April, 17,
2013
The OMBUDSMAN
Bill in Montana HB-76 Passed it's final vote today 38-12.
Comments
added by a contributor: “This is the first Bill passing, after over 1,200
complaints were received from families that CPS in Montana wronged, stole their
children and made monetary profit by doing so.”
·
Has Montana created a bill that will
represent a True, Unbiased, and Third Party?
Only time will
tell since the Ombudsman Offices created in other states certainly haven’t been
helpful for the most part.
Think about it. How many Acts, Statutes, etc. have been created with
good intentions, but unfortunately, haven’t been followed and/or the general
public isn’t even aware of these statutes?
Needless to
say, many in CPS are opposed to this bill.
FYI, here is
the bill in its entirety with amendments. Plus one may want to use some of
these ideas for their state to either amend or establish an Ombudsman Office.
My primary
concern, of this bill, is that will $500,000, initially proposed be enough funding?? After
all, I am sure that the agency budget is much, much more:
2013
Montana Legislature
HOUSE BILL NO. 76
INTRODUCED BY C.
PEASE-LOPEZ
BY REQUEST OF THE
CHILDREN, FAMILIES, HEALTH, AND HUMAN SERVICES INTERIM COMMITTEE
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT CREATING AN INDEPENDENT
OFFICE OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY OMBUDSMAN; DESCRIBING THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF
THE OFFICE; ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVENUE ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPT OF GRANTS,
GIFTS, AND BEQUESTS TO THE OFFICE; PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATION; AMENDING SECTION
41-3-205, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
NEW SECTION. Section
1. Office of child and family ombudsman established. (1) There
is an office of the child and family ombudsman.
(2) As used in this part,
"ombudsman" means the office of the child and family ombudsman.
(3) The ombudsman is
allocated to the department of justice for administrative purposes only as
prescribed in 2-15-121.
NEW SECTION. Section 2. Purpose and intent. The
legislature finds that:
(1) an independent,
impartial, and confidential ombudsman can serve to protect the interests and
rights of Montana's children and families; and
(2) an independent,
impartial, and knowledgeable ombudsman can work collaboratively with the
department to strengthen the department's child and family services.
NEW SECTION. Section 3. Appointment -- term. (1)
The governor, with the consent of the senate, shall appoint an individual who
is a resident of this state and is qualified by training and experience to
perform the duties of the ombudsman as provided in [section 6].
(2) The appointment must
be made from a list of at least three persons prepared and submitted by a
committee consisting of:
(a) two attorneys
appointed by the Montana bar association;
(b) two district court
judges appointed by the chief justice of the Montana supreme court;
(c) one medical doctor
appointed by the Montana medical association;
(d) one psychologist
appointed by the Montana psychological association;
(e) one social worker
appointed by the Montana chapter of the national association of social workers;
(f) one person appointed
by the governor as a representative of private children's agencies;
(g) one person appointed
by the governor as a representative of the general public; and
(h) one person appointed
by the director of the department.
(3) The ombudsman holds
office for a term of 5 years and continues to hold office until a successor is
appointed.
NEW SECTION. Section
4. Staff. The ombudsman may select, and the department of
justice shall hire as provided in 2-15-121, necessary staff to carry out the
provisions of [sections 1 through 8]. Staff must be under the supervision of
the ombudsman.
NEW SECTION. Section
5. Independence. The ombudsman acts independently of the
department of public health and human services in the performance of the duties
of the office.
