Posts Tagged ‘the buying and selling of our children’

Even the Massachusetts News States “Child Protection is Big Business”

June 8, 2010 1 comment

Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness
DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families
By Nev Moore
Massachusetts News

Child “protection” is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it.

The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more “evaluators”, junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody.

In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to take people’s children – and not give them back.

In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child “Protective” Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a “business” in dealing with children.

Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the “Adoption and Safe Families Act.” The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to “President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed.”

It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to “consider the source.” In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves.

Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business.

Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting…

With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash “bonuses” to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them “adoption incentive bonuses,” to promote the adoption of children.

Where to Find the Children

A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?

The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen.

Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the “care” of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m preaching to the already damned.

The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us.

How DSS Is Helped

The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population.

For every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000.

But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads: “$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year.” In the “technical assistance” section of the bill it states that, “the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care.” The technical assistance is to support “the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights.”

In the November press release from HHS it continues, ” HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system.” Some of the other incentives offered are “innovative grants” to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits.

A report from a private think tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis, reads: “The way the federal government reimburses States rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective care of children.” Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to “link children in foster care with adoptive families.” So we will be able to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don’t find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the “Adopt Shoppe.”

If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS’s quaint “Adoption Fairs,” where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, “Sorry. Just looking.” The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I’m surprised we don’t have government agents breaking down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples you don’t chop down your apple trees.

Benefits for Foster Parents

That covers the goodies the State gets. Now let’s have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized.

After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child. Unless the child can be designated “special needs,” which of course, they all can.

According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, “special needs” may be defined as: “Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and separation would adversely affect the child’s development if not adopted by them.” [But their significant emotional ties with their parents, since birth, never enter the equation.]

Additional “special needs” designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the Children, Boston’s Institute for Children says: “In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to become meaningless.” “Special needs” children may also get an additional Social Security check.

The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and “reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process.” Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services “that may be helpful in keeping the family intact,” including “daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services”. [Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!]

The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the “innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption” section. The subsidy regulations read that “adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family.” What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are.

Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to “negotiate” with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: “We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills.”

I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place? According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases “do not involve child maltreatment.” The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for “deprivation of necessities” due to poverty. So, if the natural parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society.

That’s just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowley’s children on the government home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can buy them.

May is national adoption month. To support “Adoption 2002,” the U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they don’t feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office.

I know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?

A Critical Look At The Foster Care System Incentives to Foster Parents

January 10, 2010 1 comment


While there are many dedicated people willing to open their homes and hearts to children in distress, it can not be denied that financial gain is among a number of significant incentives leading some to become foster parents.

As the number of licensed foster homes has dropped to a low of 100,000 for the nations’ estimated 500,000 foster care children, so has the quality of foster care homes unquestionably diminished over the years.

Judge Judy Sheindlin, supervising judge for the Manhattan Family Court, describes the foster parent typically found today in the New York City foster care system:

The typical foster parent I see is a single woman who has several biological children of her own. She is supported by welfare or social security disability. She is a high school dropout whose own kids are marginally functioning. She does not have the ability to help them with their schoolwork, and she has little hope for a brighter economic or social future.[1]
A 1989 study conducted by the Child Welfare League of America found many foster parents in California to be similarly qualified.
In reviewing a handguide for foster parents, the League suggested adding photographs, drawings and graphics, as: “While some foster families may be college trained, many foster parents may be illiterate or have poorly developed reading skills. The aim should be toward the average foster parents’ reading level.”[2]

Is it any wonder that we find so many foster parents like these when we have programs in place which draw their recruits from the public assistance roles?

One such program is the Michigan Living in Family Environments program, which was developed to link people who are eligible for public assistance with foster children who have developmental disabilities.

Eligible foster parents can earn $22,000 a year plus medical benefits for caring for a developmentally disabled child through the program. In some cases, a family taking an additional such child may be paid a total of $35,000 a year.

One Detroit foster parent had just applied for public assistance when her sister suggested the Life Program. Seeing it as a chance to avoid dependency on the welfare program, she ended up adopting her first foster child. She admits she was drawn to the program by the money.[3]

Hers is counted as a successful story–she ended up adopting her first foster child. But how might the natural mother have fared had she had the benefit of a even a fraction of this income to stay at home to care for her own child?

The Detroit model of foster care recruitment from the public assistance roles is one that has apparently gained some measure of popularity among program administrators.

In answer to a recommendation made by the 1989-90 San Diego Grand Jury, the Chairman of the Social Services Advisory Board suggested that this recruitment model should be adopted in his county as a means of “professionalizing” foster parenting, writing:

Agree that foster parenting should be professionalized and recommend the Detroit example be used as a model. In the Detroit model single mothers on welfare are trained and hired as foster parents and receive a salary. They take 3-4 kids and are not penalized on the welfare side for this job.[4]
These recruitment methods account–at least in part–for the high percentage of single foster parents in the system overall. In Massachusetts, for example, forty-one percent of foster homes are run by single parents, many of whom care for several foster children in addition to their own.[5]
One of the ironies to be found is that a significant percentage of foster care children themselves come from homes headed by single parents.

According to a 1991 U.S. Committee on Ways and Means report, the majority of children in foster care come from families supported by Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and 46 percent of the foster care population are minority children. The majority of these families are headed by single mothers.[6]

A majority of foster children have themselves been removed from their homes not for reasons relating to physical abuse, but rather on the basis of questionable neglect charges, such as “failure to provide adequate supervision,” or “failure to provide an adequate home environment.”

As Denise Plunkett of the Chicago Columbus-Maryville Children’s Reception Center explains, the risk of losing children to the state is something of an occupational hazard for poor mothers: “The finding neglect on a mother’s part is just another word for impoverished. Amongst the other terrors a poor family faces, the state could take your kid.”[7]

Brenda Austin-Thomas is one such single mother. She lost her four children largely because social workers determined that they needed “discipline, structure, routine, a sense of limits.” Among Brenda’s other alleged shortcomings was that she failed to fully avail herself of the “services” offered to her by the Massachusetts Department of Social Services.

“You’re not a bad mother, but you could have avoided all this by working with us,” the social worker told her after taking her children.

Brenda insisted she was doing a good job as a single mother of four active children: “I can’t be everywhere, see everything.”[8]

Brenda’s situation is by no means unique. According to the Massachusetts Research, Evaluation and Planning Unit Annual Report, in 1990, of all supported abuse investigations in Boston and Brookline, 72 percent involved neglect. In other areas of the state about 65 percent involved neglect. The majority of the cases in Boston involved single-parent families.[9]

Single foster parents are not all single woman, nor is financial gain necessarily the only incentive for taking children into care. In 1995, a 24-year-old man described as an “unemployed bachelor” was indicted for raping one of his foster sons.

Raul Vasquez, along with his mother, had served as a foster parent since 1992 to 51 children. The Massachusetts Department of Social Services had somehow managed to overlook the fact that nine of these children had run away from their foster home.[10]

The problems associated with foster care placement are by no means unique to homes with single foster parents. And, in some cases, the payments made to foster parents may indeed be well deserved.

Foster mother Doris Marshall received $85,879 from the Massachusetts Department of Social Services in 1994. She cares for eight needy foster and adoptive children. One of her foster children has only the stem of a brain, cannot move and needs to be fed through a tube. Another has a rare chromosome disorder and, at the age of 5, cannot speak or walk. A third child has Down’s syndrome. A fourth child was born drug addicted, and with a bone disorder.

