Why does the ACLU support the CPS in child protective proceedings? Follow the money - and identity politics that drive the ACLU's' donations. Violating constitutional parental rights to have children placed with married homosexaul male couples.

“Child protective” proceedings – while very frequent (over 2 million child maltreatment complaints are lodged in the U.S. per year) – are not very well understood, even by professional lawyers practicing in such courts and by judges presiding over such proceedings.

No surprises there – law schools, possibly, deliberately, at the request of the state, for purposes of law enforcement and for purposes of getting more money in federal grants for adoptions out of foster care and for sustaining CPS in its current size, do not teach courses of how to protect parents in such proceedings, there are no textbooks on this subject, and this subject is not tested on any bar exams.

Therefore, neither judges, nor attorneys practicing in such proceedings, are specifically trained to understand and apply the complex, varied and often convoluted laws involved in such proceedings.

That means that when an attorney is assigned in such proceedings to an indigent party who does not have a right under the current law to choose the quality of assigned counsel, has no assurance from the attorney’s law license that the assigned counsel, to put it in plain language, has a clue as to what to do and how to defend his client in such proceedings, proceedings that care a dire risk of losing, forever, the client’s parental rights.

Moreover, many attorneys and most civil rights organizations would not touch such proceedings with a ten-foot pole – they are too “controversial” for them to consider being involved in, because, think about it, how can anyone DEFEND somebody who is even accused of mistreating a baby?

When I was practicing in such proceedings as an attorney, and practicing civil rights litigation in federal court, I often had clients coming to me and complaining that the ACLU refused to get involved whenever CPS was mentioned.

So, why the change of heart now?

Suddenly, the ACLU takes a very pronounced stand – and on the side of CPS, too, even that is not openly mentioned – in child protective proceedings, and not once, but twice, and very publicly.

First, the ACLU took a very fiery stand against - of course - against President Trump and the South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, for:

1. Asking Trump to give South Carolina an exemption from the requirement not to discriminate in agencies handling child welfare (McMaster); and
2. For granting such an exemption (Trump) - 

where the case concerned an agency picking foster parents to - well, foster - children placed with them by South Carolina Social Services.  The agency accepted for the position of foster parents only parents who were Protestants (usually white non-Jewish people) and rejected everybody else.

The second fiery stand of ACLU happened when it defended the "rights" of LGBT candidates to (free) adoptions out of foster care.

The ACLU that usually 

• refuses to participate in defending the rights of BIOLOGICAL parents in pending child protective proceedings, while the court did not determine yet that biological parents did anything wrong and while CONSTITUTIONAL parental rights of biological parents are far from being terminated,
• started to ardently defend "equal rights" of foster parents.

The equal rights that the ACLU pushed were:

• in government employment - a good point; and
• in the right of FOSTER parents to ADOPT - which is, at the time when the case is still pending in court, means SIDING WITH CPS and PREJUDGING every child protective proceeding, once it is file and once the child is removed during such a proceeding in foster care, that the biological parent is wrong, his rights will be terminated, and the foster parents will happily become adoptive parents.  

On the cheap, by the way.

I have seen discussions on forums, in groups where the would-be adoptive parents participated, and where social services employees also participated - and the social worker openly advised the would-be adoptive parent, as a CHEAPEST way to adoption, to consider becoming a foster parent, explaining that the adoption will be free for them, instead of $25,000 to $50,000 price-tag for a private adoption, and, on top of that, there are large and various subsidies by the government paid to foster and then to adoptive parents.

But, but, but, but, but...

BUT.

Parental rights, as the US Supreme Court declared, are constitutional rights, they cannot be PRESUMED GONE once CPS yanks the child and puts him or her into foster care.

The law squarely puts the burden of proof in child protective proceedings on CPS, the Petitioner.

It is the Petitioner, the CPS who must PROVE that the parent did something wrong - even if the child is already taken away from the parent, as a precaution only, the CPS and the law says about such removals, but without automatic presumption of wrongdoing or termination of parental rights on removal of the child.

