Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Newt Gingrich, PRWORA, ASFA & The Christians - The U.S. History Of Trafficking Tiny Humans - Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month

In honoring the history of trafficking tiny humans in the age of U.S. Foster Care & Adoption, we illuminate the work of Newt Gingrich, Bill & Hillary Clinton, and the christians in the launch of PRWORA & ASFA from 1994.

Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month!

Are Orphanages Better for Kids than Welfare? - 1994

Image result for Joseph Goldstein child welfareResurgent Republicans in Congress under Newt Gingrich are breathing new life into an idea whose time most people thought had already come and gone.

They want to bring back orphanages and other forms of state-supervised residences to care for the illegitimate children of young women who would be cut from welfare rolls under their proposals.

In addition to evoking images of little Oliver Twist begging for another bowl of porridge, the initiative, a part of the Republicans' Personal Responsibility Act, has sent a shiver of apprehension through the community of child-care workers.

This is because the idea collides with the principal tenet that has guided their profession for nearly a century: that children are raised better in families, even imperfect or incomplete families, than in institutions.

Resort to orphanages, said one political scientist writing a book on the subject, is a return to the very institution whose failure led to the welfare system as it exists today.

Matthew Crenson, a Johns Hopkins political scientist, said the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program actually evolved from earlier measures devised as remedies for the ills visited upon thousands of children raised in orphanages.

The movement to reconstitute orphanages or other forms of supervised group-living outside the family has been growing for several years. It has been supported by conservative Republicans such as William J. Bennett, academics like Charles Murray (co-author of "The Bell Curve"), and more recently by Rep. Newt Gingrich, Republican of Georgia.

The nature and preoccupations of some of its other partisans, prominent criminologists James Q. Wilson and John J. DiIulio, suggest that though it is being touted as welfare reform, it is also seen as an anti-crime measure. Its partisans believe it would help reduce illegitimacy, which many people think stimulates crime.

Another partisan of the orphanage movement is Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Rector credited President Clinton for having spoken out about the problem of illegitimacy as a key cause of crime. But he faulted the president for failing to reform the system to reduce the national illegitimacy rate, now one out of every three births.

The Republican proposal in the House of Representatives, Dr. Rector believes, would do that by cutting off AFDC and housing assistance to young unmarried women for the care of their children. This, he said, would make having illegitimate children less attractive.

The main author of the GOP measure is Rep. James M. Talent of Missouri. He said the money withheld from the mothers -- both for housing and child support -- would go to the states. They would be encouraged to use it to create group homes, where several mothers and their children would live closely supervised lives.

Part of the federal money diverted to the states would finance the orphanages for the children of those mothers who did not want to keep them, or couldn't.

Child-care professionals argue strenuously against this. Said Earl Stuck, the director of residential care services of the Child Welfare League of America, a national children's lobby: "I don't see any connection between putting kids in orphanages and illegitimacy. Women don't get pregnant to get higher welfare payments."

And on the matter of costs, he said: "One of the things Gingrich talks of is warm, caring, loving orphanages. To produce that would be very costly [over $100 a day per child]. You will not save money if you start throwing kids into residential care unless you cut the costs [of running the institutions], and then we're talking about the Dickensian orphanages."

Currently, according to Mr. Stuck, about a half-million children are in "out of home care." About 400,000 are in foster homes, and the remaining 100,000, nearly all suffering from learning difficulties or behavioral problems, live temporarily in residential care facilities.

These are not orphanages, nor, Mr. Stuck said, are there many "dictionary definition orphans" -- that is, children with no parent at all -- in the United States. Accordingly, there are few actual orphanages left.

The orphanage had its heyday in America during the last century. Most were religious institutions, and among them most were affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant orphanages began to sharply increase in number during the latter part of the century. The two Christian sects competed to bring more and more children under their care.

Contemporaneously, according to Dr. Crenson, the foster home movement began to grow starting in the 1850s. It was seen as a remedy for the squalor found in many orphanages. It was also a response to what became an apparent syndrome displayed by children raised in them.

"They argued that these children became passive and dependent," said Dr. Crenson. "They described the syndrome as institutionalism."

In an effort to mediate the unhealthy Catholic-Protestant competition, President Theodore Roosevelt called a White House conference shortly before the end of his term in 1909. It produced an agreement between representatives of the two sects that any child who had a mother should be left with her, and she should be paid to take care of the child at home.

"What that did was to short-circuit all the religious controversy," said Dr. Crenson. "If you left the kid at home, religion became a non-issue."

Two years later, Illinois and Missouri (Representative Talent's state) created the mother's pension. It helped women keep their children instead of sending them to orphanages. It was seen as a more humane alternative, and a cheaper one.

This was the beginning of the now generally accepted belief that care within a family context, except for a small minority, is always preferable to an institution.

Today family preservation remains the central principle of the child-care profession. That principle has been undermined, but not turned over, by "a significant and steady rise in the number of cases of abuse" within families, owing to the increase in drug use, said Richard Small, director of the Walker School in Needham, Mass., which cares for disturbed young boys.

Following the laws enacted in Illinois and Missouri, "the idea spread like wildfire," said Dr. Crenson. "By 1920 some 40 states, including Maryland, had enacted similar legislation. Eventually, almost every state except a few in the South had mother's pensions."

Seventeen years later the mother's pension became the model for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, passed as part of the Social Security Act of 1935. By that time, orphanages were on their way to history's scrap heap.

Will they be coming back? That will depend on who is the more determined: those who want to see that, or those who want to them to remain an artifact of history.

So far wider reaction to the Republican proposal on AFDC has been slow to form. But not everywhere. Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, said: "It frightens me that people think it has the possibility of passing. Our job now as the minority party is to clearly set out the fallacies of these proposals, and that's what I intend to do."

Rachel Kunzler, an aid to Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, quoted what she described as the senator's guiding principle with regard to welfare reform. It should not "be punitive against women and children. Reform policies shouldn't break up families."

