This says is all…>>>
Thoughts by
Connie Reguli:
In 1997 Pres. Bill Clinton, with the acknowledged assistance of his wife Hillary Clinton, signed the
Adoption and Safe Families Act, also known as ASFA.
In essence, this legislation put a price tag on the head of every
child that came into contact with the child welfare agencies across this
nation.
This was a knee-jerk response to the decades of lost children in the
child welfare system which had resulted in class action lawsuits in
several states, including the
Brian A class-action in the state of Tennessee in 1994.
When the federal courts determined that the child welfare agencies
had lost children in the system, the federal government reacted by
determining that a quick transition for children from foster care into
new adoptive homes would be the solution. To promote compliance with its
agenda, the federal government put a bonus check on every child for
being adopted into a home of strangers.
- On the surface this seemed like a resolution to a problem that had
evolved over three decades of the government’s attempt to manage child
safety through a government agency.
Instead, it became a marketing frontier for the
state agencies and for private contractors to remove children from homes
and to engineer a new environment and a new family structure for
children.
These funds are derived from the
Social Security Act Title IV E
funding that has driven the child welfare system for now more than 20
years. This bonus system which started as a $4000 reward for the
finalization of an adoption has burgeoned into an entitlement program
which now exceeds the foster care program by nearly double.
It is not only the child welfare agencies that have benefited from
this financial strategy. What is developed over two decades is an entire
system of government sanctioned child trafficking.
How does this affect indigency in the dependency actions brought in the juvenile court system of Tennessee?
- On the surface, it would seem that attorneys who are appointed to
defend the constitutionally protected rights of parents and the safety
and welfare of children, would do their best to defend family integrity
while rehabilitating and re-unifying families in need.
Unfortunately the opposite has occurred.
In a dependency action brought under Title 37 of the Tennessee Code
the parents are entitled to a court-appointed attorney if they are
indigent. Under Tennessee Supreme Court rule 13 these funds are limited
to a compensation of $750 unless the attorney is able to get the court
to sign an order that the case is “extended and complex.” Under the
circumstances and attorney is able to claim $1500 from the
administrative office of the courts.
In addition, from the same pool of attorneys, the courts will select
attorneys to serve in the capacity of Guardian ad litem under Title 37.
Under this provision, the attorneys are subject to the same
compensation schedule.
These attorneys are often new and naive in the practice of law. They
are fighting against the sophisticated legal staff of the state of
Tennessee Department of children services. In the event of appeal, they
are now faced with the overwhelming battle against the resources of the
Tennessee Atty. Gen.’s office.
Even this does not touch on counsel’s responsibility to advocate for these parents and children through the course of the DCS
reunification and investigation process.
What this means is counsel is often faced with the task of attending
meeting after meeting after meeting. Ultimately the attorneys become
exhausted with the process and spend little time in the real defense of
their clients.
These issues are sad but true.
In the past 18 months two important cases have been ruled upon by the
Tennessee Supreme Court affecting the rights of parents and making
effective counsel at the trial court level more important than ever.
- In January 2015, the Supreme Court entered an opinion in In re Kaliyah.
In this case the court determined that the STATE was not required to
show that reasonable efforts had been made to reunite a family in a
termination of parental rights proceeding. This means that a parent’s
attorney must be vigilant in making sure that the state has complied
with the reasonable efforts requirement in the dependency proceeding.
The requirement of reasonable efforts is not merely a state requirement,
it is the basis of the federal funds received by the state upon which
the agency depends to balance its budget. As an attorney who defends
the right to parent, the removal of the reasonable efforts requirement
in a termination of parental rights proceeding is devastating.
- In January 2016, another blow came to parents in the Tennessee Spreme Court decision of In re Carrington.
In this case a brave mother had presented her case to the Tennessee
Supreme Court in stating that her counsel had not properly represented
her in the trial court action. The Tennessee Supreme Court considered
the issue important enough to be accepted for review and appointed
counsel for the process of briefing. The result to parents is
devastating. The Tennessee Supreme Court has effectively ruled that any
deficiency in the trial court level can be cured by the Court of Appeals
reviewing the entire record and every conclusion in the trial court
order regardless of whether that issue is briefed by the parents
counsel. This totally ignores the deficiency of counsel at the trial
court level who are not trained and are overwhelmed by the resources of
the state.
In addition it cannot be ignored that the Council who rotate through
the juvenile courts taking appointments as their main source of income
are reluctant to defeat the state child welfare agencies or displease
the juvenile court judges by causing long and protracted litigation and
often fall on the sword, or rather cast their client upon the sword of
dependency Court, telling the parents they can never beat the State. Or
bargaining away their due process rights with the promise of
reunification. Giving the STATE agency a “WIN” against the parent.
What evidence do I have that this occurs? Let me tell you about
Evelyn. Evelyn and her family are victims of the child welfare system.
