Only Reason Was Child Was “Adoptable”
Arizona Judge: Child Removed from Home Illegally – Only Reason Was Child Was “Adoptable”
.jpg)
https://healthimpactnews.com/2017/arizona-judge-child-removed-from-home-illegally-only-reason-was-child-was-adoptable/
The above article states that an Arizona Judge has reversed the earlier court order to terminate parental rights in a Court Of Appeals. They even state that they believe the state was taking children from their mother primarily because her children were adoptable. This is now in court records. Many feared this was the case and now it is in court records in Arizona.
You can see from my previous posts the amount of money that is given to the state to care for and adopt out children. Hopefully now they will take a closer look. But more likely they will claim this is a isolated incident. And try to push it under the rug. We as citizens need to not let this happen. The tyranny of these agencies NEEDS TO STOP!!!!!! Please go read the article as it contains many stories of different families.
On this same website I found that there was another article written that an Child Welfare Director was interviewed and he stated the following "The Only Time the Federal Government Pays me is When I Take Somebody’s Kid" you can read the whole article here if you wish. http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/09/02/baltimore-child-welfare-director-foster-care-is-a-bad-idea-kids-belong-in-families/
How is it that they keep getting away with this? In all honesty I feel that until they come knocking on your door most people truly believe the agencies are in it for the best interest of the child. But those that have been effected know different.
So lets look at some numbers https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/afcars-report-24 This is a huge 6 page report so I will pull out only the numbers I wish to highlight for this post. Each year the government requires each state to report their numbers to them. They than put this main report together. And use it for future assessment of financial needs. Key word there is financial. It really has nothing to do with being accountable or being in the best interest of the child or family. It is all about how much money they need to function. This is why it is so important for the agencies to be aggressive. You will see what I mean in a minute.
The highest percentage of children are between the ages of UNDER 1 to 3 years old. With the HIGHEST of ALL age groups being Under 1 year old. They total 140,025 children this year in care. The percentage of other age groups tend to drop after the age of 3. You might be asking Why THIS age group? Well the answer is rather disturbing yet very simple. These children are the ones considered Most Adoptable. So they are preferred.
But wait a minute surely if they were to be adopted they would have to termintate their parental rights and that could take years. Is the goal of the agency supposed to be about reunifying the family. Would they not give them time to get their case plan completed. And get their children back home. Well lets take a look at another set of numbers also in this report.
The Highest percentage sited as reason for removal is Neglect with 61% This term can mean many things and being non specific is cause for concern. You would think that the highest would be listed under abuse since that is what the agency was created for in the first place. But surprisingly enough the 2 main reasons most think of as reasons for removal are physical abuse which accounted for 12% 33,671 and sexual abuse at only 4% 9,904. Keep in mind that removal numbers are for ALL age groups. Not just the ones we are focusing on for this topic.
So just how many were adopted. This includes all age groups as well. 23% 56,507 children were adopted out in 2016. We will get the stats for 2017 in October 2018. Another 13% 14,765 are placed in Pre-Adoptive homes. This means the children are already placed in the home they will most likely be in after they are adopted. They are just waiting for their rightful parents to loose their rights. So just how fast can a parent loose their rights to their most precious child.
The highest percentage of children age 2 when they are adopted second only to age 1 than age 3. The numbers drop from there. Please sit down before you read just how long the average time it takes a parent to loose their child.
The say between 8.7 and 11.8 MONTHS. Yes you read that right. LESS THAN 1 YEAR One year is also the average case plan time. So why is it less time you can loose your child FOREVER!!!! 29% are between 1-5 months 16,435 and 35% 19,848. The one that I am leaving alone will be the less than 1 month as it is safe to assume these number are parent placing their child for adoption through the state most likely shortly after birth. But even that is only 2% 1,222
There are 2 final stastics I must show you. And these are important.