Other Democratic opposition has manifested itself. David E. Bonior of Michigan, the House Democratic whip, came out strongly against the orphanage proposal.

Despite the disarray, and the shell-shocked state of many Democrats in Washington as a consequence of the recent elections, there are a few other indications the Republican initiative will be resisted.
"We will try to talk to as many people as possible and communicate with people in Washington and outside of Washington," said David Kass, a spokesman for the Children's Defense Fund in Washington, another national children's lobby. "The fundamental question we will be asking is, what is going to happen to those children?"

As for the Republicans themselves, there is evidence of a distinct lack of conformity on the question of orphanages. Margaret Camp, an aide to Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked whether the same kind of zeal for orphanages shown by the incoming House leadership is evident in the Senate, said: "I've read the same things you have, and I guess that implies there's not."
Nor, she said, has anything been written by Senate Republicans similar to the House Republicans' Personal Responsibility Act.

Kent Weaver, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution who specializes in welfare issues, also said Senate Republicans are much less likely to be eager to bring back orphanages than their House counterparts. "I think they're going to be a little bit more worried about the median position of voters on this issue," he said. "Senate Republicans will worry about being perceived as unfair, the issue that constantly dogged the presidential administration of President Reagan."
Richard O'Mara is a reporter for The Baltimore Sun.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

The Rich History Of Gerrymandering & Voter Disenfranchisement Through Fake Property Tax Foreclosures In Macomb & Wayne County, Michigan

I stumbled across this historic gem of Macomb and Wayne County property tax foreclosures.

Alexis Wiley was a young reporter before she made her way into the Mayor's Office in Detroit.

Just remember,  if you no longer live there, you can no longer vote there.

This is the rich history of gerrymandering.


Millionaire buys every foreclosed home in Michigan county for $4.8 million

A Michigan millionaire decided to go into the real estate business with a bang last week by buying every tax foreclosed property offered at a recent county auction. reports Bill McMachen, a businessman and former yacht dealer, paid about $4.8 million for all 650 tax foreclosed properties at Macomb County's July 31 sale.

Authorities had announced at the auction that the properties could be sold as a package deal for the price of the back taxes, which totaled about $4.8 million. McMachen jumped at the chance.

"I got a deal nobody else could have got," he told "I paid all the back taxes that was due and that's what the county wanted."

The sale drew ire from many at the auction, who had shown up only to have all the properties gone in a matter of minutes.One Canadian investor said the county's decision was puzzling, as his company had spent weeks preparing a much higher bid.
    "The price we were willing to pay is like three to four times what they're asking," he told "If we knew it was going to happen like this, we wouldn't even have spent any time. They could've made more money, I mean triple the money they made."
However, McMachen says he is willing to sell some of the houses at near-auction prices to those who are still interested. He says he has been flooded with emails since the auction with offers to buy some of the properties, and he can offer potential buyers some perks the county would be unable to.
"There's no hype they will just buy it at a realistic price," he said. "And they can look inside before they pay for it, which they cant do with the county."

He says he plans to donate the properties he can't sell to needy organizations.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Meet The Purveyors of Trafficking Tiny Humans Law: Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud & Albert Solnit - The Best Interests of the Child - Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month

Have you ever wondered about the origins of U.S. Child Protection Law?

Well, wonder no more!

Meet Joseph Goldstein, who just so happened to work with Alan Dershowitz on the construction of Child Protection Laws....and so did Hillary Clinton.

These are the purveyors of propaganda in the residuals of  the peculiar institution.

Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month!

Here is the link to the book, "Beyond the Best Interests of the Child", 1973

Here is the link to a page sample the white paper, "In the Best Interests of the Child", 1986

Here is the link to selected sections of the book, "Before the Best Interests of the Child", 1986.

Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud, and Albert J. Solnit, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, 1973

Source: Courtesy of the Freud Museum, London
Albert Solnit, Anna Freud, Dorothy Burlingham, and Joseph Goldstein
 (left to right) in Cork, Ireland after the publication of 
Beyond the Best Interests of the Child
The child’s psychological tie to a parent figure is not the simple, uncomplicated relationship which it may appear to be at first glance. While it is rooted inevitably in the infant’s inability to ensure his own survival, it varies according to the manner in which protection is given and the physical needs fulfilled. Where this is done impersonally and with routine regularity, as in institutions, the infant may remain involved with his own body and not take an alert interest in his surroundings. Where the adult in charge of the child is personally and emotionally involved, a psychological interplay between adult and child will be superimposed on the events of bodily care. Then the child’s libidinal interest will be drawn for the first time to the human object in the outside world.
Such primitive and tenuous first attachments form the base from which any further relationships develop. What the child brings to them next are no longer only his needs for body comfort and gratification but his emotional demands for affection, companionship, and stimulating intimacy. Where these are answered reliably and regularly, the child-parent relationship becomes firm, with immensely productive effects on the child’s intellectual and social development. Where parental care is inadequate, this may be matched by deficits in the child’s mental growth. Where there are changes of parent figure or other hurtful interruptions, the child’s vulnerability and the fragility of the relationship become evident. The child regresses along the whole line of his affections, skills, achievements, and social adaptation. It is only with the advance toward maturity that the emotional ties of the young will outgrow this vulnerability. The first relief in this respect is the formation of internal mental images of the parents which remain available even if the parents are absent. The next step is due to identification with parental attitudes. Once these have become the child’s own, they ensure stability within his inner structure.
As the prototype of true human relationship, the psychological child-parent relationship is not wholly positive but has its admixture of negative elements. Both partners bring to it the combination of loving and hostile feelings that characterize the emotional life of all human beings, whether mature or immature. The balance between positive and negative feelings fluctuates during the years. For children, this culminates in the inevitable and potentially constructive struggle with their parents during adolescence.
Whether an adult becomes the psychological parent of a child is based thus on day-to-day interaction, companionship, and shared experiences. The role can be fulfilled either by a biological parent or by an adoptive parent or by any other caring adult—but never by an absent, inactive adult, whatever his biological or legal relationship to the child may be.
The best qualities in an adult’s personality give no assurance in themselves for a sound result if, for any reason, the necessary psychological tie is absent. Children may also be deeply attached to parents with impoverished or unstable personalities and may progress emotionally within this relationship on the basis of mutual attachment. Where the tie is to adults who are “unfit” as parents, unbroken closeness to them, and especially identification with them, may cease to be a benefit and become a threat. In extreme cases this necessitates state interference. Nevertheless, so far as the child’s emotions are concerned, interference with the tie, whether to a “fit” or “unfit” psychological parent, is extremely painful. . . .
We propose three component guidelines for decision-makers concerned with determining the placement and the process of placement of a child in a family or alternative setting. These guidelines rest on the belief that children whose placement becomes the subject of controversy should be provided with an opportunity to be placed with adults who are or are likely to become their psychological parents.
Some will assert that the views presented in this volume are so child-oriented as to neglect the needs and rights of the adults. In fact, this is not the case. There is nothing one-sided about our position, that the child’s interests should be the paramount consideration once, but not before, a child’s placement becomes the subject of official controversy. Its other side is that the law, to accord with the continuity guideline, must safeguard the rights of any adults, serving as parents, to raise their children as they see fit, free of intervention by the state, and free of law-aided and law-abetted harassment by disappointed adult claimants. To say that a child’s ongoing relationship with a specific adult, the psychological parent, must not be interrupted, is also to say that this adult’s rights are protected against intrusion by the state on behalf of other adults.
As set out in this volume, then, a child’s placement should rest entirely on consideration for the child’s own inner situation and developmental needs. Simple as this rule sounds, there are circumstances which make it difficult to apply even with ample evidence in support of the child’s interests. The injunction disregards that laws are made by adults for the protection of adult rights. . . .

