Kerry Kibort

For what its worth, go with your heart and make this
work out. Of course, waiting on lawyers to fix it will
take a long time, while he rots way in foster car,
possibly being abused. Take him home, take her home,
do whatever you can to make this family whole again. A
similar situation happened last year in my family, and
while we waited on the courts, my dear cousin was
found dead, of natural causes , at 4 years old, in
foster care. I know this is not always the case, but
even if it is SOMETIMES the case, isnt it worth it to
take charge yourself?
Kerry

Nicoletta Manns

Below I have added a couple of communications between myself and James W.
Prescott (www.violence.de). If anyone has anything to offer besides what
Jim said, I would appreciate the input.

~Nicoletta
*********************************************************
"It is paradoxical, yet true: Children are the most in
need of loving attention when they act the least
deserving of it!"
by Aletha Solter, 1998
from the article "Why Children Misbehave"
www.awareparenting.com
*********************************************************



Dear Jim,

I am faced with a situation where I would like some input, before I decide
to jump in; something I very much want to, since it involves my
eight-year-old nephew and his mother, my half-sister.

James (that is my nephew) was taken away from his mom (Maya) by social
services during the first week of November of 2000. The events leading up to
this were as follows (according to my sister): they had just moved to a
different district (New York area) and James had just gone to school for
three days. On the fourth day, a Friday, James (and his whole school) was
dismissed early; something his mother was not made aware of; she is a single
working mom. When nobody was present to receive James from the school bus
that day (because he wasn't expected until an hour later), the bus driver
took him back to school, the principal called social services, social
services checked their records and found that my sister had been involved
with them on previous occasion in 1997. Therefore social services called the
police to show up at my sister's house, while they took James and placed him
in foster care. Social Services claims that James is not well enough
supervised while in Maya's care; he is not being abused, she doesn't do
drugs or anything of that nature. The only thing they have against her is
that in their (social services) opinion, Maya is not supervising James
enough. Maya was "forced" to attend counselling with a psychiatrist chosen
by social services. After three hours spread out over several sessions,
costing Maya $ 25 a session, this psychiatrist determined that Maya "does
not have the ability to know when her son might be in danger". As a result
of this testimony, the judge ruled against Maya getting James back. He has
been through two foster homes and three different schools in less than three
months. Maya has seen once or twice, talks to him on the phone whenever she
can. James cries to her every time she calls; he wants to be with her,
misses her terribly and she him. Maya says that one way that she could get
him back would be for a family member to apply for temporary guardianship of
James; if accepted James would be released into the guardian's care and then
Maya could take it from there, i.e. get James back from the guardian and get
on with their lives.

Maya is a Canadian citizen, James has dual citizenship
US/Canadian (born in the US). Maya has been in trouble in the past, a result
of having been abandoned herself by her own mother at age 9 (given up for
adoption), moving through several foster homes, group homes, etc. Since she
has had James, however, I have witnessed her making a great effort to turn
her life around. She has raised this child for eight years on her own.

I am a German citizen with Canadian landed immigrant status, my husband is a
US citizen with Canadian landed immigrant status. We both love James very
much, have had him stay with us several times; and we want to help Maya and
James get re-united. Maya wants to get James out of where he is now, and
move back to Canada and start over. Besides myself she only has an elderly
grandmother and another sister who is single and running a business of her
own. I am really the only suitable candidate to apply for this guardianship
of James and I want to very much, just to get him out of the situation he is
in and to make sure he sees his mom.

Those are the bare bones of the situation and I would imagine you need more
to give any real suggestions or advice or feedback; and I would be more than
happy to provide more info, once I get more. I am going to talk to Maya's
lawyer today to find out more.

Is there anything at all you could offer at this point?