This is the finest face of foster care. These children have true special needs, and they apparently are in a loving home with a foster mother who truly gives of herself for the benefit of the children in her care. And, the payments to foster parents are often much lower than the payments made to group homes or “therapeutic” facilities would be.

It must be emphasized that there are many caring and dedicated foster parents in the system. But, just as there is extreme variability to be found among caseworkers, managers, judges, and the many other actors in the child welfare system, there is extreme variability in the quality of foster care homes.

“Foster care is like Russian Roulette,” explained a former New York City child protective caseworker, adding that any given foster home could well be “100 percent worse” than the home from which a child had been removed.[11]

Standng in contrast to the ideal image of foster mother Doris Marshall, a Boston Globe review of payments made to foster parents in 1994 included accounts of these troubling cases:

Hazel and Pierre Cetoute, in whose home 3-year-old Gage Guillen died under mysterious circumstances, received $26,510 in fiscal year 1994, according to Department of Social Services records. At the time of the incident, the family was caring for four foster children and two adopted children.

Barbara and Michael Ohanian of Medway, in whose home a foster baby died of heat stroke after being left in the family car, received $24,837 in fiscal year 1994. The family had four foster children with medical problems, as well as four birth children at the time of the incident.

Carmen Torres, in whose home 13-month-old Luis Perez was apparently scalded so severely by an older foster child that he later died of complications, received $8,510 from the Department in fiscal year 1994. Torres had five foster children in her care at the time of the accident.

Raul Vasquez, the 24-year-old “unemployed bachelor” accused of raping one of his foster sons, was, along with his mother, receiving $5,000 a month, or $60,000 a year, to care for 10 boys in two adjoining apartments.

Massachusetts state Senator Therese Murray (D-Plymouth), vice chairwoman of the Senate Post Audit and Oversight Committee, explains that “in certain towns,” foster care “is a cottage industry.” But the foster parents she knows, she adds, “are not in it for the money. They deserve more money.”[12]
As former Congressman Mario Biaggi, who held a lengthy series of hearings investigating the foster care industry in New York City during the 1970s explained: “The fact is that foster care parents, to a large extent, take the children to make money, pure and simple. They may have with it a desire–a love for children, but that doesn’t always necessarily follow.”[13]

A California Grand Jury investigating Nevada County’s foster care system came to a strikingly similar conclusion:

Some adults become foster parents for no other incentive than the money to be derived from foster-child payments. This is a known fact and accepted by CPS and the State.
“Once these families receive their monthly payments,” the Jury explains, “no accounting for how the funds are used is actually required in most cases.”[14]


In California, a San Diego County Grand Jury interviewed attorneys, physicians, specialists in child development, caseworkers and investigators, all of whom worked with foster children in one capacity or another.

The Grand Jury determined that by all accounts, “the most troublesome problem for the system is foster parents screening children for the ‘right’ one to adopt.” It found that some foster parents who hope to adopt may “sift” through a number of children until they find the one they want.

In one case the Jury examined, legal counsel informed the Jury that the foster mother admitted that she was holding her foster care license only until the family found a “baby sister.” The Hispanic natural mother of the baby girl who was placed in this home tried to visit her baby, but the foster mother frustrated the visitation efforts, instructing the caseworker not to transport the mother to the foster home.

In another case with what the Grand Jury described as “a bizarre twist,” the foster parents believed the foster child was “too white to be Hispanic,” and changed the baby’s name to an English one as part of the process of making this child a permanent part of the family.[15]

Another California Grand Jury, based in Santa Clara, examined the “Fost-adopt” program, reaching the same conclusions as its counterpart in San Diego:

One of the most controversial programs in the Social Services Agency involving child welfare services is the Fost-adopt Program. There is even controversy as to which children are selected for the program. These children are referred to as “marketable children,” meaning they are young and cute.
One case reviewed by the Jury involved a parent who worked, against all odds, to complete satisfactorily her reunification plan. Had it not been for the tenacity of a very strong, highly principled and sensitive social worker and her supervisor, a child would have been adopted by fost-adopt parents even though the birth parent had met all of the reunification goals.
“The social worker put her job in jeopardy and refused to be intimidated by administrators within the department, the court-appointed evaluator, and the district attorney’s office,” notes the report.

“It was obvious that DFCS managers and members of a private family agency intended to circumvent the positive reunification results and to allow the fost-adopt parents to adopt the child. This was only one of several instances in which the integrity of the department and adherence to its mission appear to be questionable.”[16]

In another case, a San Diego County social worker had discussed a particular child with her own sister before the child was even born.

Some time after the child’s birth, social worker Debbie Reid steered the girl into her sister’s home, even though–contrary to court order–she wasn’t even licensed to provide foster care. The pair had obtained an “emergency certificate” to accept the child, getting the formal license later.

The girl’s natural mother had herself been raised in the foster care system, and Debbie Reid was her social worker. County officials were aware of all this, but kept it from the court for almost two years.

The father, determined to get his daughter back, over the course of about 18 months managed successfully to complete his mandated reunification plan. His attorney, a veteran of 260 juvenile court cases, said he’d never had a client comply so fully.

The legal battle that developed dragged on into late 1989, when a court finally declared a mistrial. In March of 1990, a second Juvenile Court referee ruled that the girl, by then 3, should live with her natural father.

Around this point, allegations of sexual abuse were raised against the father. These allegations were determined to be without merit.

The father’s attorney, enraged by the efforts of the County to prevent the reunification of father and daughter, called it a case of government-sanctioned child-stealing, and he tried to get the show “60 Minutes” to investigate the case.

A year later, apparently not yet content with the harm it had done, the County petitioned for yet another hearing. A third referee this time ruled that the girl should be returned to her foster parents.

The father was forced to appeal. The Court of Appeal sided with him, saying that the girl’s bonding with the foster family cannot override the constitutional rights of her father.

The foster parents were apparently dissatisfied with this outcome. They asked the state Supreme Court to intervene to stop the girl’s return to her father. Joining in the appeal was the County, the girl’s court-appointed attorney, and Voices for Children, an advocacy group which typically supports the rights of prospective adoptive parents over the rights of natural parents in such cases.

By this time, the girl was six years old, and in therapy to help her deal with the uncertainty with which she was living. She could have been spared much of this needless trauma had the County followed its mandate and returned her to her father at the first avalable opportunity.[17]

The problem is not isolated to California.

A Washington state legislative study of the Division of Children and Family Services found that “most individual foster families will accept only children meeting their specific criteria. DCFS personnel estimate that 50 percent of licensed foster families are interested in serving only a specific child or sibling group. Others have a primary interest in adoptive children.”[18]

In Nebraska, Jasmine Petty left her baby in the care of a friend’s sister to pick up her boyfriend in Kansas City, Missouri.

She was to return home four days later, but the car she was driving broke down in Omaha on the way home. As she had no money with her, it took her about a week to get home.

Her judgement in leaving baby Angelaura behind proved to be sound. “I didn’t want to endanger my daughter’s life by taking her with me to Kansas City,” she said. “The car I took wasn’t in real good condition; so to be safe, I left her with my friend’s sister.”

For unknown reasons, rather than calling Jasmine’s mother as directed, the babysitter instead took Angelaura to the Hall County Sheriff’s Department. Angelaura was in turn handed over to the state Department of Social Services in Grand Island, and placed with an unlicensed foster parent who happened to be an employee of the Department of Social Services.

While Department procedures require that placement with a relative should be considered, the Department refused requests by Jasmine’s mother and some other relatives to place Angelaura with them, even though the relatives held valid foster care licenses.

Jasmine and others met with DSS Director Don Leuenberger in Lincoln to discuss the case. Leuenberger admitted that a case worker had made errors in the placement of Angelaura, but said there was little he could do–that it was now up to the courts to decide.

