPS on you , then lets see you FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE to get your children back.

Because .. in the long run, I can promise you, though your chance is SLIGHT, you do have a chance of stearing clear. My opinion? I think you may have a 10% chance of NOT losing your children, regardless of truth, facts, or allegation. You could be the most honest person, you could have a perfect record, you could have a MILLION people standing behind you to PROVE your credability, you could have a perfect profession, and extended formal education, you could be PTA president, and you could be a Football coach, you could be anyone.. all you have to be .. is .. a parent!

THEY DON’T USE PADDYWAGONS ANYMORE, THEY DRIVE NEW SMALL SUVs

By Sandra Ami

I read the story on Alexis ( http://www.newsmakingnews.com/vm,alexis,tv,story,12,9,08.htm ) and I must tell you, if you don’t already know, this is NOT an isolated incidence. Many parents are screaming foul. Many parents are doing their homework and finding that CPS/ DHS is failing to follow the laws. The problems are not just with the social workers, but unfortunately the Public Defenders are in on it too.

I personally attempted to contact over 450 attorneys last year, those of which I got in touch with, all told me the same thing “Private attorney’s can not win in Dependency cases” One attorney told me that “it’s a Good Ol’ Boy network, and all the people in the court room are all hired by the same person, it’s an independent court administrator” He told me that even Family Attorneys are afraid to take on Dependency cases. I spoke with two seperate other attorneys who told me they had taken on a dependency case before, but would never do it again.

Once a call goes into social services about a parent, their first goal is to “adopt the child” before they even do their investigation. The problem is, it’s Big Business. Children are the commodity of the government, and specifically social services. Without the children, there is no business. So, therefore, when a call comes in.. it’s Money on the phone for them. Social workers receive bonus’, as does the department and the county. There is absolutely NO ONE working on the side of the parents.

Dr. Bruce D. Perry, did a study on the separation of children. Documenting the child’s brain growth in separate situations. He documented that the brain of a child in foster care is not much different than that of a child caged for the first 5 years of life, with no physical or emotional contact, as apposed to those children left in the homes of their families where the brain was normal.

The DHHS (department of health and human services) is, I believe, the second largest Federally Funded Organization in this country, second only to the military. And I believe I read that 54% of that funding is strictly for Taking Children and separating them from their parents. CPS / DHS cases.

Many of the Amber Alerts are parents trying to ‘steal’ back their children from the kidnappers hired by the Government. I contacted the US Department of Justice, who told me that they do not do a statistic on how many of the children Alerted are CPS/DHS cases. Though it does not take a genius to see the descriptions of the parents on the Amber Alerts are exactly parallel to the description of the parents by CPS/DHS.

Getting someone to take on these issues, has proved almost impossible by the parents who are screaming for justice, crying out for their children, and far to often burying them after the “system” has gotten a hold of them.

Parents are threatened by social workers into pleading, being told “if you do not plea, your child(ren) will go into a Foster home, where he/she/they are 7-10 times more likely to DIE” and those pleas must be done on that day, without contest. They are not even given the choice to plea Guilty, but instead must plea “No Contest”, meaning they can never attempt to reverse their plea, even by proof of the threats, coercions, duress or distress.

The entire process is created, and implemented to RAILROAD the parents into losing their children. For what you may ask? MONEY. BIG MONEY. On one estimated calculation, I approached the Board of Supervisor’s office here where I live, and was told that $113 BILLION dollars a year, JUST IN THE DETENTION of children could be accurate, and could also be underestimated.

This reminds me of the movie Oliver Twist, where children were scooped up off the streets in Paddywagons. This is really no different; the only difference is the children are taken in an unmarked newer SUV. The social workers pull with them usually 2 policemen, and still come with NO WARRANTS, as stated in our constitution. Many parents are placed with “gag orders” as to not discuss the process that is happening to them, and they are not allowed any contact with their children, as to ‘break the bond’ between parent and child, making it easier to tell the court at a later date “there is no more bond with the parents and the child has bonded with the foster parent”. There is a list of things they do, and a list of reasons why.

CHILDREN TAKEN FROM PARENTS AND USED AS GUINEA PIGS / LAB RATS BY OUR GOVERNMENT

The House That AIDS Built

Liam Scheff

This article deals with pharmaceutical abuse in a children’s home in NYC. This piece was investigated and written in summer through winter of 2003 and published in January 2004, with occaisional updates. The story broke wide in early 2004, with coverage in the New York Post and the New York Press. It served as the basis of investigation for the BBC film “Guinea Pig Kids,” and has prompted further investigation by the Associated Press – as well as a pointed attack by the New York Times. The investigation is ongoing.

Liam Scheff. E-mail : liamscheff@yahoo.com

---

Introduction:

In New York’s Washington Heights is a 4-story brick building called Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC). This former convent houses a revolving stable of children who’ve been removed from their own homes by the Agency for Child Services. These children are black, Hispanic and poor. Many of their mothers had a history of drug abuse and have died. Once taken into ICC, the children become subjects of drug trials sponsored by NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, a division of the NIH), NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) in conjunction with some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies – GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Genentech, Chiron/Biocine and others.

The drugs being given to the children are toxic – they’re known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they’re held down and have them force fed. If the children continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines.

In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind. They both died shortly after.  Another 14-year old died recently. An 8-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck.

This isn’t science fiction. This is AIDS research. The children at ICC were born to mothers who tested HIV positive, or who themselves tested positive. However, neither parents nor children were told a crucial fact — HIV tests are extremely inaccurate.(1,2)  The HIV test cross-reacts with nearly seventy commonly-occurring conditions, giving false positive results. These conditions include common colds, herpes, hepatitis, tuberculosis, drug abuse, inoculations and most troublingly, current and prior pregnancy.(3,4,5) This is a double inaccuracy, because the factors that cause false positives in pregnant mothers can be passed to their children – who are given the same false diagnosis.

Most of us have never heard this before. It’s undoubtedly the biggest secret in medicine. However, it’s well known among HIV researchers that HIV tests are extremely inaccurate – but the researchers don’t tell the doctors, and they certainly don’t tell the children at ICC, who serve as test animals for the next generation of AIDS drugs. ICC is run by Columbia University’s Presbyterian Hospital in affiliation with Catholic Home Charities through the Archdiocese of New York.

---

Sean and Dana Newberg are two children from ICC. Their mother used drugs and was unable to care for them properly, so they were raised in foster care, until their great-aunt Mona adopted them. Mona Newberg is a teacher in the New York Public Schools, and has her Master’s degree in Education. She adopted the children when Sean was three and Dana was six. She was already raising their older brother, who was never given an HIV test or AIDS drugs. He’s now grown, healthy and serving in the Navy.

