There was an interesting article today in our local newspaper, The Daily Star (out of Oneonta, NY), indicating that the Delaware County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution to ask the New York State Court Administration system for a 2nd Family Court judge, claiming that the number of Family Court cases has sharply risen from 1,400 in 1980 to 3,300 per year "now".
A second Family Court judge will require his own chamber, his own law clerk and secretary - all to the tune of close to $250,000.00 addition to the budget of the New York State Court Administration.
Yet, why would there be such a sharp increase in family court cases in Delaware County, New York?
Is the population growing?
No, it has grown by 1,231 people from 1980 (46,824 according to the U.S. Census) to the year 2000 (48,055), then over the next 10 years decreased by 75 people to 47,980, and the estimate is that it decreased even more, by 704 more people, to 47,276 in 2012. We are in the year 2014, and if the loss of population continued, there may be no increase of population since the year 1980 at all, and there may be, in fact a population loss since that time.
Family court, in my experience as an attorney, usually involves issues with children.
There are definitely less children in Delaware County in the past 15 years that I have been residing here. I can judge by the class sizes at school, I can judge by the graduating class of the local Delaware Academy, one of the biggest schools in the county, I can judge by the fact that one elementary school had to be closed.
Delaware County, New York reports the lowest student to teacher ratio in the State of New York, with the highest graduation rates.
Under such circumstances, where there is less children in the county, there is no apparent reason why the number of Family Court cases so sharply increased.
In fact, with the loss of population, closing of schools and now raising graduation rates, apparently, children in Delaware County are well taken care of, and there should be less Family Court cases. Right? Obviously, wrong.
If there is not more children and not more parents in Delaware County, then what is the reason for the increased Family Court cases? The newspaper does not indicate further statistics, what kind of Family Court cases are on the increase - child custody/visitation, family offense, child support, spousal alimony, paternity, or child neglect and abuse proceedings.
Judging that the meeting of the Board of Supervisors in question was held under the banner of fighting child abuse, and judging that recently the Board of Supervisor approved additional budget to the Social Services, it must be the child protective cases.
My question as a taxpayer is - are those increases in child protective cases warranted?
Or was the Delaware County Department of Social Services invigorated in its efforts to grab people's children and thus increase the number of child protective Family Court cases by federal monetary incentives for adoptions out of foster care?
Or was that department motivated and by the fact that the judge presiding over the cases of Delaware County Department of Social Services represented the Delaware County Department of Social Services for 27 years before coming to the bench and came to the bench, according to his own acknowledgment in a radio interview during his re-election campaign in 2012, because he did not like the "outcomes" in the Family Court cases? By the way, listen to the WOIX interview while the site is still there.
As a taxpayer, I want to ask a question, does the Delaware County Board of Supervisors' alleged concern for the overcrowding of the Family Court in reality mean that the Board wants to somehow hide the fact that the current, recently re-elected Family Court judge, Judge Carl F. Becker, will not be able to serve out his term of 10 years because he will turn 70, a mandatory retirement age in New York for judges, at least 4 years before expiration of his term in office?
Judge Becker knew that he will not be able to serve out his term, and still ran for the office, knowing that the county will have to pay for the new elections of a judge mid-term.
Now the county wants a 2nd judge to smooth over Judge Becker's retirement?
Yet, the question still remains - what is the share of child protective cases in the alleged increase of Family Court cases in Delaware County, the least populated county in the United States after the Adirondacks (33 people per square mile or 13 people per square kilometer)?
What is the reason where the least populated county in the country after the Adirondacks mountain needs more judges?
As a comparison, population in Albany County, New York, by the 2013 estimate, is 306, 945 people, and there are only 3 judges in Albany County Family Court, 1 judge per more than 100,000 people.
The questions remain - are Family Court cases that are on the increase in Delaware County child protective cases?
What causes the increase of Family Court cases with such a scarcity of population, decrease of the number of children in the county to the point of closing schools and increase in graduation rates?