The case was investigated by officials of the Nebraska Department of Social Services. The state Foster Care Review Board also examined the case, finding that some violations of departmental policy had, indeed, taken place.

After two years of struggling to get her baby back, her parental rights to Angelaura were terminated in April of 1995 by a Hall County Court judge.

According to an article in the Omaha World-Herald, eight cases were reported in Nebraska in which a child has been turned over to a foster parent who also was an employee of DSS.

Jasmine’s case has received a great deal of media attention. She said she doesn’t mind being pointed out as an example of a mother whose child was taken and placed with a DSS employee.

“But that still doesn’t help me,” Jasmine told reporters. “I just want my baby back.”[19]


While the definition of “special-needs” is as unclear as are the definitions of child abuse and neglect, the term generally includes a child born to a drug addicted mother, one who lacked prenatal care, or a child with a physical or psychological handicap. The term may also include a child that is difficult to place, for reasons of age, handicap or ethnicity.

The rates for special-needs children can be a high as $2000 per child, according to Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan. At these rates, foster parents with two such children in the home can expect approximately $48,000 of annual tax-free income.[20]

The 1991-92 San Diego Grand Jury confirmed that: “some foster parents improperly claim that a child needs special care in order to increase the amount of money coming into the home.”

The Grand Jury found that some foster parents would claim that children needed treatment or therapy to obtain these increased payments, and that these payments were often retained by some foster parents who provided only marginal care for these children.[21]

But there is another side to this story as well. The San Diego Union-Tribune describes the conditions found in the Hillcrest Receiving Home in 1994. Such facilities are paid substantially higher rates than are foster parents who provide individualized care:

The cramped conditions at Hillcrest Receiving Home, which temporarily houses abused and neglected children who have been removed from their homes, are deplorable. That a facility designed for 39 has had as many as 82 children, many sleeping in cribs lining the hallways, is a sad commentary.
Notes the Union-Tribune: “Prisoners are released early due to overcrowded conditions, yet when it comes to abused children, our community shows far less compassion. Unlike jails, there isn’t even a court-set cap on the capacity of children’s shelters.”

To one child, the cramped conditions were so traumatic a court order was obtained to remove her from Hillcrest to a relative’s home. And many foster parents were arguing that additional payments for children with true special needs were becoming more difficult to obtain, while children piled up in such facilities.[22]

In South Carolina, a recent audit reveals similar trends. The audit identified discrepancies in “accelerated board payments” to foster parents. These are payments in addition to regular rates paid to foster parents with a child who has special behavioral or medical needs.

It was found that these accelerated payments to foster parents, once started, may continue for years. The auditors felt that agencies found it difficult to terminate these payments to foster parents with whom the agencies work closely.

It was also determined that the Department of Social Services has inadequate controls to ensure that accelerated board rate payments are appropriate, and, in the majority of the cases reviewed, it was found that the amount requested by the county was equal to the maximum amount granted by the state.

But there is another side to this story as well. In South Carolina, 73 percent of foster care children are in regular foster homes, yet these placements consume only 15 percent of the foster care budget. The audit found that 85 percent of foster care expenditures went to cover the costs of the special need placements in therapeutic and residential treatment centers.

The audit reported that these residential treatment centers can cost more than $10,000 per month. The auditors determined that at least 15% of these placements were questionable or inappropriate. It was also determined that children are often placed in such facilities by county agencies because there is a shortage of “regular” foster homes available.

A significant percentage of these special care placements will result in children being labeled as emotionally disturbed throughout their lifetimes, yet the audit found that at least 11% of the children placed in these treatment centers had no emotional problems, and that they had been so classified for purposes of placement in these facilities.[23]

While it may be true, as the San Diego report would suggest, that some foster parents may know how to navigate the system for additional payments, and that some foster parents are considered as “favored” by some agencies, a disproportionate amount of expenditures continue to be provided to private foster care agencies.

As Benjamin Wolf, director of the Children’s Initiative Project of the ACLU’s Roger Baldwin Foundation, which won a far-ranging consent decree agains the Illinois child welfare system explains:

DCFS receives one billion dollars a year–how do they account for it? Foster mothers are paid $15 per day to feed and clothe kids, but residential treatment costs $300 per day. Why is it that the guy who runs an institution is paid $150-200 per day, but a foster mother doesn’t receive that much in a week to feed the child? If we paid the foster mother, we could find adequate homes.[24]

Copyright © 1996 – 2003 Rick Thoma

More Facts about CPS Buying and Selling Our Children

January 9, 2010 16 comments

Topic: Constitutional Issues
The Business of Child Stealing in Florida

American taxpayers fund a racket that wrenches the stomach. That is CPS. Some of those involved claim their are just following orders, others just pocket the bounty on children wrenched from their parent’s arms. Nuremberg answered the question of orders; profiting from human trafficking should be a capital offense.
by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
Saturday, June 28, 2008

Under 5 years, blond, blue-eyed – $6,000.00. a top of the line product

We are going to take you behind the lies into the ugly truth that is destroying families for profit every day, in every community across America. You won’t want to believe it but when you see their faces, hear their voices, you will understand why this is happening and what it means to your own life, even if you don’t have children.

The same system that views children as commodities to be sold also has plans for you. There is a solution and we will get to that.

The CPS steals children using the system paid for by citizens who believe it is being used to protect those in need. That is a fraud; the system actually pumps money into the personal accounts of all those involved in the system, converting children into cash while destroying them and their families. The number of children who emerge from the system, able to function normally, are near zero. Some are never seen again.

The system used includes three stages. The first phase is to shock and intimidate the parents into consenting to let their children be processed into the system. The second phase is to force parents, terrified for their children, to begin a process of ‘case management.’ That process is a template that is designed to push the parents into emotional meltdown and bankruptcy. The third phase is to sever the parental rights entirely and sell the children.

In the wake of this trauma families are atomized, destroyed. Parents and grandparents never again see the children who connect them to the future. Children lose their past and the anchoring each of us needs to develop into a healthy human being.

Those who carry the process through the stages are well compensated. Agents, Case workers, judges, physicians, clerks, and others expect and receive compensation for services often not even delivered. Compensation takes place through corporations. State employees who fail to take children out of homes are penalized; many of these leave the system which has been converted from a system originally intended to help families to one that profits those in control.

Across the country, CPS experienced high turn overs in case workers struggling under impossible work loads for many years. Good people, motivated to help struggling families were frustrated and unable to help; those are the kinds of caseworkers who simply quit. Cases of extreme abuse while children were in foster care were common. Nothing about the system gave cause for hope it was working. Then the picture changed. The idea that instead of providing services the system as a whole should move to the model of generating income took hold as the concept of privatization was widely adopted by government. Privatization, introduced during the Reagan Years, was pushed by think tanks that saw government, a corporation itself, as the logical partner for other large corporate interests. Children, roads, military services, each of these and more were recalibrated to provide income to those in control. In this way, the problem with social services created an opening that in the late 1990s allowed the least ethical to profit from the pain of others.

PL 105-89 (HR 867), passed into law November 19, 1997, was intended to ensure that children who could not be reunited with their birth families could be placed in loving homes. But those entrusted to carry out the desperately needed changes found the measure enabled a very different agenda. CPS agents and caseworkers could be trained to look at their industry as a profit center. The system began to view children as product to be harvested and parents as barriers to be demolished.