NEW SECTION. Section
6. Duties. The duties of the ombudsman are to:
(1) ensure that each child
under the jurisdiction of the department, and in appropriate cases an individual
interested in the child's welfare, is apprised of the child's rights under the
law;
(2) take all possible
action, including but not limited to programs of public education and advocacy,
to pursue the legal, civil, and special protections of children;
(3) help interested
parties obtain any information pertaining to the case work and procedures of
the department that they are entitled to under the law;
(4) review complaints and
investigate, in accordance with the powers provided for in [section 7] and with
procedures adopted and made publicly available by the ombudsman, those
complaints that indicate, in the opinion of the ombudsman, that a child might
be in need of assistance from the ombudsman;
(5) investigate, in
accordance with the powers provided for in [section 7] and with procedures
adopted and made publicly available by the ombudsman, the circumstances
relating to the death of any child who has received services from the
department;
(6) when the ombudsman's
investigation related to a complaint or a death appears to warrant it, share
the relevant findings, subject to the disclosure restrictions and
confidentiality requirements provided in [section 7], with individuals or
entities that are legally authorized to receive, inspect, or investigate
reports of child abuse or neglect;
(7) provide training and
technical assistance to guardians ad litem and special advocates appointed by a
district court to represent children in proceedings before that court;
(8) periodically review
the procedures used by the department with a view toward the rights of
children;
(9) recommend to the
department changes in its procedures and support the department's
implementation of the changes with appropriate training or technical assistance;
and
(10) annually submit to
the governor and the legislature a detailed report analyzing the work of the
ombudsman and any recommendations resulting from it.
NEW SECTION. Section
7. Powers of ombudsman. (1) The ombudsman has, subject to
subsection
(2), the power to:
(a) communicate privately
with any child under the jurisdiction of the department;
(b) inspect, copy, or
subpoena department records, including case notes, correspondence, evaluations,
videotapes, and interviews pertaining to any child under the jurisdiction of
the department who is alleged to be abused or neglected;
(c) request that
individuals or entities outside the department that are legally authorized to
receive, inspect, or investigate reports of child abuse or neglect provide
information related to a complaint or death that the ombudsman is
investigating;
(d) file amicus curiae
briefs on behalf of a parent or child;
(e) take appropriate steps
to see that persons are made aware of the services and procedures of the office
of the child and family ombudsman, its purpose, and how it can be contacted;
and
(f) apply for and accept
grants, gifts, and bequests of funds from other states, federal and interstate
agencies and independent authorities, and private firms, individuals, and
foundations for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the ombudsman.
(2) The ombudsman is
subject to the disclosure restrictions and confidentiality requirements
provided in 41-3-205.
NEW SECTION. Section
8. Special revenue account. (1) There is a child and family
ombudsman account in the state special revenue fund established pursuant to
17-2-102.
(2) Funds received
pursuant to [section 7(1)(f)] must be deposited in the account and expended in
accordance with the provisions of the grant, gift, or bequest.
Section 9. Section 41-3-205,
MCA, is amended to read:
41-3-205. Confidentiality --
disclosure exceptions. (1) The case records of the department and its local affiliate,
the local office of public assistance, the county attorney, and the court
concerning actions taken under this chapter and all records concerning reports
of child abuse and neglect must be kept confidential except as provided by this
section. Except as provided in subsections (7) and (8), a person who purposely
or knowingly permits or encourages the unauthorized dissemination of the
contents of case records is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) Records may
be disclosed to a court for in camera inspection if relevant to an issue
before it. The court may permit public disclosure if it finds disclosure to be
necessary for the fair resolution of an issue before it.