If children are taken from homes to have more federal money flowing to social services, or to satisfy the agenda of the social services, such a scenario does not answer either the taxpayers, or the parents, or the children's best interests.
And the questions remain.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Child neglect proceedings against parents instead of PINS or juvenile delinquency proceedings against the child: a way for social services and law enforcement to obviate your child's right to remain silent
Juvenile delinquency and PINS (persons in need of supervision) proceedings in New York provide to the child constitutional protections, such as a right to remain silent throughout the proceedings.
Child neglect proceedings are not brought against the child, but against parents for lack of supervision of the child, and thus, do not provide to the child a right to remain silent. Instead, in child protective proceedings the child does not usually testify and instead social services workers usually testify claiming, under the statutory "child hearsay exception", that the child allegedly made "statements" to social services, whether it happened or not, because it is unverifiable and such interviews between social services and the child are not usually audiotaped or videotaped in New York.
I have noted that social services in the state of New York started to bring child protective proceedings against the parents when they insist on their child's right to remain silent in interrogations by social services and police which can likely result in PINS and juvenile delinquency proceedings.
By bringing child neglect proceedings against the parents instead of juvenile or PINS proceedings against the child, CPS gets to remove the child based on hearsay evidence (rumors), place the child in CPS' own custody and interrogate the child at their heart's desire based on their own consent as the legal custodian of the child, thus obviating the child's right to remain silent under PINS and juvenile delinquency.
Even if the child is not removed and remains in parents' custody, CPS creates a conflict of interest for the parents to protect their child's interests on the child's behalf, because in child neglect/abuse proceedings parents' interests are adverse to the child's.
Yet, since in child protective proceedings against parents the child's right to remain silent is not a concern, assigned attorneys for the child who often depend on such assignments on a continuous basis and, thus, may consider it a better strategy, for personal reasons, to allow CPS unlimited access to the child for any reason or purpose. CPS, in its turn, may allow access to the child by police and other law enforcement authorities, and may commence PINS or juvenile proceedings against the child afterwards, claiming that they have gained access to the child and interviewed the child on consent of the child's counsel.
In New York, parents have no standing to address malpractice or conflict of interest and disqualification of the attorney for the child. The child him/herself is incompetent to do that. New York did not designate a body or person who would be able to do that on behalf of the child.
Thus, the child is without proper defense and without recourse when social services choose to file a child protective petition while meaning all along to target the child in the nature of a PINS or juvenile delinquency proceeding.
I believe that such a practice of social services to file a child protective proceeding against the parent where what social services and the law enforcement are seeking is self-incriminating statements from the child, which would have been protected in PINS and juvenile delinquency proceeding by a statutory and constitutional right of the child to remain silent, is unconstitutional.
By this post I alert the public as to such a practice and potential for abuse of power for the CPS against children.
Since child neglect proceedings are secret, records of such proceedings are not open to the public and majority of child neglect adjudications (court orders) are not appealed, and thus are not reflected in case law on public archives of appellate courts, I am not sure how wide-spread this policy is, yet, I know about a case where such a tactic was used.
I believe that the public should be aware of this particular tactic used by CPS to obviate the child's right to remain silent in investigations in the nature of pre-PINS and juvenile delinquency proceedings.
Child neglect proceedings are not brought against the child, but against parents for lack of supervision of the child, and thus, do not provide to the child a right to remain silent. Instead, in child protective proceedings the child does not usually testify and instead social services workers usually testify claiming, under the statutory "child hearsay exception", that the child allegedly made "statements" to social services, whether it happened or not, because it is unverifiable and such interviews between social services and the child are not usually audiotaped or videotaped in New York.
I have noted that social services in the state of New York started to bring child protective proceedings against the parents when they insist on their child's right to remain silent in interrogations by social services and police which can likely result in PINS and juvenile delinquency proceedings.
By bringing child neglect proceedings against the parents instead of juvenile or PINS proceedings against the child, CPS gets to remove the child based on hearsay evidence (rumors), place the child in CPS' own custody and interrogate the child at their heart's desire based on their own consent as the legal custodian of the child, thus obviating the child's right to remain silent under PINS and juvenile delinquency.