The system became a template for kidnapping, carried out by barely educated caseworkers who were told that they made the law. This itself had become a tenet of belief held by those in power as the foundations of Constitutional law continued to be eroded by a judiciary who graduated from law school ignorant of America’s foundational documents. The shift from Constitutional law to statute and whim of court, low-level government employee, and law enforcement is documented in “The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook,” published by the National Center for State Courts in1999.

The stage was set and the feeding frenzy was about to begin.

The process goes through three stages of slow death; ripped from their families the children are bewildered, afraid, vulnerable to the system. The process hinges on secrecy and an asserted immunity from accountability for all involved. Power, through the official but unacknowledged transfer from the Constitution to government by statute, code and whim, renders all of those outside government vulnerable. Caught in that process parents lose track of all the things that brought happiness and normality to their lives. Years later this will mark them. Most will never recover.

This is the story of three families. Each of their stories is still in motion because the pain never stops.

Stage One

Manatee County, Florida has long made a business of stealing children. Families who settle there do not know that, however. They are attracted to the weather, the beauty of the area. If they knew they would never settle anyplace in Florida, which is arguably has the most corrupt CPS system in the nation. The County is run by a Board of Commissioners who meet at this well polished table.

Children are a commodity for which there is a steady and growing market both in the United States and across the world. Child sex-slaves arrive in Europe and elsewhere from unspecified locations; children taken from homes routinely end up in the porn industry. It has been going on for many years but since it did not impact most of us it was easy to ignore. But as counties across the country have cycled down into bankruptcy the need to pump harder for every buck to be made has become more compelling. Today it is not just the most vulnerable who are targeted but families that would before have been passed over as too well connected. In Manatee County the pumping is in fast forward.

Monday, June 2nd 2008

The two young sons of the Roberts were dropped off at the home of their babysitter, Christina Holbrook, residence11534 57th Street Circle East, Parrish, Florida. Both parents work. Michelle and James Roberts are both veterans of the US Navy who met while in service to their country. Both came from families with long and honorable histories of serving in the military.

Their oldest son, had been disciplined by his father the day before for jumping up and down on his baby brother, a potentially life-threatening activity. Spanking was the kind of discipline James himself experienced as a child growing up in Tennessee. The spanking had left a slight bruise.

CPS arrived at the babysitter’s home at 9:30am. They proceeded to strip the two boys and photograph them in the nude, questioning them for an hour. This was a bewildering and frightening experience for the boys.

The first James and Michelle heard of this was when Michelle received a phone call at 3:30pm from Alicia Habib. Habib presented herself as an agent for Child Protective Services, demanding that the couple present themselves for an ‘interview’. No criminal complaint was presented. But the process of intimidation and fear was launched.

Here, Michelle and James find out, to their shock, that the kids have been stripped and photographed. Left feeling as if the ground had been cut out from under them they endured with shock the moment when the deputy sheriff read James his Miranda rights. He was not charged; no criminal complaint was served. Michelle is interviewed. They are given orders. Michelle is to be present when James saw their children. CPS is moving towards building paperwork to take the children away from their parents.

During the interview they were shown the photos taken of their naked children by the deputy. The children’s faces were frozen in tears. He did not show them all the photos, keeping them under the paperwork. Michelle found his behavior intimidating. As the photos were shown he questioned her about their use of discipline.

Soon Michelle and James will realize that the CPS has no power unless they give it to them. CPS depends on the ignorance of ordinary people. The first phase had begun.

The system ground them out fine; dehumanizing them and working with fine-tuned intention to show them, by its actions, that they had no rights and no recourse. At the end of the week a hearing was set; they were now being launched into the second phase of the process that intended to wrest their children from them. But during those endless days they began to come out of the shock and consider their alternatives. They considered the Constitution and the rights they knew they had both sworn to defend as members of the armed forces of America.

Michelle loaded the two boys in their car and drove them hundreds of miles to the town where James had grown up. There, she left them with their great-grandparents. When you are seven months pregnant no long drive is comfortable, but for her children Michelle would risk anything.

In the car she prayed that she would not miscarry the baby held so close to her heart.

The two young parents are both veterans of the War in Iraq. Each had joined the Navy, after looking forward to serving their country from their early teems. She planned this as her career, since 7th Grade. He, since taking in ROTC in High School.

But they had joined a military that they believed cared for its own and kept its promises; after finding that their small son would be have to be left with someone else while both served in the war zone, they resigned. Their son, Lukas, was born the following October.

Now, they knew what the military is about. To them, they were just bodies to fill slots that civilians could fill at twice the pay. Never previously interested in politics they began to think about how the world was being run.

From the time you join you are told he is your commander and chief. She was not a Bush fan, but you cannot say it without fear of reprisal.

But Florida CPS was not finished with them. Although they did not know it, Habib stood to make nearly $10,000 as her bounty for taking the children, both very adoptable, from their home.

They never could have imagined that the elderly great-grand-parents would be threatened with arrest, but that is what happened. They began studying the Constitution; This, they knew was the real law in America. If they understood it they could use it.

Now they understand that they should never have talked to CPS. If they had not, CPS would have had to leave them alone. CPS uses fear and intimidation to force the appearance that there they have entered into a ‘contract’ with parents. But since a valid contract cannot exist without the elements of disclosure, consent, and equitable exchange this is a fraud. All parents get is bankruptcy, heartbreak, and too often death.

The Case Plan Ploy – Adam Umholtz

Adam comes from a family that lived in a log cabin in Pennsylvania. The cabin was 230 years old. Made of chestnut beams that are from a species that is not extinct the beams were hand hewed and rectangular and criss crossed. Adam’s dad was a pastor for the Southern Home Mission Board. Adam’s younger brother was born there, in the horseshoe shaped valley that was filled with berry bushes and food they grew themselves.

Adam went to school at the Advanced Training Institute of America, now the ATI. Now he is an entrepreneur, or was until his life and family was hijacked by the CPS. Adam’s children were taken from him and his wife on Monday, July 28th, 2007. They were given a case plan that it was impossible to fulfill.

As part of the 72 goals laid out in the plan was one requirement that Adam attend a class for sexual offenders who had served time in prison. This was impossible for Adam to do. Adam is attending a study on successful parents and couples, a study in which he and his wife were invited to participate. Both parents are strong Christians who take their faith seriously. Neither parent has ever been to prison for any cause, much less a sexual offense. The charges were falsified made by a neighbor who was later charged with having committed a sexual offense themselves.

Adam cannot attend the classes available because he has never been to prison and has never been a sexual offender. He is not eligible for the class in any case. So the court told Adam to confess to a crime he did not commit to get his kids back. The court has an agenda. If Adam confesses they have a clear track for severing his parental rights. The lack of justice does not bother the court or the attorney who has urged him to confess to a crime he did not commit. They are all paid through the process that steals children for resale.

Parents are routinely told that to ‘complete their case plan’ they must fulfill requirements that force them to leave jobs that prevent them from attending classes scheduled from 9 – 5 on work days. They are told they cannot be self employed. Every possible block is put in their paths to complete a ‘requirement’ that is pointless in any case. The same pattern is reported by parents across the United States. Angelina Alexander, a parent in California was told she must quit her job as a taxi driver because she was self employed. Yet she had taken the job, the only one she could find, to fulfill the requirements to attend classes. In her case the report that took her small son from her home was from a former boyfriend who had never seen the child. Complaints that the charge was false were ignored as her processing continued.

Mainstream Americans are at risk today and have no idea what is coming. In Adam’s case the CPS had targeted the kids because they were homeschooling and because they had building materials in the back yard. Then a malicious neighbor, made sexual allegations. The neighbor was later proven to have lied.

