Posted by
CyberMom on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:00:00 AM
The State of Oregon has been finding ways to force additional Federal Funds than just a recent threat of a Filibuster – Child Laundering
In a recent case with the Department of Human Services involving a child named, "S", a father’s struggle to have his child returned home has turned into a nightmare; but it has also provided him insight to disclose one of Oregon State’s dirty, little secrets. Due to a false allegation made by the State of Oregon and local Law Enforcement in an unrelated matter, DHS took his son and placed him into protective care. There have been no allegations that the father ever hurt or abused his child; nor any evidence presented that he was actually guilty of the crimes alleged by law enforcement, but DHS acted quickly, to ensure that his son, "S" would be, “safe.” That is, they improperly acted months after they began their investigation, leaving "S" with the allegedly, ‘dangerous,’ father, and then in a profit-making scam, abused the ‘Threat of Harm’ clause present in the Oregon laws to legally kidnap his child and give him away, in what is considered a non-abuse-based intervention. They removed a child from his home with the intention of permanently giving him away for profit and didn’t require any evidence of abuse to do so.
The Oregon laws are written to be very obscure for this purpose. There are many parts of the OAR and ORS laws that discuss returning a child to their home, but also returning a child to their parent, as the primary goals of DHS. The difference is that the ‘home,’ would be back with the parent from which they had been taken while the ‘parent,’ could be an absent parent who had abandoned the child years earlier, as was the case with "S", in which the mother abandoned him when he was 1, leaving he and the father alone for many years. These two terms are interchanged freely in the OAR laws without consideration for that distinction. DHS does make one thing clear though: they have now mastered the scheme by which they can legally kidnap for profit. This is not an exaggeration. By using the excuse of a, ‘threat of harm,’ DHS does not have to provide any evidence of a factual nature to a court, only that they believe the threat exists. It is not for a Judge to determine if abuse had occurred, only that DHS has jurisdiction to take a child. In fact, it would appear in many cases that the courts work with DHS to help support the State of Oregon in getting Federal dollars. And, considering Rep. Gordon Smith’s (currently replaced by Jeff Merkley as this article has been updated) recent threat of a filibuster, his failure to assist in these matters makes one fact clear: the State Agencies, starting with the heads of the Oregon Legislature, endorse using children as the shields for their monetary gain. The law, as it applies here is:
419B.506 - Termination upon finding of neglect
The rights of the parent or parents may be terminated as provided in ORS 419B.500 if the court finds that the parent or parents have failed or neglected without reasonable and lawful cause to provide for the basic physical and psychological needs of the child or ward for six months prior to the filing of a petition. In determining such failure or neglect, the court shall disregard any incidental or minimal expressions of concern or support and shall consider but is not limited to one or more of the following:
(1) Failure to provide care or pay a reasonable portion of substitute physical care and maintenance if custody is lodged with others.
(2) Failure to maintain regular visitation or other contact with the child or ward that was designed and implemented in a plan to reunite the child or ward with the parent.
(3) Failure to contact or communicate with the child or ward or with the custodian of the child or ward. In making this determination, the court may disregard incidental visitations, communications or contributions.
[1993 c.33 §141; 1997 c.873 §8; 2003 c.396 §86]
Also - to TRULY see the problem for yourself:
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/abuse/publications/children/nrccps_report.pdf:
"This report has emphasized that a major problem in the CAF safety intervention system is the continuing confusion apparent in concepts, definitions, procedures and practice concerned with risk of maltreatment and safety threats. The concept of
threat of harm as a category of abuse exists as part of that problem and likely perpetuates it. It is likely in Oregon, as in other places, that threat of harm (as a basis for decision making) is open to multiple interpretations, thus the term allows the worker’s decision-making to become less precise and accountable."