Even if the child is not removed and remains in parents' custody, CPS creates a conflict of interest for the parents to protect their child's interests on the child's behalf, because in child neglect/abuse proceedings parents' interests are adverse to the child's.
Yet, since in child protective proceedings against parents the child's right to remain silent is not a concern, assigned attorneys for the child who often depend on such assignments on a continuous basis and, thus, may consider it a better strategy, for personal reasons, to allow CPS unlimited access to the child for any reason or purpose. CPS, in its turn, may allow access to the child by police and other law enforcement authorities, and may commence PINS or juvenile proceedings against the child afterwards, claiming that they have gained access to the child and interviewed the child on consent of the child's counsel.
In New York, parents have no standing to address malpractice or conflict of interest and disqualification of the attorney for the child. The child him/herself is incompetent to do that. New York did not designate a body or person who would be able to do that on behalf of the child.
Thus, the child is without proper defense and without recourse when social services choose to file a child protective petition while meaning all along to target the child in the nature of a PINS or juvenile delinquency proceeding.
I believe that such a practice of social services to file a child protective proceeding against the parent where what social services and the law enforcement are seeking is self-incriminating statements from the child, which would have been protected in PINS and juvenile delinquency proceeding by a statutory and constitutional right of the child to remain silent, is unconstitutional.
By this post I alert the public as to such a practice and potential for abuse of power for the CPS against children.
Since child neglect proceedings are secret, records of such proceedings are not open to the public and majority of child neglect adjudications (court orders) are not appealed, and thus are not reflected in case law on public archives of appellate courts, I am not sure how wide-spread this policy is, yet, I know about a case where such a tactic was used.
I believe that the public should be aware of this particular tactic used by CPS to obviate the child's right to remain silent in investigations in the nature of pre-PINS and juvenile delinquency proceedings.
Are child neglect/abuse proceedings civil, criminal, quas-criminal or administrative?
New York State Family Court Act and multiple court rulings say that child abuse and neglect proceedings are civil in nature.
Yet, comparison of various features of child neglect and abuse proceedings shows that while procedural protections for respondents in New York State child abuse and neglect procedures are lower than in regular civil proceedings and are similar to those in administrative proceedings, other features of child neglect proceedings makes it similar to a criminal action.I have put together a table comparing criminal, quasi-criminal (undefined in New York), child neglect/abuse, regular civil proceedings and administrative proceedings. I plan to publish a book on child neglect and abuse proceedings in New York which will cover such proceedings in minute details, certainly with a bibliography. The table presented here is simply a preview, it does not contain references to statutes and cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long overruled the State of New York preponderance of the evidence standard in Santosky v. Kramer for termination of parental rights. My firm belief is that all proceedings leading to such termination, child neglect proceedings included, must be held at least to the same standard of proof, by clear and convincing evidence. I also believe that review of evidence in child neglect proceedings must be subject to strict scrutiny if children's biological parents are involved since it is infringing upon a fundamental constitutional right of parents to care and control their children.
Children are removed in New York, and Family Court confirms such removals, based on hearsay evidence alone, which means that your child may be removed based on anonymous malicious gossip. After the child is removed this way, the court will be cautious to return the child, even after a fact-fnding hearing held to allegedly a higher standard, but where hearsay is still admissible wholesale through the so-called "certified case notes" of the social services.
Such removals based on malicious rumors obviously do not comport with the Santosky v. Kramer clear and convincing evidence standard, yet they form the foundation for the future possible termination of parental rights.
Removal of adoptable children to foster care by social services based on hearsay evidence becomes even more suspicious when federal financial incentives to the states for adoption out of foster care are considered, see my previous post in this blog.
If parents committed a crime against their children, then criminal proceedings, with their constitutional protections for parents, should be filed and prosecuted by the appropriate bodies.