But the fact that all the ‘charges’ were illegal did not stop them from forcing you to undertake the ‘Case Plan.’ There were no charges but they had already taken their eight children out of the home. If the family had known they would have refused to talk to CPS.

Adam and his wife are now approaching bankruptcy although they are better off than many couples because at least they do not have to hide to keep the child still living with them. Most parents face the same problem. Attempts to fulfill the case plan make it impossible to earn a living or are impossible to fulfill. There are no charges. There have been no charges. There will be no charges. As with most couples, they force the father to leave so that they will have a clear shot at grabbing the children from the mother.

CPS has continuously made false allegations, added their youngest child, born after they took the original eight children, to the present case, and over and over ignored the orders of the court. One of their daughters in foster care is suffering from a wound on her foot, acquired in the foster home, for which she is receiving no treatment. The wound continues to fester and they can do nothing.

Although there are no charges Adam and his wife are allowed to see the kids only two hours a week with supervision. And the court continues to threaten to sever their parental rights. Adam does not intend to let that happen.

Adam and his wife are considering their options now that they understand the fraud that has been perpetrated. Those options are growing, along with their understanding of the Constitution and how the system in place has worked to negate their rights.

Phase Three – Severing Parental Rights

Greg Pound and his wife, Malissa, had their parental rights severed in November of 2007. The incident that brought CPS into their lives was a simple accident. A friend’s dog visiting their home bit their baby. It could have happened to anyone; the dog’s owner was desperately sorry, the dog had never harmed anyone before. Accidents happen. There was a time when an accident was treated with offers of assistance, not viewed as the means for grabbing children from their parents and their home. But that was before those in power noticed the opportunity PL 105-89 (HR 867) offered them.

For four years the Pounds saw their children for just two hours a month. Looking at the children, across the barriers built by CPS always reduced them to tears.

The last time the Pounds saw their children was at the YMCA in Pinellas County. That ‘not for profit’ is paid 125 million a year, just for that county, according to Pound who says he has researched the subject exhaustively, to ‘babysit’ kids as they meet their parents in a stark ten by twelve foot room for the two hours they are allowed to be together for those months when they still hoped to be reunited.

The system is intended to separate children, a valuable commodity, from their parents. Mandates to reunite children and parents are consistently ignored as children are processed further and further into the system. What then happens to the children varies, but is in all cases appalling.

Along with the system abuse of families parents attempting to work in the system report that FOIA requests on such routine matters as copies of the Oath of Office and bonds, required by the Constitution, for each judge or elected official or law enforcement officer, are not produced, despite repeated requests. Many ask, over and over again, why such requests should be met with silence and hostility. Parents continue to struggle to regain custody of their children and to exact accountability from those who claim sovereign immunity as government employees from the impact of their acts on ordinary Americans. The claim of sovereign immunity for those employed by government is, according to Constitutional experts such as not employed by government entirely without foundation.

The three families whose cases appear here each report that they will never stop fighting. Each family is presently filing a civil rights suit against those involved in their several cases. In light of yesterday’s revelation on child-sex rings, operating across the United States but very present in their own areas of Florida, their questions are ever more anguished as they deal with the echoing emptiness of homes that once held the laughter of children.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
38 thumbs so far

Socially Bookmark this article! BlinkList Blogmarks Bloglines Buddymarks CiteUlike Digg It Diigo DZone Ekstreme Google Gravee ISEdb Linkagogo Linkroll Mr. Wong Netvouz Newsvine Onlywire PlugIM reddit Segnalo Simpy Sphinn Squidoo StumbleUpon tagtooga TalkDigger Technorati Yahoo MyWeb
©2008 Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, June 28, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, June 28, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Melinda Pillsbury-Foster only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster of Nolan Chart LLC’s terms of use policy.

More Articles By Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

Be A Columnist
Tell A Friend About This Article
Leave A Comment

Reader Comments:

Posted By: Leonard Henderson
Date: 2008-06-28 14:58:42


S. 3038 is the renewal of ASFA ’97, the act that gives the states BILLION$ to kidnap and adopt out children on the flimsiest anonymous allegation, even known malicious false accusations.

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (PL 105-89), also widely known as ASFA ’97 was the program designed to promote and increase the number of adoptions from foster care by rewarding states that increased adoptions each year.

ASFA ’97 sunsets on September 30, 2008.

In the Senate RIGHT NOW is the re authorization-

Improved Adoption Incentives and Relative Guardianship Support Act of 2008 (S. 3038)

Contact your Senators TODAY! Tell them NO on S.3038 and to END the War on Families.


See full Press Release
Report violation


Posted By: David S
Date: 2008-06-28 15:33:55

If anyone comes to kidnap your chilren, shoot the bastards.
Report violation


Posted By: The Melinda
Date: 2008-06-28 17:22:42

Thanks to Leonard Henderson for continuing the dialogue on solutions!

Most people have a hard time believing that the system can be so corrupt. It takes time for them to believe it. In the beginning there is a lot of shock and disbelief. One of the things we are doing with CopperCards is beginning the educational process early, before there is a problem, and giving people the tools to assert their Constitutional rights. If we all did that we would be free.

Report violation


Posted By: Leonard Henderson
Date: 2008-06-28 17:54:58

Melinda! One of our AFRA Newshawks “discovered” you today. Please email me.

American Family Rights Association

Report violation


Posted By: STARR
Date: 2008-06-28 18:22:20

That is exactly why i left florida. After i fought and won 6 years ago thanks to leanords help . I was gone … Couldnt pay me to go back to florida .

Report violation


Posted By: Susan Fretwell
Date: 2008-06-28 18:34:52

That article is totally right on! Same thing happened to my family, only I’m here in Corrupt Fremont County CO, also the most corrupt, vile place on Earth. Here is a recap of my story:

The Fremont County Colorado DHS stole my 3 children from my husband and I over a year ago and gave them to my lesbian mother and her ‘partner’. I do have an attorney, but he isn’t doing much. I don’t want my kids raised in a lesbian household. I was and I have severe depression and anxiety! I was also physically abused by some of my mother’s many ‘lovers’. Also the judge involved in this case is a known lesbian and there are many lesbians in this corrupt county. The Social Services caseworker didn’t even let me see my kids for Easter or take them to church,when I have NEVER been accused of abusing them! My case is based on the fact that my son, who was 2 at the time, was left outside for a mere 30 seconds, and a nosey neighbor called The Fremont County CO Dept.of Human Services. It took them 6 months (with plenty of ‘help’ from my mother and her partner) to invent a case against us. In April of 2007, my attorney has informed my husband and I that the children’s Guardian Ad Litem had hired a private investigator who had supposedly seen my husband drinking. Is this even legal? This is pushing the boundaries of government spying to a new level! One of our ‘caseworkers’ also distorted, I mean reported, that she had seen my husband drinking at the bowling alley (he bowls every Monday night). Our case is only a dependancy/neglect. I feel that the government is taking this way too far. Our caseworker is also friends with my mother & her ‘partner’. She has been over to their house on social visits and even admits to that. That is a big time conflict of interest, but I reported her to the State Board in Denver, who just sent the complaint back to DHS here in this county, who of course, found nothing wrong! I attended the rally in Washington DC on August 18 to help put an end to abuses by Child Protective Services!

Report violation


Posted By: Susan Fretwell
Date: 2008-06-28 18:47:30

CPS also gave us major hoops to jump through, which we did! This included: a psych evaluation for me (done, of course, by one of their paid ‘specialists’ who said I have ‘borderline personality disorder’…I have been diagnosed with depression and anxiety in the past, never with that!), drug & alcohol testing for myself & my husband (I have NEVER had a substance abuse problem!), counseling, which CPS had access to PRIVATE sessions, dumb me, I thought there were HIPPA laws, but they don’t apply when CPS are involved, parenting classes (very LAME), drug & alcohol classes for my husband, random UA testing for my husband (which were all NEGATIVE). I think that was about it.