Sincerely,

~Nicoletta
*********************************************************
"It is paradoxical, yet true: Children are the most in
need of loving attention when they act the least
deserving of it!"
by Aletha Solter, 1998
from the article "Why Children Misbehave"
www.awareparenting.com
*********************************************************



13 February 2001

Dear Nicoletta,

I am indeed sorry to hear about the separation of your nephew from
his mother and from what you have described is totally unwarranted.
You do need to consult with her attorney on how best to proceed and
your suggestion to obtain guardianship is a good one.

You should have Maya contact the Canadian Embassy immediately for any
help that they can provide, as she and her son are Canadian citizens.

Contact The New York Times with your story and for help. A person to
email your story to: Laurel Graeber Columnist, Family Fare
graeber@...

If she cannot be of help, ask her who on the NYT would be willing to
take up Maya's struggle to have her son returned to her, as there is
no evidence of abuse and neglect nor harm or injury inflicted upon
the child. Single moms are being continually punished by various
elements of our society including the Social Services Administration,
which is exploiting a situation created by the Public School system,
as I understand the facts and which is inflicting serious emotional
harm on the child by wrongfully removing him from his mother. Such
removal of child from mother, under these circumstances, constitutes
"child emotional endangerment" by the SSA, which is supposed to
protect children not harm them.

Let me know what happens and I wish that I could be of more help to
you. You might want to reference some of my studies posted at
http://www.violence.de which documents the harmful effects of
mother-infant/child separation upon the child, particularly the film
documentary at: http://www.violence.de/tv/rockabye.html

Michael Mendizza of Touch the Future might also be of help and I am
copying this email to him.

Keep fighting--

jim




Dear Jim,

thank you very much for your support. Below is an article that came to me
just two days after I found out about what happened to my sister and her
son. Isn't THAT ironic!! I will send this and whatever info I have to the
person you suggested at the New York Times. And I will keep you up to date
on what happens.

~Nicoletta
*********************************************************
"It is paradoxical, yet true: Children are the most in
need of loving attention when they act the least
deserving of it!"
by Aletha Solter, 1998
from the article "Why Children Misbehave"
www.awareparenting.com
*********************************************************





<< http://www.cpswatch.com/reports/treasure.htm

Treasure Chest of Misery

by Doug Quirmbach

State child protective agencies are increasingly removing children
from their homes to take advantage of federal funding programs,
according to nationally recognized child welfare experts.

Recent studies conducted by child advocacy organizations and
governmental agencies disclose that caseworkers are opting to
forcibly take children from their parents rather than providing
family preservation services. The Center on Child Abuse Prevention
Research (1998) reported that "the number of children who
received
services at home declined from 1,244,400 in 1977 to 493,100 in
1994"
(p. 6). During the same period, the amount of children taken out of
their homes skyrocketed -- 502,000 children were in foster care
placement in 1994.

"While 30% of the children served by the system in 1977 were
placed
in foster care, that percentage has risen to 50% today," the
researchers reported. "Despite the good intentions of reformers,
this
service system (CPS) is increasingly relying upon foster care
placement . . . ." (Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research,
1998:6).

Parents face increasing risk of losing their children because of the
way federal funds are categorized and funneled to the states. Each
entitlement category is earmarked for specific purposes.

"Without clear direction, states provided those services that were
most 'fungible,' that is, generated the most matching revenue from
the federal Government," explain child welfare experts Lela B.
Costin, Howard Jacob Karger and David Stoesz (1996:152).

"Because most of the funding for child abuse and neglect is derived
from Title IV-B and Title XX, both of which are capped, states must
rely on other child welfare components in order to mount child
protection efforts," Costin and her co-authors write (1996:152).
Therefore, the experts say, foster care has "become the ex post facto
response to child abuse."

Limitless funds are available to the states through Title IV-E,
earmarked for out-of-home placement. State agencies increase their
overall revenue by removing children from their homes since money
from Title IV-E is channeled to the states in direct proportion to
how many children they incarcerate into the system.

"In either case, federal funding [for Title IV-E] is open-ended; once
the state appropriates revenues for child welfare, the federal match
is essentially demand-driven and therefore guaranteed (Costin, et
al., 1996). "This arrangement, of course, creates an enormous
incentive for states to maximize the amount of money that can be
extracted from the federal government."