Parent and Child: A new approach to adoption and custody

The article as it originally appeared.
October 7, 1973, Page 338The New York Times Archives

By now it is axiomatic in the field of child development that healthy emotional and intellectual growth—the ability to relate to others and to learn —depends to a great extent on the establishment very early in life of a mutually gratifying, continuing relationship with a mothering figure who cares for and stimulates the infant. It is in this relationship that the child begins to develop security and trust—a good feeling about himself and a sense that the world is worth moving out into and exploring. Psychologists have come to believe that if you start with these feelings you don't need much of anything else, and that without them, it doesn't much matter what else you have.
The key word here is “continuity.” Where this kind of relationship never gets established (children who grow up in crowded institutions) or when it is interrupted (by the disappearance or replacement of the mothering adult for whatever reason—death, divorce, hospitalization) very young children withdraw, regress, become depressed, sometimes even retarded.
This premise is the starting point for a soon‐to‐be‐published book—“Beyond the Best Interests of the Child”—which applies what psychoanalysts have learned about child development to a new area: the law as it affects children. It is written by the daughter of Sigmund Freud, joined by two other distinguished scholars, and it may well become as controversial among judges, lawyers, legislators, social workers and even psychiatrists as Freud's writings were to the medical and psychological establishment of his day.

Anna Freud, who is based at the Hampstead Child Therapy Clinic in London, is probably the foremost living authority on the emotional lives of children, a subject she explored in depth among children separated from their families during World War II. Her co‐authors are Joseph Goldstein, a professor of law, science and social policy at Yale who specializes in the application of psychoanalysis to law, and Dr. Albert Solnit, director of the Child Study Center at Yale and a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry. This formidable threesome believes that while the law recognizes the need to protect a child's physical well‐being, it has failed to make provisions for safeguarding his psychological wellbeing. Although our present childcustody laws are supposed to protect “the best interests of the child,” the authors argue that they more often serve the emotional needs of parents or the convenience of the courts and the social‐welfare agencies. What Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit want to do is shift the focus of the laws to the needs of children. To accomplish this, “Beyond the Best Interests” suggests a new set of guidelines for adoption, foster‐care placement and divorce proceedings.

Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit call the adult who provides day‐to‐day affection and stimulation “the psychological parent,” and they insist that a child's relationship with his psychological parent, whether or not he or she is the child's natural parent, should never be interrupted. What counts in such a relationship is the child's degree of attachment and whether he feels wanted and needed—needed for himself, not for some financial advantage, or to score against a warring spouse in a divorce or to fulfill some fantasy or replace some loss. The book suggests replacing the old thinking in terms of “the best interests of the child,” which promises so much more than it can deliver, with the idea of “the least detrimental alternative,” the placement that provides the child with the best chance of being raised by his “psychological” parents.

Continue reading the main storyA “real” mother or father (in the biological or legal sense) who is not around on a day‐to‐day basis while the child is growing, feeling, learning, is not psychologically speaking a parent at all but a stranger. A “natural” mother or father who has abandoned his or her child for any reason whatever would have no right to reclaim the child on the basis of birth or blood ties, under the book's thesis. It would be irrelevant to establish his or her fitness as a parent (character, level of education or income), or lack of blame for the circumstances that interrupted the relationship and made him a stranger to the child (illness, business, hospitalization—even war). The only relevant questions are who is the child used to, fond of, connected with by daily experiences, related to through memories, learning from through identification? Whom is he used to coming to with his questions, finding at home when he gets there, being tucked in by at night and trying to act like? Who gives him his bottle, eventually teaches him how to make a sandwich or throw a ball, who reads to him, whom does he wind up wanting to “be good” for so they'll go on loving him?
Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit think the law has not only tended to favor biology over psychology, but has failed to understand the child's sense of time: “Unlike adults, who measure the passing of time by clock and calendar, children have their own built‐in time sense, based on the urgency of their instinctual and emotional needs.” What seems like a short wait to a grownup can be an intolerable separation to a young child, to whom a week can seem like a year; a month, forever. A 6‐month‐old who doesn't see the mother he's used to has no clear idea that she still exists. At 2, he still has no certainty that when she goes out she will return. And two years after that he still can't understand exactly how many breakfasts or bedtimes away “six weeks” is.

