For Ray.....

Ray Thomas raythomas101 at HOTMAIL.COM
Sat Feb 10 11:06:01 MST 2001


Thanks. There's a problem with the URL. But I'm pretty sure I've already
covered this.



>From: John <blueoval at SGI.NET>
>Reply-To: Open discussion of current events <RUSHTALK at>
>Subject: For Ray.....
>Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 19:57:16 -0500
>[Old, but still on-the-money. - JAQ]
>When the state becomes parent
>Child protection services agencies accused of abuse
>By Mollie Martin
>© 1999
>         Five-year-old Deborah Hasson was pulled out of her kindergarten
>class and taken to the nurse's office. Her ears were bright red, and the
>child constantly complained of an intense pain. The school, required by law
>to report anything of this nature, called Child Protective Services in
>Fromberg, Mont.
>         CPS immediately concluded that the child was being abused at home,
>and so that same hour picked her up from school and arranged to place her
>into a foster-care situation. Deborah's mother, Grace, was horrified upon
>hearing this and immediately produced a doctor's report, which explained
>that Deborah had an ear infection. CPS chose to ignore this information and
>insisted that Deborah was being abused. That was the fall of 1992. The
>incident launched a violent custody battle that lasted for two and a half
>         In 1995, the very night Deborah came home, Grace, a single mother,
>was awakened at 2 a.m. by a harsh rapping at the door. Through the window
>she could see four police officers and a social worker. In a state of panic
>she called her friend Betty for help.
>         When Betty arrived she found a hysterical Grace handcuffed
>downstairs with a police officer, and the male social worker upstairs with
>the three frantic, young girls. The social worker said nothing more than
>that he had received an anonymous report of abuse. Grace was arrested and
>the children were put into foster homes. It was to be another four and a
>half years of bitter court battles before Grace would clear her name and
>regain custody of her daughters.
>         Too outrageous to be true? According to Dr. Marc Einhorn, a
>forensic psychologist in Atlanta, Ga., these types of cases are prevalent
>throughout child protection agency suits across the country. Einhorn has
>been involved in several hundred cases across five states.
>         Einhorn said that Child Protective Services started in 1974 with
>the best of intentions. Back then the definition of child abuse was narrow
>-- consisting of what reasonable people thought of as abuse. Over time,
>however, that definition has broadened to include anything and everything
>you can imagine -- whatever the state deems appropriate.
>         Many states now have very broad definitions of abuse. For example
>Utah's is simply "actual or non-accidental harm." This leaves grounds for
>the removal of children up to the discretion of the social worker.
>         Einhorn recalls a case he worked on involving a family in Salt
>Lake City. The family had four handicapped children, one being severely
>autistic. The parents decided to apply for Social Security benefits for the
>autistic child, and had him examined as a part of the standard application
>process. The child protection agency of Utah got wind of the application
>and removed all four children from their home. The grounds? The parents
>were exploiting the handicapped children for money.
>         Matthew Hilton, the family's attorney commented, "It's not the
>happiest area to deal with...these are real fights, some are black and
>white, but most are in the gray." The guidelines are very vague. Juvenile
>court has its own set of rules and laws, which are very informal. A lot of
>"protections" are put up around the children.
>         "The problem with the system is that Child Protective Services has
>quotas to fill," Einhorn said. "If a certain number of children are not
>removed from their homes each year, the agency will lose status and funding
>-- causing people to lose their jobs." He said that this causes children to
>be removed on the flimsiest of terms.
>         Suzanne Shell, author of "Profane Justice" and president of the
>Family Advocacy Center, affirms the idea of a quota. Shell said for the
>agency to receive the amount of money it does, each social worker must
>complete a certain number of cases. Therefore, social workers are pushed to
>remove children from their homes on very questionable grounds. For example,
>Shell cited several instances where children are removed for "safety
>reasons" -- the house was not clean, or instances of "neglect" because
>there was not enough food in the refrigerator. The reports neglected to
>show that it was spring cleaning day or it was the end of the month when
>the food supply was
>         In response to the question of a quota, Patricia Montoya,
>commissioner for Children, Youth and Families in Washington, D.C., said
>that "child protective services are the responsibility of the state.
>Funding is provided by the federal government...but the system itself is
>designed and operated by the states." She went on to say "the quota is not
>the goal -- the goal of CPS is to protect the child, make sure they are
>safe, and help provide intervention. That's what the laws that are in place
>are all about."
>         Dianne Warner-Kearney, a Utah child protection specialist, says,
>"A quota for children to be removed from their parents into foster care is
>absurd. In fact, if at a multi-disciplinary staffing which occurs within 24
>hours after the child is removed from the parents, should it be determined
>at that point that there were no legal grounds for removal, the child would
>be returned immediately."
>         Einhorn recalled many social workers he worked with in the past
>who left CPS in sheer disgust of the corruption of the system. According to
>the caseworkers, executives would "sit back and lick their chops" while
>deciding which family to harass next. One caseworker quit after working
>with the agency for 12 years. He said 95 percent of the children should
>never have been removed from their homes.
>         Many of these "atrocities" are done in the name of "the best
>interests of the child," a term abundant throughout several states' CPS
>websites. Einhorn said that ironically the agencies are seriously
>disturbing and frightening the very children whose interests they are
>trying to protect.
>         Shell is very skeptical of whether the state should be given the
>benefit of the doubt when the child's well being is at stake. She says that
>social workers would not be willing to do their job without pay or give
>their lives for the children, whereas parents would -- "So, who has the
>child's best interests in mind?"
>         According to the FAC web site, "Children in foster care numbered
>more than 520,000 in March 1998, up from 340,000 in 1988." Montoya accounts
>for the increase in foster care as "a combination of different things ...
>an increase in child abuse and neglect due to the added stresses of the
>changing world we're in -- with better reporting systems we've brought the
>issue to a higher limelight: kids are often self-reporting if they are
>being abused or neglected at home ... family and neighbors have also
>started reporting. ..."
>         Pamela and Wilbur Gaston, of Mount Angel, Ore., have been fighting
>the courts for nearly four years in an effort to regain custody of their
>daughter, Melissa. Melissa was taken at the age of five on the false report
>that her 72-year-old father had inappropriately "touched" her. The Gastons,
>who have meticulously documented evidence refuting the charges, are
>outraged at the lack of due process in the justice system. At a hearing in
>May 1998, the Gastons claim that the presiding judge stated twice on the
>record that "I will not allow you to make an offer of proof because facts
>are not an issue."
>[Can you believe this?!? It's an outrage! - JAQ]
>         Einhorn commented that in CPS cases, the accused are most often
>guilty until proven innocent. "There is a serious accountability problem in
>the Child Protective Services ... CPS answers to no one."
>         According to a statement by the office of Oregon Attorney General
>Hardy Meyers, "claims against defendant judges, district attorneys and
>assistant attorney generals are barred by judicial and prosecutorial
>immunity...this immunity applies even when a judge is accused of acting
>maliciously and corruptly."
>         "Parents have no legal right to stand in the court for the
>protection of their children when the children are being knowingly abused
>in state custody, even though their parental rights have not been
>terminated," Gaston claims.
>         [UNBELIEVEABLE!!! - JAQ]
>         Betty Asplin of Laurel, Mont., who was the eyewitness in the
>Hasson case, counsels people in these types of situations. "This is allowed
>to go on because people don't know their rights, if they understood the law
>this would be over, it wouldn't happen...people see the law at their door
>and they assume they have to abide by whatever the officer says -- but they
>         "This is a child stealing business," Asplin told WorldNetDaily.
>"They don't keep families together, they pull them apart."

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list