The catch in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR’s) that supports DHS doing this is the consistent referral to DHS’ first and foremost responsibility to a child being that they return them to “a” parent. By using this very strategically worded phrase, DHS seemingly fulfills the appearance of attempting to act in the best interest of a child and not to separate healthy, strong families. They manage to extend the Federal benefits they will receive by ‘reuniting,’ that child with an absent parent with whom they had not actually been with and could not technically be returned to; an example of this is:
413-010-0180 Basic Rights of Children in SOSCF's Custody. Each child placed in the legal custody of SOSCF has the following rights:
(7) To be provided services which will reunite the child with his or her own family except when there is clear evidence that the family will not protect the child's welfare;
Now, one might believe that the family in question here is the one in which DHS has removed the child from (as per the line regarding a family not being willing to protect the child’s welfare) the only family they have known. Consider the following:
413-040-0005
(5) "Conditions for return" mean a written statement of the specific behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that must exist within a child's home before a child can safely return and remain in the home with an in-home ongoing safety plan.
Would you believe that the only ‘returning,’ that a child who has been kidnapped from their home that can happen is to return them back to the family from which they were taken? Would you believe that the references to changes in that home would refer to the home from which the child had been harmed in which change would need to occur? You would be wrong if you inferred that from this clause; although it appears as if the Oregon Legislature had that intention when they first wrote the law. Here’s the catch:
413-040-0009
Requirements for Conditions for Return
(2) The conditions for return are documented in the case plan and must describe:
(a) The specific behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that must exist to develop an ongoing safety plan that assures a child's safety, as described in OAR 413-015-0450(2)(b)(A)(i) – (iii), in the home of a parent or legal guardian; and
(b) The actions, services, and time requirements of all participants in the ongoing safety plan in the home of a parent or legal guardian
Are these two sections (413-040- 0005/0009) different or do they pertain to any different situation? Sadly, the answer is no. If you look at the above OAR law, you’ll notice the phrase, “a parent.” This means, that an ‘ongoing,’ safety plan for ensuring a child’s safety to be returned to their home – does NOT mean that a child will be returned to their original home. The ongoing safety plan can be for the absent parent to do nothing more than attend classes that teach them how to keep the child safe from the supposedly, dangerous, other parent. And, DHS’ need to be involved to the point it costs them time and labor, ends with the awarding of custody of the child to the absent parent; and, no consideration at all is given for returning the child to the parent from which they had been kidnapped. (And I will digress on the PAS - parental alienation syndrome - issues which have begun to be more recognized in the last 5 years, that the child is being horrifically subjected to...)
What’s especially frightening about this, is that the laws also state that a child’s best interests are to be considered first, and the least amount of intrusiveness is top priority. The laws recognize that there must be some consistency. Unfortunately, the mechanism by which that consistency exists, doesn’t financially support the government, and will therefore, never happen. DHS does not receive federal dollars, nor any incentive for making any effort to reunite a child with the parent(s) from which they had been taken. You can refer to the report by Senator Nancy Schaefer on the findings from her office into the investigations into DHS operating in Georgia, and the Nation as a whole.
No courtroom hearing that allowed for evidence to be presented by both parties, took place. There was no need for the Constitution of the United States of America, in regards to due process and fair representation, to be upheld in a court of law. In the case of "S", the Judge questioned whether or not DHS had met its obligation to attempt to return the child home, and they "said" they did; but no evidence had to be presented in this matter, only their bogus statement that they felt the falsely, accused parent was just unwilling to try. The OAR laws specifically outline rules to the contrary, but without the parent being allowed fair representation or due process, the Judge made a one-sided ruling; going against every last principal of jurisprudence ever established, regarding the right of both parties to present evidence in full for the Judge to make a fair and impartial decision. In the recent Oregon Child Advocacy Project, in an Amicus Curiae Brief, Professor Leslie Harris shows that there is evidence that courtrooms who act presumptuously and do not consider all the evidence, sufficiency of counsel or the best interests of the children are bound to be more harmful to innocent children than good, and are evidence of failures in the legal system to abide by any of the existing laws of fairness and equality for the families.
