Since Karen Bass wants to claim the legacy of the Congressional Black Caucus as its principle, then she should be the one to tell the world about what they do on their servers, when it comes to trafficking tiny humans through Foster Care and Adoption.
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 08:
Democrats faced intense backlash on Monday over a political stunt that they pulled in an attempt to show solidarity with the black community over death of George Floyd.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), and other top Democrats took at knee at Capitol Hill while wearing Kente cloth, which, as noted by The Washington Post, “comes from Ghana, where people wear it to show patriotism or celebrate a special occasion.”
The photo-op moment for Democrats quickly went viral online — but not in a good way, as numerous people from the black community mocked and criticized Democrats for their political stunt.
Army combat veteran Jeffrey A Dove Jr., a Republican running in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District, responded: “Does wearing kente cloth and taking a knee mean you are all of a sudden ‘down with the struggle’? This is why people hate disingenuous politicians. Speaker Pelosi was there for the 94 crime bill. She is part of the problem.”
Washington Post Global Opinions Editor Karen Attiah responded: “I look at this and think, who is the audience for this performance? Why was this necessary?”
Pro-life advocate Obianuju Ekeocha released a video on Twitter condemning the Democrats for “ignorantly using the Kente fabric as a prop in their virtue signaling.”
“I was just looking online today like most of you and what did I see? A bunch of Democrat politicians kneeling down, of which I have nothing to say about that because I am not an American, however, they were all having around their necks this colorful fabric which I’m sure they put around their necks as some kind of mark or show of unity or solidarity with black people,” Ekeocha said. “So, in other words, they put in for the Kente material or this colorful fabric they had around their necks as some kind of placating sign or symbol to show that they are not racist and they are together with black people.”
“Excuse me, dear Democrats, in your tokenism, you didn’t wait to find out that this thing that you’re hanging around your neck is not just some African uniform, it’s actually the Kente material,” Ekeocha continued. “The Kente belongs to the Ghanaian people, mainly the Ashanti Tribe. Excuse me, Democrats. Don’t treat Africans like we’re children. These fabrics and these colorful things that we have within our culture and tradition, they all mean something to us. I know you look at us and you say, ‘oh Africans are so cute in all your colorful dresses.’”
“Well, some of those dresses and patterns and colors and fabrics actually do mean something to us,” Ekeocha added. “Some of them belong to ancient tribes and mean something to them. So why are you using it your own show of non-racism or your own show of virtue? Why are you using the Kente material to signal your virtue? Stop it. We are not children. Africans are not children. And leave our tradition and our culture to us and if you don’t know much about it, ask somebody. I’m sure there would have been something else you could have done to show your solidarity with black people instead of taking the Kente material and making a little show of it.”
“I know we are in unexpected times and anything is possible but listen man I did not have ‘Pelosi in Kente cloth’ on the bingo card,” GEN editor Hanif Abdurraqib wrote. “I was so certain that picture wasn’t real at first that I didn’t even bother to look for proof in either direction. I just mumbled ‘damn people on here are getting real good at photoshop’ and kept moving along.”
Left-wing writer Roxane Gay wrote: “I am not sure what’s funnier, those ridiculous politicians wearing kente cloth or Cory Booker smartly opting out of that absurd performance.”
Another commentator wrote: “I’m Black and I don’t even own that thing on their necks that supposedly represents Blackness. Also, I hate how Democrats always pretend that they have never had a chance to fix USA when they’ve been in government too.”
Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Chairwoman & Congressional Black Caucus Chair Karen Bass (D-CA) and several House Judiciary Committee Democrats sent a letter,below, to the U.S. Department of Justice to probe the handling of consent decrees and pattern and practice complaints, to request communications related to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ memos regarding consent decrees, and to request an update on all current investigations into use of force by police departments in the U.S., among other things.
