Friday, March 31, 2017

Family Civil Rights Coalitions Deliver Letter to HHS Secretary Price

The Swamp of Philadelphia 85 Child Traffickers Arrested

Arkansas Senator Issues “Child Welfare Manifesto” – Child Abuse Perpetrated by the State Must Stop

by Health Impact News/ Staff
As an Arkansas State Senator, Alan Clark has taken seriously his responsibility to hear the voice of the people in his state. When citizens brought the story of the Stanley family to his attention, he investigated.
Homeschooling parents Hal and Michelle Stanley’s 7 children were removed from their home one cold night in January 2015, over false allegations that they were poisoning their children with an unapproved mineral substance. The children have since been returned home, but their lives were turned upside down.
See their story:

Arkansas Takes Away 7 Homeschool Children because Father had Unapproved Mineral Supplement

Stanley family children being removed from home during the night because the father allegedly used an unapproved mineral supplement. Photo from the Bringthestanleykidshome Facebook Page.
In the two years that followed the seizure of the Stanley children, Senator Clark has investigated the actions and policies of his state’s Department of Children and Family Services. He was stonewalled at some points, as DCFS officials resisted Congressional efforts to hold the state agency accountable for their actions. In October, Senator Clark wrote concerning his efforts to obtain information on the Stanley case:
Most do not know that I had to hold the DCFS budget to get that information and the whole Arkansas legislature had to back me to force them to comply. They are clearly more secretive than they have to be. They are clearly more secretive than the law allows.
What he found within the agency was a frightening abuse of power, where innocent families suffer and are torn apart, and children often suffer even more abuse at the very hands of those who are supposed to be protecting them.

Arkansas Senator on CPS Kidnappings: “No Horror Movie Ever Prepared You for This”

Shortly after, an internal email was discovered that showed that the agency was well aware from the beginning that they had no legal right to intervene in the Stanley family. That email was the “smoking gun,” but it was withheld from the legislative oversight committee that Senator Clark co-chairs, prompting him to write that “the gloves are about to come off,” and that all those who had hindered efforts to get at the truth would be exposed.

Arkansas Senator Writes to DHS “The Gloves are About to Come Off” as Cover-up in Stanley Case is Discovered

Child Welfare Manifesto

On December 26, 2016, Senator Alan Clark posted to his Facebook page his vision for Child Protective Services, which he has entitled “Child Welfare Manifesto.” In it, he acknowledges the great harm that is being done to children in the name of protecting them, and gives some common sense considerations that lawmakers in every state would do well to pay attention to as they examine the Child Protective Services agency and its impact on the families in their state.
Here is the document in its entirety:
The new rule in child welfare should be borrowed from Hippocrates. First, do no harm.
There is so much argument about how often the government/state should intervene, how much we should intervene, how we should intervene, should we intervene.
We know or we should know of the intense psychological, often permanent trauma that can be and is inflicted by removing children from their families and placing them with strangers. Every time we move them that trauma is compounded. If the strangers we place them with are not extraordinary human beings the trauma is compounded more.
We must consider that before we remove a child. Someone who truly understands the weight of that should be the only one making that decision. We should be absolutely sure that we have a better solution before we make that removal.
We cannot continue to make the decision that a child’s current situation is not acceptable, only to move them into another unacceptable situation. That is child abuse perpetrated by the state.
We do not just need to reform the system. We need to rethink the very nexus of the system. We cannot continue to assume that the new situation for the child is superior to the old situation, simply because it is the best the state can do today.
Children are not playing cards to be shuffled here and there at the state’s whim. They are not cattle that can be herded from pasture to pasture as it is convenient for the state. For that matter, neither are parents or foster parents. If we are going to take custody of a child it must be with the same care that we would parent our own child. Anything less is to be guilty of negligence ourselves.
The horrible situations that some children face should no longer be used as an excuse for trauma and abuse both, active and passive, committed by actors of the state, even with the best intentions.
We either must intervene in less cases or we become a much more intensively, caring, compassionate, thinking nursery to the children we profess to care so much about that we took them in the first place. If a child is going to suffer abuse it is better that they suffer it in the natural surroundings of their own family than in the foreign unnatural surroundings perpetrated by the state.
There are enough cases out there of the state making egregious mistakes to place the State of Arkansas on the Child Maltreatment List, I think. The state can appeal, but that is one case where I would like to be the administrative law judge.