(3) Records,
including case notes, correspondence, evaluations, videotapes, and interviews,
unless otherwise protected by this section or unless disclosure of the records
is determined to be detrimental to the child or harmful to another person who
is a subject of information contained in the records, may be disclosed to the
following persons or entities in this state and any other state or country:
(a) a
department, agency, ombudsman, or organization, including a federal
agency, military enclave, or Indian tribal organization, that is legally
authorized to receive, inspect, or investigate reports of child abuse or
neglect and that otherwise meets the disclosure criteria contained in this
section;
(b) a licensed
youth care facility or a licensed child-placing agency that is providing
services to the family or child who is the subject of a report in the records
or to a person authorized by the department to receive relevant information for
the purpose of determining the best interests of a child with respect to an
adoptive placement;
(c) a health or
mental health professional who is treating the family or child who is the
subject of a report in the records;
(d) a parent,
guardian, or person designated by a parent or guardian of the child who is the
subject of a report in the records or other person responsible for the child's
welfare, without disclosure of the identity of any person who reported or
provided information on the alleged child abuse or neglect incident contained
in the records;
(e) a child
named in the records who was allegedly abused or neglected or the child's legal
guardian or legal representative, including the child's guardian ad litem or
attorney or a special advocate appointed by the court to represent a child in a
pending case;
(f) the state
protection and advocacy program as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 15043(a)(2);
(g) approved
foster and adoptive parents who are or may be providing care for a child;
(h) a person
about whom a report has been made and that person's attorney, with respect to
the relevant records pertaining to that person only and without disclosing the
identity of the reporter or any other person whose safety may be endangered;
(i) an agency,
including a probation or parole agency, that is legally responsible for the
supervision of an alleged perpetrator of child abuse or neglect;
(j) a person,
agency, or organization that is engaged in a bona fide research or evaluation
project and that is authorized by the department to conduct the research or
evaluation;
(k) the members
of an interdisciplinary child protective team authorized under 41-3-108 or of a
family group decisionmaking meeting for the purposes of assessing the needs of
the child and family, formulating a treatment plan, and monitoring the plan;
(l) the coroner
or medical examiner when determining the cause of death of a child;
(m) a child
fatality review team recognized by the department;
(n) a
department or agency investigating an applicant for a license or registration
that is required to operate a youth care facility, day-care facility, or
child-placing agency;
(o) a person or
entity who is carrying out background, employment-related, or volunteer-related
screening of current or prospective employees or volunteers who have or may
have unsupervised contact with children through employment or volunteer
activities. A request for information under this subsection (3)(o) must be made
in writing. Disclosure under this subsection (3)(o) is limited to information
that indicates a risk to children, persons with developmental disabilities, or
older persons posed by the person about whom the information is sought, as
determined by the department.
(p) the news
media, a member of the United States congress, or a state legislator, if
disclosure is limited to confirmation of factual information regarding how the
case was handled and if disclosure does not violate the privacy rights of the
child or the child's parent or guardian, as determined by the department;
(q) an employee
of the department or other state agency if disclosure of the records is
necessary for administration of programs designed to benefit the child;
(r) an agency
of an Indian tribe, a qualified expert witness, or the relatives of an Indian
child if disclosure of the records is necessary to meet requirements of the
federal Indian Child Welfare Act;
(s) a juvenile
probation officer who is working in an official capacity with the child who is
the subject of a report in the records;
(t) a county
attorney, peace officer, or attorney who is hired by or represents the
department if disclosure is necessary for the investigation, defense, or
prosecution of a case involving child abuse or neglect;
(u) a foster
care review committee established under 41-3-115 or, when applicable, a citizen
review board established under Title 41, chapter 3, part 10;
(v) a school
employee participating in an interview of a child by a social worker, county attorney,
or peace officer, as provided in 41-3-202;
(w) a member of
a county interdisciplinary child information team formed under the provisions
of 52-2-211;
(x) members of
a local interagency staffing group provided for in 52-2-203;
(y) a member of
a youth placement committee formed under the provisions of 41-5-121; or
(z) a principal
of a school or other employee of the school district authorized by the trustees
of the district to receive the information with respect to a student of the
district who is a client of the department.
(4) A school or
school district may disclose, without consent, personally identifiable
information from the education records of a pupil to the department, the court,
a review board, the office of the child and family ombudsman, and the
child's assigned attorney, guardian ad litem, or special advocate.
(5) Information
that identifies a person as a participant in or recipient of substance abuse
treatment services may be disclosed only as allowed by federal substance abuse
confidentiality laws, including the consent provisions of the law.
(6) The
confidentiality provisions of this section must be construed to allow a court
of this state to share information with other courts of this state or of
another state when necessary to expedite the interstate placement of children.
(7) A person
who is authorized to receive records under this section shall maintain the
confidentiality of the records and may not disclose information in the records to
anyone other than the persons described in subsection (3)(a). However, this
subsection may not be construed to compel a family member to keep the
proceedings confidential.
(8) A news
organization or its employee, including a freelance writer or reporter, is not
liable for reporting facts or statements made by an immediate family member
under subsection (7) if the news organization, employee, writer, or reporter
maintains the confidentiality of the child who is the subject of the
proceeding.
(9) This
section is not intended to affect the confidentiality of criminal court
records, records of law enforcement agencies, or medical records covered by
state or federal disclosure limitations.