In the case of "S", DHS circumvented the father’s rights to present evidence, awarding custody to mother from the custodianship they had lied to obtain. They presented mother with adoption paperwork the day the CPS Caseworker, not the permanency worker, gave her custody (which would go against all OAR and ORS standards for permanency plans, temporary shelter plans and other similar solutions in these types of situations). This allowed the mother to apply for full, legal custody within the Juvenile court system. The father will not have any rights in this matter – whether or not the charges against him in the unrelated matter are ever deemed true or not (and thus, whether or not DHS acted upon a false allegation and destroyed an innocent family because of a lie). Why? Because, "S's" new mom - the absend one who abandoned him, will continue to receive additional funds and monies from the federal government, and DHS will get a bonus for assisting. What DHS did, was to take the child away from his safe and healthy home because of a political structure that encourages law enforcement agents and District Attorney’s offices to help create false allegations against families that allow DHS to get involved. It is an intricately laid out scam that starts at the very top of a State’s, political infrastructure (and there is evidence to prove the Office of the Ombudsmen intentionally ignored this matter).
Because these allegations do not involve any forms of abuse, and cannot actually substantiate any threat of abuse other than to often times rely on inappropriate means such as having bogus psychological evaluations performed by low-end, so-called professionals, DHS has to make sure that a child is transferred from their custody as soon as possible. It is child laundering. Their temporary placement for safety pending the results of a criminal trial to determine the facts, are lost when DHS transfers the matter over to the Juvenile Courts, allowing the dependency case to ‘appear,’ to continue in light of any other pending cases while the custody case can go through without having to be set aside. In fact, in the case of "S’s" father, the Judge in the dependency matter asked the District Attorney why they would not wait until after the findings in the criminal case to make rash decisions. The D.A. claimed that they would, most likely continue forth with a civil hearing on the matter following the results of the criminal case; even if the father was proven, not guilty.
Ask yourself this – if the father can prove that the allegations against him are completely untrue, and DHS took his child based on those allegations, why would they bother with an additional trial, and for what? Then, ask yourself this – what purpose would a civil trial between DHS and the father have in the dependency matter if the parent’s rights had already been terminated and the State had given him away to his mother? It helps to know that the D.A. told the Judge, that they would go forth with a civil trial, even if the father was found innocent, after they had begun to work on the Juvenile case to ensure that the mother would have custody. What appears to be taking place in courtrooms across the country, is that the children are getting pushed through the cracks and the cases washed under the carpets, because the D.A. plans to pursue a criminal case that they have concocted and have therefore become quite proficient at doing so, knowing that they can obscure this child-selling, money-making scheme in the background, behind their money-making scheme to imprison innocent people. One system supports another, and it appears to be a well-oiled, giant machine designed around corrupt politics.
This same type of laundering takes place with money. But, children are not objects. They are not money, and this is America – the idea of laundering a child within the legal system for monetary gain is equivalent to a terrorist act, punishable by life imprisonment, or death. That is, unless you’re DHS or the District Attorney. As Rep. Gordon Smith, along with every other member of the Oregon Legislature were notified of this situation, they had an opportunity to respond. However, as the Representatives in Oregon all rallied behind Rep. Smith’s, filibuster threat, they have proven that they will allow any tragedy to occur in order to increase their profit margin. DHS has been exempt from lying in a court and disobeying a Judge’s, direct orders, while in a different court room, a young lady was berated and threatened for not informing the courts, one time, when she moved residences from a temporary shelter into her mother’s home, for charges that are also bogus.
How much do each of these non-abuse cases yield for the State of Oregon? Last year alone, the 5000 – 6000 children taken in a non-abuse situation, turned over about $12 million dollars …. per month. That number is only reflecting the amount made by the absentee parents and foster families and doesn’t even count the amount given to DHS itself. Now we understand how Representatives such as Gordon Smith, are going to guarantee their money; through abusive, criminal and terrorist actions. The State will continue to support trying criminal cases based on entirely circumstantial evidence, knowing that this means that people can lie and there’s a high probability of the innocent sitting in prison, making Oregon ever wealthier for the rich, while crushing the lives of innocent children to help continue to build their money-making empire well into the future.