Relationship of Adoptive Parents to
Child Prior to Adoption
Non-Relative 14% 7,725
Foster Parent 52% 29,044
Stepparent 0% 51
Other Relative 34% 18,854
And finally the main reason for all these numbers.
Receive Adoption Subsidy
Yes 92% 52,795
No 8% 4,371
I will talk more about why these numbers are important later on this week. I understand that my posts are long and full of information. For this reason I have chosen to post parts of it instead of pages upon pages at a time.
By the time I am officially finished talking about the financial aspect that powers this beast I hope you will have a better understanding of what we are up against and why they fight so hard to keep it the way it is.
.jpeg)
As I fully support the #familyprotection movement 25% of ALL the SBD generated for this post will be transferred to #familyprotection.
As always Thank you for taking the time to read this post. It means the world to me to finally have a place where I can speak openly and without fear or repercussion.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This post has been Resteemed and Upvoted by @familyprotection
are using "Child Protection Agencies"
to take children away from loving families
and place them in foster care or group homes
or put up for adoption.
THESE FAMILIES NEED PROTECTING.
thank you
There is a war on and the response 'because the child was adoptable' is insane. Judges are afraid to do the right thing and I would not be surprised if they get a monetary kick back from CPS. Kind of like doctors who have an incentive to recommend certain drugs to a patient. People are bought off. You find this in city government too. People will not speak for fear of loss of clients or revenue. The CPS kidnaps children yes but they also hold hostage judges, social workers and others from doing what is right.
true statement
Maybe you should read the whole court document, the child was taken to the hospital for a scratch and the hospital found fractured bones. Read my comment below.
Great work and truly shocking statistics. "Adoptable" indeed.
What did the judge say about the separation of the child from his mother? does the judge read about human rights? because every human being has the right to govern himself, and the child of his mother there is no law that can separate it, because only his own mother can take care of his son.
the article did not say.
Yeah, and human rights would include children not suffering fractures at the hands of abusers.
Great article @curlfamilyvlog
thank you
You're Welcome @curlfamilyvlog
This post was upvoted and resteemed by @thethreehugs
thank you
You are welcome
What a blaring false headline. What was left standing in the case after other evidence lacked/provided the underlying evidence to support them was thrown out was the question of "adopt-ability" Which didn't stand on it's own merit in warranting the severance of parental rights. The case lacked that evidence because the case was handed over to another worker three months prior to the hearing that led the parental rights being terminated, the new case worker didn't follow up on home visits, didn't follow up on referrals that the mother maintain aid assisted visits to gather more insight over the long term on how she interacted with her children leaving the court with one small but not sufficient enough report the worker took from a file that she admitted in court she had not read the whole 145 pages of, which did highlight the mothers concerns about how rough the father was to the children and her concerns....concerns that I may add included overlooking prior abuses that were way worse then the one the child was taken to the hospital for which included: Hospital staff determined that I.R. had a healing rib fracture,
a right-tibia fracture, a possible left-femur fracture (ultimately ruled out),
and multiple bruises. The staff also observed bruises on J.R. I don't know about anybody else on here but if you have your child taken to the hospital over a scratch and they are found to have fractures somewhere along the line mom is either in denial or afraid of her abuser that was sufficient enough to lead to the abuse of her children, one could even draw that conclusion considering she did not take the child to the hospital that night she had her daughter and sister come up with a ruse to take the child the next day. So the only report the court saw was one that said the mother showed concern towards the father about his abuse which put that report in a favorable corner for her. The second one thrown out was the psychologist review. Now, once again, I don't know about others on here but it's a psychologist job and nature to analysis people, despite the records showed that she never tested positive for drugs and his assessment she had just quit because she found herself in trouble comes from his assessment of answers he posed to her. We could use the courts same assessment of their assessment of his report and say that just because she never tested positive doesn't mean she was telling the truth about when she stopped her drug use. It would have taken some time, time enough at least to clear one's system of drugs before being required to be tested, earlier notes in the file also noted that at first she wasn't as cooperate as she should have been which would have further delayed the process for being tested. Despite all that when he stated that the mother shows a trait that money would be spent for drugs over food wouldn't have even necessarily have had a reflection upon her as the user as this could have also meant providing drugs under coercion or fear of the abuser. The psychologist findings, in my opinion, reflected and showed along the same lines the first court found in her behavior at the termination hearing, which was: During her testimony, Mother asserted her Fifth Amendment