The Children's Defense fund (1988) reports that 77% of combined
funding for child welfare prevention services went for foster care
and adoption services (CDF, 1988). The percentage has since
increased. Kathleen Faller told Congress last year that 9 out of 10
federal child welfare dollars flow to the states through foster care
entitlements.

Federal and state taxpayer funds are just the tip of the treasure
chest available to agencies once they remove a child.

After federal and state funds have been collected for foster care,
the agency then "double dips" by charging the parents for the same
care. Once the child is in state custody, the agency can then claim
the child's SDI benefits, effectively robbing from the child's
future. "Victim Compensation" funds are collected by the child's new
caretaker -- the state -- along with other entitlements.

Training expenses under IV-E is open-ended and pays a return of
75%. "Independent Learning" programs for those unfortunate children
who have struggled under state custody is reimbursed at 100% with no
state participation at all (Green Book, 1993). Adoption assistance
for foster kids under Title IV-E is open-ended and the contribution
is limited only to Medicaid rates (Green Book, 1993).

Over 3.2 million reports of child abuse and neglect were made to
child protective hot lines in 1996. Two-thirds of the reports, often
made anonymously by disgruntled neighbors or parties involved in
custody disputes, were unfounded (NCANDS, 1998). While only 3 to 5%
of the reports that are substantiated by child protective services
involve serious child maltreatment, CCAPR discovered that children
were removed from their homes in 50% of the cases.

The San Diego Grand Jury determined that funding arrangements
contributed to overzealous CPS caseworkers wrongfully yanking
children from their parents. The Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors investigated foster care practices in that county and
issued a scathing report. Mr. Digre, who departed as director after
the investigation, seemed to scapegoat the federal grant programs as
contributing to DSS's horrendous treatment of its tiny wards.

Yet California is not at all unique. State agencies throughout the
country incarcerate children because it pays to do so.

Agencies get considerably more federal and state funds for removing a
child from his home than they do in making reasonable efforts to
preserve the family. For the child welfare agency, the choice is
obvious. Any bureaucracy can be expected to consider first continuing
its own interests.

But what about the interests of our tinniest, most vulnerable of
citizens?

Certainly, the tragic personal costs to a child wrongfully removed
from her loving home overwhelms any dollar amount we can ever
determine. The damage done to a child through institutional child
abuse is irreparable.

Children and their families desperately need advocates willing to
voice their opposition to the wholesale, governmental kidnapping of
this nation's kids. But children and their families are not
given a
voice because, of course, it doesn't pay.

-------
References

Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research. (1998). Current Trends in
Child Abuse Reporting and Fatalities: The Results of the 1997 Fifty
State Survey. Chicago: Prevent Child Abuse America.

Children's Defense Fund. (1988). A children's defense budget, fiscal
year 1989: An Analysis of our nation's investment in children.
Washington, DC: (Author).

Costin, Lela, Karger, Howard J., Stoesz, David. (1996). The politics
of child abuse in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (1998). Child
Maltreatment 1996: Reports from the states to the National Child
Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office

US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. (1993).

Overview of entitlement programs, 1993 green book. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.

*********************************

Lynda

Hello, Nicoletta,

With the program I use to work with (ICWA), we immediately asked the court
to appoint CASA or an attorney for the child. The child should have an
attorney or advocacy group of his own, independent of SS (ever wonder if the
initials are a freudian slip?) and be sure that the family be given a number
to choose between so that you can be sure the attorney has not been a SS
advocate in the past.

Almost all states require this but it is rarely followed through on because
the families don't know that the law has an option for this. You can also
get the court to order an independent psych to do an eval as SS's are
biased. You also want an independent psych eval for your nephew.

If you can set something up in Canada (work, house/apartment, etc.) for the
mother in advance, that is also another plus.

