Educate Yourself Parents Connie Reguli Live

https://www.facebook.com/connie.reguli/videos/1300823506642907/

Thank you Connie for all of your hard work and for educating people on how the system became and is so CORRUPT!!!

Sign Petition Remember to VERIFY Your Signiture with Sent email from WH

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-child-welfare-foster-care-and-family-courts-stop-title-iv-d-e-funding-and-adoption-incentives

Check your spam folder to verify signature

Contact the White House

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
 Contact the White House with any and all your concerns

CYS Civil Complaint Letter SEND NOW

Send your Civil Complaints.  You can use this format:

I ____________________ am writing this letter to request a former investigation for criminal activity by the following state agency being______________________. The state worker name involved in said criminal activity is ______________________. That individuals supervisor through said agency of ___________________, located at the address off __________________ in the state of __________________, in the county of _____________, supervisor name being ,__________________. The laws and criminal activity involved is of the following starting with Misappropriation of state funds of the state of ____________. Funds being misappropriated by this worker are fund applied to court cost in the following court case / cases being _________________, held at the following court ______________, at the address of ______________, in the state of ________________. I the parent of ______________, have / have not been accused of neglect, abuse , child endangerment. There has / hasn't been any rulings on said allegations so by proceeding with said case this is Misappropriation of state and county resources being the local justice system. and courts. This also is clear violation of civil rights in the area of Malicious prosecution occurring in the court of _____________ with the case being ______________________. The following is the name of the judge or judges involved in the case ____________. The attorneys involved in the case are_________________ for the defendant being the parents of _______________ and the parents name are ____________ and ____________. The attorneys for the plaintiffs being _________________ and the plaintiffs in the case are ____________. Again the criminal activity is Misappropriation of state funds by state workers accused, Misappropriation of state resources being the courts , Civil right violation by case workers being Malicious prosecution, False pretense in court case, Misappropriation of Federal funds obtained for child involved in said allegations , intent to defraud the federal government by illegal placement of child in state custody and other civil right violation of Denial of due process in court case involving said state worker.

Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530

Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources
Room 514-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201
Telephone: 202-690-6396

Federal Department of Public Health and Human Services Washington D.C. 

200 Independence Ave. South West 

Washington, D.C. 20201
(877) 896-6775 http://www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms/complaint-and-request-injuncti

Sign Petition 100,000 in 30 days needed start date 1/22/17

Click link  https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-child-welfare-foster-care-and-family-courts-stop-title-iv-d-e-funding-and-adoption-incentives
Lets do this!!!

Also March Washington DC

Stand Together March Washington DC

http://www.istandparentnetwork.com/

Write Trump About Your Case

There have been several meetings and action on this but now that Trump is official you all need to compose letters/an overview of your case.  Keep it as short and to the point as you can.  If their was unlawful removal, medical kidnap, truancy...whatever the reason and any docs you have proving the corruption.  We have been working on this for 6 months and already almost 600 cases have been submitted and are being reviewed.  I am told that responses were recvd in return and progress is excellent.  Several meetings have taken place and change is coming.  Trump is aware of the corruption in this office and how the Clintons buried the evil overstretch of power in the SS laws which I also have posted on this blog.  Pass the word.  Every and all families affected by kidjacking and their parental rights stomped on need to address their issues with Trump and the people assigned to investigate what has been happening.  You can also attend the March in Washington from May 10-12th
Send your letters and documents to:

President Donald J Trump
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Child Welfare and Foster Care Reform

or his home office:

President Donald J Trump
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Child Welfare and Foster Care Reform

Trump Vows to Return Children to Families states Clintons Doing

https://www.facebook.com/100012669515835/videos/261116804320635/

Stealing Children Protected by Being Tucked into SS Laws

Child welfare law is tucked into Social Security law. This gives it near iron clad protection from repeal and provides a strong base of federal dollars to fund the various programs to states, giving those states a high incentive to capture funding.

The value of your human child is clearly defined in Social Security Law. This link clearly states what levels of funding are slapped on the body of a #TAKEN child, and is a wonderful guideline for states to achieve more layers of funding for disabled, special needs children.

That's right. If your kid can be diagnosed in some manner by a "professional", he is worth more federal dollars. This is called maximization of funding, and states hire professional income maximizer's to make sure they don't miss one dime of federal funding.

This link is worth a read just to familiarize yourself with the dollar value of your children by your government, and to understand just how strong and protected Social Security law is.

Does this piss you off? Call your U.S. Congressmen and let him/her have it! They need to hear your anger at the sake of your children for federal dollars!

#Kids4Cash
#AmericasTakenChildren

Hillary Clinton had so much to do with this sick money making scam of stealing our children.  She didn't want us to have anyone to turn to.  Thank GOD she is GONE!!

ADOPTION AND LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

Sec. 473A. [42 U.S.C. 673b] (a) Grant Authority.—Subject to the availability of such amounts as may be provided in advance in appropriations Acts for this purpose, the Secretary shall make a grant to each State that is an incentive-eligible State for a fiscal year in an amount equal to the adoption and legal guardianship incentive payment payable to the State under this section for the fiscal year, which shall be payable in the immediately succeeding fiscal year.

(b) Incentive–Eligible State.—A State is an incentive-eligible State for a fiscal year if—

(1) the State has a plan approved under this part for the fiscal year;

(2) the State is in compliance with subsection (c) for the fiscal year;

(3) the State provides health insurance coverage to any child with special needs (as determined under section 473(c)) for whom there is in effect an adoption assistance agreement between a State and an adoptive parent or parents; and

(4) the fiscal year is any of fiscal years 2013 through 2015.[243]

(c) Data Requirements.—

(1) In general.—A State is in compliance with this subsection for a fiscal year if the State has provided to the Secretary the data described in paragraph (2)—

(A) for fiscal years 1995 through 1997 (or, if the first fiscal year for which the State seeks a grant under this section is after fiscal year 1998, the fiscal year that precedes such first fiscal year); and

(B) for each succeeding fiscal year that precedes the fiscal year.

(2) Determination of rates of adoptions and guardianships based on afcars data.—[244]The Secretary shall determine each of the rates required to be determined under this section with respect to a State and a fiscal year[245], on the basis of data meeting the requirements of the system established pursuant to section 479, as reported by the State and approved by the Secretary by August 1 of the succeeding fiscal year, and, with respect to the determination of the rates related to foster child guardianships, on the basis of information reported to the Secretary under paragraph (12) of subsection (g)[246].

(3) No waiver of afcars requirements.—This section shall not be construed to alter or affect any requirement of section 479 or of any regulation prescribed under such section with respect to reporting of data by States, or to waive any penalty for failure to comply with such a requirement.

(d) Adoption and legal guardianship Incentive Payment.—

(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the adoption and legal guardianship incentive payment payable to a State for a fiscal year under this section shall be equal to the sum of—

(A) $5,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which

(i) the number of foster child adoptions in the State during the fiscal year; exceeds

(ii) the product (rounded to the nearest whole number) of

(I) the base rate of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year; and

(II) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year;

(B) $7,500, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which

(i) the number of pre-adolescent child adoptions and pre-adolescent foster child guardianships in the State during the fiscal year; exceeds

(ii) the product (rounded to the nearest whole number) of

(I) the base rate of pre- adolescent child adoptions and pre- adolescent foster child guardianships for the State for the fiscal year; and

(II) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year who have attained 9 years of age but not 14 years of age; and

(C) $10,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which

(i) the number of older child adoptions and older foster child guardianships in the State during the fiscal year; exceeds

(ii) the product (rounded to the nearest whole number) of

(I) the base rate of older child adoptions and older foster child guardianships for the State for the fiscal year; and

(II) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year who have attained 14 years of age; and

(D) $4,000, multiplied by the amount (if any) by which

(i) the number of foster child guardianships in the State during the fiscal year; exceeds

(ii) the product (rounded to the nearest whole number) of

(I) the base rate of foster child guardianships for the State for the fiscal year; and

(II) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year.

