In doing research for my book on the abuse with in the CPS system I have found many disturbing things. Things that parents of children who have been taken under “alledged charges of deprivation, neglect and there trumped up charges” need to know.
One of the most disturbing things I found was statements made by a Director of Missouri’s Department of Social Services by the name of Gary Stangler. This interview was conducted November 21,2002 by Cheryl Barnes of the CPS Watch.
Mr. Stangler stated, “As soon as I take a kid out of a home, I begin to earn federal money for the cost of caring for that child. All of the federal incentives are in the instituation side
Ms. Barnes had released a report on 11/19/2002 which stated that the State of Missouri had forceibly taken children from their homes even after it had been determined by the State Workers that the children had not been mistreated. Ms Barnes gathered her information from data which had been submitted to the Federal Government by the Division of Family Services. There was a huge 77% of children put in foster care in 2000 and all of those allegations were unsubstantiated. Out of the 11,083 children which were snatched from their homes during 2000 8,583 of those were labeled as “non-victims” this means that all allegations of abuse or neglect were unfounded. Missouri at that time had the highest removal rate in the country.
Ms. Barnes is quoted as saying, “The Missouri rate is almost three time the national average which is already to high.” In 2000 the national average of child removal was at 27%.
The abuse by Missouri Child Protection Services is more tramatic than anything that can happen to a child except for severe abuse or death. No child should be ripped from their parent because of .”reasonable cause” which is what CPS workers use all the time to obtain a “court order ” to remove a child. The permanent damage CPS causes to children in the quest to make money off of the backs of these same children can never be undone. The emotional, mental and psychologial abuse does not justify the $4000.00 the state receives from the Federal Governement under the Adoption and Safe Families Act. In fact the title of that Act is an oxymoron. The children and their parents are not safe. They are abused and misused for the money.
Back to Missouri in 2000. Due to the case overload because CPS workers were snatching children who didn’t need to be snatched they failed a two year old child named Dominic James. He had been removed from his home and put in the hands of a “state licensed” caregiver. This caregiver had a history of domestic violence. Which was strange because that was the reason the baby was removed from his own home to begin with. Dominic was killed by his “state Licensed” caregiver. CPS refused to take responsiblity for their complicency in this senseless murder. Their excuse was “they were not able to perform proper background checks due to the large numer of caregivers and children in foster care.” By their own data three fourths of the children they removed from their homes were not victims of abuse or neglect.
Ms. Barnes stated “it would be easier to perform background checks if DFS weren’t removing four times more children than they should be.”
Before Dominic was murdered in foster care another child was also killed in foster care by the name of Constance Porter. She was also two years old. She was not a victim of abuse or neglect by her natural mother. The mother was just homeless. To make matters worse that had already been a hotline call to CPS about the foster home before Constance was placed in it.
The next case I found was an article Titled “Children as Chattel” it was written by Kurt Mundorff. Mr. Mundorff worked for fourteen months as a caseworker for Child Protective Services. His article is not only disturbing it should be used to prosecute CPS workers all across the country for abuse.
He stated, ” I also saw the agency steamroll many dozens of innocent families. They became involved in a system that was capricious, abusive and which seemed to do more harm than good. The only help we offered the children was to place them in foster care; there seemed to be no intention of helping parents. Very quickly, it became clear to me that the “help” of foster care was no help at all.” This was not the worst part. He continued “While I met some warm, caring, foster parents, the vast majority of foster parents I met were obviously in it for the money. The were baby boarders. Foster Parents are not the only people who profit from the child process. I began to see myslef as part of a vast industry of professionals who earn their income by providing services to families and their children. We provided a vast array of services, which I quickly came to realize were ineffective and at times even harmful to the people we were supposed to be helping. Parents also did not see services as helping. Services were a series of hoops they had to jump through to get my agency our of their lives. At each hoop was another professional accepting money from the state. The more hoops the more money.
Mr. Mundorff writes of a horror story involving the money involved and used as an income supplement for a couple and several children. It involved a three year old named Charlie whose mother was drug addicted so he lived with his grandmother for a time. She became physically unable to care for him. Charlie was turned over the the New York Child Services and was placed in foster home after foster home before he went to finally live with the Dawson Family. Ms. Dawson was in her fifities. Mr. Dawson was in his early sixities and she and her husband were looking forward to their “retirement”. They decided they needed to supplement their income so they took in Charlies and two other infants who were both diagnosed as special needs children because they had medical problems. The Dawson knew if they adopted all three of these children they would receive $2000.00 per month in income off the backs of these children.
But things did not go as planned, they began to question if they were indeed a good match for Charlie. They had already contacted the social worker at the adoption agency and told her that they could not control him. They also said they had changed their minds and did not want to adopt him. The adopton/social worker told them if they didn’t take Charlie they couldn’t have the two infants. The exucse she used that because the three were placed together they were now considered siblings even though they were not related. Therefore they all had to be adopted together. This was a lie. They were pressured into adopting Charlie.
Then they began to fear for their lives, they found a knife under Charlie’s pillow and around his room. The accused him of being a liar saying he made them take him to the emergency room for a stomach ache. But there was nothing wrong with him. When they sent the biil to the New York State Medicare they were told it would not be covered because it had been an out of state hospital. This too was a lie.
Mr. Mundorff goes on to explain the contiued trouble the Dawson family had with the state of New York. Mr. Dawson was accused of child abandoment because he left Charlie with the a therapist during a family counsleing appointment. There were a myrid of other problems that the State of New York failed to help with. Charlie was finally taken by another family and they too were subjected to the same abuse in the system.
According to Mr. Mundorff, “Charlie was a child whose life was determined by the subsidies that attached to him. First, the adoption agency received a subsidy for placing him in the home, even though he was not wanted. Later the hospital held him hostgage, refusing to release him, fearful of not being paid, Finally, his therapist, making her living off providing services to the poor children in foster care, attempted to extort fees from the McMahons ( the second family who too him).” A funding stream of federal, state and local dollars attaches to every child entering the welfare system, who support a vast bureaucracy of professionals providing counseling, evaluation, investigation, medical and placement services. Finally, the child is placed with an adoptive or foster care parent.”
Mr. Mundorff contiues “While there are many parents who do this for the most altruistic reasons, they seem to be the exception. The subsisdies for this care are a strong motivator, and many of these families may take the child to subsidize a retirement, and addition to the home, or just to have a little extra money. Certaintly, some poroportion of the childrne who come into contact with the child welfare system are in genuine need of help and can not remain in their homes. But, regardless of her need, when a child enters the system, decisions about her life are reduced to a series of monetary equations. Through this process the child is commodifed, traded back and forth betwen agencies and parents, all providing services in exchange for a piece of the subsisdy pie.”
These two articles just confirm that fact that Child Protective Services and all those involved with them from Judges, lawyers, foster parents, adoptive parents, professionals are in it for the money. They don’t care about the families they destory , the children whose lives they ruin and when they are ruined these children become ingrained in the system for life.
I have been accused by Jackson County GA, DFCS of writing blogs saying that they have snatched my three granddaughters, Shawna Thomason, Carly and Sara Wilfawn. Well they are right. I have said it and will continue to say it. They have snatched them to sell.
Mr. Mundorff stated “The thirteenth amendment may be an appropriate tool for reform. In fact, Federal District Courty Judge Jack B. Weinstein suggested in Nicholson V Williams that, “The exact language of the Thirteenth Amendment could be construed to cover children forceibly and unnecessarily removed without due process and the consigned to the control of foster parents.”
This is indeed scary. I will post another blog on the Thirteenth Amendment and Mr. Mundorff’s findings.