Their mother used heroin and crack cocaine since she was a teenager. She was given an HIV test in the late 80s and tested positive. “She had three children before Sean and Dana,” said Mona. “Nobody told us that the test cross-reacted with drug abuse, let alone pregnancy. It’s not a valid test.”

Because of the test result, the doctors at Columbia Presbyterian put Sean on AZT monotherapy when he was 5 months old. Use of AZT monotherapy is now considered malpractice because it can cause debilitating, fatal illness including fatal anemia.

Dana spent her first four years at Hale House, a NY orphanage for children whose parents abused drugs. Hale house was participating in an AZT drug trial when Dana was there. “We can’t get the records from Hale House, so I don’t know what happened there,” Mona said. “I never gave Dana the drugs after I got her, but I know she arrived with a filled prescription for AZT.”

Sean has been on life support twice as a result of the AIDS drug Nevirapine. Dana was put on AIDS drugs in 2002, even though she wasn’t sick. Since being put on the drugs, Dana has developed cancer.

Both children have been taken into ICC and kept there against their will and against Mona’s wishes for one reason – Mona has questioned the safety of the AIDS drugs AZT, Nevirapine and Kaletra and stopped giving the drugs when they made the children ill. In the summer and fall of 2003, I visited Mona, Sean, Dana and ICC. I spoke with Mona about her experience and her decision. (The names of Sean, Mona and Dana are aliases which they requested to protect their identities, but their stories are accurate and unaltered).

Liam Scheff: What led you to question the safety of the drugs?
Mona: When I first got Sean at three years old, he was a vegetable. He’d never eaten solid food. He had a feeding tube that went through his nose into his stomach. AIDS medications change the taste buds. AZT, especially, makes it so kids can’t stand the taste of food and won’t eat. The nurses fed Sean AZT, Bactrim and six cans of Pediasure a day through this tube, which stayed in his stomach for over two years. Nobody ever bothered to change it.

When I got Sean, I continued to give him the drugs as prescribed for about 5 months. But after each spoonful, he got weaker. I thought, wait a minute – this stuff is supposed to be making him better, why is he getting worse?

Sean had night sweats and fevers 24 hours a day. He had no energy. He couldn’t play. He couldn’t get up for ten minutes without lying down. Nurses came regularly to give him blood infusions to manage the AZT anemia. After the infusions, he’d be nearly comatose for two days. He was like a limp doll.

Every time I gave Sean the drugs, he got weaker and sicker. I didn’t know what to do but I didn’t want him to die. So I stopped everything that appeared to be killing him. I stopped the AZT. I stopped the Bactrim. I stopped the nurse from coming to give the infusions.

It wasn’t immediate, but Sean started to improve. His fevers subsided. He could eat. He gained weight. Within a couple months, he was actually running and playing with the other children. Sean was born with a chronic lung condition because of his mother’s drug use, but even his lungs improved. I couldn’t believe it. When Sean was born, the doctors told his mother that he was going to die. They told her to buy a coffin for him. He barely survived. When I took him off the drugs, he was healthy for the first time in his life.

I was so happy, I told everyone – including the doctors and nurses – what had happened. I didn’t know not to. When the hospital found out I wasn’t giving him the drugs, they contacted Agency for Child Services (ACS). An ACS worker came to my door, and told me I had to register the kids with an infectious disease doctor – Dr. Howard at Beth Israel. I was taking Sean and Dana to a Naturopathic MD, and they were both healthy and strong. I told them that we had a doctor. They said, “Too bad, you have to see Dr. Howard now.”

Howard was terrible for the children. He ignored the only thing that actually bothered Sean – his lung condition, and insisted that he go on a new drug for HIV. He said, “There’s a new miracle drug. It just came on the market. I guarantee if you give it to Sean, you’ll watch the miracle happen”.

LS: What was the miracle drug?
Mona: Nevirapine. Howard put Sean on Nevirapine. Sean’s health immediately deteriorated. He got sicker, his lungs congested, he lost weight, his cheekbones sunk, his liver and spleen started to go. Six months after he went on Nevirapine, he had complete organ failure. He was on life support for two weeks at Beth Israel Hospital. Then I did some research on Nevirapine, and found out that it caused organ failure and death. When Sean finally got out of the hospital, Howard discharged him on hospice care. Six months earlier, he was healthy. Now they were telling me to prepare for his death.

Once I got him home, I stopped giving Sean the Nevirapine, and he was able to eat again. He started to gain some weight back. Sean was so weak after being on life support, with all those tubes in him. He’d gotten so thin. But he finally started to recover. When I took Sean to Dr. Howard, he was always surprised to see that Sean was improving. Howard would ask me, “Are you sure you’re giving him the medication, Mrs. Newberg?”

LS: In times of improvement, he suspected that you weren’t giving Sean the Nevirapine?
Mona: Right. He only worried when Sean wasn’t sick! AIDS doctors always think there’s something wrong if you’re not dying.

After that Howard started keeping Sean in the hospital for longer periods of time for the lung problems we used to treat at home. Howard kept Sean for 25 days and fed Sean the Nevirapine himself. Sean ended up back in intensive care with organ failure. He was placed on life support for two weeks. He got a hospital staph infection because Howard wouldn’t let him leave. He was eight years old, and just wanted to come home.

A month later, the hospital finally discharged him. Then ACS called me for a meeting. The ACS worker told me I should put Sean into Incarnation Children’s Center until he was stronger. They told me that ICC was this wonderful place. They said in four months he’d be strong enough to come back home. ICC took Sean off the Nevirapine and put him on Viracept, Epivir, Zerit and Bactrim. Sean improved off the Nevirapine, but the new drugs definitely made him sick – just not as badly. He had trouble walking, and his arms and legs got even thinner.

I visited Sean at ICC for five months. Then, when I wanted to bring him home, they said, “We don’t recommend that Sean leave here. You have a reputation for not giving meds.”

LS: ICC refused to let Sean come home?
Mona: Right. They kept him for a year and a half. I had to get a lawyer to get him out.

LS: What was it like for Sean at ICC?
Mona: There were children in wheelchairs, on crutches, with deformations. There were AZT babies. Their heads have a different shape, with the eyes spaced wide and sunken in. The drugs cause severe developmental problems. Many children have misshapen, weak limbs and distended bellies. Many are learning disabled. The kids at ICC are constantly medicated with all kinds of drugs. When children refuse the drugs the nurses hold them down and force feed them. Sean wanted to get the hell out of there.

During my visits I noticed that many children at ICC were walking around with tubes hanging from their undershirts, and I wondered what they were. Then one day, I saw the nurse come in with a whole tray of medications and syringes, and I watched her inject this medication into the tubes coming out of their stomachs. I couldn’t believe it. I thought, my god, what’s going on here?