What man or woman, can cast their vote, knowing that keeping any of the currently elected officials, means that more innocent children, will die suffer? Oregon’s welfare system received an overall grade in 2007 of “D”. This includes internal departments such as the Child Welfare system receiving an overall “D” grade. Of the 12,000 children that DHS takes, half of them are based, continuously, year after year, upon the Threat of Harm, without any finding of fact. Psychsexual evaluations that do not meet the industry’s standards are abused by clinicians who may hold a Master’s Degree, but not the clinical, psychologists or psychiatric degree required to actually perform a legitimate test, and the courts allow this.
Of course, to some extent, there must be an excuse for the courts. They are overwhelmed, and when a Judge receives only one side of the evidence, and is instructed by the State that they WILL accept this, then they must act accordingly. The Judges rely on the reports they receive from agencies such as DHS and CASA, to the extent that they know these agencies were designed to protect children. And, when half of the cases coming through their courtrooms involve abused children that are battered or raped, the Judges will get to see that some good does exist within DHS. For this reason, they are shielded from getting to know that more than 20% of those battered, raped and murdered children, are also the victims of foster care that resulted from DHS taking a child from a home where they had never been abused and placing them into a dangerous situation. So, in some situations, the Judges must maintain the right to be exempt from the accusations of corrupt, profiteering off of the innocent.
However, the politicians must not be permitted to be exempt. They choose to represent the people, but their representation includes the blatant abuse of approximately 6000 children every year, and has not improved in over ten years’ time. DHS takes approximately 1.5% of Oregon’s children every year (in a state whose population is slightly less than 4 million people total; and only about 20% of those are children under the age of 14!). DHS claims that they are understaffed and underfunded. Rep. Gordon Smith claims that the Federal Government must begin to contribute more to the State of Oregon. The Oregon welfare system, the education system and other programs that involve children look to be cut once again this year because of underfunding. However, when the yearly, federal dollars given for children that are taken for reasons that do NOT include any form of abuse are around $200 million dollars per year, it raises the question over the potential abuse of Federal dollars.
The issue of protecting children from abuse is a very serious one and should not be taken lightly. There should never be any reason to not use tax dollars on both the State and Federal levels to ensure that children who have been subjected to abuse, are given the right to be protected. What we should be concerned with, is an industry such as DHS, whose entire success and future depends on removing children from what they label as ‘dangerous homes.’ If the Oregon, Department of Human Services were to stop taking children that they only ‘believed,’ to be harmed, than they would have their caseloads reduced to only slightly more than half of what they currently handle. This means that their supposedly strapped budget would also be significantly cut. Permanency workers, such as the one on "S’s" case, handle near 30 children at any given time, and must contribute a significant portion of time to each case. It has already been argued that a teacher in a classroom, whose responsibility starts and stops within the hours of school operation, cannot properly handle that many children; how can we expect a caseworker who’s responsible 24/7 to do the same?
The answer is simple: cut the caseload, by changing the priority status of DHS to managing cases of child abuse. Assessments can be done all day long for alleged child abuse, but cases that do not involve child abuse should never be a part of any case management. That would exceed the scope, reasoning and logic for child welfare. It should further be added, that in cases where evidence has not been established as per the law, that not only should DHS not be permitted to intervene, but that temporary shelter assistance, should remain in effect until such time as a child can be returned to their parent either following the establishments of the facts as untrue, or until such time as the parent can be retrained to get their kids back. Giving a child away, whether it’s to a foster family or an absentee parent, violates the principals of custody cases and individual rights. Doing so without any proof of abuse or legally established facts, violates the entire foundation of due process as included within the Constitution. To do so otherwise, would appear as a malicious, egregious attack on the innocent; especially the children. I wouldn’t suppose that our officials in Congress would do such a thing; so then comes the other fear – money. Let us stop selling our children and start protecting our families, shall we? This is, after all – America.
SOURCES:
http://www.law.uoregon.edu/org/child/docs/dhs.pdf
http://www.law.uoregon.edu/org/child/docs/jenkinsbriefexcerpt.pdf
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A128226.htm
http://www.knightsindirtyarmour.com/ArrestWarrant.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341216.shtml
http://www.nkmr.org/english/the_state_is_the_child_abuser.htm
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319814.shtml
http://suncanaa.com/2008
http://www.kids-right.org/shame11.htm
http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf