Cook County (IL)...one of the nation's most crooked counties, with a CPS system to match.

Cook County, Illinois, home town to America's drive-by Capitol...Chicago, and the notorious Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, is America's second most populous county (after Los Angeles County) with a full 2% of the nation's people packed into it. It is also home to one of America's most notorious "Child Protective" "Services" (CPS) systems. (NOTE: "CPS" in Chicagoland, can stand, actually, for "Chicago Public Schools," so we will use the actual acronym they use there...DCFS...for "Department of Children and Family Services.")

(Image courtesy of www2.illinois.gov)

He is just one article highlighting the notorious levels of "problems and challenges" that lawmakers and parents' rights advocates have complained about with Cook County DCFS recently:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-dcfs-hearing-met-20170523-story.html

DCFS was busted for an internal program that paid bonuses to their agents who closed their cases the fastest, and this disclosure came in the midst of investigations of the deaths of several children who had been in DCFS's crosshairs while they lost their lives.

But the subject of today's brief article is the legal construct that seems to have been created in Cook County (and that, so far, I've only seen used elsewhere in North Carolina)...the so-called “Allegation #60 Environment Injurious” Here is the first link about this situation I want to bring to your attention:

https://www.familydefensecenter.net/fdc-cases/jessica-r-v-dcfs/

Here is an excerpt from the link above:

"What is 'Allegation #60 Environment Injurious?' In its administrative Rules, DCFS has a system that categorizes allegations of child abuse or neglect into a variety of numbered 'Allegations.' In 2001, DCFS adopted 'Allegation #60' as one of its neglect allegations. DCFS defined this allegation as 'placing a child in an environment that is injurious to the child’s health and welfare.' DCFS utilizes this allegation as a 'catch-all' and applies it in situations where the circumstances do not meet the definition of any other defined 'Allegation'.”

(Image courtesy of slideserve.com.)

This article is an expose of the Class Action Lawsuit, known colloquially as the "Jessica R case" back in 2014 that slapped down the Cook County DCFS for using this illegal "legal" construct to seize children from innocent families for years before parents fought back. Or...so we all thought. As I pointed out in yesterday's article in this blog, CPS/DCFS is notorious for thumbing its collective nose, not only at existing law, but at DIRECT COURT ORDERS as well.

Here is another link that gives us a closer look at the loosey-goosey language that actually makes up "Allegation #60 Environment Injurious:"

https://www.puryearlaw.com/2016/01/18/substantial-risk-of-physical-injury-environment-injurious-to-health-and-welfare-in-illinois-dcfs-cases/

Here is the list of items that make up this laughable "allegation:"

"** Exposure to toxic vapors resulting from flammable or corrosive chemicals used in the manufacture of illicit drugs;
** The circumstances surrounding the death of one child provides reason to believe that another child is at real, significant and imminent risk of harm;
** Exposing a child to an environment that significantly affects the health and safety of the child, based on the sale or manufacture of illegal drugs;
** A court has adjudicated a parent as unfit and the parent has not completed services that would correct the conditions or behavior leading to the court finding;
** Being coerced or forced to participate in or witness the use of physical force or restraint of another person.
** Domestic violence: An incident of past or current domestic violence when the domestic violence creates a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to the child’s health, physical well-being, or welfare, and the parent or caregiver has failed to exercise reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of harm to the child;
** A perpetrator of child abuse who has been court ordered to remain out of the home returns home and has access to the abused child;
** Anyone living in the home who has a documented history of violence directed toward children or has been arrested for violence directed to a child;
** Exposure to toxic vapors resulting from flammable and/or corrosive chemicals used in the manufacture of illicit drugs;
** Surviving siblings of a child who dies as a result of unsafe sleep practices where there are other safety issues that place the surviving siblings at risk;
** Coercing or forcing the child to participate in or the witness the physical abuse or restraint of another person;
** The circumstances surrounding the death of a child provide reason to believe that a sibling or another child is in real, significant and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm;
** Exposing the child to an environment that significantly affects the health and safety of the child, based on the sale or manufacture of illegal drugs;
** A court has adjudicated a parent as unfit and the parent has not completed services that would correct the conditions or behavior leading to the court finding;
** Allowing, encouraging or coercing a child to be involved in a criminal activity;
** Children in the home of a stillborn child whose still birth was the direct result of an action by the parent;
** Children in the home of a stillborn child who was delivered substance exposed;
** Substance Abuse/Dependence: an incident or behavior caused by a parent or caregiver’s substance use creates a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to a child’s health, physical well-being or welfare, and the parent or caregiver has failed to exercise reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of moderate to severe harm to the child;
** Prior Harm to a Child: The prior harm to one child creates a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to another child’s health, physical well-being or welfare and the parent or caregiver has failed to exercise reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of moderate to severe harm to the other child; or
** Mental Health: An incident or behavior by the parent/caregiver that is symptomatic of mental illness creates a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to the child’s health, physical well-being or welfare, and the parent or caregiver has failed to exercise reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the likelihood of harm to the child."

(Image courtesy of slideserve.com.)

I told you it was a "catch-all." From everything I've read, DCFS officials are not even required to delineate which of the above "violations" are actually "in play" when they cite people are "Allegation #60 Environment Injurious" as the reason they are seizing children from specific families. Let me just point out the most obvious areas of this ludicrous mess that can be utilized to seize children unjustly:

A> "Coercing or forcing the child to participate in or the witness the physical abuse or restraint of another person." ...This could be interpreted as applying to mild spanking or slapping a child who just dropped an "F bomb." This is not otherwise considered "abuse" in most CPS jurisdictions, but not in Cook County.

B> "A court has adjudicated a parent as unfit and the parent has not completed services that would correct the conditions or behavior leading to the court finding." This one is particularly egregious as it can be seen as codifying the "safety plans" that many parents are forced to sign (under duress, of course) that are supposed to be informal and unenforceable in court.

C> "Substance Abuse/Dependence: an incident or behavior caused by a parent or caregiver’s substance use creates a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to a child’s health, physical well-being or welfare..." There is no definition of what DCFS considers a "substance," and what level of (say...drinking caffeinated drinks) "abuse" could be considered "substance abuse."

D> "Prior Harm to a Child: The prior harm to one child creates a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to another child’s health, physical well-being or welfare." This one is ripe for abuse by DCFS also, as "prior harm" to someone else is no indicator of current elevated risk to someone else. This language actually doesn't even make any sense when you read it more closely. How is a prior act capable of creating an imminent risk of something happening now...unless maybe somebody set up a booby trap somewhere...lol...?

E> "Mental Health: An incident or behavior by the parent/caregiver that is symptomatic of mental illness creates a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to the child’s health, physical well-being or welfare..." This one seems to have garnered the most angst outside of Cook County DCFs, as, apparently, children were being seized from parents who may not have been high scorers on an IQ test, but who had done nothing to harm their children or to put them at any risk of harm.

The "Jessica R" class action supposedly eliminated the worst of this Allegation 60 stuff, but as I discovered yesterday, it was still apparently in use at least several years beyond the date of that case. Consider this link:

https://www.dupagecountydivorcelawyerblog.com/julie-q-a-constitutional-check-on-the-illinois-dcfs-authority/

(Image courtesy of studylib.net.)

This article is dated less than six months ago in mid-September, 2018, more than four years after the court order in "Jessica R." and is based on an earlier case ("Julie Q" in 2013) which led up to "Jessica R." Here is an excerpt:

"Overall, the Court reasoned that the legislature removed the definition of “neglect” from the Act, and therefore, DCFS did not have the authority to write their own definition for it. Even though DCFS is an agency with a specific mission, DCFS exceeded the scope of its authority because its purpose and power are constrained by the governing statutes. One of the major changes between the unconstitutional Allegation 60 requirements and the new requirements is the mental health factors to be considered. The new regulations state that “[a] parent’s or caregiver’s mental illness or behavior may qualify for an allegation of environment injurious if an incident or behavior that is symptomatic of the mental illness creates a real, significant, and imminent risk of moderate to severe harm to the child’s health, physical well-being, or welfare AND if the parent or caregiver has failed to exercise reasonable precautionary measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of harm to the child.” Further, the following factors are to be considered:

The child’s age;
The child’s medical condition, behavioral, mental or emotional problems, developmental disability or physical handicap, particularly relating to his or her ability to protect himself or herself
The severity of the occurrence
The frequency of the occurrence
The alleged perpetrator’s physical, mental and emotional abilities, particularly related to his or her ability to control his or her actions;
The dynamics of the relationship between the alleged perpetrator and the child
The alleged perpetrator’s access to the child
The previous history of indicated abuse or neglect
The current stresses or crisis in the home
The presence of other supporting persons in the home; or
The precautionary measures exercised by a parent or caregiver to protect the child from harm."

So, while Cook County DCFS was required to stop using the language defining "Allegation 60: environment injurious," what appears to have happened here is that they "cleaned up" the most egregious definition--though some say the new language is more confusing and ambiguous than the previous language-- but that they are still using "Allegation 60" catch-all excuses for seizures on a routine basis.

Still the Julie Q case did have one important outcome for children and families. Cook County DCFS, according to the results of the Julie Q case, does not have the right to make up it's own excuses and is clearly under the authority of the Illinois State legislature, and the Cook County officials, who, rightfully, are the bodies responsible for defining neglect and abuse FOR DCFS.

Small comfort, I know, as DCFS routinely still does whatever they want anyway. But their hubris and flaunting of the law is building a case against them for the long haul...towards the day when a national class action puts and end to them, cleanly and completely...Or, we can at least hope.