Every child who had a stomach tube took their medication that way, from the three-year-olds to the teenagers. It horrified me. I couldn’t understand it. When I found out what was being done, I thought, surely this must be illegal. There’s no way they could be doing this legally.

I expressed my concerns to Sean’s ACS case worker. I said, “Do you know what they’re doing to those kids in there? This reminds me of Nazi Germany.” He said, “They’re doing wonderful things for these children.” I called Albany, the state capital, and talked to Dan Tietz at the New York State Department of Health’s AIDS Institute. He said, “What are we going to do if these little children refuse to take the medication? How are we going to save their lives if we don’t perform this operation?”

LS: Who performs this operation?
Mona: The children are sent to Columbia-Presbyterian for the operation. The surgeons there do it.

I was at ICC one day, and saw a fourteen-year old boy named Daniel refusing the pills. I actually saw him run from the nurse when she came to give him his medication. He said, “The medication makes me sick and I don’t want to take it.” His aunt was there, and she said, “The medication makes him very ill.”

The ACS case worker, Wendy Wack, came in, and said to the aunt very clearly, “Daniel has refused to take his medication. We’ve changed it three times and he’s still refusing. Now, the only thing left is the operation.” She said, “If you refuse the operation, we’ll call Agency for Child Welfare – and take Daniel away from you.” His aunt signed, and they took Daniel away. When he came back a few weeks later, he had a tube in his stomach.

LS: Does Sean have the tube?
Mona: No. He doesn’t want that tube in his stomach. He’s been there long enough to know you get the tube if you say no to the medication. He’s terrified, so he never refuses the drugs.

The children at ICC who don’t have the tubes tend to be a whole lot healthier and live a whole lot longer than the ones with the tubes.

I was talking to a boy named Amir. He’s 6. His stomach was so swollen. He said, “My stomach is swollen, it got big.” He said, ”They cut me,” and he showed a little cut on his side. He’s had a tube for a long time. Amir was an AZT baby. His face has that wider shape. He also has lypodystrophy from the drugs. He has huge fat lumps on his back and neck. They’ve taken him away for surgery twice but the lumps grow back.

Sean’s little friend Jesus just died. He was 12. He had a tube. He had a stroke from the drugs. There was a little girl, Mia. She had a tube. She had a stroke and went blind. She died recently too. Carrie, a 14-year-old girl died last year. She had a tube. There’s a three-year-old, Patricia. She’s had a tube since she arrived. She’s going home with it in her. I don’t think she’s going to make it.

I used to talk with the child care workers about the drugs. I got to know all of them and they were all very friendly with me. I said, “These drugs are killing the children.” They said, “We know.”

LS: They agreed with you?
Mona: Yes, but what can they do, they just take care of the kids. The doctors and nurses give the medication. Telling the doctors that the drugs make you sick doesn’t do anything. They just stare at you blankly. They don’t care. Compliance is the main goal of ICC. All the kids in ICC come from families who’ve failed to comply with the drug regimen.

LS: ICC is part of a national program running AIDS drug trials. Have you ever signed a waiver permitting them to use your children in a drug trial?
Mona: No, never. But ACS has signed for me when I didn’t want to give Sean drugs. When I said, “No,” the ACS case worker grabbed the form and said, “I’ll sign it. You don’t need to.” They’re always switching medications – they never ask me if it’s okay.

Right now, most of the kids at ICC are on Kaletra. Kaletra was on fast-track approval. It was released before testing was complete. But they do know something about Kaletra. It causes cancer. It says on the label, that this drug causes cancer in test animals.

I fought for a year to get Sean home. ICC wanted to put him in a foster home where someone would be paid to feed him the drugs every day. I got a lawyer and we finally got Sean out of there. My lawyer was able to get Sean’s ICC medical records. He told me, “Sean was tortured at Incarnation. He was tortured.”

---

Photos from ICC

Drugs used in clinical trials conducted at ICC, Columbia Presbyterian
and at hundreds of participating hospitals in pediatric AIDS clinics nationwide:

Drug	Drug Company	Known Toxicities (manufacturer’s label)	Therapeutic Value (manufacturer’s label)
Retrovir (AZT)	GlaxoSmithKline	“Retrovir (AZT) has been associated with hematologic toxicity [blood toxicity], including neutropenia [anemia] and severe anemia…” “Prolonged use of Retrovir has been associated with symptomatic myopathy [muscle wasting].” “Lactic acidosis and severe hepatomegaly [liver swelling] with steatosis [fat degeneration], including fatal cases, have been reported with the use of nucleoside analogues [Retrovir, Epivir, Zerit]  alone or in combination…”	“Retrovir is not a cure for HIV infection.” “The long-term effects of Retrovir are unknown at this time.” “The long-term consequences of in utero and infant exposure to Retrovir are unknown, including the possible risk of cancer.”
Epivir (3TC, Lamivudine)	GlaxoSmithKline	(see above) “Parents or guardians should be advised to monitor pediatric patients for signs and symptoms of pancreatitis.”	“EPIVIR is not a cure for HIV infection.” “Patients should be advised that the long-term effects of EPIVIR are unknown at this time.”
Zerit (Stavudine)	BristolMeyersSquibb	(see above) “Fatal lactic acidosis has been reported in pregnant women who received the combination of Didanosine and Stavudine with other antiretroviral agents.”	“Zerit will not cure your HIV infection” “There is limited information on the long-term use of Zerit”
Viramune (Nevirapine)	Boeringer-Ingelheim	“Patients should be informed of: the possibility of severe liver disease or skin reactions associated with Viramune that may result in death.” “Severe, life-threatening and in some cases fatal hepatoxicity [liver damage], including hepatic necrosis [liver death] and hepatic failure, has been reported in patients treated with Viramune.” “Severe, life-threatening skin reactions, including fatal cases…have included cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis [skin death]…”	“Viramune is not a cure for HIV-1 infection.”
Ritonavi (Norvir)	Abbott Laboratories	“Redistribution/accumulation of body fat including central obesity, dorsocervical fat enlargement (buffalo hump), peripheral wasting, breast enlargement,” “Lipid Disorders,” “Substantial increases in the concentration of total triglycerides and cholesterol.”	“Norvir is not a cure for HIV infection”
Kaletra (Ritonavir + Lopinavir)	Abbott Laboratories	(see above) “Long term carcinogenicity studies of Kaletra in animal systems have not been completed.” “In male mice…there is a dose dependent increase in the incidence of both adenomas and carcinomas [malignant tumors] in the liver.”	“Kaletra is not a cure for HIV infection.” “The long-term effects of Kaletra are not known at this time.”