(2) Pro rata adjustment if insufficient funds available.—For any fiscal year, if the total amount of adoption incentive payments otherwise payable under this section for a fiscal year exceeds the amount appropriated pursuant to subsection (h) for the fiscal year, the amount of the adoption incentive payment payable to each State under this section for the fiscal year shall be—

(A) the amount of the adoption and legal guardianship incentive payment that would otherwise be payable to the State under this section for the fiscal year; multiplied by

(B) the percentage represented by the amount so appropriated for the fiscal year, divided by the total amount of adoption and legal guardianship incentive payments otherwise payable under this section for the fiscal year.

(3)Increased adoption and legal guardianship incentive payment for timely adoptions.—

(A) In General.—If for any of fiscal years 2013 through 2015, the total amount of adoption and legal guardianship incentive payments payable under paragraph (1) of this subsection are less than the amount appropriated under subsection (h) for the fiscal year, then, from the remainder of the amount appropriated for the fiscal year that is not required for such payments (in this paragraph referred to as the `timely adoption award pool'), the Secretary shall increase the adoption incentive payment determined under paragraph (1) for each State that the Secretary determines is a timely adoption award State for the fiscal year by the award amount determined for the fiscal year under subparagraph (C).

(B) Timely adoption award state defined.—A State is a timely adoption award State for a fiscal year if the Secretary determines that, for children who were in foster care under the supervision of the State at the time of adoptive placement, the average number of months from removal of children from their home to the placement of children in finalized adoptions is less than 24 months.

(C) Award amount.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the award amount determined under this subparagraph with respect to a fiscal year is the amount equal to the timely adoption award pool for the fiscal year divided by the number of timely adoption award States for the fiscal year[247].

(e) 36-Month Availability of Incentive Payments.—Payments to a State under this section in a fiscal year shall remain available for use by the State for the 36-month period beginning with the month in which the payments are made.[248]

(f) Limitations on Use of Incentive Payments.—A State shall not expend an amount paid to the State under this section except to provide to children or families any service (including post-adoption services) that may be provided under part B or E. Amounts expended by a State in accordance with the preceding sentence shall be disregarded in determining State expenditures for purposes of Federal matching payments under sections 424, 434, and 474, and shall use the amount to supplement, and not supplant, any Federal or non-Federal funds used to provide any service under part B or E.[249]

(g) Definitions.—As used in this section:

(1) Foster child adoption rate.—The term `foster child adoption rate' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the percentage determined by dividing

(A) the number of foster child adoptions finalized in the State during the fiscal year; by

(B) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year.

(2) Base rate of foster child adoptions.—The term `base rate of foster child adoptions' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the lesser of

(A) the foster child adoption rate for the State for the then immediately preceding fiscal year; or

(B) the foster child adoption rate for the State for the average of the then immediately preceding 3 fiscal years.

(3) Foster child adoption.—The term `foster child adoption' means the final adoption of a child who, at the time of adoptive placement, was in foster care under the supervision of the State.

(4) Pre-adolescent child adoption and pre-adolescent foster child guardianship rate.—The term `pre-adolescent child adoption and pre-adolescent foster child guardianship rate' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the percentage determined by dividing

(A) the number of pre-adolescent child adoptions and pre-adolescent foster child guardianships finalized in the State during the fiscal year; by

(B) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year, who have attained 9 years of age but not 14 years of age.

(5) Base rate of pre-adolescent child adoptions and pre- adolescent foster child guardianships.—The term `base rate of pre-adolescent child adoptions and pre-adolescent foster child guardianships' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the lesser of

(A) the pre-adolescent child adoption and pre- adolescent foster child guardianship rate for the State for the then immediately preceding fiscal year; or

(B) the pre-adolescent child adoption and pre- adolescent foster child guardianship rate for the State for the average of the then immediately preceding 3 fiscal years.

(6) Pre-adolescent child adoption and pre-adolescent foster child guardianship.—The term `pre-adolescent child adoption and pre-adolescent foster child guardianship' means the final adoption, or the placement into foster child guardianship (as defined in paragraph (12)) of a child who has attained 9 years of age but not 14 years of age if

(A) at the time of the adoptive or foster child guardianship placement, the child was in foster care under the supervision of the State; or

(B) an adoption assistance agreement was in effect under section 473(a) with respect to the child.