The law also requires, while the child is in foster care, that the CPS make efforts to "REUNIFY" the child with the child's biological parents.

Now, of course, the law should not create incentives, especially where major human rights are concerned, such as parental rights and the right of the child to be raised by his own biological father and mother and have contact with his extended biological family, which would run one against another.

Yet, that is exactly what was done when CPS

1/ still has a burden of proof that the parent did something wrong, still has, by law, a duty to make efforts to reunite children placed by CPS into foster care and the children's biological parents; and

2/ given money if it places children for adoption with strangers (non-family) out of foster care, but 

3/ not given money if CPS reunites children with the child's biological parents - or places them for adoption with family.

To me, it is obvious that lobbying by wealthy childless people who did not want to pay for private adoption were at work in creating such a law where the money outweighs parental constitutional rights - as it always does.

In fact, this same law could be written in such a way that the money would side with preserving constitutional rights, or at least keeping the child within the family - if CPS would be paid MORE, and MUCH, MUCH MORE for adoption with family members, than for adoption with strangers.

The way it is, the incentive exists for CPS to declare in court that it is trying hard to make efforts to reunite children in foster care with their biological parents, while in reality choosing to FOSTER the children people who want to ADOPT them - meaning, from day 1 of foster care the child is placed with people who are interested to terminate biological rights of parents - and to save money by avoiding private adoption fees and, instead, get lots and lots of government subsidies.

A very special category in the flock of would-be foster/adoptive parents are male same-sex married couples.  Yes, yes, yes, I am going to talk about it openly - because, 1. I want to, 2. I do not care what anybody will say about me for touching this explosive subject not the politically correct way, and 3. I am retired, do not seek employment, and do not seek any benefits from the government - meaning, nobody can fire me or deny me those benefits in retaliation for what I say here.

So.

What kind of incentive that would be contrary to the law that supports CONSTITUTIONAL parental rights of children in foster care during the pendency of child protective proceedings, while the CPS still did not prove any wrongdoing on behalf of biological parents - would this particular social group, LGBT candidates for adoptive parents, have?

Let's see.

When a same-sex FEMALE married couple wants a child, and they are fertile (let's assume for purposes of the argument), all they have to do is for one of the partners/spouses to have sexual intercourse with a fertile man, or to have a trip to a sperm bank for artificial insemination.  They will use their own wombs to carry the child to birth.

When a same sex MALE married couple wants a child, it is more complicated, since, biologically, they can both sire a child, but cannot carry it to birth.  Thus, to have a child, a male same sex couple must (1) hire a surrogate - which may cost a lot of money and may be illegal in some states, or (2) adopt - which, with a private adoption may also cost a lot of money.

And, here - tada! - comes the ACLU with a shout of discrimination against the LGBT foster parents.

The ACLU, once again, when arguing that LGBT candidates for adoption out of foster care are discriminated against, does not even mention that their position to support ANY parent who wants to adopt out of foster care may be siding with the CPS at the time when not only parental rights of biological parents, but there is no court decision indicating that biological parents did anything wrong.

Instead, the ACLU paints a one side grim/ one side rosy picture where hundreds of thousands of foster children are languishing in foster care in the hope of - no, not return of their Mommy and Daddy, or uncle, or aunt, or grandparents, or godparents, or any relative or neighbor - but to be given to strangers, forever.

Yet, the ACLU somehow modestly overlooks the fact that in child protective proceedings foster parents are not given a separate party status with rights to custody of a child, moreover, the legal custody is never placed with foster parents while they are taking care of the child.  The legal custody, throughout foster care, remains with CPS, and foster parents are, legally, not more than hired contractors for CPS.