Photos of an infant with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, a blistering, peeling, potentially fatal skin rash. It is one of the known side-effects of the AIDS drug Nevirapine. Nevirapine is one of the primary drugs being readied for distribution in Africa.

---

Eight of over 200 current or recent drug studies conducted at ICC
and Columbia Presbyterian (and 800 nationally):
http://www.icc-pedsaids.org/page4.htm www.clinicaltrials.gov

• The Effect of Anti-HIV Treatment on Body Characteristics of HIV-Infected Children
• Conditions: HIV Infections; HIV Wasting Syndrome; Lipodystrophy
  Sponsors: NIAID and NICHD
• The Effects of Anti-HIV Therapy on the Immune System of HIV-Positive Children
  Sponsors: NIAID and NICHD
• Comparison of Stavudine Used Alone or in Combination with Didanosine in HIV-Infected Children
  Sponsor: NIAID
• HIV Levels in Cerebrospinal Fluid and Brain Function in Patients Receiving Anti-HIV Drugs
  Sponsors: NIAID, NINDS (Nat. Inst. Neurological Disorders and Strokes), NARC (Neurologic AIDS Reseach Consortium)
• A Study of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Infants with HIV
  Sponsors: NIAD, NICHD
• A Study to Compare Different Drugs Used to Prevent Serious Bacterial Infections in HIV-Positive Children
  Sponsors: NIAID, Pfizer, Glaxo
• The Safety and Effectiveness of Valacyclovir HCI in the Treatment of Herpes Simplex or Varicella/Zoster Infections in HIV-1 Infected Children
  Sponsors: NIAID, Glaxo
• The Safety and Effectiveness of Treating Advanced AIDS Patients between the Ages 4 and 22 with Seven Drugs, Some at Higher than Usual Doses
  Sponsor: NIAID, NICHD

---

The Doctor at ICC

To confirm Mona’s story, I spoke with Dr. Katherine Painter, the medical director of ICC. I asked her about AIDS drugs, clinical trials and the stomach surgery for children who can’t or won’t take the drugs. Dr. Painter told me that the greatest challenge facing children at ICC isn’t illness, but compliance with their drug regimen. She also confirmed that there are “loads and loads of studies being done on children.”

Click The Icon To Access Audios Of The Interview With Dr Painter.

Liam Scheff: What does ICC do?

Dr. Katherine Painter (Medical Director of Incarnation Children’s Center): ICC deals with children who are medically complex but not acutely sick, and whose medical care provides more challenges than most. We’re having an increase in referrals over the last years to deal with medication adherence. There are a fair number of children whose HIV illness may be well controlled but whose families are experiencing difficulty complying with the child’s medication regimen.

What we’re asking of our families and patients in terms of adherence is something beyond 100% – All of their medicines all the time, whether they have them on-hand or not, whether the medication makes them sick, or whether they’re sick with a concurrent illness.

ICC is affiliated with Columbia Presbyterian. We work as a magnet for about six New York hospitals – Columbia Presbyterian, Harlem Hospital, New York Hospital, St. Luke’s/Roosevelt, King’s County Brooklyn and SUNY. We get referrals from outpatient HIV clinics in the city, in the five boroughs and in Westchester along the island. Most clinics are set up in medical centers.

LS: Does ICC participate in clinical drugs trials?
Painter: Many of the clinics that refer to us are participating in clinical drug trials. Children participating in a drug trial undergo monitoring, testing, and supply of an experimental drug through their outpatient clinic and we maintain that treatment here.

LS: When I search the Government Clinical Trial database, I find loads and loads of studies being done on children.
Painter: There are loads and loads of studies being done on children.

LS: I know that the medications are hard to take and have side effects. How do you get a child to take the drugs?
Painter: One of the issues with children is that they can’t swallow large pills.  Many of the meds are horse pill size and come in multiple pills. The alternative liquid or powder formulations are not very palatable. They have a significant, lingering, bitter taste. We mix them with chocolate syrup. Some children can take this, others can’t. For some cases, it’s better administered through a Gastric tube.

LS: Is that the nose or stomach tube?
Painter: That’s the stomach tube. The nose tube is a Naso-Gastric tube. It’s appropriate for short term interventions. It has to be changed weekly from one side of the nose to the other to minimize sinus infection. You have to listen each time you push the medication or supplementation through the tube to make sure that the air bubbles you’re hearing are in the stomach, and not in the lungs, because it can be displaced.

LS: What’s a Gastric tube?
Painter: A Gastric tube (G-tube) goes through a small opening into the stomach.

LS: How do you put in a G-tube?
Painter: A surgeon does that. It’s done in the operating room, under anesthesia. The surgeon passes an endoscopy tube [a fiber-optic camera down the throat] which allows him to see the inside of the stomach. Then from the outside, the surgeon places the tube surgically –

LS: He cuts through the abdomen?
Painter: Well, right, yeah, you’re actually cutting through the skin, through the abdominal wall musculature, and then through the stomach. It creates a very small hole, about a quarter inch. It takes several weeks to heal well, so it’s a bit tender. A small tube is placed through the opening or stoma. From the outside you can connect a syringe or feeding tube. The opening can be closed when not in use [by a plastic seal], which extends less than half and inch from the stomach. Some types are called buttons.

On the inside of the stomach is a device that holds the tube in place called a balloon, which is filled with water to a size that can’t be pulled back through the stoma.

LS: When is this surgery deemed necessary or appropriate?
Painter: When other interventions to help a child take a medicine by mouth have failed.

G-tube or PEG (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastronomy) Tubes. G-tube Surgery.
The brochure for ICC reads – “a sanctuary of love, a home-like nurturing residence…”

Side Story: Read The Nurse’s Story: A pediatric nurse from ICC gives her account of successfully treating HIV positive children without AIDS Drugs.

---

Dana

In 2002, just as Mona got Sean back from ICC, the doctors decided that Dana (Sean’s sister) should be put on AIDS drugs, even though she wasn’t ill.

Mona: Dana wasn’t sick. She’d never had a major illness. The doctors said her Tcells were low, so he put her on Viracept, Epivir, Zerit, and Bactrim.

LS: What was her reaction to the drugs?
Mona: She was throwing up constantly. Over the next two months, she started complaining of back and head pain, which got so bad I had to take her to the emergency room.

Beth Israel diagnosed it as Langerhans Syndrome, which is a childhood disease similar to cancer. Langerhans affects bone. It damaged one of her vertebrae. It can be treated with chemotherapy, but it’s a low level dose, much lower than a standard cancer treatment.

Beth Israel knew about Dana’s HIV status. They told me, “We’re going to ship her over to Presbyterian for a new diagnosis. Because of her HIV status, there may be a possibility that this is AIDS.”