(7) Older child adoption and older foster child guardianship rate.—The term `older child adoption and older foster child guardianship rate' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the percentage determined by dividing

(A) the number of older child adoptions and older foster child guardianships finalized in the State during the fiscal year; by

(B) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year, who have attained 14 years of age.

(8) Base rate of older child adoptions and older foster child guardianships.—The term `base rate of older child adoptions and older foster child guardianships' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the lesser of

(A) the older child adoption and older foster child guardianship rate for the State for the then immediately preceding fiscal year; or

(B) the older child adoption and older foster child guardianship rate for the State for the average of the then immediately preceding 3 fiscal years.

(9) Older child adoption and older foster child guardianship.—The term `older child adoption and older foster child guardianship' means the final adoption, or the placement into foster child guardianship (as defined in paragraph (12)) of a child who has attained 14 years of age if

(A) at the time of the adoptive or foster child guardianship placement, the child was in foster care under the supervision of the State; or

(B) an adoption assistance agreement was in effect under section 473(a) with respect to the child.

(10) Foster child guardianship rate.—The term `foster child guardianship rate' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the percentage determined by dividing

(A) the number of foster child guardianships occurring in the State during the fiscal year; by

(B) the number of children in foster care under the supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding fiscal year.

(11) Base rate of foster child guardianships.—The term `base rate of foster child guardianships' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the lesser of

(A) the foster child guardianship rate for the State for the then immediately preceding fiscal year; or

(B) the foster child guardianship rate for the State for the average of the then immediately preceding 3 fiscal years.

(12) Foster child guardianship.—The term `foster child guardianship' means, with respect to a State, the exit of a child from foster care under the responsibility of the State to live with a legal guardian, if the State has reported to the Secretary

(A) (A) that the State agency has determined that

(i) the child has been removed from his or her home pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement or as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child;

(ii) being returned home or adopted are not appropriate permanency options for the child;

(iii) the child demonstrates a strong attachment to the prospective legal guardian, and the prospective legal guardian has a strong commitment to caring permanently for the child; and

(iv) if the child has attained 14 years of age, the child has been consulted regarding the legal guardianship arrangement; or

(B) the alternative procedures used by the State to determine that legal guardianship is the appropriate option for the child.[250]

(h) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.—

(1) In general.—For grants under subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary—

(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;

(B) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;

(C) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003, and

(D) $43,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2016.[251]

(2) Availability.—Amounts appropriated under paragraph (1), or under any other law for grants under subsection (a), are authorized to remain available until expended, but not after fiscal year 2016.[252]

(i) Technical Assistance.—

(1) In general.—The Secretary 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 and, to the extent that adoption is not possible, alternative permanent placements, for children in foster care.

(2) Description of the character of the technical assistance.—The technical assistance provided under paragraph (1) may support the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system, when adoptions promote the best interests of children, and may include the following:

(A) The development of best practice guidelines for expediting termination of parental rights.

(B) Models to encourage the use of concurrent planning.

(C) The development of specialized units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanency goal.

(D) The development of risk assessment tools to facilitate early identification of the children who will be at risk of harm if returned home.

(E) Models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre–adoptive placements.

(F) Development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive families without waiting for termination of parental rights.

(3) Targeting of technical assistance to the courts.—Not less than 50 percent of any amount appropriated pursuant to paragraph (4) shall be used to provide technical assistance to the courts.

(4) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.—To carry out this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services not to exceed $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2006.

---

[243]  P.L. 113-183, §201 replaced “2008 through 2012“ with “2013 through 2015”; struck paragraph 2 and renumbered subsequent paragraphs. Effective September 29, 2014.

[244]  P.L. 113-183, §202 replaced “numbers of adoptions” with “rates of adoptions and guardianships” Effective September 29, 2014.

[245]  P.L. 113-183, §202 replaced “the numbers” with “each of the rates required to be determined under this section with respect to a State and a fiscal year. Effective September 29, 2014.