I wouldn't have any contact with Social Services at all. Deal directly with
the court because anything you say/do with SS is usually twisted to meet
their perverted needs.

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicoletta Manns" <snmanns@...>
To: <snmanns@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 9:06 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] request for input (long)


> Below I have added a couple of communications between myself and James W.
> Prescott (www.violence.de). If anyone has anything to offer besides what
> Jim said, I would appreciate the input.
>
> ~Nicoletta
> *********************************************************
> "It is paradoxical, yet true: Children are the most in
> need of loving attention when they act the least
> deserving of it!"
> by Aletha Solter, 1998
> from the article "Why Children Misbehave"
> www.awareparenting.com
> *********************************************************
>
>
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> I am faced with a situation where I would like some input, before I decide
> to jump in; something I very much want to, since it involves my
> eight-year-old nephew and his mother, my half-sister.
>
> James (that is my nephew) was taken away from his mom (Maya) by social
> services during the first week of November of 2000. The events leading up
to
> this were as follows (according to my sister): they had just moved to a
> different district (New York area) and James had just gone to school for
> three days. On the fourth day, a Friday, James (and his whole school) was
> dismissed early; something his mother was not made aware of; she is a
single
> working mom. When nobody was present to receive James from the school bus
> that day (because he wasn't expected until an hour later), the bus driver
> took him back to school, the principal called social services, social
> services checked their records and found that my sister had been involved
> with them on previous occasion in 1997. Therefore social services called
the
> police to show up at my sister's house, while they took James and placed
him
> in foster care. Social Services claims that James is not well enough
> supervised while in Maya's care; he is not being abused, she doesn't do
> drugs or anything of that nature. The only thing they have against her is
> that in their (social services) opinion, Maya is not supervising James
> enough. Maya was "forced" to attend counselling with a psychiatrist chosen
> by social services. After three hours spread out over several sessions,
> costing Maya $ 25 a session, this psychiatrist determined that Maya "does
> not have the ability to know when her son might be in danger". As a result
> of this testimony, the judge ruled against Maya getting James back. He has
> been through two foster homes and three different schools in less than
three
> months. Maya has seen once or twice, talks to him on the phone whenever
she
> can. James cries to her every time she calls; he wants to be with her,
> misses her terribly and she him. Maya says that one way that she could get
> him back would be for a family member to apply for temporary guardianship
of
> James; if accepted James would be released into the guardian's care and
then
> Maya could take it from there, i.e. get James back from the guardian and
get
> on with their lives.
>
> Maya is a Canadian citizen, James has dual citizenship
> US/Canadian (born in the US). Maya has been in trouble in the past, a
result
> of having been abandoned herself by her own mother at age 9 (given up for
> adoption), moving through several foster homes, group homes, etc. Since
she
> has had James, however, I have witnessed her making a great effort to turn
> her life around. She has raised this child for eight years on her own.
>
> I am a German citizen with Canadian landed immigrant status, my husband is
a
> US citizen with Canadian landed immigrant status. We both love James very
> much, have had him stay with us several times; and we want to help Maya
and
> James get re-united. Maya wants to get James out of where he is now, and
> move back to Canada and start over. Besides myself she only has an elderly
> grandmother and another sister who is single and running a business of her
> own. I am really the only suitable candidate to apply for this
guardianship
> of James and I want to very much, just to get him out of the situation he
is
> in and to make sure he sees his mom.
>
> Those are the bare bones of the situation and I would imagine you need
more
> to give any real suggestions or advice or feedback; and I would be more
than
> happy to provide more info, once I get more. I am going to talk to Maya's
> lawyer today to find out more.
>
> Is there anything at all you could offer at this point?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> ~Nicoletta
> *********************************************************