In their letter, the Members wrote, “Despite continuing concerns from civil rights and community-based organizations, the Department has sharply curtailed its statutory role in identifying and eradicating civil rights abuses by law enforcement. Excessive force in police-civilian encounters presents a crisis of trust throughout our nation. Changes to Department policy and failure to uphold the law run the risk of undermining federal oversight authority in this space…Accordingly, we write to request information related to the manner in which the Department of Justice is currently carrying out its statutory responsibilities to eliminate patterns and practices of unconstitutional conduct in law enforcement agencies.”
The letter is signed by Chairman Nadler, Crime Subcommittee Chairwoman Bass, Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee Chairman Steve Cohen (D-TN), House Judiciary Committee Vice Chair Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX).
Washington, D.C. --Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee leadership:
“Representative Sheila Jackson Lee has built a strong legacy of service on the Judiciary Committee and in Congress. I fully support her decision to voluntarily and temporarily step back from the Crime Subcommittee Chair position to ensure the Subcommittee’s important work continues. This decision does not suggest any culpability by Representative Jackson Lee.
“I am also pleased that Rep. Karen Bass has agreed to serve as interim Chair of the Crime Subcommittee until the matter is resolved and Representative Jackson Lee can resume the role of Chair.
“As we move forward, one of the first priorities of the House Judiciary Committee will be to reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Collectively, I as Chairman, Representative Jackson Lee, and Representative Bass will continue working together to strengthen VAWA and to reform our criminal justice system.” She should resign, just like John Conyers, Jr.
Washington, D.C. – Ahead of House Judiciary Republicans’ politically divisive Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee hearing entitled “The Effect of Sanctuary City Policies on the Ability to Combat the Opioid Epidemic,” House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Vice Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and eight other House Judiciary Democrats sent a letter to Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), urging him to hold a real hearing to appropriately examine the ongoing opioid epidemic in America.
In their letter, the Members wrote, “We write to request a hearing to comprehensively examine the ongoing opioid epidemic. In 2016, more than 42,000 people died of opioid overdoses, which equates to 115 people dying every day of preventable causes. On October 26, 2017, President Trump declared the opioid epidemic a Nationwide Public Health Emergency. At the time, you stated that ‘the House Judiciary Committee will continue to review our nation’s laws to determine if more resources are needed to address this crisis.’ Shortly thereafter, on November 1, 2017, the President’s Commission on Combatting Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis released its final report setting forth 56 specific recommendations to address the ongoing epidemic. It is long past due that the Committee held a hearing to examine these issues and how we can work in bipartisan manner to consider comprehensive measures to combat the opioid epidemic.”
Nadler and Raskin compared the Judiciary Committee’s inaction on this issue with the productivity of other committees, writing, “On October 26, 2017, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a full committee hearing, ‘Federal Efforts to combat the Opioid Crisis: A Status Update on CARA and Other Initiatives,’ at which Members pressed the Drug Enforcement Agency regarding ongoing investigations into ‘pill dumping’ in West Virginia, which include investigating the shipments of over 20 million hydrocodone and oxycodone pills to two pharmacies in a West Virginia town of 3,000 people. On December 5, 2017, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing, ‘Examining Concerns of Patient Brokering and Addiction Treatment Fraud;’ and, on January 20, 2018, Chairman Greg Walden announced a series of hearings to continue oversight and consider legislation to combat the opioid epidemic. Like these committees, we should explore the opportunities for bipartisan action on these issues instead of focusing on divisive anti-immigrant politics.”
The letter was signed by Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), David Cicilline (D-RI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).
Committee Dems Send 5th Request to Chairman for Oversight of Trump Administration
Washington, D.C. – Today, all House Judiciary Committee Democrats, led by Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), wrote to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (D-VA) to ask that he investigate Trump’s pardon of controversial sheriff Joe Arpaio and related events.
The letter is below.