  • Putting together the child's need for continuity in his relationship with his psychological parents and the special way in which he experiences time, Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit draw these conclusions about parents, children and the law:•The adoption decree should be made final and unconditional from the moment a child is placed with a family, as final as a birth certificate and no more subject to review (except, as in the case of the birth certificate, in cases of gross neglect or abuse). Adoption should—with absolute finality—cancel out the legal right of biological parents.
  • Adoption should take place as early as possible—even before birth where this can be arranged—and with no trial periods, since a succession of temporary placements means the interruption of early attachments that is so destructive for the young child, as well as uncertainty for the adoptive parents, who may hesitate to make a full emotional commitment to the child. Expectant parents who plan to put their child up for adoption should make a firm decision before the birth, and adopting parents should be selected in advance. “If anyone is to be kept waiting, it should not be the child.”
  •  Foster‐care arrangements are usually made with the understanding that the child is placed in a home on a temporary basis and that the placing agency retains the legal right to remove the child at any time. This can lead to a lack of emotional involvement on the part of the foster parents and a feeling of insecurity on the part of the child. Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit see this as a particularly silly arrangement, one which, since it tends to work against establishment of the psychological ‐ parent/wanted ‐ child relationship, defeats the whole purpose of replacing institutional care with family care. They suggest instead that when foster parents have truly become psychological parents, they should be considered “common‐law adoptive parents,” and that the courts should recognize this new category and the right it gives the foster parents to become adopters. Up to now this right has often been withheld by the courts in the face of objections by social agencies, either on their own behalf (rules and policies) or on behalf of the biological parents (who, while unable to care for their children themselves, may be unwilling to give them up for adoption).
  • As in the case of adoption, custody decrees in divorce and separation proceedings should be final. One parent should be given custody and that parent—and not the court—should make all decisions about the child's life, including the right of the other parent to visit with the child. Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit go so far as to suggest that two equally acceptable psychological parents should draw lots as the most rational process for resolving a hard choice. This is the most controversial point made by the authors. They base it on the belief that (1) visiting arrangements may in themselves be sources of discontinuity in the child's experience; (2) children often have difficulty relating to two psychological parents who are not in positive contact with each other, and (3) a visiting or visited parent has little chance of being a psychological parent, since this role depends on his being available on an uninterrupted, day‐to‐day basis.
  • In order to avoid the psychological injury caused by a sense of loss and uncertainty, all child‐placement decisions should be considered by agencies and treated by the courts as psychological emergencies to be given priority on court calendars, decided—and, where necessary, reviewed—as rapidly as possible. The period for appeal should be no more than a week or two, and final decision should be given within a few days of the close of that hearing. As things stand today, decisions can drag out over weeks and months because of overworked social administrators, understaffed agencies, crowded dockets, overcautious judges and lawyers who demand postponements. On the other hand, when the physical well‐being of a child is endangered by delay — for instance, when parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses have refused on religious grounds to authorize a blood transfusion for a deathly ill child in a hospital—the courts have shown they can move with speed and flexibility, sometimes in a matter of hours.
  • The longer a child has been in the custody of an adult, the less chance there should be for another party to gain custody. Abandonment and neglect should be redefined in terms of a child's sense of time. The younger the child; the shorter the period in which a psychological tie is broken and a new one fornied.
ONCE a child becomes the subject of a custody dispute, Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit feel it can no longer be assumed that his parents are best suited to safeguard his interests. Even the social agencies involved may have policies which conflict with the child's needs—and many judges are unaware of those needs or unwilling to consider them seriously because they don't fit their common‐sense view of the matter, or even threaten some personal notion of what is decent or moral. Then who represents the child? Certainly not the lawyers of the disputing parents. Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit insist that a child is being deprived of his rights in any legal proceedings concerned with his future unless he is represented by a lawyer of his own who has no other goal than to determine what is the least harmful alternative for his child client.

This suggests a whole new legal specialty — lawyers trained in psychoanalytic child development and specializing in child‐custody cases. Judges and lawyers I talked with reacted to this idea in terms ranging from “impractical” (because it would cost so much and require so much additional training) to “ridiculous and unnecessary.” Few of them were aware that a “childadvocacy” bill that would make it a legal requirement for any child involved in a custody case to be represented by counsel has been introduced in the New York State Assembly, where it is now under consideration.

In one chapter of the book Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit take up an actual placement decision by Justice Bernhard Nadel of the New York Supreme Court and then rewrite the decision according to their guidelines. The case is that of Stacey, an 8‐year‐old foster child whose mother gave her infant daughter to a child‐care agency for temporary care in 1964 when she voluntarily entered a mental hospital. The agency had placed Stacey with a foster family. In 1969 the mother was released, and from then until the time of the decision in 1971 had been living with her parents, holding a job as an executive secretary, taking an active part in community affairs and seeking to regain her child.

Justice Nadel ruled that the agency had failed to demonstrate that the rehabilitated mother was unfit to care for Stacey. He held that the lack of a parent‐child relationship between them was caused by the agency's failure to encourage contact between them, and ordered the return of the child “to her natural mother” after a period of transition. Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit insist that the fitness of the mother is not the issue. Here are some quotes from their reworking of the decision as they think it might better have been written:

“The real question is: Does Stacey need to have a parent assigned to her by the court? In the absence of such evidence, the law must presume that Stacey is a wanted child, well settled in a reciprocal relationship with her custodians . . . . Stacey has been psychologically abandoned by her biological mother. Seven years have elapsed since their last contact. . . . Painful as it must be for this well‐meaning woman, whatever the cause, whoever may feel responsible, the psychological fact, which the law acknowledges, is that Stacey does not now recognize her as a parent . . . It is the real tie—the reality of an ongoing relationship—that is crucial to this court's decision and that demands the protection bf the state through law. The court must not, despite its sympathetic concern for the petitioner, become party to tearing Stacey away from the only affectionate parents she knows.”