[246]  P.L. 113-183, §202 inserted “, and, with respect to the determination of the rates related to foster child guardianships, on the basis of information reported to the Secretary under paragraph (12) of subsection (g)” after “fiscal year”. Effective September 29, 2014.

[247]  P.L. 113-183, §202 struck paragraph 3, inserted new text. §202 inserted “and legal guardianship” after “adoption” in paragraph title, subparagraphs (a), (d) (1), (d) (2) (A), and (d) (2) (B). Effective September 29, 2014.

[248]  P.L. 113-183, §205 replaced 24–month with 36–month. Effective September 29, 2014.

[249]  P.L. 113-183, §204 inserted new text following “434 and 474”. Effective September 29, 2014.

[250]  P.L. 113-183, §202 struck subparagraphs 1 through 8 and inserted new subparagraphs 1 through 12. Effective September 29, 2014.

[251]  P.L. 113-183, §201 replaced “2013” with “2016” effective September 29, 2014.

[252]  P.L. 113-183, §201 replaced “2013” with “2016” effective September 29, 2014.

“Incentivized adoption is morally wrong. Children in America should never have a price on their head to be ’loved’. It has created a nightmare for those living in poverty, who have neither the resources nor specialized knowledge to fight for their children. Many lawmakers are fully aware of the outcomes of these cases yet turn a blind eye as the funding is good for business in the counties they represent. My son had a jury trial for his son and was found ’guilty’ even though he had never been charged with a crime. He was told repeatedly throughout the ’trial’ that his son was being taken from him because of my own advocacy and activism speaking out on CPS issues. Federal guidelines and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy insist on biological family placement, in reality many caseworkers manipulate the placement toward stranger’s because of the higher rate of pay for that type of placement. Since Oct 31, 2013 I have spoken with thousands of grieving extended biological family members who have been systematically cut out of their grandchild’s life because they, like myself, were told they were ’too old’ or ’mentally diminished’. I might add that caseworkers although not licensed doctors of medicine, routinely make medical diagnosis to the judge about family members. My work with grieving families led me to work with a dear friend to create a website, AmericasTaken.com, for children and their biological families to search for each other. We offer information, support and hope for many of these families.” -GERI PFEIFFER

AmericasTaken.com

#TAKEN

Read article https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/a-broken-system-child-parent-sanctity-cps-lbkr/

States Struggle with Over Loaded Foster Care

NEW YORK (AP) – The number of U.S. children in foster care is climbing after a sustained decline, but just five states account for nearly two-thirds of the recent increase. Reasons range from creation of a new child-abuse hotline to widespread outrage over the deaths of children who’d been repeatedly abused. Addictions among parents are another major factor.

The most dramatic increase has been in Georgia, where the foster-care population skyrocketed from about 7,600 in September 2013 to 13,266 last month. The state is struggling to provide enough foster homes for these children and keep caseloads at a manageable level for child-protection workers.

Along with Georgia, the states with big increases are Arizona, Florida, Indiana and Minnesota. According to new federal figures, the nationwide foster-care population went up from 401,213 to 427,910 between September 2013 and September 2015, and these five states accounted for 65 percent of that rise.

In all five, a common factor driving the increase has been a surge of substance abuse by parents.

In Florida, for example, officials said that a crackdown on abuse of prescription drugs has prompted more parents to turn to heroin and other illegal opioids, leading to the removal of their children from home. Florida’s foster-care population increased by 24 percent between 2013 and 2015; nationally the increase was less than 7 percent.

In Georgia, parental substance abuse now accounts for about 38 percent of foster care entries. That was the focus of a recent briefing in the state Senate, where a county child-welfare official reported, “We recently rescued an 8-year-old boy who graphically disclosed being raped on a regular basis in his home where he lived with his father in a ‘drug house'”

Georgia child welfare officials cite two factors beyond drugs.

One is a centralized statewide child abuse hotline, created in 2013 to replace the 159 different hotline numbers that were used in Georgia’s counties. Since then, abuse reports have increased by 30 percent to more than 110,000 per year, and the number of abuse investigations has nearly doubled.