NBC News: Hillary Clinton ‘Covered Up’ Pedophile Ring At State Department

An NBC news report claims that Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state, shut down an investigation into an elite pedophile ring in State Department ranks in order to avoid scandal and protect the careers of high ranking officials and an ambassador. 
 The NBC investigation was broadcast at a time when they were a real news organization rather than a branch of the Democratic Party’s PR department, and provided internal State Department memos to back up claims of a massive Hillary Clinton elite pedophile ring cover-up.
Serious allegations concerning the State Department,” the NBC anchor announced, before launching into the disturbing details that mainstream media would be unable to report on in 2017.
According to internal State Department memos the agency might have called off or intervened into investigations into possibly illegal, inappropriate behavior within it’s ranks allegedly to protect jobs and avoid scandals.
“This concerns a time when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.”There is an old saying in Washington that the cover-up is worse than the crime. But in this case both parts of it are disturbing,” Chuck Todd continued. “Allegations of prostitution and pedophilia, and allegations that those crimes were somehow covered up or not looked into. So the State Department this morning is having to respond to those claims, and those investigations involve misconduct by State Department officials, including an Ambassador and security agents attached to then secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
“The allegations are that these investigations were whitewashed, quashed altogether, and that those orders came from high up.”
NBC has obtained documents relating to ongoing investigations into some disturbing allegations involving State Department personnel and at least one ambassador. A State Department memo says, quote, “the Ambassador routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children. 
“The memo also says a top State Department official directed State Department investigators to “cease the investigation” into the ambassador’s conduct.” It’s just one of what another document describes as “several examples of undue influence” from top State Department officials.”
Elite pedophile ring
In contrast to Clinton’s cover-up, President Trump has announced a federal investigation into the elite pedophile scandal involving human trafficking earlier this month and promised to help put an end to the “horrific, really horrific crimes taking place.”
The president held a short, dramatic press conference after meeting with human trafficking experts to announce that he will direct “the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies” to devote more resources and personnel to the investigation.
Appearing at the press conference for less than two minutes, President Trump said that the issue has been on the radar of federal government “for some time” but since taking office in January the investigation has become “much more focused.”
It has been much more focused over the last four weeks, I can tell you that.”

Federal US Laws

Federal US Laws
18 U.S.C.§ 241 - Conspiracy against rights - If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law - Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year,
18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States (This is what happens when CPS receives money from Federal Govt based on false charges of child neglect) -
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S.C.§ 1001 - Falsification of Material Facts
18 U.S. Code § 1002 - Possession of false papers to defraud United States
18 U.S. Code § 1018 - Official certificates or writings by filing knowingly false documents
18 U.S. Code § 1201 - Kidnapping - Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof,
18 U.S. Code § 1203 - Hostage taking -
whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so
18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles - Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises
18 U.S. Code § 1349 - Attempt and conspiracy - Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
18 U.S. Code § 1581 - Peonage; obstructing enforcement - Peonage, by unlawfully participating in the taking of the human body of children against parent's will, and absent lawful court order (kidnapping) and attempting to place him into a lifetime of bondage, servitude and labor to a voluntary system
18 U.S. Code § 1591 - Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion
18 U.S. Code § 1593A - Benefitting financially from peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons
18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury -
18 U.S. Code § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court - Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1964 - Civil remedies for Racketeering - Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962.
18 U.S. Code § 2236 - Searches without warrant - Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined under this title for a first offense; and, for a subsequent offense,

Child Kidnapping and Trafficking: A Lucrative U.S. Business Funded by Taxpayers by MedicalKidnap

by Health Impact News/ Staff

The Business Empire of “Child Protection”