The real stab in the heart was the snatching of my baby as soon as she was born. They wanted to pimp her out for adoption! This was done under the speculation that there ‘might be abuse’. Well, there was NEVER any abuse to begin with. Just a very flimsy neglect case that would not hold up in a real court! My mother & her partner fueled this case with their lies and false allegations, which CPS believed. My poor baby daughter is raised by my mother & her partner. MY mom’s ‘partner’ has developed an unnatural bond with this child which I find disturbing. My poor son is always put in time-out, and they let him dress as a princess last Halloween. My attorney (whom we PAID out of pocket) was totally incompetent, and we found out later that he works as a GAL for DHS here. Everybody was against us. I’m moving to another state next month to try to obtain a different lawyer to get our children back home where we love them & they need to be!

Report violation


Posted By: david w hopkins
Date: 2008-06-29 17:21:19

Yes i have a 5 yr old autistic son that was taking off on his bicycle to the local city park.We had called the department of children services for information on how to get testing paid for because the state insurance we have wouldnt pay for it.The case worker came to our home to meet jacob.We had left her alone with him for a minute at the kitchen table as our girls 6 and 9 were getting off the school bus. When we came back in the house she was sitting alone at the table. I asked where jacob was and she said she didnt know. He had gone out the back door to the back yard and had gotten on his bike and was gone again.At that point are oldest daughter and our grandson had showed up .We was all looking for him .My wife called 911 my daughter myself and the caseworker eva hoffman was on foot and in are vehicles looking for him. Officer dan rosegarner had found him and returned to the house.The caseworker said that she would help and that she would have some people contact us to give us info on how to get him tested and or evaluated in the next couple of days. Nobody came or called meanwhile we had taken his bike and installed alarms on the windows and doors as well as putting a tracker on his shoes.A couple of weeks went by and we had called numerous times to find out when the help was coming be4cause he kept on taking off . The dAY SHE WAS HERE SHE SAID WE NEEDED TO CALL 911 WHEN HE TAKES OFF TO PROTECT OURSEVES. Then she came to the house with a form for us to sign . It was an informal adjustment that she said would enable them to help with financing doctors to evaluate jacob. I said i wasnt signing anything without a lawyer but she said it was just a formality to enable the finances of the doctors and i didnt need a lawyer.Five weeks went by and nobody called or showed up.We had called every day leaving voice mails that were unanswered nobody returned our calls. Then on may 29th we was cooking outside on the grill and all the kids were playing and jacob got on the neighbers bike and went around the corner. i went the other way to cut him off at the pass so to speak. There was an officer around the corner with a car pulled over he then followed jacob back to the house. This time there was no 911 call involved. The next thing we knew there was a lady named mischell rudolph at the door to remove jacob from our home.The very next day we had to be at a hearing at the courthouse.The judge ruled with them to keep him in foster care till he knew more.Allthough we did show up with a lawyer who used to be the dcs attorney for the same office. The following tuesday we had another court appearance and the lawyer had all the so called child in need of services ammended down to a lack of so called supervision.Then we had supervised visits with jacob at the dcs office monday wednesdays and fridays for the next two weeks. During these visits jacob was starved he ate three apples four banannas abag of chips a candy bar and a six peice mcnugget and wanted to bag up yhe rest to take.We found out that there was seven children three bewing teenage boys staying in the two bedroom house where the foster parents live.We had called everyone including the governers liason the director of the dcs in indianapolis the regional director in our area the president of the autisum society in indiana and the associated press among others. Jacob was tested by two doctors during this time one saying that taking him out of the home was the wrong thing to do and whatever was going on with jacob was not a result of bad parenting .Since then he has been returned home but they are now trying to impose this class that class and the other class on us . We were allso subjected to drug screens on two occasions without a court order both with negative results.We agreed to it just to get him home. Allso during this time jacobs mother has been diagnosed with heart disease. We are in our late 40s we have eight children and five grandchildren and have three children younger than our grandchildren. We have been parenting for 28 yrs. We have children older than the caseworkers. Now we have a disposition hearing set for the 8th of july, They are crazy they have been absolutely no help they have cost us our savings our health and have broke our hearts and are still posing an imposition on us. They keep saying repeatedly that there sorry they appolagize and that they are looking in to that. SINCERELY David W Hopkins
Report violation


Posted By: Gunner Retired
Date: 2008-07-13 23:57:17

It comes as no surprise that Florida has evolved into a snakes den of corruption in pseudo ‘Nanny Government’ parenthood (including of course CPS/DCS, but more prevalent in social assistance programs), when you consider the massive influx of ‘snowbirds’ establishing residency there… same story in Texas. I remember California in the early 1980s around the vast military presence in the state. At one point in Murphy Canyon Navy Family Housing the families had pretty much decided that if CPS showed up on the front door, kids were spirited out the back door and the family moved to the mothers hometown within days, especially in cases where the husband was deployed to sea on a ship. Everybody pitched in to make it work smoothly. I was told at one point that Navy babies were highly sought after in the Calif adoption racket. Gunner Retired
Report violation


Posted By: Jan Smith
Date: 2008-10-01 12:45:32

Please copy and send this to everyone in Florida.
If you want to see what Democrats will do, just look at Washington State. Here they rule and have for years, put our state 3 billion in debt, doubled child removal from 2006-2007, have me feeling like I live in a police state because you can’t go anywhere without seeing an officer yet want to hire more, are turning crime into a major business as evidenced by all the new prisons/jails being built and implement pet projects that end up being national programs all over CPS and family court. Every time you hear of a CASA worker going against a family, or no due process in family court, or concurrent planning (a plan to adopt and a plan for reunification going at the same time but don’t be fooled by that either. The REAL plan might be to adopt), think of Washington State and the Democrats.
They have reduced the Omsbudsman program to a statistic gathering organization more so than a CPS watchdog. There is no authority in Washington State against CPS. Legislators have even gone to court with families only to have the courts and CPS disrespect them. The courts are in bed with CPS for federal funding and often side with them regardless of the evidence IF they will even hear the parents side of the story. They have taken away any and all rights for extended family leaving parents extremely vulnerable. Hospitals are now going after the federal funding and are in the child removal business. Heaven help you if your child has an accident and the doctor decides to call CPS with bogus claims. Plan on spending thousands for forensic scientists. If you can’t afford that, bye bye children.
To understand the seriousness of this, read the following article: This is Democratic globalism.
Children are dying all over the state in CPS care 6-1 over parents but you don’t hear about that in the liberal media. The media only discuss parental abuse to keep the Democrats happy with their adoption incentives coming in. They take their statistics off of long term dependency as it pertains to relative placement – but don’t be fooled. Less that 1/4 of REMOVED children get placed in extended family care. They are not counting the unsubstantiated removals who often take months before they are resolved. They are screening most relatives out or dragging their feet on relative placement then telling people “you are no longer bonded therefore we have to adopt out.” They are not following the law as it pertains to relative placement and family preservation.
Report violation


Posted By: K
Date: 2008-10-29 06:08:10

CPS/DPSS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT (RIVERSIDE, CA) FOR KIDNAPPING OUR CHILDREN WITHOUT CAUSE We are organizing a class action lawsuit against the County of Riverside, the State of California, and all parties involved in unlawfully detaining and holding our children against our will, and without cause. We have documented the deep, imbedded corruption in the “social services” agencies in California. We have filed three lawsuits so far, and are looking for other families who have also been annihilated by this evil. Go to the link at to join the fight to save our children.
Report violation