Moreover, the ACLU modestly overlooks when pushing the so-called "rights" of foster parents, and especially the male same-sex parents who cannot get a child any other way biologically, that if a foster parent attempts to undermine the child-biological parent bond, trying to "wean" the child off of his love and affection to biological parents, trying to have foster children call them "Mom" and "Dad" instead of their own biological parents (as they often do, but usually refuse to admit that - in court), if brought up in court, it will be held as foster care parents' misconduct, misconduct of CPS and a reason why the child needs to be returned to the parents, or at least placed with another foster parent who would not try to sever the child's bond with the parent before the court finds any wrongdoing by that parent.

I wonder, how much did the wealthy same sex couples donate to the ACLU coffers so that the ACLU, an organization of lawyers, and an organization of supposedly civil rights lawyers, whose job is to know constitutional law, and to know it well, in order for the ACLU take sides in proceedings that they usually never touched, on the side of CPS (without publicly mentioning it), and on the side of a party committing misconduct in such proceedings, weaning children off their affection towards their biological parents before any wrongdoing by those parents is found the court.

Foster parents and adoptive parents may never be the same people.

There is too much incentive to place a child with a childless couple yearning to adopt for that couple to disregard any rules and constitutional law and, in the privacy of their home, to work to undermine the child's bond with his biological parents.

Too many times biological parents whose children are placed in foster care report that foster parents block their communication with children, do not let them enough phone communication, teach children to call foster parents Mom and Dad, teach children how good they will have it if the foster parents would adopt them, and buying favors of small children - who, when separated from their biological parents, often for years, are easy prey for such emotional bribes.

You cannot give people money (or/and an opportunity to save money) on one thing and expect them to do a diametrically opposite thing, no matter how right, proper or legal that opposite thing is.

You cannot give the CPS thousands of dollars per head of children adopted out of foster care to strangers and expect the CPS not to crave those thousands of dollars or try to get it, by any means.

You cannot give the adoptive parents an opportunity to save 25 to 50 thousands dollars on adoption alone, and then place a child in the care of such would-be adoptive parents hoping that they will behave and not try to bring that adoption about, by any means, including not means that are not legal or proper.

Time and again I had foster parents and CPS lie in court under oath when answering accusations of parents that foster parents are trying to wean children placed in foster care from their bond, love and affection with biological parents, in order to adopt them.

Perjury is a crime.

I did not see ONCE a foster parent prosecuted for it.

You know why?  Because, by law, the criminal prosecutor acts together with CPS in such investigations and proceedings - and, likely, shares the benefits from federal grants received from the bounty of putting children up for adoption for federal money.

There is no reason for the DA to shoot himself in the foot and charge the foster parent for perjury - even if that same foster parent openly discusses online, on social media, that all he dreams about is how the adopt the child in his foster care, and that he already taught the child to call him Dad - contrary to what he said to the court, under oath.

What can we do?

We the People are not helpless in this, even when, in our darkest hour, it appears this way.

We can insist with our representatives in our legislative bodies to change laws that provide such perverted incentives.

To PAY MORE - if the incentive is even needed - to adoption by FAMILY members, or, better, for SHARED CUSTODY arrangements when the biological parent is not severed the child's life.

Or, to take the money incentives away from child protective proceedings completely.

Because now it resembles - too much so - child trafficking to the highest bidder.

And, people should finally realize that, until and unless a biological parents rights are terminated, there cannot be any "rights" of foster parents, especially not any "rights" beating those of biological parents, and of the child to reunite with them.

Not for money.

Not for political correctness.

Not to appease anybody's claims - of religious discrimination, or anti-LGBT discrimination.

Rights of biological parents and their children for family integrity, for the bond with the biological parents are constitutional rights.

Foster parents' rights are not even recognized by law.

Let's keep it this way.

Meanwhile, the ACLU is suing also in Michigan pushing, again, the "rights" of foster parents, of course - not biological parents.

Remember - siding with "rights" of foster parents is siding, against the law with CPS's rights to prepare a child for adoption before the state has proven that the biological parents have done ANYTHING wrong.

This is America.

It should not be this way.

We the People must be able to change it.