It is my belief, based on my research and practice of law in child neglect cases that what exists at this time in New York in the form of child neglect/abuse proceedings is a monstrous civil/criminal hybrid which ruins people's lives, breaks families, destroys reputations and ruins chances of employment based on malicious rumors from disgruntled neighbors, competitors, ex-partners etc., certified as case notes of social services.
Moreover, by law New York State Family Court is not authorized to review issues of constitutionality of the statute through which the Family Court receives jurisdiction, only the Supreme Court of the State of New York has such power.
Thus, constitutional issues in Family Court child neglect proceedings get overlooked, not resolved, and then the appellate court rejects constitutional claims raised for the first time on appeal, because such claims were not raised in the court below, a court which has no authority to resolve such claims.
If a parent wants to raise constitutional issues in parallel federal civil rights litigation, a number of abstentions will immediately be raised, and many parents would be afraid to sue the Family Court and bring the court and the presiding judge into the federal lawsuit as a necessary party defendant, for fear of retaliation.
New York state child neglect/abuse proceedings are more like administrative proceedings in their wholesale admission of hearsay from any sources, including anonymous sources, while such proceedings resemble criminal proceedings in allowing the court to issue bench warrants for production of respondents if petitioner is unable to personally serve respondents or if respondents did not appear.
Parents are brought to court in child neglect proceedings under the threat of a bench warrant, must testify in rebuttal in their defense, possibly incriminating themselves, while provided no immunity from future criminal prosecution by the court.
Moreover, in child abuse proceedings in New York, the local district attorney is a necessary party in such proceedings, sitting there for purposes of picking up that incriminating testimony and using it in commencing and prosecuting criminal proceedings against such parents.
Thus, in child neglect and especially child abuse proceedings, the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination goes out the door and the parent is faced with a truly "Hobson's choice", to testify and waive his or her constitutional rights in any criminal proceedings that may be brought against her based on her testimony, not only for endangering welfare of a minor, but, let's say, for perjury, fraud or any number of other crimes that the district attorney may choose to charge her for, or not to testify, allow the proceeding based on malicious rumors to go forward and lose her child.
Such a criminal/administrative hybrid, in my belief as an attorney, is monstrous and unconstitutional and calls to abolish the Family Court Act pertaining to child neglect proceedings and to rebuild and re-enact it, with respect to constitutional rights such proceedings infringe upon and with respect to procedural protections that such proceedings must provide to the parents and other respondents.
Feature
|
Criminal court proceeding
|
Quasi-criminal proceeding
|
Child abuse and neglect proceedings
|
Civil court proceeding
|
Administrative Proceeding
|
(1)
If the Defendant/Respondent cannot be
found for personal service
|
A
bench warrant is issued
|
Procedure
is not set in New York
|
A
bench warrant is issued
|
Plaintiff/Petitioner
may be allowed to serve by substituted service and then enter a default
|
Same
as in civil proceedings
|
(2)
What if the Defendant/Respondent was
served and did not appear on the appearance date
|
A
bench warrant is issued
|
Procedure
is not set
|
A
bench warrant is issued
|
A
default is entered
|
A
default is entered
|
(3)
Nature of procedure provided by
statute or court ruling
|
Criminal
proceeding
|
Procedure
to define quasi-criminal proceedings is not set in New York
|
Civil
proceeding
|
Civil
proceeding
|
Civil
proceeding
|
(4)
Standard of proof
|
Beyond
the reasonable doubt
|
Procedure
is not set
|
Preponderance
of the evidence/
(there can be parallel
criminal proceedings on the same evidence for endangering welfare of a minor, a
misdemeanor in New York)
|
Preponderance
of the evidence, or clear and convincing evidence in certain types of cases
alleging criminal activity
|
Substantial
evidence
|
(5)
Right to remain silent
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
(6)
Permission to the court to draw
negative inferences if Defendant’Respodent remains silent
|