In 2014 a child welfare service worker came to her home. Evelyn was
upset and angry about the intrusion. She got in her car and backed out
of her drive and collided with the DCS worker’s car. The DCS worker
called the police who came to the home of Evelyn, went inside Evelyn’s
home, and then arrested Evelyn within her own home for public
intoxication, she was cuffed place in the back of the police car, and
her children were stolen and put in foster care because there was no
parent available to care for them based solely on the arrest.
Within a month, her court-appointed attorney had convinced Evelyn
that she should stipulate that the children were dependent neglect based
on this arrest. That was March 2014. As I stand here today in August
2016, Evelyn is still fighting the Department of children services for
the return of her children. A competent attorney would’ve defended her
position to have a home in which she could protect her children and
bring to the courts attention the illegal arrest.
This is but a mere sample of the tragedies that I have seen in the dependency court system.
Another issue related to indigency and the right to parent is the
termination of parental rights based on abandonment for failure to
support. Although that is not the subject of this forum, it is a social
issue that must be addressed. Poverty is a social issue and not grounds
for termination of parental rights.
I have recently
defended a parent at
multiple court levels for his simple inability to make an income that
is satisfactory to the child welfare agency. Even though he admits that
he is in need of assistance from his family and doesn’t intend to try to
raise the child on his own, the state agency has insisted that he be
able to provide his own home, his own utilities, and that he have
full-time employment before he can parent his child. This young man who
suffers from Asperger’s syndrome does not have a high school diploma,
does not have a drivers license, and has been able to maintain
employment for more than a few weeks at a time. And yet the state was
able to terminate his parental rights forever because he was unable to
provide financial support to his child who was in foster care. It is
important to note that this father had never abused or harmed or
neglected his child AND he attended every visitation he was allowed.
Part of this panels endeavor is to determine where the money will be
found for proper representation of parents in the dependency system. And
as this process continues, the panel should always consider that it is
not just the right to parent, it is the right to familial Association.
What that means is that the child as well, has a constitutional right to
the generational continuity of family ties.
The panel must understand that the money is already in the system.
The job now is to reallocate funds from the distorted and inappropriate
bounty placed on each child’s head with the Adoption and Safe Families
Act, and to provide those funds as resources that rehabilitate and
re-unite families who have been brought into the child welfare system.
Pending before the United States Senate is the
Family First Act introduced by Senators Hatch and Wyden. This bill having
passed the House of Representatives
is now pending before the United States Senate. The goal of this bill
is to address and reallocate funding so that children are more able to
stay with family and relatives, as opposed to rehoming them into the
homes of strangers and social engineering generations to come.
- We must also be mindful of the conflicts of interest that have been created in the child welfare agency and its contractors.
The child welfare agencies serve TWO antagonistic functions. Their
duty is to provide services to families and children that best lend to
the welfare and development of children. In addition, they serve as an
investigative and
prosecutorial arm of the state government for child abuse. These functions cannot coexist in the same agency without conflicts of interest.
Child welfare agencies, including our own Department of Children Services, have contracted with
private providers
that proclaim to offer services both for foster care and for
reunification. This cannot be tolerated. These two service arms are
diametrically opposed and cannot come from the same provider network.
This conflict of interest is detrimental to families and does not serve
the public interest.
Gov. Haslam appointed James Henry to serve as the commissioner of the
Department of children services in 2011. Mr. Henry is the CEO of
Omni, the largest
private contractor of
foster care services in the state of Tennessee. Mr. Henry served in the role as Commissioner from 2011 to 2015 when
he was transitioned into the role of Chief of Staff
for Gov. Haslam. During the course of his tenure at the Department of
children services his company acquired over $200 million from the
taxpayers.
- With no oversight of the Department of children services, the spending by private contractors, or the legal services provided to parents in the dependency system, the system can only fail.
And fail it has.
As leaders of the state and of your communities, you must create alternatives.
- Number one: all conflicts of interest must be forbidden.
- Number two: parents must have qualified and
competent legal staff to defend proceedings against them, including
access to experts, legal professionals, and support staff.
- Number three: parents must have competent advocates
for the process of rehabilitation and reunification. This cannot be
substituted by persons who hold themselves out as protecting the best
interest of the children. For these entities have lost the perspective
of familial integrity and the child’s right to generational family ties.
- Number four: the state child welfare agencies must
have effective oversight and reporting mechanisms available not only by
court and supervisors within the system; but the parents and children of
the system must have an effective means of reporting their deficiencies
and getting resolutions.
- Number five: there must be a reexamination of the
issues of IMMUNITY, TRANSPARENCY, and DUE PROCESS at every level in the
child welfare system.
- Number six: the funding must change. The Families First Act
before the United States Senate is a move in the right direction. Our
country has spent 40 years on a social experiment that the government is
the best substitute parent for the child. This is false thinking.
Families and extended families are the best source of nurturing for
children.
Thank you for your time and I would like to introduce you to some victims of the system.
ORIGINAL LINK:
https://tennfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2016/08/14/in-defense-of-parents-in-the-child-welfare-system/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,GranPa Chuck
Researcher, Editor, Publisher, Collector