So they sent her to Presbyterian, where the doctor wrote in her records – “Langerhans Syndrome” but added, “May be associated with HIV.” Langerhans Syndrome is not an AIDS-defining illness. There is no entry anywhere in the medical record of an association between Langerhans and HIV. But Presbyterian called it AIDS and gave her a much stronger chemotherapy appropriate for an adult cancer. Then they switched her medication to Kaletra.

LS: Kaletra – that’s the fast-track approved drug that causes cancer?
Mona: Right. It states clearly in the manufacturers insert that Ritonavir – one of the ingredients in Kaletra – causes cancer in test animals, and that testing isn’t complete in humans. How do you give a child with cancer a drug that causes cancer?

The Kaletra made her heave and throw up. They were afraid that she’d become crippled if her back shifted in any way. So they put a brace on her to keep her still, and kept her on the drug. They gave her three months of chemotherapy, and the cancer was gone. They couldn’t find a trace of it. But they gave her another 3 months of chemotherapy anyway.
Right after her diagnosis in January (2003), Presbyterian called ACS and said I was putting Dana in jeopardy by not giving her the drugs. ACS took Dana out of our home and put her into ICC.

We went to court to get her back. Dana’s doctor at Presbyterian had to testify. When she was questioned under oath, she listed all the deadly side effects of the drugs – all of them. She knew exactly what all of them did. The judge asked her how she got the kids to take the drugs. And she said “We’re like Nazis when it comes to compliance.” Those were her words.

The Department of Health came to ICC three weeks ago for an inspection. They said that the children could no longer be restrained when they didn’t want to take the drugs. They said that the children didn’t have to take the drugs if they didn’t want to; they have a legal right to refuse medications. But the social workers and doctors told the children, “Sure you can refuse, but if you do there will be consequences.”

LS: What are the consequences?
Mona: The surgery.

Today Dana remains at ICC. She is 16. ACS is trying to put her in a foster home where she’ll live with a stranger who’s paid to give her the drugs. Mona is trying to bring her home. In August 2003, The Make-a-Wish foundation gave Dana the gift of a Disney Cruise to Bermuda. ACS told Dana that she was not allowed to leave the country, and cancelled her trip.

Sean’s blood is tested regularly to make sure that he’s taking the drugs. He’s been on AIDS drugs all his life. He weighs 51 pounds and is about 4 feet tall. Sean is now 13 years old.

During our interview, Dr. Painter of Incarnation Children’s Center told me that there was some good news about HIV. She said, “HIV is no longer a death sentence, it’s a chronic, manageable condition,” – as long as you take the drugs. But Jacklyn Herger (see link below to – “The Nurse’s Story” – part of complete story) and Mona Newberg both successfully treated pediatric AIDS without AIDS drugs. In fact, their children were most sick when the drugs were used. Is their experience valid? Is it reproducible? According to Incarnation Children’s Center, the answer is “Yes.”

From ICC’s published history: “Early in the [AIDS] epidemic, HIV disease of childhood was considered to be a downhill course leading to death. But in the late 1980’s, before AZT was available, many very ill children admitted to ICC got dramatically better with proper nurturing and high quality medical and nursing care.”

ICC successfully treated pediatric AIDS without toxic AIDS drugs. This startling revelation brings to mind a number of questions: Are the drugs necessary? Why are we using them if there are better options? And…

---

What Do We Really Know About HIV?

In July 2003, the esteemed science journal Nature Medicine published an article called “HIV-1 Pathogenesis” by AIDS researcher Mario Stevenson of the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The article was part of its “20 years of AIDS science” special edition.(6)

From the introduction:

“Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated… considerable efforts have gone into identifying the mechanisms by which HIV-1 causes disease, and two major hypotheses have been forwarded.“

According to Stevenson, twenty years and 118 billion dollars in AIDS research (“considerable efforts”), have given no reliable proof as to how HIV might cause disease (“the mechanisms” by which HIV is presumed to be “pathogenic”). While it is always claimed that HIV is proven to cause illness, Stevenson spends the bulk of his review article pouring over what he describes as two “major hypotheses”that try to describe how HIV might work.

In science, a “hypothesis” is an idea or proposal about how something might work. A hypothesis isn’t a fact, it’s a guess that a scientist tries to prove is accurate and true. If a hypothesis fails, it’s discarded, so that new, better, more accurate ideas can be heard.

In the article Stevenson explains that we don’t know how HIV might damage, let alone kill cells, “…it is debatable whether lymphocyte [white blood cell] damage is due to the direct killing of infected cells…” and we don’t have any idea how HIV affects immunity, “…processes contributing to the immune activation state in HIV-1 infection are not well understood…” The HIV hypothesis states absolutely that HIV kills T-Cells, but Stevenson tells us the underpinning of this assertion is still debated.

Stevenson concludes the paper by returning to the main theme – the vast unknowns in HIV science:

“There is a general misconception that more is known about HIV-1 than about any other virus and that all of the important issues regarding HIV-1 biology and pathogenesis have been resolved. On the contrary, what we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface of what needs to be known.”

Stevenson tells us that after 20 years of research into the various HIV hypotheses, we know “a thin veneer,” about HIV’s “biology and pathogenesis,” that is, what HIV might look like, how it might work, and, as such, how – and therefore if – it is responsible for AIDS illnesses. We’re told that it is, but according to Stevenson and “Nature Medicine,”, we don’t have proof

By the standard of “First do no harm”if we don’t know how a molecule works (HIV or any other), then it is unethical to treat any presumed HIV positive person with extraordinarily toxic, and often fatal pharmaceuticals, which the manufacturers themselves admit, do not cure AIDS.

In addition to their long list of serious and potentially fatal side-effects, all major AIDS drugs also bear a version of this printed warning:

“This drug will not cure your HIV infection…Patients receiving antiretroviral therapy may continue to experience opportunistic infections and other complications of HIV disease…Patients should be advised that the long-term effects are unknown at this time.”

What Do HIV Tests Measure?

When you take an HIV test, your blood isn’t tested for a virus, it’s tested for your body’s natural antibody response to the proteins in the HIV test. These proteins are supposed to stand in for HIV.

In order for an antibody test to be clinically meaningful its proteins should accurately represent the proteins of a specific virus or particle.

But the proteins in the HIV test are not derived from purified viral particles, but rather from a variety of leukemia T-Cell cultures, or from synthetic production. A 1993 Bio/Technology paper gives an analysis of the nature of the HIV test proteins, and concludes that the proteins derived from these sources for HIV tests are, in fact, commonly-occurring (16).