Child Protective Service is big business – to the tune of billions of dollars.
Many allege that federal funding is the root of the problem with CPS, and that the real incentive is perpetuating a lucrative business employing tens of thousands of people, and not protecting children. Whenever there is evil or corruption, often all one has to do is “follow the money.” The Bible says it best: For the love of money is the root of all evil.
So, how did we get here?
The 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), or the “Mondale Act,” is the federal law that birthed Child Protective Services (CPS) as we know it today. This law created a new lucrative revenue for the states via federal funds to remove children from their homes based on “child abuse,” and place them in foster care. CAPTA mandated abuse reporting by certain professions and at the same time gave them complete immunity from criminal prosecution or civil liability, even if their allegations were completely erroneous. Since “child abuse” was not even defined in CAPTA, any number of things could be construed as “abuse.”
According to Nev Moore, an advocate and writer for child services reform:
The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more “evaluators,” junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody.
In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child “Protective” Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a “business” in dealing with children.
Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the “Adoption and Safe Families Act.” The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to “President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed.”
In the “technical assistance” section of the bill it states that, “the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care.” The technical assistance is to support ‘the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights. (Source: Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness )
Initially funds came from uncapped Title IV-D funds that made foster care extremely profitable, and the official belief was that abused children were better off in foster care, and for as long as possible. One of the problems with these funds is that they were highly controlled by the federal government on how the states could spend the monies.
John Van Doorn ran for San Diego Supervisor in 2010. Wanting to reform Child Protective Services, he said:
The single greatest threat to the people of San Diego County is our county’s (as well as the state’s) abuse of Title IV-D programs (Child Protective Services, Child Support Services, foster care and adoptions, VAWA, etc.).
Mandated by federal government, these programs are intended to provide a social safety net for our children and the elderly and a deterrent to domestic violence but instead, they have become a means by which our local governments extract great profits. In exchange for providing these services, the federal government reimburses local governments for the cost of providing these services—at times, greatly in excess of the cost of that service. As such, our local governments find themselves sorely tempted to provide a service where one is not necessarily warranted (since reimbursements grow as the amount of services rendered grows), and unfortunately all too often where the provision of unneeded services ends up being destructive in the lives of those “served.”
For instance, in the case of foster care, the present reimbursement to state and local government for each child taken into foster care is approximately $6000/month. Yet the foster care provider (the foster parent) receives only somewhere around $600/month. Allowing about the same for administrative costs, each child in foster care is worth about $5000/month; that’s pure profit on the bottom line! (Source: On Child Protective Services, Part 4: Follow the Money)

Adoption Registry Sites-Are You Searching for Your Child? 
Scroll down the left side and find the state, then the decade the person was born.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Why Children are NOT Placed with Family

Arkansas Making Changes to the CYS System

Alan Clark
My first Child Welfare Reform bill passed the legislature today. SB15 passed the Senate 30-0 and the House 77-0. Each of these bills may not appear to do much, but together they should make a huge difference. It is gratifying after a 2 year process to see real change happening.
Here is what SB15 does in a nutshell.
It presumes a noncustodial parent is fit unless DCFS proves otherwise. (Instead of the parent having to prove they are fit.)
It removes unnecessary roadblocks to placing a child with a noncustodial parent in a dependency neglect case and does the same for returning a child to their home.
It requires the least restrictive disposition throughout a dependency neglect case.
Makes clear that a judge may return a child to their parents home without finishing every intervention prescribed.
Clarifies that the courts must return a child to there home if their is no longer a risk of harm.
Requires parents are informed throughout the process whether they are satisfactorily meeting requirements.
This took an incredible amount of work by all parties but in the end it was agreed to by all relevant agencies.
Ad Litems
Parent Council
Juvenile Judges
Trial lawyers
Governors office
Apellate Division
SB 15 amends provisions in the Juvenile Code governing dependency-neglect proceedings to reform the operation of the child welfare system in Arkansas and protect the rights of all parents involved in that system.
Details, by Section
Section 1 provides that foster parents, potential adoptive parents, and relative caregivers cannot be made parties to a dependency-neglect when the goal of the case is still reunification. (They may still be heard by the court.)This ensures that reunification with the parents is not undermined until the court determines that the goal of the case should be something other than reunifying with the parents.
Section 2 provides that a noncustodial parent is presumed to be fit for receiving custody or visitation with his or her child. That presumption is then only overcome if the petitioner in the dependency-neglect proceeding proves that the noncustodial parent is unfit. This changes reflects the noncustodial parent’s constitutional right to parent his or her child unless he or she is found to be unfit.
Section 3 clarifies that the court must give a preference to the least restrictive disposition at all hearings throughout the dependency-neglect case.
Section 4 requires a court to consider whether the parent or parents in a case have actually benefited from the family services provided in a case. This is important because it is not fair to a parent to not let them know how they are doing throughout the case and then try to terminate their parental rights at the end of the case by saying that the parents have not benefited from the services. The court should tell them whether it believes they are benefiting from services throughout the case.
Finally, section 4 clarifies that a court must return a child home if the child would no longer be at risk of harm if returned home. This should always have been the law, but this section makes that requirement clear where the child’s health and safety can be protected if returned home. Section 4 also makes it clear that the incompletion of some parts of a case plan is not a sufficient reason to keep a child from going home if the child would be safe.
Special thanks to my JPR Co-chair Representative Kim Hammer who backed me all the way, the House sponsor Mickey Gates, my wife, Jana, who has listened and cried with me as these families have called for help, Joe Churchwell who started me in the right direction and whose fire never dims, Doc Washburn, Dave Elswick and all of the members of the press that have been so helpful, all of the families and agency employees who came forward, the senate JPR team that NEVER took no for an answer, and all of the members of JPR and other legislators who have worked shoulder to shoulder to make this happen. Thank you all. There are more bills coming through in the next 2 weeks.