right to remain silent in response to questions related to her failure to bring
I.R. to the hospital immediately, awareness of I.R.’s injuries, and Father’s
history of domestic violence. From her silence, the juvenile court drew
negative inferences that she was aware Father caused I.R.’s injuries but did
not report them and that she was aware of Father’s domestic-violence
history. The Department introduced the psychological evaluation and had
the evaluator testify. The juvenile court found clear and convincing
evidence that Mother knew or reasonably should have known that Father
abused I.R. and that she failed to protect. So here sits a mother in court about to lose her children and pleads the fifth amendment to the court to which the court draws upon the same conclusions of the psychologist. This court hearing was only three months before she said to the psychologist that she had been in a off again on again relationship with the father up until July...meaning that earlier statements she had severed that relationship to the workers was false but this was not admissible as false because the new worker failed to follow up home visits that could have proved it as false. Just as the evidence provided in a statement from the hospital that she had a history of hooking up with abusers wasn't enough evidence it was just a written statement without medical records to back up the abuse at the hands of her first husband. The court said without such evidence you can't show a pattern and he is in prison now so the threat is removed. I am with the psychologist when he said she realizes she is in trouble and to bad that realization didn't happen fast enough to save her termination, but maybe that termination finally woke her up to just how serious this happens to be when someone shows up at a hospital with a child with fractured bones, it's not the time to be in denial and it's definitely not the time a case worker should have been lapse at doing her job. Fortunately this doesn't entitle her to her children back it just gives her another chance and the workers another chance, let's hope they both get it right next time because obviously the lives of children are at stake.
In the court records it states on page 13. "¶34 In evaluating the children’s best interests, the court found that both children were adoptable, that their respective placements are meeting their needs, and that they would gain permanency and stability through severance. The Department argues this is sufficient to establish best interests. We disagree."
The reasons this child was first in cps was not the point of my post. I am not one to say that there are not children that were initially in need of care. Maybe this was one of those cases. Clearly from reading the court records the father was an abusive person and he mother was scared of him. If you understand domestic violence you would know that most times the person being abused is so scared to go against their abuser, It must have been really hard for the mother to seek help at the hospital for her daughter. That act alone means she truly loves her child. And once her child was out of the home the mother left her father. Again domestic violence is not a normal relationship. He most likely was using the child as a way to control the mother, as there is no speak of the mother having broken bones or bruises. Once the child was in a foster home the mother was able to leave the father. Than she got her life back together. This is what I can figure happened after reading the case file. Yes they had a new worker but that really did not play a part in this. I have seen many times new workers ask for and be granted extensions.
Even with the father in jail they still said the child was in danger and this was not the case. This is why they should not have been evaluating if the child was adoptable as means to ask the judge to terminate parental rights in the first place. That should have been done after their rights were terminated. It was done as a reason to terminate.
Even though in this case there was evidence of abuse which brought the child into CPS care in the first place the mother eventually (most likely when the father was safe behind bars) got her life together and was cooperating fully and working her case plan. there was no reason to terminate. And they state the only thing was a date discrepancy on if the father and mother had contact was the only reason they found to justify termination. There are thousands of children each year that are removed from their family and their rights terminated.
The point of this post was to bring to light just how easy it is for CPS to terminate parental rights. And that they will try to find any reason they can get away with.