The outcome of the real decision shows what can happen to a child caught in the legal process. Stacey was so antagonistic to her mother that the court modified its earlier judgment and, instead of returning the child to her, gave custody to the agency, which placed her in a residential center. Five psychiatrists chosen by the various parties involved testified that she was depressed and that the mere mention of being returned to her natural mother brought on misery and tears. Even the psychiatrist called by the mother agreed that it would be harmful to return Stacey to her.

A schedule of visits was decided on to develop a gradual rapport, but it was a complete failure. Stacey rejected all offers of affection by her mother. In her frustration, the mother began to yell at her and reproach her, and the child would return upset, tearful, sometimes hysterical. In a second decision a year later, Justice Nadel decided that Stacey was one of the “exceptions to the rule of the primacy of parental custody,” and that under the circumstances it would endanger her mental and emotional wellbeing to return her to her mother. He reversed his original order.

NOT all their colleagues would agree with all the points set forth by Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit. Experts I talked with, several of them divorced and with children themselves, made their sharpest attacks on the guidelines for settling custody in divorce cases —particularly the notion of allowing the parent awarded custody to make all decisions affecting the child, including the other parent's visitation rights. This could result in the noncustodial parent never being allowed to see the child at all.

One experienced child analyst asks, “Is the anxiety caused by conflict really more damaging than the anxiety caused by permanent loss? We know, from the work of Anna Freud herself, among others, that where there are two involved parents, as there are in most divorces, the loss of one parent is irreparable for the child—and this is true right up into adolescence. We have to ask ourselves what it would mean in an already unsettled society like ours—with separation, divorce, remarriage and even no marriage so common — to encourage further weakening of the ties between children and parents —even part‐time parents. A father who comes once a week and hugs you and takes you for a walk in the park and asks about your report card is better than a father who never comes at all.”

Despite such criticisms, “Beyond the Best Interests of the Child” is an important book, a manifesto on behalf of the rights of children that suggests new ways of looking at family relationships. Just as women until recently were chattel—the property of first their fathers and then their husbands—children have been regarded by the law as the property of their biological parents. But children, unlike any other social group, are unable to fight for their own rights.

The authors insist the law's first obligation should be to protect the child's need for continuity, and they acknowledge the anguishing decisions that are implicit in such a irinciple. As an extreme example, they cite the Dutch Jews who returned from concentration camps after World War II to reclaim the children they had left with nonJewish families; many of the children had by this time become strongly attached to their foster parents. The Dutch Parliament ruled that the children should be returned to their natural parents. Freud‐GoldsteinSolnit disagree. They feel that “the choice in such tragic instances is between causing intolerable hardship to the child who is torn away from his psychological parents, or causing further intolerable hardship to already victimized adults who, after losing freedom, livelihood and worldly possessions may now also lose possession of their child. . . Harsh as it is, and as it must seem to the biological parents, their standing in court is no greater than that of a stranger.”

Grown men and women have feelings too, and needs, and they suffer no less than children. Perhaps the only answer is that as with so many other social problems—like breaking the poverty cycle—a start must be made somewhere. As Freud‐Goldstein‐Solnit conclude: “By and large society must use each child's placement as an occasion for protecting future generations of children by increasing the number of adults‐to‐be who are likely to be adequate parents. Only in the implementation of this policy does there lie a real opportunity for beginning to break the cycle of sickness and hardship bequeathed from one generation to the next by adults who as children were denied the least detrimental alternative.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Fifth Defendant Pleads Guilty to Laundering Millions of Dollars of Hard Narcotics Proceeds for Sinaloa Cartel

There are rumors in the El Chappo case that lots and lots of drug money went into U.S. political candidates campaign committees, but hey, what do I know?

The ‘remarkable’ courtroom revelations in trial of ‘El Chapo’

I also know that "accidental leaking" is the new form of "attorney-client privilege" stripping.

Nxivm prosecutors admit they unknowingly reproduced child porn

A Culiacan, Mexico man pleaded guilty to international money laundering in connection with his operation of a currency exchange house that received the proceeds of multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin smuggled into the United States by the Sinaloa Cartel, announced Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Robert S. Brewer Jr. of the Southern District of California. 

Gibran Rodriguez-Mejia, 31, was extradited from Mexico to San Diego in September 2018, and is the fifth Mexican-based defendant in this case to enter a guilty plea, doing so before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin.  Rodriguez-Mejia will be sentenced on July 8, 2019 before U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez. 
Through his plea agreement, Rodriguez-Mejia admitted to laundering $3.5 million in drug proceeds.  He coordinated with couriers, primarily located in Southern California, who smuggled the bulk of U.S. currency from the United States to Mexico.  Rodriguez-Mejia also admitted that he arranged for currency to be smuggled to an exchange house in Tijuana, Mexico owned and operated by co-defendant Cesar Hernandez-Martinez, who pleaded guilty on April 4, 2019 and will be sentenced on July 8, 2019.  After the money was converted to Mexican pesos, Rodriguez-Mejia provided financial accounts in Mexico into which the money was deposited for the benefit of the Mexican-based cartel drug traffickers.
In addition to the five defendants in this case, approximately 20 other individuals have entered guilty pleas and have been previously sentenced in related cases.  Those cases have involved individuals based in the United States or individuals who have frequently crossed into the United States and served as money couriers, drug couriers and drug stash-house operators and who were part of, or related to, the same money laundering and drug trafficking organization.
Omar Ayon-Diaz, Osvaldo Contreras-Arriaga and Joel Acedo-Ojeda have also pleaded guilty in this case and have been sentenced to 120 months, 132 months and 135 months in prison, respectively.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) San Diego Field Office conducted the investigation.  Senior Trial Counsel Mark A. Irish of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lawrence A. Casper of the Southern District of California prosecuted the case.  The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided significant support with the defendant’s extradition.  The U.S. Attorney’s Office is working together in this matter with the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

FBI Raids Virginia Economic Development Authority - Waiting On SIGTARP Detroit Land Bank Authority Raid

I just really like the pictures.

