Ohio Admits Child Welfare Not Working

Ohio is the next state to stand up and admits it child welfare system does not work.  In this instance the state is providing subsidy to families to take in relatives instead of dumping the kids in high-priced, low-quality state care.

This is actually, dare I say, creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

State may allow the families to receive foster-care money

Ohio might join other states in giving some foster-care money to relatives who take in family members’ children

For Regene Denton to become the grandparent of her dreams — retired, relaxed, happy to host and spoil the grandkids occasionally — she would have had to allow seven of them to go into foster care. 

“I run into a lot of people who say, ‘You’re crazy,’  ’’ said Denton, who now has legal custody of four girls and three boys ages 1 to 13 years. 

She and her husband, Paul, are tired, pressed for money and certain they did the right thing.

“I guess some people do turn away,” Mrs. Denton said. “We couldn’t.”

As child-welfare agencies in Ohio and throughout the nation work to increase such kinship placements as the preferred alternative to foster care, advocates say the families need more financial support to manage households that double, triple or even quadruple overnight.

Thirty states now have kinship-guardian assistance programs that allow the families to receive foster-care money. Ohio is considering joining them.

“We know that kids do better in a family setting,” said Chip Spinning, executive director of Franklin County Children Services. “They have better outcomes, do better in school. But some of our families don’t have the financial resources to take care of them.”

The federal Fostering Connections Act approved in 2008 authorized states to start kinship-subsidy programs. Kinship caregivers generally have to meet state foster-parent licensing requirements to obtain the subsidies. But, supporters note, the federal program also allows states to waive some of the nonsafety and health requirements case by case.

“You can’t waive criminal-background checks or histories of child abuse or neglect,” said Crystal Ward Allen, executive director of the Public Children Services Association of Ohio. “What you could waive for the families are a lot of our rigid foster-care rules about things like bedroom size, closet space, window specifications.”

Spokesman Benjamin Johnson said the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services has not made a formal recommendation. About 63 percent of the money for kinship subsidies would come from the federal government, with the rest a mix of state and local funds.

He and Allen said a study group is considering a maximum monthly benefit of $300 per child.

Spinning said there’s no doubt that the program would be cheaper than foster care. The average monthly cost to the Franklin County agency to keep one child in paid care is about $3,500 a month, he said. Over the course of a yearlong placement, the total is close to $44,000.

“It’s wonderful that Ohio is considering this,” said Jennifer Miller of ChildFocus, a national child-welfare policy and research firm. “You’re saving in terms of court oversight, monthly visits, multiple foster-care moves, many things.”

Families such as the Dentons do receive some financial assistance. The state’s Kinship Permanency Incentive Program provides an initial benefit of $450 per child and an ongoing benefit of up to five payments of $250. But it ends after three years.

Families also are often eligible for child-only welfare money, which is about $268 a month for one child. The incremental increase for multiple children is relatively small, Allen said. For a third child, it’s about $73 a month.

That’s why families who take in sibling groups would benefit most under a kinship-assistance program that draws from foster funds. The Dentons took custody of five of their grandchildren, who belong to one of their sons, about five years ago. Two children of another son were placed with them recently.

Mrs. Denton said she and her husband, a retired custodian, receive about $1,600 in food stamps and cash to care for the children. The East Side couple also have two teenage grandsons living with them — a daughter’s children — who were not officially placed by Children Services.

“We have a little bitty house, but we make it work,” said Mrs. Denton, 57. “The kids are happy. I don’t let them see me sweat.”

Mr. Denton, 62, has built makeshift clothing racks, and the family uses lots of plastic storage bins. Bedrooms are full. Mrs. Denton constantly worries about Christmas.

But she believes that the children will fare better under her wing than in a foster system where stability is often elusive.

The Dentons say they’re grateful for the help they’ve received so far from the state and Children Services. If no more comes, they won’t waver. “Some of these kids want to be doctors and lawyers,”

Mrs. Denton said, laughing. “We’re pretty busy.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan Bill Admitting Its Foster Care System Does Not Work

It seems Michigan is beginning to realize it cannot keep chugging along its usual path in child welfare.

Under federal law, the process of termination of parental rights begins early on in the 48 month period.  The terms 'abuse and 'neglect' are so ambiguous the state and its contracted child placing agencies will advance the clock with its unattainable concurrent plans.

What this means is if a parent is incarcerated or will be during the 24 month period of placement proceedings, the state would make the assumption of the adoption placement as the only option.  This opens up federal adoption assistance payments and adoption subsidies, relieving the state of its portion of payment obligation.

Child support is a good example.

If a parent cannot pay child support, there is typically incarceration somewhere in the penalty equation. There are instances where the state will charge a parent for child support while the child is being billed for Title IV-E placement.  Mind you, if the parent pays the state, the state does not reimburse the feds.