In July, Joe Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt after years of racially profiling and arresting individuals based on their perceived immigration status. In today’s letter to Goodlatte, the memberswrote, “Sheriff Arpaio was convicted for criminal contempt of court because he ignored orders from a federal judge to stop engaging in racial profiling. The pardon not only disregards the rule of law, it directly flouts the courts themselves by signaling that it is acceptable for parties to ignore court orders.”
The letter notes that for “125 years, presidents have worked through the Pardon Attorney to ensure that the power of clemency is fairly applied. President Trump chose to work around this mechanism and ignore DOJ policy calling for a waiting period of five years or more before considering a pardon application and the expression of regret or remorse by the applicant.” It further details that “before resorting to a full pardon, President Trump asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to simply drop the criminal case against Sheriff Arpaio,” pointing out that the House Judiciary Committee “has long defended the view that presidents should avoid involvement in specific criminal cases in order to avoid even the perception of politicizing the administration of justice.”
The Members continued, “It is also our Committee’s unique and pressing responsibility to conduct oversight of the President’s use of executive power—particularly when that power is expressed as a pardon that only serves to endorse the transgressions committed by the offender. If we do not examine this use of the pardon power, we fear that the Committee will be seen by our constituents—and by future generations—as also having endorsed the Sheriff’s conduct.”
Today’s letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which includes: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Brad Schneider (D-IL).
Washington, DC – All House Judiciary Democrats, led by Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), today renewed their request to have House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) hold hearings to examine the federal conflicts-of-interest and ethics laws that may apply to President Donald Trump.
Today’s letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).
Bill is part of the House Judiciary Committee’s criminal justice reform initiative
Washington, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee today approved by voice vote the Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act (H.R. 759) to reform the federal prison system, strengthen public safety, enhance prison security, provide inmates the help they need, and protect civil liberties. This legislation is one of many bills that have been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its bipartisan criminal justice reform initiative.
At the markup, the Committee adopted a bipartisan amendment in the nature of a substitute that was offered by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.), Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), Representative Cedric Richmond (D-La.), Representative Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Representative Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and Representative Karen Bass (D-Calif.).
Below are statements from the authors of the legislation praising today’s Committee approval of the bill.
Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member Conyers: “I am pleased that the Committee has continued its work on criminal justice reform legislation by approving a bipartisan bill to reform our federal prisons. This bill will provide a meaningful opportunity to many offenders to reduce their time in prison through successful participation in various programs that will reduce their risk of recidivism. For too long, our prisons have simply warehoused individuals whom we know will eventually return to society and, for their benefit and ours, it simply makes sense that we provide incentives for prisoners to be better prepared to re-enter and be productive members of their communities. Adoption of this bill by the Committee is a good first step toward making our federal prison system more humane, more effective, and less costly. I look forward to House consideration of this and other criminal justice reform bills.”
Chairman Goodlatte: “Today the House Judiciary Committee approved another important component of its bipartisan criminal justice reform initiative. The Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act makes meaningful reforms to the prison system that strengthen the safety of our communities and provide inmates the help that they need while in prison to help them better reenter society upon their release. I thank the many members that have worked on this bill and look forward to continue working on other issues facing the criminal justice system.”
Rep. Chaffetz: “It is not enough to be tough on crime. We have to be smart on crime. More than 95 percent of people that go to prison will be released. Our collective goal should be to lower the recidivism rates and prepare inmates to integrate back into our communities. We all benefit if inmates gain marketable skills rather than criminal insights during their sentence. This legislation will facilitate integration while saving taxpayers money.”
Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Jackson Lee: “Recidivism is a multi-tiered problem with no easy answer. The legislation passed by the committee today is an excellent first step in the direction to helping former inmates. The bill reflects many of the provisions that I fought for including parenting skills and re-entry plans to name a few. Many factors go into a former inmate’s decision to re-offend after release. It is important to note, however, that there have been many studies showing prison programs systems which provide institutional programming have lower recidivism rates among those who are released. Prison programs such as anger management, vocational skills training, educational opportunities, and even trauma support groups are vital to ensuring inmates who are reintroduced to the general population have the life skills necessary to stay on the right path. I look forward to this bill passing the House and going to the President’s desk for his signature.”
Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner: “The Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act is an important component of our broad criminal justice reform efforts. Ensuring prisoners make a smooth transition from incarceration back into the population is imperative for strong families, strong communities, and long-term success. This bill will reduce the amount of taxpayer money spent on our broken federal prison system, make neighborhoods safer, and provide individuals with the tools they need to stay out of prison and be productive members of society.”
Rep. Richmond: “Being serious about reducing the prison population starts with making the necessary investment to rehabilitate and prepare inmates to lead productive lives once they return home. Increasing access to proven recidivism risk reduction programs will equip them with life skills that help keep ex-offenders from falling back into the same bad choices that landed them in prison in the first place. I’m proud to join my colleagues in getting the federal government out of the business of warehousing inmates and into the business of reforming and rehabilitating people.”
Rep. Collins: “Reducing the likelihood of recidivism through these reforms will be a step toward ending the vicious cycle in which so many former inmates find themselves trapped. The transforming power of a second chance is something I have seen during my time in the ministry. Giving qualified, low-risk offenders increased access to rehabilitative programs during and after their sentences will ultimately help lead them to live productive lives outside prison and increase public safety. This legislation also includes a provision that I co-authored to protect the fundamental right of attorney-client privilege by ensuring that electronic communications are treated the same way as other forms of privileged communication between an inmate and their legal representative. I believe all Americans have a right to legal representation, and interfering with that would be a violation of their Constitutional rights. These common sense reforms will save taxpayers money, while making our criminal justice system more effective.”
Rep. Jeffries: “We have a badly broken criminal justice system in America that has decimated countless families and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. This bill is a significant first step in the right direction with respect to encouraging rehabilitation, promoting successful re-entry and improving the efficient administration of government funding. The country will be a better place when this legislation is enacted into law.”
Rep. Gowdy: “H.R. 759 is an important step toward creating a smarter and more effective federal prison system. It incentivizes individuals to take steps to reduce their risk of ending up back in federal prison while implementing new policies to enhance public safety and prison security. It also protects inmates’ civil liberties by respecting attorney-client privilege in electronic communications. I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this bipartisan legislation and look forward to continuing to work with them to improve our federal prison system.”
Rep. Bass: “Restraining pregnant inmates, especially when they are giving birth, is barbaric. It is ludicrous to think that a woman prisoner giving birth would be at risk of escaping. I am glad that the final bill contains language that I authored that will prevent women prisoners from being restrained unnecessarily while they are pregnant or giving birth. Several states have already outlawed this practice, and the federal government should as well.”
Key Components of Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act:
Strengthens Public Safety:
·The Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act implements a post-sentencing dynamic risk assessment system to determine an inmate’s risk of committing more crimes upon release from prison. Under the legislation, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would utilize effective recidivism reduction programs and provide incentives for inmates to participate in those programs. Ultimately, inmates could earn credits toward an alternative custody arrangement – such as a halfway house or home confinement – at the end of their prison sentence.
·Renders criminals convicted of certain serious offenses ineligible for the alternative custody program, including dangerous sexual offenders, murderers, and others.
Enhances Prison Security:
·The bill authorizes the Director of BOP to issue pepper spray to those employed in a prison above the medium security level.
·The bill requires the Director of BOP to provide a secure storage area outside the secure perimeter for employees to store firearms or to allow for vehicle lock boxes for firearms.
·The bill requires the Director of BOP to provide de-escalation training as part of the regular training requirements of correctional officers.
Provide Inmates the Help They Need:
·The bill requires BOP to initiate pilot programs for youth mentorship and the training and therapy of rescue dogs.
·It requires BOP to submit a report and evaluation of the current pilot program to treat heroin and opioid abuse through medication assisted treatment.
·The bill extends the compassionate elderly release provision from the Second Chance Act that allows the prisoner to request for his or her compassionate release if he or she meets the requirements set out in the law.