I thought it was the FBI raid on the Detroit Land Bank Authority offices, but I was mistaken.

This is Virginia.

Guess I will just have to wait for my birthday.

FBI, state police swarm EDA office

FBI Special Agent Neil Mathison outside
Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority,
State Trooper Joey Yokiel & John Defilippi, State Police,
glowing like Bosses.
FRONT ROYAL – The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Virginia State Police were at the Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority’s offices Tuesday morning. Officers and officials were mum regarding the reason for the law enforcement presence.

This comes less than a week after a special grand jury was impaneled to investigate potential financial wrongdoings of the EDA, town, county, schools, Sheriff’s Office and any appointed or elected officials within those entities.

Busy, busy, busy!

A Commonwealth’s Attorney Office news release stated that the office has been working with state police since August in investigating suspicious financial activities. The release added that state police learned new information regarding financial improprieties when the EDA filed a $17 million-plus lawsuit against former director Jennifer McDonald and nine other defendants for a slew of alleged embezzlement and fraudulent activities.

Corinne Geller, Virginia State Police public relations specialist, said Tuesday over the phone that FBI agents “are lead on whatever was going on” at the EDA office and she could not comment because “we were there assisting” the FBI.
"There's fraud everywhere. Help yourself."
Dee Rybiski, an FBI public relations affairs specialist, said over the phone that she can only confirm that FBI officers were at the EDA office. She added that while “you can assume” the FBI is investigating the EDA, she could not confirm it.

FBI and state police officers were seen exiting the EDA’s office with cardboard boxes around 2 p.m. Tuesday. McDonald’s office has been locked since her Dec. 20 resignation, and police on the scene declined to say whether the boxes were for documents inside her office.

Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Brian Layton was present and declined to comment on why he was there or whether the situation was related to the recent impanelment of a special grand jury. Layton said he wished he could say more but could not comment because the matter is part of an investigation.

"Should we call Detroit FBI before or after lunch?"
Neil Mathison, a supervisor special agent from the FBI’s Richmond office, declined to comment on why the FBI was at the EDA’s office. He did confirm that “I have people” inside of the EDA’s office. He said that the FBI arrived early Tuesday morning to the EDA’s office and would be gone sometime by the end of the workday.

He declined to say how long the FBI has been involved with anything regarding the EDA.
Lt. John A. Defilippi, the Virginia State Police special agent in charge, also declined to comment on why the state police were at the EDA’s office. He also confirmed that “I have people in there, too.”
John Anzivino, EDA interim executive director, also declined to comment.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

SCOTUS To Address Dirty Data In 2020 Census On Trafficking Tiny Humans Asset Management

I believe we are on the road to a constitutional crisis.

There are people who do not want a citizenship question, because it could be used as evidence in false claims to Medicaid fraud in child welfare, because that is how the industry of trafficking tiny humans likes to maximize revenues in the best interests of the child, because it is how our great country was built, because no one cares.

I do not post this video to watch people exercise peaceful assembly to engage in free speech in front of SCOTUS, I post this video to teach people that it is no longer acceptable to traffic tiny humans, because, before you are a man, you are a child.

This is about the humans who are more than willing to snatch and sell a child in the name of god.

If the States cannot even keep track of the children in its foster care systems, how does the Census claim to remedy the outstanding questions, floating around about adoption, international adoption, the children's trust funds?

For example, if a foreign corporate parent has privately contracted with a state foster care system and has over 700 children in its legal custody, then what is the citizenship of the child?

That is a question for Bethany Christian and its glorious leader, Betsy DeVos.

Watch them.

All of them.

Even the Justices, because this is about chattel law, the residuals of the peculiar institution, because slavery was never abolished, because it is legal to snatch and sell tiny humans, even the personae, or rather identities and dirty data.

This is about Voting Rights and all its Acts.

This is about the
Sarcane shipping labels of the hierarchal classificaation of one's status in society based upon property ownership, more intuitively known as race labeling.

You can manipulate data to make it say what you want, which is how the 2016 election was rigged, and failed.....oh, just stay tuned.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Massachusetts Audit Blames Bouncing Foster Kids For The Need Of A Tiny Human Asset Management Tracking System - Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month

As we begin to close out the celebration for Child Abuse Propaganda Month, let us pay tribute to Massachusetts and its history in trafficking tiny humans.

Yes, there is more to Child Abuse Propaganda Month than just blue pinwheels money hustle because May is Foster Care Propaganda Month.

In order to acquire goods for the child welfare industry, one must have pretty, shiny reports showing that a state's foster care system need more money.

At the time I pulled the pretty colored fact sheet of the report, the report has yet to be uploaded to the state databases, so you can keep checking back for it.
Educational Stability for Students in Foster Care  
The Department's Educational Stability team works to ensure the enrollment, attendance and opportunity to succeed in school for children and youth in foster care. We collaborate with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) and local school districts to implement the provisions for providing educational stability for students in foster care, as outlined in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
In the spirit of fuchsia....

Auditor concerned that communication issues hurt foster children’s education 

Department of Children and Families workers leave the Dorchester DCF office holding hands with a child.
What bouncing tiny humans for money looks like

Foster children often bounce from school to school, suffer chronic absenteeism, experience disciplinary problems, and drop out more frequently than their peers.

Bouncing from school to school is a modern term for trafficking tiny humans.  When one is legally kidnapped from their family, you have a tendency of disciplinary problems that are remedied with lots and lots of second generation antipsychotropics for testing.