Another factor has been public outrage after some highly publicized cases in which children died from severe abuse even though caseworkers had prior indications that they were at risk. Heaven Woods, for example, was the subject of an abuse report in May 2014 – the ninth involving her family in the 5-year-old’s lifetime – but there was only a cursory investigation, and she was beaten to death three weeks later.

Bobby Cagle, who took over Georgia’s Division of Family and Child Services after that incident, toughened the procedure for investigating alleged abuse. He also helped add more than 600 new positions for his agency, but division spokeswoman Susan Boatwright said personnel problems persist because of high turnover linked in part to starting salaries for caseworkers that range as low as $28,000.

“They’re leaving because they can make more money,” she said. “If we could hang onto people, we’d be in better shape.”

As in Georgia, the surge of the foster-care population in Minnesota is due in part to a high-profile child fatality – a 4-year-old boy named Eric Dean who died in 2013 after repeated abuse by his stepmother. In 2014, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune ran an in-depth story reporting how Eric’s plight drew little scrutiny despite 15 separate abuse reports being lodged with social workers.

In response, Gov. Mark Dayton ordered closer oversight of child-protection decisions and formed a task force that recommended dozens of steps to place more emphasis on child safety.

As a result, Minnesota is now formally investigating a higher percentage of the child abuse reports received by its hotlines. According the state Department of Human Services, the volume of those reports has increased by 50 percent since early 2014, and state’s foster-care population has risen by about 33 percent.

“Now we’re erring on the side of removing the child from home, rather than doing everything we can to preserve the family,” said Lilia Panteleeva, executive director of the Children’s Law Center of Minnesota.

She said there were good reasons for the shift, but expressed concern about a dearth of resources to be sure the children removed from their families were being cared for by well-trained foster parents and getting access to quality support services.

“We’re dealing with this huge tsunami with very little direction from the legislature,” she said.

According to the new federal figures, Indiana had the second biggest surge in foster children after Georgia – rising by 37 percent from 12,382 in 2013 to 17,023 in 2015.

James Wide of Indiana’s Department of Child Services said parental substance abuse was a major factor.

“The increase in heroin, meth, cocaine and prescription medication abuse, compounded by mental health issues, has brought many more children into our system,” he said in an email. “Sadly, many adults are addicted, and their disease is keeping them from caring for their children.”

In Arizona, where the foster care population has been rising steadily for six years, the child welfare system has been buffeted by a series of major problems – including burdensome caseloads for child-protection workers, cutbacks in services to vulnerable families, and a sharp increase in the number of reports of child maltreatment.

___

Follow David Crary on Twitter at http://twitter.com/CraryAP

Adoption: The Money Behind the Madness

Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness 
DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families

By Nev Moore
Massachusetts News

Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it. 

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 this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to take people’s children – and not give them back. 

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." 

It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source." In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves. 

Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business. 

Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting… 

With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption of children. 

Where to Find the Children

A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right? 

The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen. 

Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m preaching to the already damned. 

The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us. 

How DSS Is Helped

The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. 

For every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000. 

But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year." 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." 

In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits. 

A report from a private think tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis, reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families." So we will be able to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don’t find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "Adopt Shoppe." 

If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS’s quaint "Adoption Fairs," where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking." The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I’m surprised we don’t have government agents breaking down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples you don’t chop down your apple trees. 

Benefits for Foster Parents

That covers the goodies the State gets. Now let’s have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized. 

After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of course, they all can. 

According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and separation would adversely affect the child’s development if not adopted by them." [But their significant emotional ties with their parents, since birth, never enter the equation.] 

Additional "special needs" designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the Children, Boston’s Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children may also get an additional Social Security check. 

The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and "reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process." Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact," including "daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services". [Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!] 

The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption" section. The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family." What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are. 

Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: "We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills." 

I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place? According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not involve child maltreatment." The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the natural parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society. 

That’s just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowley’s children on the government home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can buy them.

May is national adoption month. To support "Adoption 2002," the U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they don’t feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office.

I know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?