|Architecture of the Adoption Safe Families Act &|
legal doctrine of "In the best interests of the child"
Question basically presented is:
"Do social workers have the constitutional right to lie and plant evidence to remove children?"
In family courts, hearsay is considered part of the evidentary standards in child welfare cases to "prevent future harms", or, as the legal doctrine states, "in the best interests of the child" because it is better to err on the side of the child.
My focus is going to be on the opinions that shall be rendered soon as I know there will be found substantial errors in judgment.
When the public record is intentionally and fraudulently manipulated through cost reimbursement of federal grants, is this not an egregious enough of an act to make our legislators take pause, and realize there is no parallel jurisprudence in child welfare dependency matters?
Simply put, there are no civil rights in child welfare and the people have no legal resources to litigate.
Lying into the public record, whereby maximizing revenue for the individuals who have generated and published fraudulent reports to be documented by the courts are some of the initial elements of racketeering.
How many of these child welfare organizations will have their employees lie into the public record to close out a child welfare case?
Take a guess. Zero. There is no financial incentive to cease a removal, let alone return a child to the family, but there is a boat load of dollars waiting to be shipped once there are termination of parental rights due to the billing opportunities of services.
Whether or not those services are legitimate is an entirely different subject.
So now, not only has the public record been corrupted through perjury and false claims, but, these judicial determinations now become a malifide scienter, or rather fake advice to the legislators who rely upon direction of the courts and statistics in their discourse to rulemaking.
As these child welfare agencies are contracted through the States, the States are the principals, meaning, the States have allowed, through really corrupt advice of the public record, these so-called arms of the State, to breach the public trust, grounds for stripping immunities for criminal action.
To date, there have been a whole bunch of lies entered into the public record in child welfare, which means there are jacked up laws and policies formatted on the books and in the curricula of our institutions of learning.
Here is one as an example: The Adoption Safe Families Act (ASFA).
In a nutshell, from the time a child is snatched from the home based on the codified statutes of poverty being "abuse and neglect" a parent, typically the mother, has 12 months to bring her situation 200 % above the federal poverty level to care for her children, disabled or not.
ASFA expedited the application of the child welfare legal standard of "guilty until proven innocent, put in a central registry database before there is even a hearing, without entry of plea and charged without legal representation or notice by anonymous, mandatory reporting, while being denied the right to face one's accuser, based upon whatever a child welfare worker (many times without degree or legal training) has generated in court recommendations report for concurrent permanency planning to fast tract adoption, of which is not allowed to be challenged by any party".
There are tiered, 90-day dispositional cycles where the longer a child's case lingers in the courts, there is a direct correlation in the increase of funding of the court process and case management as cost reimbursement levels increase, creating an artificial bottle necking of the courts to hear, and properly adjudicate these cases.
Here is a synoptical overview of ASFA:
The Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89) was signed into law by President Clinton on November 19, 1997. The new law, which amends the 1980 Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96-272), clarifies that the health and safety of children served by child welfare agencies must be their paramount concern and aims to move children in foster care more quickly into permanent homes.
Among the new law’s provisions:
Financial incentives were placed upon the expanded usage of Targeted Case Management, Medicaid billing, by "targeting populations" in poverty, as Title IV-A guidelines were used as criteria for removals of children from"The Poors", more intuitively recognized as women, those who hail from historically economic disparaged populations, and those who are of the darker persuasion through ASFA's precursor, Personal Responsibility Work Opportunities Reauthorization Act (PRWORA) which shifted funding from the social safety net to exponentially fund "lying" to the court for the sole purposes of creating jobs and privatization of human services.
As the trends continue to privatize, these child welfare organizations are no longer contractual arms of the States, meaning, there are no audits, as these entitities are non-profits, many of them Christian institutions, protected from being considered as breaching the public trust, meaning, they can lie and there is nothing that can be done about it as they are excluded and exempted from public scrutiny.
Then, along with Targeted Case Management Medicaid expansion in child welfare, there were also Title IV-B and IV-E financial incentives to expedite termination of parental rights.
In short, ASFA needs to be repealed and recognized in the annals of history as a racketeering scheme based upon the residuals of the peculiar institution as it is nothing but glorified human trafficking, devoid of any regulation nor oversight; hence the "Right To Lie" case pending before the court.
The Justices in this case must not ignore that "lying" in a court of law is not just perjury, but is a false claim when it deals with defrauding the United States government.
Every elected official, even if your campaigns are funded from child welfare, and members of the legal community need to really stop and look at this case, particularly if the nation is going to elevate discussions of deonotological ethics in governance.