Then during the placement proceedings the judge may trigger the Friend of the Court to proceed in prosecution of other child support cases.  Now the parent is in prison for not being able to pay for not having a job, who now has a felony child support conviction and cannot find a job because of it.

The state is stuck with a kid it is not fit to support because Michigan Children's Institute is an artificial edifice specifically reanimated for the sole purposes of maximizing federal revenue through a multitude of fraud schemes.  The child is not adoptable because of bitterness of what the state did to take them away.  Trauma of foster care manifests mental illness for which the state does not properly treat.  There is little to no hope of graduating from high school because the state does not educate the kid.  Including unusual sexual experiences by other foster kids at a young age, the kid is prepared to age out the system to a life of drugs and prostitution, all because the state would not give a poor parent a chance.


It's cheaper to keep the family together.

Senate Bill 1303: Revise parental rights termination detail
Introduced by Sen. Tom Casperson (R) on September 20, 2012, to give the state Department of Human Services more discretion in choosing whether to provide services to help reunify a child under court jurisdiction for neglect or abuse with his or her parent in situations involving a parent who is or will be imprisoned for two or more years. 
http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=149967

Now, what about some reinstatement legislation and getting rid of that useless waste of state funded strawman called Michigan Children's Institute.  Here are some Michigan reinstatement legislative actions along with my 2 cents.

Here is reinstatement of parental rights law from the State of Maine.Reinstatement of Parental Rights Presentation -Maine DHHS Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan Amer Act Is Already Federal Law

Some years ago, right around the time the State of Michigan, particularly Wayne County, under the prosecutorial authority of former Wayne County Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General and Governor, Jennifer Granholm, there was a massive multi-billion dollar chattel ranching revenue maximization scheme.  Fortunately, the state anointed me as the chosen one as I am an original source.

Children were being Legally Kidnapped.  The Amer children were prized possessions as they would bring top dollar in Medicaid services for being determined by the court as special needs and they became the poster children of the child abuse propaganda industry.  All this was done in the name of God because God cannot be audited.

I am very familiar with the Michigan Amer Act and this is why I am going to share my work history on this piece of legislation.

I worked very closely with Representatives John Stahl (R) and Jack Hoogendyk (R), members of the Committee on Children and Family Services.  I swing both ways across the aisle.  When the Amer Bill was initially introduced, it was filled with a number of constitutional erroneous artifacts which made its original format D.O.A.

The original Amer Bill was crafted to establish religious consideration of placement.

The first issue with religious placements is the fact that, as child welfare is a federally funded program,  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  This is taken from the First Amendment of the Constitution.  So, what we did was to submit a revised draft to attempt to come into federal compliance with Title IV-E.  There had just been a state single audit and it was not pretty, at all.

As a matter of fact, the audit was so bad, pursuant to OMB Cir A-133, the State Auditor General had to report the instances of non-compliance to HHS OIG.  Representative Brenda Clack (D) and her buddies wanted to sweep this under the rug.

What came next was the unleashing of financial hell upon Michigan with their Title IV-E compliance.  Michigan appealed and lost.  So the state had to address the non-compliance which was establishing relative placement provisions in foster care placement.  Our bi-partisan solution worked well when presented to Committee and was on fast track for law.

Understanding that the Amers were but only one of a myriad of hell stories of Michigan foster care,  (we should never forget the courageous work of Starletta Banks) Representative John Stahl and I began crafting our remedy, House Resolution NN of 2008 which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.  What happened was we presented to U.S. Representative Pete Hoekstra who horribly modified and introduced it as a Parental Rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution, currently going through the ratification process.

I do not support the proposed Parental Rights Amendment and these are the reasons why:

1.     Parental Rights do not exist in a form readily understood outside a court of law.

2.     There is no codification of "governmental interest" or even "highest order".  This would be state      interpretation, taking everything back to square one.

3.     No one national tenet should have the power to interfere with international engagements.

4.     This Amendment is supportive of expanding the scope and powers of Child Protective Services.

I wrote a book on Parental Rights.  Of Parental Rights: The Acquisition of Goods.  I have given multiple testimony to Congress.  I have been engaged with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.  My authority has yet to be challenged so what I say, I expect to be widely disseminated.



U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr. will not be addressing a national "Amer Act" and this is why:  The law is already on the books. 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19)

It is such a shame one of his assistant staffers did not properly vet this issue but that is what Systemsucks do.

What is a System Suck? 

The simple answer to this question is this:  A system suck is one who profits in one way or another from, or makes their living from the legal kidnapping of your children.   There are two types, although both types can be present in one person.  One does it for the money, the other does it to make themselves feel important.  A sort of self gratification.

Rulemaking in the administration of a state program is left to the States as our government is a federalist structure.  That is why there compliance mandates.  Authorization of funding is a state judicial determination.  Grant compliance of Title IV-E is housed in the venue of the federal executive branch.