Posted By: k
Date: 2008-10-29 06:19:11

We have not even been able to have a Contested Jurisdictional Hearing yet, and on March 6, 2008, Riverside County and CPS will continue to attempt to gain legal support to attempt to adopt out our beautiful, healthy, infant daughter, completely AGAINST OUR WILL, and against the law. Neither one of us have any history or usage of any illegal drugs, and Amber was born with an APGAR score of 9.8, with absolutely NO DRUGS in her system, against wheat CPS declared to court. The DRMC hospital test was tampered with and was wrong. That is the ONLY basis for their illegal abduction of our newborn infant, and it has been an illegal “legal loophole” battering of our Parental rights ever since. On August 8, 2007, our newborn daughter was illegally and forcefully taken by Michael Biles of Banning CPS, with the help of eight others at Desert Regional Medical center, with no court order nor warrant, and no police present. He physically threatened mother and newborn with severe physical harm, and we have fought for our daughter since. CPS contrived multiple hearsay untruths and presented falsifications to the court, without our knowledge. On September 7, 2007, we have documented proof (by email) that we had asked our attorneys for a “Continuance” so that we could attend the Jurisdiction Hearing on September 10, 2007. When we arrived that day, we were told we arrived “too late,” and the record shows no request for a Continuance was requested by our attorneys at all, who later stated they were in correspondence with us “the entire time” although CPS claimed they could not locate us. Judge Christopher Sheldon then granted us a “Contested Jurisdictional Hearing,” and then suddenly, the case was transferred to Southwest Adjudication Center, where Commissioner Fernandez declared he lacked the power to render a Judgment on another Judge’s decision to have the Contested Jurisdiction Hearing, then Fernandez took it off calendar, where it stands today……we have been denied our daughter in this illegal kidnapping, and we have located proof that the County of Riverside and DRMC routinely set new mothers up this way, very often to take newborn white, healthy, drug-free babies to sell them on their own twisted underground baby market. We have been violated entirely, and we will keep fighting for our daughter, as she has now been SOLD on this open baby market.

Report violation


Posted By: sue
Date: 2008-11-06 11:46:17

I work in the family law system. I believe every word of this article. Like I’ve always firmly believed, at the root of every issue such as this there is the buck $$$$$. Why is there an economic reward here…there should not be…that is clearly a conflict that does not belong in the picture??????? I have talked to several mothers in the past year or two…they are told that if they don’t want their children taken from them they must file restraining orders against the fathers of the children. The latest one I spoke to just yesterday, dad got mad because somebody else looked at mom and stabbed a few shampoo bottles with a knife, didn’t come after mom or the kids with the knife, didn’t waive it around, didn’t scream at the kids…none of the above. They bulldog these people and count on their ignorence of the law and their rights. Cps knows damn well they don’t have enough evidence to do what they are threatening to do so they bully the mother into doing it for them….and apparently like I suspected they are being paid to do this. I told the mother to call their legal office and ask them why if they feel they have the evidence to take her children they don’t just file it…she said she’d call me back and tell me what they say. The cps worker in this case is a ex-policewomen…gee that’s got to be a step down for her, go from a badge and a gun to sitting behind a desk, probably wrinkles her shorts no end so she takes it out on the clients…and gets paid handsomely to do it apparently. Florida has become a state where only those with money have any rights……it’s past time for the Feds to get into this. I believe this happens in florida because of who votes down here…the old people either don’t have these issues or have enough money to pay big guns to be sure they don’t so they don’t care how the poor and lower middle class are being treated. Privitization leaves too many doors open for abuse, anytime a company gets paid for how many cases they handle you’re going to have abuse. This state has forgotten what due process is and this is not the only area it happens in…’s got to stop here and now.
Report violation


Posted By: Melissa Shepherd-Gillespie
Date: 2009-05-25 16:16:32

Please call me or speak to Robert Fields or Greg Pound about me. Robert can give you my number.

Kind Regards,

Melissa Gillespie

Report violation


Posted By: Be A Voice for the Children
Date: 2009-06-23 12:32:20

Kansas is investigating the illegal seizure of children from families on falsified documents. The CPS Secretary stated the Sedgwick County DA “bullied” Social Workers into filing false affidavits to remove children. Please support the children and view the link below for more information:

Report violation


Posted By: the Melinda
Date: 2009-06-23 17:13:48

Children are a commodity in the business model propagated by those in power. To effectively change it we need local action and shared information. Many fighting the greed of those who have abscounded with government are working today but it is helpful to track those who are responsible since they are often moved around when they are exposed. Also, we need to know what justifications are being used so we can warn parents and protect children.

If you want a yahoo group for this purpose, let me know and I will start one.

Report violation


Posted By: sharon Toler
Date: 2009-09-14 18:36:45

My family is in Hillsborough County in Florida and we are living thru this very nightmare. I am reaching out to anyone & everyone that will listen & may have any suggestions. I have found that these organizations answer to no one and no one will take accountability for them. I am willing to go as high up the ladder as I need to in order to be heard and stop them. If anyone can give me any advice I would really appreciate it. Thank you Sharon Toler Tampa, FL

The State of Ga Pays of Students to Get Their License to Buy and Sell our Children

January 8, 2010 Leave a comment

Fact Sheet / How to Apply
Title IV-E Child Welfare Education Program (IV-E Program)

The Title IV-E Child Welfare Education Program (IV-E Program) is an educational program that pays for tuition, fees, books and mileage for persons interested in a career in public child welfare in Georgia or for current Georgia Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) staff who wish to upgrade their professional skills and training.

Who sponsors the grant?

The Title IV-E Child Welfare Education Program is a partnership between ten Georgia Schools of Social Work and the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services. The ten Schools of Social Work are Albany State University, Clark Atlanta University, Dalton State College, Fort Valley State University Georgia State University, Kennesaw State University, Savannah State University, Thomas University, University of Georgia, and Valdosta State University.

What are the requirements for participating in the IV-E Program?

The IV-E Program is open to all current DFCS employees and those interested in a career in child welfare. Potential students should be interested in obtaining a Bachelor of Social Work (B.S.W.) and/or a Master of Social Work (M.S.W.) degree. Once in the Program, students will participate in courses in child welfare practice and complete a field placement in a Georgia DFCS office. The student repays the Program funds by working for Georgia DFCS in a social services position for a specified period of time (one calendar year of employment for every academic year IV-E funding was received).

Which schools offer BSW and/or MSW degrees?

BSW programs are offered at Albany State University, Dalton State College, Fort Valley State University, Georgia State University, Savannah State University, Thomas University, and the University of Georgia. MSW programs are offered at Clark Atlanta University, Georgia State University, Kennesaw State University, Savannah State University, University of Georgia, and Valdosta State University.

How do I apply for the grant?

” If you are not familiar with the position of Social Services Protect and Placement Specialist (formerly Social Services Case Manager) or if you are not a Georgia DFCS social services employee (Protect and Placement Specialist and above), please go the web site scroll down and click on:

“Division of Family & Children Services, Social Services Protect and Placement Specialist.”

Under the heading: “DFCS Social Services” click on “view” next to the word Video. In order to view the video you must first download the latest version of RealPlayer. You will be able to download RealPlayer for free from this web page.

When the video is selected a pop-up screen will appear. For Username enter dhrjobs and for Password enter socialcm.