No
|
Procedure
is not set
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
(7) Availability of jury trial
|
Yes
|
Procedure
is not set
|
No
|
Yes,
with the exception of special proceedings
|
No
|
(8)
Admissibility of any hearsay at pretrial
hearings
|
No
|
Procedure
is not set
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
(9)
Admissibility of hearsay at the trial
|
No
|
Procedure
is not set
|
Yes
Any
hearsay is admissible through certified notes of social services, child
hearsay is admissible with easy corroboration by hearsay, Delaware County
Family Court introduced “mandatory reporter hearsay exception”, affirmed on
appeal
|
No,
but common law and statutory exceptions apply
|
Yes
|
(10) Admissibility
of statutory hearsay exceptions
|
Prohibited
by the Confrontation Clause
|
Procedure
is not set
|
As
per Family Court Act:
Child hearsay exception (requires
corroboration, but corroboration is easily achieved);
Social services records hearsay
exception
(as long as records are certified as social services business records,
anything in them comes in for the truth, without regard to duty of declarants
to report to the Social Services as part of the business);
|
CPLR
4518, business records exception
|
All
hearsay is admissible
|
(11) Mandatory
reporter of child abuse and neglect hearsay exception
|
No
|
Procedure
is not set
|
Not
in the statute, but is applied by Delaware County Family Court and was
affirmed on appeal by the 3rd Department
|
No
|
Any
hearsay is admissible
|
(12) For hearsay
business records exception, requirement that declarant must have a duty to
report truthfully in order to run the business properly
|
N/A
Hearsay
is not admissible in any format under the Confrontation Clause
|
Procedure
is not set
|
No
Social
Services collects hearsay for its certified case notes from the general
public that has no duty to report truthfully to Social Services;
Mandatory
reporters must report on
a suspicion, without any investigation or knowledge of the truth or falsity of allegations, under
the threat of criminal prosecution for non-reporting and under protection of immunity when report is made under a mere
suspicion without investigation
|
Yes
All
hearsay exceptions exist under the notion that the hearsay declaration is
truthful under the circumstances
|
No
|
(13) Applicability
of the prohibition on
hearsay prepared for purposes of litigation
|
Yes
|
Procedure
is not set
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
(14) Hearsay by unknown declarants
|
No,
confidential
informants have to testify at criminal trial in open court, Confrontation
Clause
|
Procedure
is not set
|
Yes,
indicated reports from New York State Office of Children and Family Services
based on reports of anonymous reporters
|
No
|
Yes,
all hearsay is admissible
|
(15) Is the damage to
the public presumed?
|
Yes
|
Procedure
is not set
|
Yes,
in derivative neglect proceedings, for the original proceedings, the harm or
imminent risk of harm must be proven, but is often presumed from the nature
of activity
|
No,
damages are an element of the tort/civil proceeding action, if damages are
not proven, the case must be dismissed
Exceptions:
harm is presumed in certain types of defamation actions once liability is
established, but damages must still be established
|
Yes,
administrative enforcement proceedings are mostly strict liability
proceedings
|
Monday, April 7, 2014
Do financial incentives for adoption out of foster care disqualify CPS agencies from prosecuting child neglect proceedings?
When a Child Protective Agency prosecutes a child abuse or neglect proceeding in New York (probably, as in any other state), it has power to remove the child or seek from the court removal of the child from parents care.
If removed, the child is placed either into family placement, or, far more often, into foster care.
The legal custodian of children in foster care is the local Child Protective Agency, the petitioner in child neglect and abuse proceedings.
The U.S. government gives to "incentive-eligible states" financial incentives for speedier adoption out of foster care:
quote
=====
42 USC 673b
(d) Adoption incentive payment
unquote
======
Let's translate it into how the above scenario works on a hypothetical situation.
Let's say that the base number of foster child adoptions in a state during a fiscal year is 100. Let's say that the State exceeded that number by 50. That means that the State exceeded the "base number" by 50 (or by additional 50%), but because of increase by an additional 50% the state will receive an increase in "financial incentive" by a multiplier of 50: 100 x 50 = 5000, or by 4900%.