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epwbtest.htm

The lack of specificity in the test proteins would seem to logically translate into a lack of specificity in the reaction to the test, but this is rarely addressed in the public conversation about HIV. However, the medical literature on HIV tests does call into sharp question their accuracy and utility. A comprehensive, updated list of citations on the tests can be found at the Albert Reappraising AIDS site: http://www.aras.ab.ca/test.html

All medical research can be challenged and disputed. But there is considerable evidence that the putative HIV test proteins occur commonly in both sick and healthy people. Unfortunately, the scientific community has tended to punish dissent and debate about popular and profitable paradigms like cancer and AIDS research. (For a good introduction to the problem of rigidity in flawed but profitable science, take a look at “The Cancer Industry” by Dr. Ralph Moss – http://www.ralphmoss.com/html/books.shtml

What does HIV-Positive mean?

The HIV test measures antibody response to these proteins. We produce “antibodies” to all the foreign material we encounter – germs, yeast, fungi, bacteria, pollutants, even food. Antibodies are proteins that are produced by our white blood cells to help identify foreign matter in our blood. They “grab” onto the foreign protein so that it can be processed safely.

Antibodies tend to be cross-reactive. That is, one antibody can grab onto a wide variety of proteins. The proteins in the HIV-test are commonly-occurring, and have demonstrated cross-reactions with a wide variety of antibodies. Given the non-specificity of the test proteins, and the variety of reactions to them, it would follow logically that the reaction of HIV tests should also be considered non-specific. It is, however, used as an entirely specific diagnostic tool.

How cross-reactive is the HIV-Test?

According to the medical literature, HIV tests can cross-react with antibodies produced from nearly 70 disease (and non-disease) conditions. These include yeast infections, arthritis, hepatitis, herpes, parasitic infections, drug use, tuberculosis, inoculations, colds and prior pregnancy (1-3). The HIV test is also more reactive with people who are chronically exposed to environmental stressors, bacteria, fungi, parasites and toxins (for example, people living in poverty without sufficient food and clean water, such as in Africa).

If you’ve been exposed to any of these conditions, it is possible that your body will produce antibodies that can react with the HIV test proteins.

Based on the extensive review of HIV tests in the medical literature, the term “HIV-positive” could be seen to have one non-debatable meaning: “Non-specific antibody to commonly-occurring protein-positive.” An HIV-positive test result may help identify patients who have a lot of antibodies in their blood. This might indicate a high historical exposure to illness, which might serve as a warning to better support immune function by improving general health. But a positive HIV test result on its own does not seem to be capable of indicating the absolute diagnosis a terminal, fatal virus or condition.

This is, of course, very different from what we’ve been told about HIV tests for 20 years. But the FDA and the test-makers are legally obligated to state the limitations of their tests. (From HIV test package inserts):

• “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.” (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test – ElA)
• “The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known.” (Genetic Systems HIV Test – Peptide EIA)
• “The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection” (Roche, Amplicor HIV Test – PCR).
• “Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection.” (Epitope, Inc. HIV Test – Western Blot)
• “[Positive test results can occur due to] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions… and other potential nonspecific reactions.” [Vironostika HIV Test, 2003].

The medical literature is also clear about the lack of specificity of HIV tests:

“False-positive ELISA [antibody] test results can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear… The WB [Western Blot antibody test] is not used as a screening tool because… it yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results. ”
Doran TI, Parra E. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Archives of Family Medicine. 2000 Sep/Oct;9:924-9.

“False-positive HIV ELISAs have been observed with serum from patients with a variety of medical conditions unrelated to HIV infection…. False-positive HIV ELISAs [also] occur because of human or technical errors associated with doing the tests or because of antibodies that coincidentally cross-react with HIV or nonviral components in the tests… Notable causes of false-positive reactions have been anti-HLA-DR antibodies that sometimes occur in multiparous [pregnant more than once] women and in multiply transfused patients. Likewise, antibodies to proteins of other viruses have been reported to cross-react with HIV determinants. False-positive HIV ELISAs also have been observed recently in persons who received vaccines for influenza and hepatitis B virus”
Proffitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf Dis Clin North Am. 1993;7:203-19.

Regardless of what the FDA-mandated warnings or the clinical research tells us, these tests are used to tell people that they’re infected with a deadly virus.

The test makers are aware that HIV-positive test results occur because of “prior pregnancy, blood transfusion…and other nonspecific reactions,” “vaccines,” “human or technical errors,” “transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear.” Given all of this cross-reactivity…

How do we know who is really HIV-positive?

The answer to this question has more to do with sociology than science. Lab technicians, doctors and nurses are instructed by the test manufacturers to make this determination subjectively, based on socio-economic and sexual criteria.

The HIV test has two different names for similar or identical reactions: “nonspecific” and “specific.” A “nonspecific reaction” (HIV-negative or indeterminate) is the diagnosis given to people determined to be in the “low-risk group.” A “specific reaction” (HIV-positive) is the diagnosis determined to be in the “high-risk group.”

Social, Sexual and Economic Bias in HIV Testing:

Who are the people in these groups? The “high-risk group,” according to the test manufacturers, consists of “prison inmates, STD clinic patients, inner city hospital emergency room patients… homosexual men [and] intravenous drug users.” The “low-risk group” isn’t defined, but can be assumed to include people outside of poverty situations who are under less social, ethnic and economic stress.

For people in the “high-risk group,” an antibody reaction is more likely to be considered “specific” (HIV positive). However, for the “low-risk group,” the test manufactures state that “nonspecific reactions [HIV negative] may be more common than specific reactions [HIV positive]. (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).”

What makes a “nonspecific” (HIV negative) reaction “more common” [more likely] than a “specific” (HIV positive) reaction in the “low-risk group”?

What makes a “specific” reaction “more common” in the “high-risk group?”

The answer to this question is different from test to test, lab to lab, and country to country. There are no standards for what makes a test “HIV-positive.”

• “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.” (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test – ElA)

The final analysis belongs to the subjective interpretation of the person or institution giving the test. The test manufacturers are telling the lab technicians, doctors and nurses who are reading these tests that it’s acceptable to determine HIV test results based on subjective consideration of an individual’s ethnic, social, sexual and economic status.

• “Both the degree of risk for HIV-1 infection of the person studied and the degree of reactivity of the serum may be of value in interpreting the test” – (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test – EIA)

It is highly unethical to assume that two identical reactions mean different things, based on socio-economic factors and sexual preference, but that seems to be precisely what is being done every day in HIV test labs.

Given the subjective, variable interpretation of HIV tests, how accurate are they at predicting illness? The medical literature makes this very clear:

“Most patients (68 to 89%) from low risk groups who show reactivity on screening tests will have false-positive results… The predictive value of a positive ELISA varies from 2% to 99%….The Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns. ”
Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin Proc. 1988;63:373-9.

“[I]n low prevalence populations the predictive value [of an HIV test] was 11.1%, while in populations with known HIV-1 infection, the predictive value was 97.1%.”
Abbott Laboratories. HIV Antibody Test. April, 1996.