After watching the video click on “Overview of Georgia Social Services Child Welfare” on the same web page. Make sure you take the self-assessment that begins on page 14 and remember your score. The video and overview give realistic information about the position you are expected to take once you complete your social work degree: Social Services Protect and Placement Specialist (formerly known as Social Services Case Manager).

If after reviewing the video, reading the overview and taking the assessment, you are still interested in a career with DFCS, then proceed with the application.

Apply to one of the ten schools of social work for either a Bachelor of Social Work (B.S.W.) or Master of Social Work (M.S.W.) degree. Links to the schools may be found on the IV-E website at

The link for the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) required by most M.S.W. programs is

Apply to the IV-E Program once you have been admitted to a social work program. The application is completed on-line at Make sure to designate which schools of social work you would like to receive a copy of your application.

Once you have been accepted into a school of social work, and applied for the IV-E Program, the school will schedule an interview with you for the IV-E Program. We typically have more applicants for the IV-E Program than the schools have slots. We interview students to determine who will be accepted into the IV-E Program. After the interview process the school of social work will notify the student to let them know whether or not they have been accepted into the IV-E Program.

Note: It is possible to be accepted into a school of social work but not in the IV-E Program. If that is the case, then the student is required to pay their own tuition.

Note: If you are applying for a B.S.W degree, you will not be eligible to participate in the Title IV-E Program until you are accepted into a school of social work (usually in your junior or senior year). If you have to take pre-requisite classes before you can be accepted into a school of social work, then you are responsible for paying for those classes.

Note: If you are a current employee of the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS), in addition to the application process outlined above, you will need to bring to the IV-E Program interview a completed Staff Enrichment and Educational Development (S.E.E.D.) application or a letter of support signed by your immediate supervisor and approval authority. The S.E.E.D. application and the list of approval authorities (based on you position) may be found at the IV-E web site at Those DFCS employees, who fail to bring the required documents to the interview, will not be considered for the IV-E Program.

Note: Please be mindful there is a work obligation once you complete your social work degree. For every academic year (9 months) you receive funds through the IV-E Program, you are required to work a calendar year (12 months) for the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) in a position in Social Services as a Protect and Placement Specialist or higher. Failure to complete the work obligation will result in action being taken to recoup funds expended for the student’s education. This includes but is not limited to collection/civil proceedings as deemed necessary. A letter will also be sent to the Georgia Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapists notifying them of your failure to fulfill your required obligation.

Contact Information

For information regarding the Title IV-E Program at:

IV-E College/University Contact Person Phone Email address
Albany State University Marilyn Spearman, Ph.D. (229) 430-4694
Savannah State University Bernita Berry, Ph.D. (912) 353-5263
Thomas University Kellie O’Dare, MSW, MPA (229) 226-1621
University of Georgia Alberta Ellett, Ph.D. (706) 542-5409
Valdosta State University Carol Smith, LCSW (229) 293-6359

Please contact Angie Saturday, MS, LMSW, IV-E Program Coordinator at (229) 878-8788 or via email at

For information regarding the Title IV-E Program at:

IV-E College/University Contact Person Phone Email address
Clark Atlanta University Rosalyn A. Harper, Ph.D. (404) 880-6732
Dalton State College Spencer Zeiger, Ph.D. (706) 272-2682
Fort Valley State University Gloria Smith Cisse, LMSW (478) 825-6232
Georgia State University Mary L. McLaughlin, LCSW (404) 413-1071
Kennesaw State University Takeisha Wilson, MSW (770) 499-3669

Please contact L. Denise Edwards, MSW, IV-E Program Coordinator at (404) 656-3619 or via email at

Samantha’s Children – This is How They Had to Spend Christmas with Their Mother

January 5, 2010 1 comment

This is Carly, she is the youngest. Two weeks before Christmas was the last time Samantha could see her girls before the holidays. She got to spend a whole “hour ” with her children at a neutral place. She had to give them their gifts at this place. Is this right?

Shawna the oldest showing her mom what her gift was. This should be criminal. The only thing they wanted was to be home with their mother. This is the second year they have been away from their mother on Christmas.

Samantha and the girls. It is time to bring them home. It is time for the family to be together again. It is time for DFCS to step off and understand they are not protecting they are hurting.

These are the Faces of Three of the Children that Jackson County Ga DFCS is Trying to Put Up For Sale

January 5, 2010 Leave a comment

It is a sad state of affairs when a mother has to spend the holidays sitting in a neutral area with her three children trying to enjoy the brief hour she has with them. It is a sad state of affairs when she has to take a gingerbread house to this neutral place so the children can spend time with her putting it together. What is even more sad is there was no guarantee that once they took it to their foster home the foster mother would allow them to keep it. She won’t let them keep anything else Samantha gives them. She is not allowed to tell her children she loves them either.

This is Carly the youngest she has been away from her mother for two years. She calls her foster mother by the name mother. When her foster mother is in the same room with her and Samantha she will not have anything to do with her mother. She will not call her mother either. This should be a crime in itself.

This is Shawna the oldest. She is now on meds for hyper activity and alleged ADD and ADHD. She has not been tested out by a specialist in this field. She was diagnosed by a regular MD. This should have never happened. This is just the first step in the foster parents who want to adopt this three girls to get more money from the state for adopting a “special needs” child. They can get up to several thousand dollars for her until she is eighteen years old.

This is the Christmas tree at the neutral place where Sam visits her children. Look at Shawna’s face. Her expression says it all. The middle child Sara never laughs anymore. On all three of their Christmas lists to Santa, they all said the same thing. All they wanted Santa to bring them was to be able to go home with their mother.
DFCS in Jackson County Georgia was not only the Grinch who Stole their Christmas and the one before this past year, they are also the Scrooge from this story. If the State has their way they will make anywhere from 4000.00 to 6000.00 on these three girls if they can force Samantha to sign them away. The foster parents who want to adopt them will make anywhere from 600.00- upwards in the thousands each month until they turn eighteen years old. The buying and selling of our children continues illegally.
We have to get these girls home to their mother. Jackson County DFCS – the judicial system- and the PD’s office all are in this together. Sam is still fighting to get her children home. They don’t need to spend another Christmas without being with their mother. Help me make this happen.

Another Christmas without Her Children

December 30, 2009 Leave a comment

Another Christmas has come and gone and Samantha spent it once again without her children. Thanks to the generosity of DFCS (scarcasm here) she got an entire hour with them at a netural location. They wrote their Christmas list to Santa and on top of the list was “I want to go home with my Mommy”. Well, Virginia there is no Santa and there is only DFCS better known as Ebeaneazer Scrooge.

This is the second year Sam has been without her children and it has been very depressing for her and the girls. Her day was spent in tears and pain because she was without her children.

To add to the stupidity of this county, she was informed by her current case worker right before Christmas that she was leaving at the end of December. So Samantha will be given yet another case worker which will be the ninth one and probably another case plan which will be the ninth one as well. Her attorney has decided he is not going to do anymore for her. Yes, boys and girls he is in bed with DFCS. So here we go again. The rat on the wheel keeps turning and Sam and her children are lost in the maze of pass the buck and hide the kids.
It is time to write letters again and this time I will be sending all of the letters I wrote Judge Guidry who hasn’t responded to a one. I will incude names again and the fact that she will be given yet another case worker and the fact that the Public Defender has walked away.
2010 is going to be an interesting year. Yes, boys and girls the book will be written exposing the stupidity and corruption of DFCS, the stories of pain and suffering parents and their children experience during the illegal kidnapping and selling of our chlidren under the blanket of the government and DFCS. It is going to be a good year


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,346 other followers