Parents Know Your Rights When it Comes to ADHD Forced Drugs  Very good info.  You can not be forced by schoold to give your children these meds.

Human Rights Complaint Form

You can file this against CYS and anyone that abused your rights
Human Rights Council
Complaint Procedure Form

-            You are kindly requested to submit your complaint in writing in one of the six official UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) and to use these languages in any future correspondence;
-            Anonymous complaints are not admissible;                                     
-            It is recommended that your complaint does not exceed eight pages, excluding enclosures.                                                                                       
-            You are kindly requested not to use abusive or insulting language.

I. Information concerning the author (s) of the communication or the alleged victim (s) if other than the author

Individual                   Group of individuals                 NGO                  Other
Last name: ………
First name(s): ………….
Nationality: ………  
Address for correspondence on this complaint: ………..
Tel and fax: (please indicate country and area code) ……….
E-mail: ……….
Website: ……….
Submitting the complaint:
On the author’s own behalf:  
On behalf of other persons:  (Please specify: ………………..)

II. Information on the State concerned
Name of the State concerned and, as applicable, name of public authorities responsible for the alleged violation(s): …………..

III. Facts of the complaint and nature of the alleged violation(s)
The complaint procedure addresses consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances.
Please detail, in chronological order, the facts and circumstances of the alleged violations including dates, places and alleged perpetrators and how you consider that the facts and circumstances described violate your rights or that of the concerned person(s).                     ……..…………………………………………………………………………………………...

IV. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
1- Steps taken by or on behalf of the alleged victim(s) to exhaust domestic remedies– please provide details on the procedures which have been pursued, including recourse to the courts and other public authorities as well as national human rights institutions[*], the claims made, at which times, and what the outcome was:
2- If domestic remedies have not been exhausted on grounds that their application would be ineffective or unreasonably prolonged, please explain the reasons in detail:

V. Submission of communication to other human rights bodies
1- Have you already submitted the same matter to a special procedure, a treaty body or other United Nations or similar regional complaint procedures in the field of human rights?
2- If so, detail which procedure has been, or is being pursued, which claims have been made, at which times, and the current status of the complaint before this body:

VI. Request for confidentiality
In case the communication complies with the admissibility criteria set forth in Council resolution 5/1, kindly note that it will be transmitted to the State concerned so as to obtain the views of the latter on the allegations of violations.
Please state whether you would like your identity or any specific information contained in the complaint to be kept confidential.
Request for confidentiality (Please tick as appropriate):     Yes                          No
Please indicate which information you would like to be kept confidential

Date: …………………                                              Signature: …………………….
N.B. The blanks under the various sections of this form indicate where your responses are required. You should take as much space as you need to set out your responses. Your complaint should not exceed eights pages.
VII. Checklist of supporting documents

Please provide copies (not original) of supporting documents (kindly note that these documents will not be returned) in one of the six UN official languages.
- Decisions of domestic courts and authorities on the claim made (a copy of the relevant national legislation is also helpful):
- Complaints sent to any other procedure mentioned in section V (and any decisions taken under that procedure):
- Any other evidence or supporting documents deemed necessary:

VIII. Where to send your communications?
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit
OHCHR- Palais Wilson
United Nations Office at Geneva
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax: (+41 22) 917 90 11

[*] National human rights institutions, established and operating under the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions (the Paris Principles), in particular in regard to quasi-judicial competence, may serve as effective means of addressing individual human rights violations.