HIV antibody tests are believed to be somewhere between 2% to 99% accurate, depending on a subjective interpretation of your “risk group,” made by whoever is reading your test.

The result of this lack of medical standards is that if you’re Black, Hispanic, poor, using drugs, in prison, gay or pregnant, then a “nonspecific” test result becomes, in essence, a life sentence. You can be put on toxic drugs and your children can be drugged and taken away from you.

The tests being used on Sean, Dana, Elaine and Liz (see “The Nurse’s Story”), as well as thousands of people around the globe, certainly don’t tell us anything about them that we can’t tell by hearing their life stories: they’re poor, Black, Hispanic, pregnant, they’ve used drugs, and they’ve been exposed to stress and illness.

But even if it is assumed that a non-specific antibody reaction actually represents a virus, there’s still a problem. No one knows how HIV works. As Stevenson points out in Nature, no one has proven how HIV infects a cell, let alone how it causes disease, if, indeed, it does. The hypotheses state that HIV is the primary agent responsible for AIDS, but have yet to fundamentally prove that AIDS is a disease with a single cause.

Meanwhile, researchers of note who have posited alternative disease models that more successfully explain the immune suppression that occurs in AIDS patients, have typically been attacked for dissenting from the mainstream, and are actively kept out of the medical discussion. And so, as far as understanding and treating AIDS is concerned, despite “considerable efforts,” we are only permitted to have “two major hypotheses.”

Stevenson concludes his “Nature” article by acknowledging how little is known about HIV. “[W]hat we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface…” But like most AIDS researchers, he remains stuck to the failed hypothesis. In order to understand HIV better, Stevenson writes, “a permissive, small animal model would be a key experimental tool.”

AIDS researchers, failing to prove the HIV hypothesis accurate, have instead clung onto it stubbornly for 20 years, prescribing extraordinarily toxic drugs to patients in spite of the well-documented inaccuracy of the HIV test. According to Stevenson, they haven’t even done the appropriate experiments in animals before inflicting toxic pharmaceuticals onto the general population.

But this doesn’t seem to bother NIAID, the NIH, Genentech, Glaxo, Pfizer, Harlem Hospital, Beth Israel, Columbia Presbyterian, or any of NY hospitals that feed children to ICC. They don’t need an animal model. They do their experiments on children.

Afterword

The treatment of patients at ICC currently violates every one of the ethical standards for medical experiments set out by international courts after World War 2.

• The children at ICC are enrolled in drug trials without their knowledge,
• And without the consent of their parents or guardians.
• The experiments are neither safe nor necessary.
• The drugs used are known to cause disability and death.
• Children who refuse the drugs are force fed, then surgically altered.

Is this acceptable behavior? Or do we need another Nuremberg Trial to remind ourselves how to be civilized?

The experience of Mona, Jacklyn and their childen is not unique. It is mirrored by patients throughout the United States and across the globe who have made sick by the irrational, profit-driven use of dangerous pharmaceuticals. Informed mothers who try to protect their children from deadly drug therapies are labeled renegades, and risk losing their children to state agencies closely aligned with – and even by funded by – the very companies that produce and sell the drugs.

If this is to stop, it will be up to all of us – citizens, scientists, health advocates, activists, mothers, fathers and family members – to bring this to public attention, to protect the rights of these children, and to remind the medical establishment of their sacred oath: “Primum Non Nocere.” First, Do No Harm.

There are organizations dedicated to protecting human rights and preserving medical and social ethics. If you’re disturbed by this story, let them know about it.

Organization	Phone / Fax	Address	Web Address/Email
Amnesty International	T (212) 807-8400/ F (212) 463-9193	322 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10001	www.amnestyusa.org admin-us@aiusa.org
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine	T (202) 686-2210 F (202) 686-2216	5100 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20016	www.pcrm.org pcrm@pcrm.org
Alliance for Human Research Protection		548 Broadway, 3rd floor, New York, NY 10012	http://www.ahrp.org/about/about.html veracare@rcn.com
A.C.L.U. New York	T (212) 344-3005 F (212) 344-3318	125 Broad Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10004	http://www.nyclu.org/ nyclucrc@capital.net
N.A.A.C.P.	T (877) NAACP-98 24 Hour Hotline: T (410) 521-4939	4805 Mt. Hope Drive, Baltimore Maryland 21215	http://www.naacp.org washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org
Public Citizen	T (202) 588-1000	1600 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009	http://www.citizen.org/ hrg1@citizen.org
Prevent Child Abuse New York	T (518) 445-127 T 1-800 CHILDREN F (518) 436-5889	134 S. Swan St. Albany, NY 12210	www.preventchildabuseny.org cdeyss@preventchildabuseny.org

It’s never too late for any doctor to examine what he or she is doing and make a change. Following the leads of Jacklyn Herger and Mona Newberg, we may not only find that a cure for Pediatric AIDS is possible, but that it’s always been possible. We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by exploring these options.

For the sake of the children at ICC, and the children yet to come – Doctors, it’s time for a new hypothesis.

See the ICC picture gallery.

---

References:

1) Giraldo Dr. RA. Everybody Reacts Positive on the ELISA Test for HIV. Continuum (London) 1999; 5(5): 8-10.
2) Giraldo, Dr. RA. Tests for HIV are Highly Inaccurate. Posted during the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel, 2000b. http://www.robertogiraldo.com
3) Johnson C. Is anyone really positive? Continuum (London) April/May 1995.
4) Johnson C. Whose Antibodies are They Anyway? Continuum (London), September/October 1996; 4(3):4-5
5) Johnson C. Factors known to cause false-positive HIV antibody test results. Zenger’s Magazine, San Diego, California; September 1996; 8-9. http://www.virusmyth.net
6) Stevenson, Mario. HIV-1 Pathogenesis. Nature Medicine, HIV Special. July 2003. Vol.9, No. 7. 853-861.
7) Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. The Isolation of HIV: Has it really been achieved? Continuum 1996;4:1s-24s.8.
8) Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. A critical analysis of the evidence for the isolation of HIV. At Website http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epappraisal.htm 1997.
9) Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, et al. Between the Lines. A Critical Analysis of Luc Montagnier’s Interview Answers to Djamel Tahi. Continuum (London) 1997/8; 5(2):35-45.
10) Scheff, Liam – The AIDS Debate – The Most Controversial Story You’ve Never Heard. Boston’s Weekly Dig. May 7, 2003. http://www.altheal.org/texts/liamscheff.htm
11) Lauritsen, John – The AIDS War.
12) Duesberg, P., Koehnlein, C., and Rasnick, D. The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition. J. Biosci., 28: 383-412, 2003.
13) Durack, D. T. Opportunistic infections and Kaposi’s sarcoma in homosexual men. The New England Journal of Medicine, 305: 1465-1467, 1981.
14) Oppenheimer, G. M. Causes, cases, and cohorts: The role of epidemiology in the historical construction of AIDS. In: D. M. Fox
(ed.), AIDS: The Making of a Chronic Disease, pp. 49-83. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
15) Jaffe, H. W., Choi, K., Thomas, P. A., Haverkos, H. W., Auerbach, D. M., Guinan, M. E., Rogers, M. F., Spira, T. J., Darrow, W. W., Kramer, M. A., Friedman, S. M., Monroe, J. M., Friedman-Kien, A. E., Laubenstein, L. J., Marmor, M., Safai, B., Dritz, S. K., Crispi, S. J., Fannin, S. L., Orkwis, J. P., Kelter, A., Rushing, W. R., Thacker, S. B., and Curran, J. W. National case-control study of Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in homosexual men: Part 1, Epidemiologic results. Ann. Intern. Med., 99: 145-151, 1983
16) Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papdimitriou JM. Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection? Bio/Technology 1993;11:696-707.
*) Christine Maggiore: “What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong,” http://www.aliveandwell.org
**) Some Continuum magazines : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/esprit-libre/continuum/continuum.htm