You have a reading comprehension problem. The first time it went to court where the mother was terminated it was based on three concerns with the adoptable being added as the third and least highlighted. If it was the foremost reason it would have come first. Both of those, I guess you could say charges against her were dropped because there was no evidence in the file given to the court that they were anything other than hearsay. Like the medical records of her past abuse by her first husband, (which, by the way, it is he who is in prison not the second husband), you can't just go into court and say she was abused by her first husband, then her second husband without medical records to prove she subjected herself to abuse. The psychologist report was throw out because the case worker dropped the ball and didn't follow up referrals for home visits which would have collaborated or backed up the what he was saying with what would have been in the files. Example of that would have been the case workers concerns that she was giving conflicting reports of when she last was with her husband. That came from the first worker but because referrals for home visits wasn't maintained and despite the fact that she told the psychologist that she had given him plenty of chances but hadn't seen him since June would have backed up the first workers suspicions that she had still been seeing him from January though June. Those two points would have been sufficient to collaborate each other. The second case worker blew it by not following up on home visits that would have given credence to what the psychologist was saying in another point when he said he felt that at that point, which was only four months away from the termination hearing, she was only being good because she realized how much trouble she was really in. Meaning she didn't realize she could stand to actually lose her kids, she was still with the guy until June, found out she stood to lose the kids then did what she was suppose to do. The first court agreed after she took the fifth in answering the questions that at that point she still was dilly dallying around by not giving the answers that were necessary to show she was serious about changing things around. So this wasn't just about "adopt-ability" initially, when the report given by the case worker lacked the evidence by means of neglect on her part....by not following up on the findings by the first case worker....and not that she was innocent either of not seeing the father....that fact though suspected by the psychologist lacked the backing of evidence required by further home visits. Which led it to just be speculation on his part because the second case worker didn't keep up the referrals for home visits to prove it. After throwing out the first two charges only the adopt-ability clause was left and that wasn't sufficient enough reason in itself to terminate.
It never should have been added in the first place. So the second worker did not do her job. Another point I was making in a previous post. If the first two reasons were unfounded. (no matter the reason) the case should have been closed and the child returned to her mother. Instead they proceeded to terminate parental rights and still used the reason they were adoptable.
To be honest your comment was really long but it only kept repeating the same thing over and over. Deciding if a child is considered adoptable should never have been done BEFORE the parental rights are terminated. This should be done only AFTER because the goal of reunifying the family should be the main goal until all else fails. the fact that the average time is less than 1 year says that this is no longer their goal. I can not believe that there are that many parents that abuse their children. And MOST loose their right under neglect than abuse. Neglect can mean MANY things and it is too broad and too open for interpretation.
The first court is where she should have stood up and spoke not claimed the fifth. If you claim the fifth some people consider that a confession of underlying guilt. The case worker had every right to include the first two charges. Just like the second court had the right to review it and tell them where they dropped the ball. Just because the ball was dropped doesn't make the allegations untrue, their was proof out there they just didn't collaborate it and that's the point you are missing. This story is way beyond the typical abuse of neglect it was abuse that cased physical injuries to a child. One can never ever be to careful at the prospects of physical abuse, it often leads to the death of children. Anyway this did not mean she got the children back it just meant she had another chance and this time hopefully she understood that this is not a time to be in denial or plead anything other than that which will protect the child(ren). She goofed up just as bad as they did by her actions.
You misunderstand me I read where they had made allegations and dropped them because they could not prove them. In our courts they have to prove what you are being charged with. Maybe she did not have a defense so she decided to plead the fifth. I do not know that and the records do not say why.
What I am trying to say is that they were provable but someone dropped the ball. The charges had a right to be there but substantiated, it was because someone failed to do their job not that it wasn't true. Because someone didn't do their job the court had all the right in the world to exclude it from testimony that lead to the only debate in the matter being adopt-ability which wasn't enough to stand on it's own. In other words if the facts in the first two charges would have been documented, which they could have, it would have had a different outcome. The could have obtained her prior medical records with a court order for example...they dropped the ball.