(10) Copies of
records, evaluations, reports, or other evidence obtained or generated pursuant
to this section that are provided to the parent, the guardian, or the parent or
guardian's attorney must be provided without cost."
NEW SECTION. Section
10. Appropriation. (1) There is appropriated from the general
fund to the department of justice $250,000
for the biennium beginning July 1, 2013. (My concern? Is this really enough money
when comparing to the funding of CPS?)
(2) The appropriation must
be used for the purposes described in [sections 1 through 8].
NEW SECTION. Section
11. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 8] are
intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 52, chapter 2, and the
provisions of Title 52, chapter 2, apply to [sections 1 through 8].
NEW SECTION. Section 12. Effective date. [This
act] is effective July 1, 2013.
- END -
Latest Version of HB 76 (HB0076.01)
Processed for the Web on December 10, 2012 (12:09pm)
New language in a bill appears underlined, deleted material
appears stricken.
Sponsor names are handwritten on introduced bills, hence do not
appear on the bill until it is reprinted.
Prepared by Montana Legislative Services
(406) 444-3064
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sincerely hope that this has been helpful?
Myself and my affiliates have a common goal in mind for the Preservation of Our Families.
“We are
joining forces with all persons affected by
Parens Patriae to include
parents, extended family, foster parents and father's and mother's
rights groups. While this is a difficult endeavor due to various
divisions, the focus will be on challenging the system with the unified
goals and commonalities that each is suffering under in family courts
and through CPS.”
(See Definition:
Parens Patriae)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a link to my Affiliation. So check it out.. And if you find it useful, please support the efforts of a small group, that is just a Speck on this Gigantic Planet
GranPa Chuck 
http://nfpcar.org/Jurisdictionary/
You, the author, are being duped by the pro SBS leaders. The so called leaders are deeply invested in SBS both financially, professionally and psychologically. The prospect of being wrong implies they have been the linchpin to the destruction of thousands of families. They have mental health issues to begin with and cannot be trusted to be fair. There is a mountain of evidence that SBS as described, both from before and after Guthkelch and Caffey, never existed. Guthkelch himself has denounced the SBS proponents on NPR this year at age 95. Contrary to Levin’s statement that babies have never been shaken, babies have been shaken and that has been captured on nanny cams and the shaking, severe and protracted, did not show either RH or SDH as a result ever, not once! Isn’t that telling?
Use the link below to download the 2 videos that exist.
Here is the link to the shaking videos with no injuries…
https://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=M3BtaklsaTFiR0pqQThUQw
Extract the files from the downloaded zip folder and start the PowerPoint file and press the slide show button in PowerPoint to watch.
A study by Lee looked at 1258 fathers, 26 of the worst abusers identified in that study were witnessed to shake their kids by mothers they lived with, and none had RH or SDH. Note how infrequent shaking is in general. Note how emergency physicians virtually never see babies who have been shaken who are brought in to be checked by concerned parents who have been warned over and over about shaking. I have never seen a case and the only one I know of was a mother who witnessed her husband shake a 5 week old. The child was examined immediately in an ED and there were no findings at all. There has never been a witnessed shaking that led to either finding.
Loving parents for all intents and purposes do not abuse their kids; this was made up to account for cases like Audrey Edmunds; a women who never hurt a child according to all reports. Furthermore, there is no scientific research to prove that happens among loving caregivers. The notion of parents flipping from loving to monstrous is fundamentally absurd. However, it is essential for the child abuse MD’s to speculate that people snap in every case. Of a thousand loving caregivers the odds of ‘snapping’; this made up event that is not seen among loving parents followed for years in other studies, is virtually zero. The real probability could be as high as 1 in 1,000,000 and even then with no witnessed events, it is still hypothetical. Yet it remains the key piece with Edmonds and thousands of other improbable abusers who are falsely accused based on nonspecific and nondiagnostic findings. The findings are used to prove abuse but even the child abuse MD’s now admit they are nonspecific. This is the sine qua non of the conviction; a speculative, extremely low probability event that is the essential component of the fabricated accusations, passed off as 95% likely by prominent SBS advocates whose business is >> 90% prosecuting innocent families. Their statements of certainty that this occurs would mean that 950 of 1000 previously loving parents would abuse their children every year. That would be millions of cases. It is an absurd presumption and has no place in the court room when those odds might be described as the polar opposite of beyond a reasonable doubt; they really are “fundamentally implausible”. Without a witness to abuse, presuming abuse in loving families is as farfetched as an accusation can be.