Yet poor communication between state child welfare administrators and local schools and conflicting regulations create significant hurdles and educational delays for abused and neglected children as they are moved from foster home to foster home, according to a new state auditor’s report.

Poor communication is called privacy.  Child welfare is all compartmentalized because each department has its own private contractor fraud scheme they know nothing about because the child placing agencies are all outsourced to self-report and no one is going to dry snitch on themselves.

Amid the communication and coordination roadblocks, low-income communities often end up shouldering the financial burden for educating these children, the report said.

Poverty is abuse and neglect, which is why the Medicaid billable term is called Targeted Case Management, where they target poor communities, which means the communities lose appropriations due to forced migration.  These kids are typically lumped into school districts that are stressed for resources, for loss of funding, and throw their hands in the air when it comes to providing these kids any form of help in knowing they will be "bounced" in a few days.

“Too often, the educational success of these students is hindered by a complex bureaucracy and a lack of resources and expertise, and this burden is particularly acute in low-income communities,” state Auditor Suzanne M. Bump said in a statement. Last year, about 6,800 public school students in Massachusetts were in foster care and state education data indicate that about 45 percent of students in foster care require special education services.


See how the pretty shiny report fails to mention this, below.

School districts devote “considerable time and effort to ensuring that children in foster care are receiving the right educational services,” the report said.

School districts, not the child placing agencies or the state, devotes services.  Please take note of this burden for lack of replenished resources.

But it said some school districts report they receive inconsistent information from the Department of Children and Families, the state’s child welfare agency, while others say they receive no notice from DCF when a student in foster care arrives or leaves their district.

The school districts called the information they receive form DCF "inconsistent".  How cute.  I prefer the term fraudulent.  Alot of times DCF will have multiple identities for the kids to bill.  When a kid is adopted, the name changes, along with everything else, meaning there is no record.

“Several districts reported that they have informed DCF that a foster student has been absent from school (sometimes for periods in excess of 40 days), only to find that DCF has not acted on that report, or has not acted promptly to work with the district on the absenteeism issue,” it said.

No one acts on the reports of missing children because SACWIS, the human asset management system is a joke.

The report noted that these communication gaps can mean students endure duplicative testing and assessments that delay placement in an appropriate educational setting, while increasing the cost of providing the services.

And duplicate billing, double billing, phantom billing.....

“These children tend to bounce around from one community to another and there is no good way to track their educational history, let alone their personal history, so when they arrive at a local school district, the district is starting from scratch,” said Tom Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents.

Ooooo...what a great argument to advocate for tagging and tracking tiny human assets with chip!

Baker administration officials said in response to Bump’s report that the state education department provides training to schools, districts, and DCF staff, aimed at minimizing transitions in education for students in foster care.

The schools and districts are not the problem.  It is the entire child welfare system. It needs to be dismantled and purged of all the nefarious actors who exist in the private spear, monetizing our children for the best interests of their foreign corporate investments in Social Impact Bonds. I would place a heavily weighted responsibility upon Mitt Romney for this.

Administration officials added that Governor Charlie Baker’s education funding proposal filed in January includes an expansion of counseling and psychological services for schools, which would benefit children in foster care.

But what does that do for a kid who is being bounced?

“While our offices will carefully review the full report, many of the auditor’s recommendations are already implemented or underway,” said a statement from the Executive Offices of Education and Health and Human Services. “The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Department of Children and Families have strengthened collaboration and communication between the two agencies and local school districts, including issuing joint guidance in 2018 and all stakeholders continue to strengthen communication and coordination to better support school districts.”

Bump’s report suggests that DCF and the state education department, known as DESE, collaborate on creating and maintaining an electronic “dynamic list” of students in foster care to improve tracking, but also for analysis of trends and for future financial planning. She also recommends the state create an “electronic backpack,” a database that would allow school districts to quickly access education information on foster children.

Someone is going to make a whole bunch of money.  I wonder which tax exempt foreign corporation will be the lucky ones to get the first contract?  Backpacks are a popular idea when it comes to trafficking tiny humans, and other humans around them, and hacking computer systems in the schools you know.

The report does not indicate which state agencies should pay for these initiatives.

Have no fear! Someone will have a child welfare NGO pitch some more pretty shiny brochures, with a really cool website, to pitch the Medicaid contract to implement human assent management systems.  You know they like to start tracking humans at pre-birth, now-a-days.

Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month

The report notes that providing educational services to foster children poses a “financial strain” on local schools that is not offset by local tax revenue or state funding. The state pays some money toward educating these students, but the report said it’s not clear whether this reflects “the true cost” for local districts.

We still function on the arcane system of administrative operations in chattels.

Bump’s warning about the lack of adequate education funding for foster children comes as the state Legislature is engaged in a broader debate about how to boost state aid to school districts across Massachusetts.

Broader debate is called litigation.  Massachusetts has an issue with stealin' in its Children's Trust Fund.

Bump also suggests DCF and DESE should jointly provide training to DCF social workers and local school district staff on how to collaborate to make the best decisions for foster children’s educational placements, and for sharing information.

I have a much more economical response.  STOP STEALIN' TINY HUMANS!

Local school districts also are struggling to transport foster children to and from school, and to pay those costs, as foster children often are enrolled in one school district but live in another, the report said. Federal law requires that changes in school placements for students in foster care be minimized to lessen their trauma, and that unless it’s determined to be in their best interest, children should remain in the school district they were in prior to foster care.

Minimization and lessening of trauma for children in foster care is called "drugging children".  It is far more profitable and compassionate to chemically constrain a kid.

To meet those transportation needs, schools reported spending a total of $3.2 million just last year, the report said.

Yet DCF officials told Bump’s office that the department’s social workers are also dedicating a significant chunk of their time, sometimes as much as 40 percent of their time, transporting children to school or family visits.

I would say make a special division to assist the workers to transport the children and the parents to all the services they need to keep the child out the system.

To address the financial concerns, Bump called on the state to cover the full cost of transportation for foster children.