The Gentleman and I have been investigating the proper course of action to illuminate the inner workings of the child welfare system.   It is not going to be pretty because I am conducting the symphony.

How Federal Legislation Impacts Child Welfare Service Delivery

Thanks, George.  Great work!

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Clipped from: wpdev.curate.us (share this clip)

Welcome To The Michigan Foster Care Show!

Welcome to the Michigan Foster Care Show!


Why did this bill from 2007 pass so quickly in the final days of this legislature?  


Could it be the federal settlement agreement pending sanctions?


Could it be a desperate plea from administrators to elected officials to divert attention from the federal violations of law within the child welfare system in order to keep their jobs?


Or could it be concessions with the Michigan Children's Institute to keep the newly elected Governor Snyder in the dark of its omnipotence?  You see, it was the Superintendent who granted the decision to adopt, despite the evidence.


What, you thought only the court had the power to grant?  Oh no, my dear readers, the Superintendent possesses the powers of the court to "consent or withhold" the grant of adoption.  


So why does the Superintendent have so much authority in the judicial branch?  Because he is a civil servant of the executive branch!  See, in Michigan, one must prove his decisions were arbitrary and capricious, not that they were false or improper decisions, just whimsical.  


Bill Johnson has a divinity degree.  Therefore all his decisions are directly told to him from God and as such are not whimsical.  But the best part is the Superintendent not only is a vessel for the word of God, he is represents the State of Michigan without being appointed or elected, with no oath of office filed in the great repository of the state.


If you think this was a horrible life experience the Amers lived through, there are tens of thousands of other families in the state who have experienced the same thing, if not worse.


Keep in mind, the language of the new law, "fit".  The relatives still have to go through screening, in which the state still has stricter standards than with reunification efforts.


All in all, including the monetary incentive, it is better than nothing.  It's a start.

Relatives get power in foster care bill

Mark Hicks / The Detroit News

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed into law Tuesday a bill requiring the state to give special consideration to relatives when placing children in Michigan's foster care system.

"This is a victory," said Rehab Amer of Dearborn, who had three children taken away and raised in foster care. "No child can go through what we went through."

Rehab Amer and her husband, Ahmed, had pushed for the bill, known as the Amer Act.

The Amers lost custody of their children when Rehab was accused of killing her 2-year-old son, Samier, in 1985. She was acquitted a year later.

Nearly 20 years after the boy's death, Wayne Circuit Court ordered the cause of death be changed to accidental on the death certificate. Medical experts said Samier had a rare brittle bone disease.

Meanwhile, the children were adopted, their names were changed, and they were raised in a Christian home in Clarkston. The Amers are Muslim.

Michigan Foster Care Relative Placement 2010

Michigan still will not reinstate parental rights.

Michigan Relative Placement Is Supported By All Except One

The Michigan State Bar Association is in support of relative placement consideration in foster care...except for one.

I would just adore finding out the logic for this one person's dissent. Hmmmm, I wonder if it has anything to do with interrupting a revenue-maximization scheme for which this one person benefits.

I shall ask. Stay tuned for the response...which, more than likely I will not receive.

State Bar of Michigan Position 763 on Relative Placement Consideration in Foster Care

Come out, come out, whoever you are...

Michigan Realities of Relative Placement

There is a reason why relative placement in Michigan has stagnated in the Senate.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4735 (Give preference to relatives over foster care )

"...If a parent or relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of a child who is a ward of the institute establishes a suitable home and is capable and willing to support the child, the department may restore the child to his or her parent or relative. The institute may assist the parent or relative with the support of the child if the aid is less than the cost of care the institute would otherwise provide."

It seems, in part, there is already legislation on the books to reinstate parental rights. Unfortunately, there, also, exists a desperate need to clean up all the statutes pertaining to child welfare, for they are extremely antiquated and incoherent.

(3) Before determining placement of a child in its care, a supervising agency shall give special consideration and preference to the child's relatives. If a supervising agency determines that a child's relative is willing to care for the child, [ ] is fit to do so,[and would meet the child's developmental, emotional, and physical needs,] the child shall be placed in that relative's home unless that placement is determined to be [ ] not in the child's best interests.

There are two terms which have also hindered the passage of this bill. The first being "shall". The supervising agency "shall give special consideration" to relative care givers but is not mandated to do so. There is no State oversight to even enforce the matter.

The second term is "fit". A caregiver is determined to be "unfit" if they are not able to provide for the needs of the child, meaning, poverty or a reliance upon social support systems deems the relative who is impoverished not eligible for relative placement.

Poverty is not a crime, but it is in Michigan's child welfare system.

Michigan entered the Children's Rights settlement agreement because it was unable to come into federal compliance in other substantial areas of its child welfare system.

The Legislature needs look no further for legislative analysis as this is my area of expertise.

Beverly Tran

An Original Source

From The Detroit News: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/forums/writeus.php#ixzz0t7OLxkQn