> "It is paradoxical, yet true: Children are the most in
> need of loving attention when they act the least
> deserving of it!"
> by Aletha Solter, 1998
> from the article "Why Children Misbehave"
> www.awareparenting.com
> *********************************************************
>
>
>
> 13 February 2001
>
> Dear Nicoletta,
>
> I am indeed sorry to hear about the separation of your nephew from
> his mother and from what you have described is totally unwarranted.
> You do need to consult with her attorney on how best to proceed and
> your suggestion to obtain guardianship is a good one.
>
> You should have Maya contact the Canadian Embassy immediately for any
> help that they can provide, as she and her son are Canadian citizens.
>
> Contact The New York Times with your story and for help. A person to
> email your story to: Laurel Graeber Columnist, Family Fare
> graeber@...
>
> If she cannot be of help, ask her who on the NYT would be willing to
> take up Maya's struggle to have her son returned to her, as there is
> no evidence of abuse and neglect nor harm or injury inflicted upon
> the child. Single moms are being continually punished by various
> elements of our society including the Social Services Administration,
> which is exploiting a situation created by the Public School system,
> as I understand the facts and which is inflicting serious emotional
> harm on the child by wrongfully removing him from his mother. Such
> removal of child from mother, under these circumstances, constitutes
> "child emotional endangerment" by the SSA, which is supposed to
> protect children not harm them.
>
> Let me know what happens and I wish that I could be of more help to
> you. You might want to reference some of my studies posted at
> http://www.violence.de which documents the harmful effects of
> mother-infant/child separation upon the child, particularly the film
> documentary at: http://www.violence.de/tv/rockabye.html
>
> Michael Mendizza of Touch the Future might also be of help and I am
> copying this email to him.
>
> Keep fighting--
>
> jim
>
>
>
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> thank you very much for your support. Below is an article that came to me
> just two days after I found out about what happened to my sister and her
> son. Isn't THAT ironic!! I will send this and whatever info I have to the
> person you suggested at the New York Times. And I will keep you up to date
> on what happens.
>
> ~Nicoletta
> *********************************************************
> "It is paradoxical, yet true: Children are the most in
> need of loving attention when they act the least
> deserving of it!"
> by Aletha Solter, 1998
> from the article "Why Children Misbehave"
> www.awareparenting.com
> *********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> << http://www.cpswatch.com/reports/treasure.htm
>
> Treasure Chest of Misery
>
> by Doug Quirmbach
>
> State child protective agencies are increasingly removing children
> from their homes to take advantage of federal funding programs,
> according to nationally recognized child welfare experts.
>
> Recent studies conducted by child advocacy organizations and
> governmental agencies disclose that caseworkers are opting to
> forcibly take children from their parents rather than providing
> family preservation services. The Center on Child Abuse Prevention
> Research (1998) reported that "the number of children who
> received
> services at home declined from 1,244,400 in 1977 to 493,100 in
> 1994"
> (p. 6). During the same period, the amount of children taken out of
> their homes skyrocketed -- 502,000 children were in foster care
> placement in 1994.
>
> "While 30% of the children served by the system in 1977 were
> placed
> in foster care, that percentage has risen to 50% today," the
> researchers reported. "Despite the good intentions of reformers,
> this
> service system (CPS) is increasingly relying upon foster care
> placement . . . ." (Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research,
> 1998:6).
>
> Parents face increasing risk of losing their children because of the
> way federal funds are categorized and funneled to the states. Each
> entitlement category is earmarked for specific purposes.
>
> "Without clear direction, states provided those services that were
> most 'fungible,' that is, generated the most matching revenue from
> the federal Government," explain child welfare experts Lela B.
> Costin, Howard Jacob Karger and David Stoesz (1996:152).
>
> "Because most of the funding for child abuse and neglect is derived
> from Title IV-B and Title XX, both of which are capped, states must
> rely on other child welfare components in order to mount child
> protection efforts," Costin and her co-authors write (1996:152).
> Therefore, the experts say, foster care has "become the ex post facto
> response to child abuse."
>
> Limitless funds are available to the states through Title IV-E,