Liam Scheff
liamscheff@yahoo.com

French version / En français : http://www.sidasante.com/journal/maison.htm

---

Read The Nurse’s Story:

Jacklyn Herger is a pediatric AIDS nurse who worked at ICC in the early 90s. In 1996 she began the adoption process for two HIV-positive children from ICC through Catholic Home Bureau In 1998, the girls, Elaine, age six, and Liz, age four, came to live with Herger, her husband and five-year-old daughter as a family. A trained nurse, Herger gave AIDS drugs “by the book.” To her shock and amazement, it was only when she stopped giving the drugs that the girls got better.

---

Latest news!

(Update 14th July 04)

The New York Press, (NYC’s independent weekly) has picked up Liam Scheff’s investigation of Pediatric AIDS medical abuse.

The article reports the facts about AIDS drug toxicity, HIV test non-specificity, and exposes the current practice of force-drugging children who refuse their medication through surgically-implanted stomach tubes (g-tubes).

The paper deserves credit for its courage. The NY Press has a large and active letters page. They will, no doubt, receive their share of “fan mail” from the mainstream for publishing this.

Please let them know that their decision to publish this is appreciated, and important to the health and welfare of people everywhere who are fighting medical tyranny.

So many thanks to the NY Press.

Read “Orphans on Trial“.

---

5th July 2004

In January, 2004, I published “The House That AIDS Built.” The story was picked up by several international papers, including the New York Post and the UK Guardian, and was reprinted throughout the world on the world wide web.

German journalist Torsten Engelbrecht read the story and formulated a series of questions for Columbia Presbyterian, the hospital which presides over ICC. He was answered by a PR firm. The answers were dishonest and unsatisfactory. What follows is a response to and a dissection of their answers using NIH documents, clinical trials, interview material, Medline articles and Department of Health statistics. Given the material provided here, it is clear that the practice of surgical forced-drugging of HIV positive children with toxic compounds is ongoing, in violation of the rights of wards of the state, and must be addressed immediately.

Read the result of this additional research:
“The ICC Investigation Continues.
Hospital PR firm gives insufficient response to ICC Investigation”

---

Patricia Nell Warren, author of fiction bestsellers like The Front Runner, also writes provocative commentary has recently taken up Liam Scheff’s reporting.

Her article “Asking the Questions” is available on http://www.aumag.org/viewfinder/leftMay04.html

What does it mean when a story about possible clinical trial abuses hits the wire, but most news media ignore it? For years, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour has been saying—not on CNN, of course—that courageous reporting is vanishing from the U.S. major media.

---

March 2004.
Phase I Drug Trials Used Foster Care children in Violation of 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56
http://www.ahrp.org/ahrpspeaks/HIVkids0304.html
Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) has called for a Federal investigation into Incarnation Children’s Center, and the NIH’s Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials program. The AHRP letter contends that Federal Regulations regarding the use of children and wards are being violated.

---

April 2004
London Observer/Guardian Confirms “The House That AIDS Built”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1185305,00.html
The incarnation Children’s Center story has again been picked up and validated by another major paper – this time by Antony Barnett of the London Observer.

---

New York Post Confirms “The House That AIDS Built”

Liam Scheff investigated and wrote “The House That AIDS Built” throughout 2003, and web-published it in 2004. In early February, 2004, Douglas Montero, a columnist for the NY Post, contacted Scheff after reading the article. Soon after, the Post printed (stole) Scheff’s article in a tabloid format rewritten by Montero, without a single mention of Scheff.

Two days after the intitial Post cover, Scheff was mentioned in the Post as “a health advocate who investigated ICC and posted his findings on the internet…”

Scheff is indeed a health advocate, but he is also an investigative reporter whose previous work on politics, film and HIV/AIDS has been widely read and praised. Scheff remains hard at work on this and other stories relating to human, medical and civil rights. If you feel so inclined, please contact the NY Post, thanking them for covering this important issue, and reminding them that proper credit should be paid to Scheff and sites like altheal and aras (the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society), who had the courage to post Scheff’s story first, and honestly.

letters@nypost.com

---

Back to Toxicity General index

Cover-Up of Abuse by Social Services and Staff

When a whistle blower comes forward to file a report of abuse on a child detained in the Children’s Home, the ‘cover -up’ runs deep.

A whistle blower, employee for the Children’s home, witnessed a boy getting punched in the face by a staff member and tries tenaciously to report it only to be ignored.  The cover up by Social Services runs deep within the agency, and as a result the employee gets fired.

Still trying to hold someone accountable, his voice continues to fall upon deaf ears, as no one will listen.

SELF DEFENSE AGAINST FALSE ALLEGATONS

By Sandra Ami

We all get caught up in proving we are not guilty, when approached with someone’s possibility of such. Especially when we actually did do nothing wrong, we feel the need to defend ourselves. Well, don’t get caught up in the tangled web of deceit, lies, allegations and accusations. Remember, you have NOTHING to prove.

When pulled over by an officer, even if one comes to your door (including a Social Worker investigating a retaliatory report) never say ANYTHING! It won’t matter if you are innocent or not, these people are not here to “protect you” they are not there to find anything but a reason to write up a report of guilt. So, if you are not guilty, you can almost guarantee you will be when they are done with you.  Watch the video above, as it will explain exactly HOW you can and WILL be found guilty in a court of law.

An officer or anyone carrying a badge’s motto should be:

If at first we don’t deceive, then we try again, till we succeed.