There is a gigantic business of prosecuting families, getting government funding and generating convictions to get more funds. DA’s, police, child abuse MD’s are all the beneficiaries of false convictions. They are not in the business of preventing child abuse they are in the business of generating convictions for child abuse. Currently I am seeing about 75 cases a year and >> 90% are innocent people being falsely prosecuted and convicted in about ½ of the cases.
They are convicted when child abuse MD’s and their colleagues within institutions operating in a framework well defined by Irving Janis at Yale in the 1970’s, as “group think”, use medical problems and accidents to misdiagnose abuse. I take the time to study these families and read the letters written by those who know them, and for loving caregivers the letters paint a picture of caring people, with zero history of violence or impulsive behaviors. The probability of these people snapping is effectively zero, ruling them out as abusers. The child abuse MD’s believes all these people are liars when they tell the story of an accident or a prodrome of illness leading to a medical encounter. It is easy for an authority figure to accuse anyone of a fictitious event that is witnessed by nobody and a behavior, the type of which they or no one else has ever seen in the accused. The child abuse MD’s can literally say anything and because of the titles they have, these non-evidenced based opinions are given undeserved weight. Judges, police, DA’s and social workers must stop just believing these child abuse specialists. They must go beyond relying on these people and explore the issues via legal documents like Tuerkheimer or medical research that my article references; studies predating the fabrication of SBS that show the dogmatic pillars of child abuse pediatrics are wrong. They must try to decide for themselves how improbable the majority of allegations proffered are. Disproven dogma, not science, is being used to inflict the most dreadful of problems on innocent families and in many cases stealing children from parents and destroying families. I know about abuse. I have held dead abused babies in my arms. When it real it is easy to see. When it is conjured up via the misdiagnosis of accidents and medical problems, it is equally obvious. The denialists in this calculus are those that refuse to acknowledge how often medical problems and accidents are misdiagnosed as abuse and the 1000’s of cases that could be accidents or medical problems that are dismissed with certainty that they can be “abuse and only abuse.”
Here is a link to an article that summarizes the evidence against SBS.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7z55j01t
Read this summary of the medical history and evidence base (you can download the references) showing how awful what they are doing is.
“He said she said” is not the approach to this issue. Their science is based on children precategorized as abused by their colleagues, the very findings they say diagnoses abuse. This is circular logic. RH and SDH are nondiagnostic findings but if every child with RH and SDH is precategorized as abused and put into an “abuse group”, how reliable is the conclusion that all children who are abused have RH and SDH. And when the dogma was finally shown to be unreliable after 25 years of analysis, the American Academy of Pediatrics decided by a committee made up people like the very people cited in this article, the ardent proponents of SBS, to stop linking their “beliefs” in abuse to any specific medical findings to “provide more clarity in the courtroom.” Diagnoses like abusive head trauma or nonaccidental trauma were invoked that suggest both mechanism and intent to abuse when there is zero ability to infer that from the nonspecific findings they rely on. The purpose was to win more cases with even less reliable evidence then before and it continues to work. The scientific debate has been controlled by those with the power to dictate policies and publicity and is linked to the prosecution machine that operates in this area of the law. Hopefully that will change.
I have been in Emergency Medicine for 35 years and I am not a naïve do gooder. I have seen it all, plus. The child abuse establishment has seduced the media and the legal system using their undeserved fame and ill-gotten stature to influence the courts and the media. They intimidate colleagues and those that disagree, relying on the emotions the child abuse invokes. Yet a false allegation is child abuse and people need to come to grips with this since now false allegations most likely out number the number of cases of real abuse that makes it to court. This is the biggest medical fraud in history.
(End of Comment)
Justia.com-blawg search