With older children, the State gets double the incentive it gets for younger children.
My numbers are hypothetical, but the calculations and percentages involved are based on the real statute quoted above. This may be an enticement too difficult to turn down, and family reunification with birth parents be damned, the state has too much of a financial incentive to get that money to adopt children out of foster care, while declaring all along that its goal is to reunify the children with their families.
New York State law requires CPS to have as an official permanency goal for the child in foster care reunification with the child's parents.
If both the financial incentive and the legal burden are directed at the same agency, isn't it a conflict of interest, and wouldn't such financial incentives disqualify the CPS agency from investigating, prosecuting and removing children out of the care of the child's parents and placing the child in the custody of the agency that is financially rewarded for severing the child's ties to his parents and adopting the child to foster care?
My efforts to verify through Freedom of Information requests the channels through which federal money trickles down to the county child protective services were blocked by Delaware County officials on the alleged grounds on privacy.
Yet, I have noticed that in many child neglect cases it is fairly impossible to qualify for a "family resource" for CPS where a child who is likely adoptable and eligible for a high monetary incentive is placed in the CPS' foster care.
Many tricks are employed by the CPS to prevent return of the child. The parent is either coerced into months, potentially, years of "services" by the CPS including involuntary release of private medical information, random searches of the home, random drug tests, whether the initial charges of neglect involved mental health problems or drug use or problems with the home or not. Maintaining "services" at a certain level helps maintain and expand CPS budget.
If parents insist on their constitutional right, are stubborn and refuse to budge to CPS in agreeing to months of humiliation and forfeiture of rights, and if family members step forward to act as alternative placements for the child, those family members are usually rejected by CPS for pretextual reasons. Placement with family members does not generate money for CPS for "services" to the parents described above, and thus placement with family members is not as financially lucrative to CPS.
The most lucrative scenario is placement in foster care, with subsequent adoption, and family members who volunteered as alternative placement resources for children are often rejected by Social Services for a variety of reasons.
"Indicated reports" never known to family members that volunteer as an alternative placement for the child are unearthed, court-ordered investigations and home studies of such volunteers are stalled or delayed, mountains out of molehills are created to disqualify the volunteer's home from placing the children there, family members who volunteered for a resource are harassed and threatened that their own children will be removed until they withdraw as a resource for alternative placement to foster care.
What is also interesting to mention is that, at least judging by the cases where I represented clients in child neglect proceedings and where children were removed to foster care, foster parents and potential adoptive parents often had ties to the local government, often neglected children in their care to the point of removal of children because they were in danger in their foster home, but the politically affiliated foster parents were, upon information and belief, never punished.
My inquiries under FOIL requests as to number of foster homes, names of foster parents, reports against the homes for child neglect or failure to comply with regulations were denied to me for "privacy" reasons.
It is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The cloak of secrecy under which financial incentives for adoptions out of foster care are distributed does not breed confidence in the integrity of child welfare process where CPS agencies, representative of counties, may be receiving financial incentives from the U.S. government, without supervision from the public, for separating families and for having children adopted out of foster care, even though such a goal directly contradicts the goal required by the state law in child protective proceedings.
Such incentives are not made public, the numbers of adoption, the "base numbers of adoption" for states "per fiscal year" are not made public, the policies defining those "base numbers" are not made public, and such agencies fight tooth and claw not to reveal such information through FOIL request claiming that revealing such information will somehow hurt the children and affect their privacy. I believe, children are hurt more when public does not know about the secret web of financial incentives underpinning adoption process and potentially undermining integrity of child neglect proceedings.
I believe that such information must be made public.
At this time, I am attempting to get, through a FOIL request, information from the New York State Office of Children and Family Services as to the "base adoption numbers" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 673B(d) which define the multipliers for the financial incentives for adoptions out of foster care per given year.