> earmarked for out-of-home placement. State agencies increase their
> overall revenue by removing children from their homes since money
> from Title IV-E is channeled to the states in direct proportion to
> how many children they incarcerate into the system.
>
> "In either case, federal funding [for Title IV-E] is open-ended; once
> the state appropriates revenues for child welfare, the federal match
> is essentially demand-driven and therefore guaranteed (Costin, et
> al., 1996). "This arrangement, of course, creates an enormous
> incentive for states to maximize the amount of money that can be
> extracted from the federal government."
>
> The Children's Defense fund (1988) reports that 77% of combined
> funding for child welfare prevention services went for foster care
> and adoption services (CDF, 1988). The percentage has since
> increased. Kathleen Faller told Congress last year that 9 out of 10
> federal child welfare dollars flow to the states through foster care
> entitlements.
>
> Federal and state taxpayer funds are just the tip of the treasure
> chest available to agencies once they remove a child.
>
> After federal and state funds have been collected for foster care,
> the agency then "double dips" by charging the parents for the same
> care. Once the child is in state custody, the agency can then claim
> the child's SDI benefits, effectively robbing from the child's
> future. "Victim Compensation" funds are collected by the child's new
> caretaker -- the state -- along with other entitlements.
>
> Training expenses under IV-E is open-ended and pays a return of
> 75%. "Independent Learning" programs for those unfortunate children
> who have struggled under state custody is reimbursed at 100% with no
> state participation at all (Green Book, 1993). Adoption assistance
> for foster kids under Title IV-E is open-ended and the contribution
> is limited only to Medicaid rates (Green Book, 1993).
>
> Over 3.2 million reports of child abuse and neglect were made to
> child protective hot lines in 1996. Two-thirds of the reports, often
> made anonymously by disgruntled neighbors or parties involved in
> custody disputes, were unfounded (NCANDS, 1998). While only 3 to 5%
> of the reports that are substantiated by child protective services
> involve serious child maltreatment, CCAPR discovered that children
> were removed from their homes in 50% of the cases.
>
> The San Diego Grand Jury determined that funding arrangements
> contributed to overzealous CPS caseworkers wrongfully yanking
> children from their parents. The Los Angeles County Board of
> Supervisors investigated foster care practices in that county and
> issued a scathing report. Mr. Digre, who departed as director after
> the investigation, seemed to scapegoat the federal grant programs as
> contributing to DSS's horrendous treatment of its tiny wards.
>
> Yet California is not at all unique. State agencies throughout the
> country incarcerate children because it pays to do so.
>
> Agencies get considerably more federal and state funds for removing a
> child from his home than they do in making reasonable efforts to
> preserve the family. For the child welfare agency, the choice is
> obvious. Any bureaucracy can be expected to consider first continuing
> its own interests.
>
> But what about the interests of our tinniest, most vulnerable of
> citizens?
>
> Certainly, the tragic personal costs to a child wrongfully removed
> from her loving home overwhelms any dollar amount we can ever
> determine. The damage done to a child through institutional child
> abuse is irreparable.
>
> Children and their families desperately need advocates willing to
> voice their opposition to the wholesale, governmental kidnapping of
> this nation's kids. But children and their families are not
> given a
> voice because, of course, it doesn't pay.
>
> -------
> References
>
> Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research. (1998). Current Trends in
> Child Abuse Reporting and Fatalities: The Results of the 1997 Fifty
> State Survey. Chicago: Prevent Child Abuse America.
>
> Children's Defense Fund. (1988). A children's defense budget, fiscal
> year 1989: An Analysis of our nation's investment in children.
> Washington, DC: (Author).
>
> Costin, Lela, Karger, Howard J., Stoesz, David. (1996). The politics
> of child abuse in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
>
> US Department of Health and Human Services. (1998). Child
> Maltreatment 1996: Reports from the states to the National Child
> Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: US Government
> Printing Office
>
> US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. (1993).
>
> Overview of entitlement programs, 1993 green book. Washington, DC: US
> Government Printing Office.
>
> *********************************
>
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>