Good. Tap into those foreign children's trust funds bank accounts.  It is their money. Give it back.

The toll on children from this instability is considerable. Bump’s report said studies have found foster students lost from three months to one year of academic achievement each time they are moved to another school.

Children's Rights, a group I really have no respect for their work, as it is nothing but a attorney fees grifter scam, did nothing but get a federal monitoring contract for which you can clearly see, in this state, pretty shiny brochure, that not a damn thing has been done for the children, except for more money to be demanded.

The money spent on this litigation and monitoring could have gone to helping "The Poors" so the children would not have to be legally kidnapped.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, April 21, 2019

The New Intelligence Community - Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month

There comes a time when you just can no longer take the shit.

Everything being addressed started in child welfare because no one cares and it makes lots of money, just transpose the model.

This is the new intelligence community of the Quantum Renaissance and we are the original sources, the experts, the whistleblowers.

...on a  mission.

Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month!

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, April 20, 2019

Before The Detroit Land Bank Authority, There Was The Whitewater Development Corporation

I just thought the timing to be proper to share this lovely clip of history, considering we are now running into that Special Counsel messy with Mueller, but hey, what do I know?

I know that Special Counsel messy has been previously addressed after reviewing that hot mess with Fiske and Starr.

I wonder what Monica Lewinsky is up to.

Carolyn Huber

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, April 19, 2019

Cocktails & Popcorn: MIED Has A Conjugal Collaboration Going On In Macomb County - Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month!

Image result for bunny clapping
Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month!
I like the conjugal collaboration of law enforcement part.

See what happens when everyone plays together?


I cannot wait to see which rabbit hole this leads us to, next because we do not know which tasks forces are in play, but hey, what do I know?

I know Easter is Sunday!
Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith reports he is fully cooperating with investigators who served a warrant at his county offices this morning. Todd McInturf, The Detroit News
Mount Clemens — Michigan State Police Wednesday morning executed a search warrant at the office of Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith, officials confirmed.

Michigan State Police Lt. Darren Green, a spokesman for the agency's First District, confirmed troopers executed the warrant as part of the investigation into the prosecutor's use of forfeiture funds.
The FBI also is conducting an investigation into Smith's spending of the asset forfeiture funds, The Detroit News has learned.

"The First District Special Investigations Section out of Lansing was requested by the Michigan Attorney General's Office to start this investigation," Green said. "This search warrant is part of a continuing investigation into Prosecutor Smith and his use of the Macomb County forfeiture funds."
He also said: "Smith is a highly public official, and we want to afford him the same rights we would anybody else; and our standard procedure is to not comment further on ongoing investigations or release information that could affect the investigation."

During a press conference Wednesday afternoon, Smith said his office fully cooperated with investigators. 

"I will continue to be cooperative and assist in any way so state police can swiftly conduct their investigation and have this matter fully laid to rest," Smith said to reporters at his office.

Smith said while the situation is unfortunate, he's supportive of having state police investigating because his office has "nothing to hide."

"I recognize that this doesn't look great, but after six months of hearing all these falsehoods in the press about what we've been using this money for, I'm so happy to have impartial investigators in our office, looking through our documents, which we gave them a banker's box full of receipts and explanations on how the money was spent," Smith said.

A Detroit News review in January of hundreds of checks that have passed through the forfeiture account in the past two years indicate that many sizable checks were made out to various Macomb County police agencies that are supposed to share in forfeiture funds stemming from arrests in their jurisdictions.

Smith declined to answer questions from reporters Wednesday but said investigators only raided the office and investigators did not visit his home. He further stated that they provided records of all the checks.

"We are happy about this," Smith said as he exited.

Earlier this month, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel asked the state police to investigate Smith's handling of asset forfeiture funds.

Questions over spending from the funds, which total hundreds of thousands of dollars, were raised earlier this year after Jared Maynard, the former chairman of the Macomb County Republican Party, sued to obtain bank records for accounts set up by Smith.

The funds in the accounts come from forfeitures and bad checks.

Smith has said he would cooperate with the state inquiry.

The investigation was sparked by questions raised last month by County Executive Mark Hackel about whether thousands of dollars were misspent on inappropriate expenditures, including donations to churches and charities, trips, parties and even the filming of a television commercials.

Hackel was not immediately available Wednesday and a spokesperson declined to comment. Macomb County Corporation Counsel John Schapka, with offices on the eighth floor of the county building, said he had not been contacted by either state police or the prosecutor’s office.

“There has been a lot of interest by employees, but we have not been advised about what this is about,” Schapka said.

The investigation involves the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in a county targeted in a wide-ranging crackdown on public corruption that started in Macomb County and spread to Detroit. The investigation has led to charges against 22 people, including Detroit City Councilman Gabe Leland.

Leland was among more than a dozen businessmen and politicians targeted in a wave of FBI wiretaps three years ago that recorded conversations involving public officials, including former Macomb County Public Works Commissioner Anthony Marrocco, who has not been charged.
An FBI spokeswoman declined to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.

A source familiar with the investigation confirmed the FBI is looking into the spending of asset forfeiture funds and is working with investigators from the state police.

The FBI has several task forces that consist of investigators from the state police, county sheriff's offices and local police departments.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Mueller Report Updates for April 18, 2019

In a nutshell, we have Trey saying Barr had no reason to release a report to him to the public about ongoing matters.

Then, we have Barb clarifying that there are two ongoing cases that were referred by Mueller.
Then, we have DOJ telling Lindsey and Judiciary Jolly Jerry that they can see the full report starting April 22 through April 29, 2019 in camera.

But, the Congressional leadership of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Judiciary Jolly Jerry, Dianne Feinstein, Adam Schiff and Mark Warner told Barr that they want the entire Mueller Report released, with supporting documents.

Warren calls for House to begin impeachment proceedings

The Accidental President still has the IG Report in his backpocket.

Yet, no one said his name.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©