I will end this post with a quote from the site of New York State Office of Family and Children's Services:
"New York State continues to be a leader in finding permanent safe and nurturing homes for our children. The number of children in foster care in New York State has decreased from 53,902 children in 1995 to 20,539 as of December 31, 2012, a significant reversal of trends from the 1980s and early 1990s. There have been tremendous strides made in bringing families together across New York State."
I doubt that children are removed to foster care less in 2012 than they were in 1995. I wonder how much the glorious trend (above) reported by NYS OFCS has been caused by the money trickle from the federal government under 42 U.S.C. 673B and similar legislation.
It is good to find permanent homes for children. Yet, it is bad to separate children with their birth parents for money.
Since the money incentives for CPS do exist, it is a question whether CPS can serve as good faith and impartial investigators and prosecutors of child neglect and abuse proceedings and obtain placement of children into foster care out of which they can be adopted out, for money in which CPS may be sharing.
Would you like to have a public investigator and/or prosecutor financially gaining from investigating or prosecuting you? Wouldn't it be too much of incentive to pass to prevent abuse of power and corruption? What if your own child's fate is involved? Will money issue overrun issues of the child's welfare and of the child's right to a "safe and permanent home" with his own birth parents and not with strangers?
I will report on this blog my luck (or lack thereof) as to obtaining answers from New York State Office of Families and Children Services and New York State Comptroller as to:
1/ what are the "base numbers" of adoptions of children out of foster care for New York state for the years 1995 to date.
2/ what are the numbers by which New York state exceeded the "base numbers" in years 1995 to date.
3/ whether local county CPS agencies receive any portions of the incentive money under 42 U.S.C. 673B, and numbers by counties and by years of such money received.
If removed, the child is placed either into family placement, or, far more often, into foster care.
The legal custodian of children in foster care is the local Child Protective Agency, the petitioner in child neglect and abuse proceedings.
The U.S. government gives to "incentive-eligible states" financial incentives for speedier adoption out of foster care:
quote
=====
42 USC 673b
(d) Adoption incentive payment
(1) In general
Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the adoption incentive payment payable to a State for a fiscal year under this section shall be equal to the sum of—
(A) $4,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year;
unquote
======
Let's translate it into how the above scenario works on a hypothetical situation.
Let's say that the base number of foster child adoptions in a state during a fiscal year is 100. Let's say that the State exceeded that number by 50. That means that the State exceeded the "base number" by 50 (or by additional 50%), but because of increase by an additional 50% the state will receive an increase in "financial incentive" by a multiplier of 50: 100 x 50 = 5000, or by 4900%.
With older children, the State gets double the incentive it gets for younger children.
My numbers are hypothetical, but the calculations and percentages involved are based on the real statute quoted above. This may be an enticement too difficult to turn down, and family reunification with birth parents be damned, the state has too much of a financial incentive to get that money to adopt children out of foster care, while declaring all along that its goal is to reunify the children with their families.
New York State law requires CPS to have as an official permanency goal for the child in foster care reunification with the child's parents.
If both the financial incentive and the legal burden are directed at the same agency, isn't it a conflict of interest, and wouldn't such financial incentives disqualify the CPS agency from investigating, prosecuting and removing children out of the care of the child's parents and placing the child in the custody of the agency that is financially rewarded for severing the child's ties to his parents and adopting the child to foster care?
My efforts to verify through Freedom of Information requests the channels through which federal money trickles down to the county child protective services were blocked by Delaware County officials on the alleged grounds on privacy.
Yet, I have noticed that in many child neglect cases it is fairly impossible to qualify for a "family resource" for CPS where a child who is likely adoptable and eligible for a high monetary incentive is placed in the CPS' foster care.
Many tricks are employed by the CPS to prevent return of the child. The parent is either coerced into months, potentially, years of "services" by the CPS including involuntary release of private medical information, random searches of the home, random drug tests, whether the initial charges of neglect involved mental health problems or drug use or problems with the home or not. Maintaining "services" at a certain level helps maintain and expand CPS budget.
If parents insist on their constitutional right, are stubborn and refuse to budge to CPS in agreeing to months of humiliation and forfeiture of rights, and if family members step forward to act as alternative placements for the child, those family members are usually rejected by CPS for pretextual reasons. Placement with family members does not generate money for CPS for "services" to the parents described above, and thus placement with family members is not as financially lucrative to CPS.
The most lucrative scenario is placement in foster care, with subsequent adoption, and family members who volunteered as alternative placement resources for children are often rejected by Social Services for a variety of reasons.
"Indicated reports" never known to family members that volunteer as an alternative placement for the child are unearthed, court-ordered investigations and home studies of such volunteers are stalled or delayed, mountains out of molehills are created to disqualify the volunteer's home from placing the children there, family members who volunteered for a resource are harassed and threatened that their own children will be removed until they withdraw as a resource for alternative placement to foster care.
What is also interesting to mention is that, at least judging by the cases where I represented clients in child neglect proceedings and where children were removed to foster care, foster parents and potential adoptive parents often had ties to the local government, often neglected children in their care to the point of removal of children because they were in danger in their foster home, but the politically affiliated foster parents were, upon information and belief, never punished.
My inquiries under FOIL requests as to number of foster homes, names of foster parents, reports against the homes for child neglect or failure to comply with regulations were denied to me for "privacy" reasons.
It is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The cloak of secrecy under which financial incentives for adoptions out of foster care are distributed does not breed confidence in the integrity of child welfare process where CPS agencies, representative of counties, may be receiving financial incentives from the U.S. government, without supervision from the public, for separating families and for having children adopted out of foster care, even though such a goal directly contradicts the goal required by the state law in child protective proceedings.
Such incentives are not made public, the numbers of adoption, the "base numbers of adoption" for states "per fiscal year" are not made public, the policies defining those "base numbers" are not made public, and such agencies fight tooth and claw not to reveal such information through FOIL request claiming that revealing such information will somehow hurt the children and affect their privacy. I believe, children are hurt more when public does not know about the secret web of financial incentives underpinning adoption process and potentially undermining integrity of child neglect proceedings.
I believe that such information must be made public.
At this time, I am attempting to get, through a FOIL request, information from the New York State Office of Children and Family Services as to the "base adoption numbers" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 673B(d) which define the multipliers for the financial incentives for adoptions out of foster care per given year.
I will end this post with a quote from the site of New York State Office of Family and Children's Services:
"New York State continues to be a leader in finding permanent safe and nurturing homes for our children. The number of children in foster care in New York State has decreased from 53,902 children in 1995 to 20,539 as of December 31, 2012, a significant reversal of trends from the 1980s and early 1990s. There have been tremendous strides made in bringing families together across New York State."
I doubt that children are removed to foster care less in 2012 than they were in 1995. I wonder how much the glorious trend (above) reported by NYS OFCS has been caused by the money trickle from the federal government under 42 U.S.C. 673B and similar legislation.
It is good to find permanent homes for children. Yet, it is bad to separate children with their birth parents for money.
Since the money incentives for CPS do exist, it is a question whether CPS can serve as good faith and impartial investigators and prosecutors of child neglect and abuse proceedings and obtain placement of children into foster care out of which they can be adopted out, for money in which CPS may be sharing.
Would you like to have a public investigator and/or prosecutor financially gaining from investigating or prosecuting you? Wouldn't it be too much of incentive to pass to prevent abuse of power and corruption? What if your own child's fate is involved? Will money issue overrun issues of the child's welfare and of the child's right to a "safe and permanent home" with his own birth parents and not with strangers?
I will report on this blog my luck (or lack thereof) as to obtaining answers from New York State Office of Families and Children Services and New York State Comptroller as to:
1/ what are the "base numbers" of adoptions of children out of foster care for New York state for the years 1995 to date.
2/ what are the numbers by which New York state exceeded the "base numbers" in years 1995 to date.
3/ whether local county CPS agencies receive any portions of the incentive money under 42 U.S.C. 673B, and numbers by counties and by years of such money received.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)