·The bill codifies BOP’s rules on using restraints on pregnant inmates, which generally prohibit the use of restraints on pregnant inmates except those who are an immediate and credible flight risk or threat of harm to herself, the baby, or others.
Protects Civil Liberties:
·The bill prevents BOP from monitoring the contents of electronic communications to or from a prisoner in a federal prison facility and his attorney or other legal representative. The bill contains an exception when BOP obtains a court order to monitor electronic communications for the purpose of entering it into evidence, or use or disclose, the contents of the communications.
Learn more about the House Judiciary Committee’s criminal justice reform initiative here.
Mayor Karen Weaver and Secretary Hillary Clinton
in Flint, Michigan
The times when I stumble across child abuse related propaganda which is so perversely distorted that it literally brings me to tears in disgust are quite rare.
This is one of those moments.
For U.S. Congresswoman Karen Bass to shamelessly come out and support a political candidate by controlling the narrative of the national foster care system as a success is an utter embarrassment to my intelligence and my mission.
Yes, this is a wonderful story and I am proud of this gentleman, but now is the time to show courage by standing up and admitting that the Adoption and Safe Families Act has codified poverty as the crime of abuse and neglect.
As Secretary Hillary Clinton wishes to tout her work with child welfare, I believe it is only fitting to let her know that my entire blog is dedicated to inspire anyone in leadership to admit the reality of the secrecy behind the iron curtain of foster care.
Everyday, children in foster care are raped, drugged and tortured, yet, due to privacy constraints, very few even know that the majority of these children were removed due to poverty.
The federal funding flood gates were opened as direct funding to assist families in need was shut down under the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
The Children's Defense Fund is nothing more than the propaganda machine to criminalize poverty and sugar coat the entire child welfare industry as it is too big to fail.
I will even go so far to allege that this non-profit has, contributed and/or coordinated, in some for or fashion, to her Super PAC.
ASFA, for which the States have failed to meet one single benchmark, allows for children to be Legally Kidnapped.
Until I hear Madame Clinton speak upon the targeting of populations, the horrors of foster care, the ills of poverty and the culture of rampant fraud in child welfare, for which ASFA has promulgated, I will make it my hobby to call her out, and any other individual who fails to address the reality of hell for any child who survives foster care and those who did not.
I did not just write a book on this, I am an original source. Hillary Clinton is not.
Welcome, Secretary Clinton to Genesee County, Flint, Michigan, second to Detroit in child poverty rates, where children would be typically removed from the homes in these lead related issues as a situation of environmental neglect..
This time, there are too many.
I am glad you find the urgency to protect vulnerable children of Flint, but I ask you, "Where were you all these years?"
As the Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth, I have time and again seen the power of positive mentorship. With encouragement and opportunity, many of the roughly 424,000 children in America's foster system go on to lead successful lives. That said, I was still deeply moved by this Hillary Clinton inspired video featuring Jelani Freeman, a foster youth turned government lawyer.
If you haven't watched the video yet, you absolutely should! Jelani describes a moment from his 2003 internship in Hillary's Senate office when he came across his boss talking with Sen. Ted Kennedy. As Jelani tells it, Hillary was "bragging about" him as an incredible young man who had rocketed from foster care to Capitol Hill.
That encounter meant the world to Jelani. "I grew up... just wanting someone to be proud of me," he says. "It was moments like that when Hillary would brag about me and build me up that I really, really treasure."
It's not often we get these glimpses into a presidential candidate's personal side. I'm thrilled that Jelani shared his story, as part of the "Let's Talk Hillary" project, and I'm hopeful that Hillary's example can inspire others in this country to offer support. After all, role models like her make all the difference.
In Hillary's case, Jelani is a single but important example of a long career helping young people. As a lawyer with the Children's Defense Fund, Hillary advocated for juvenile justice reform. She later worked as First Lady to push the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which boosted foster adoptions by 64 percent by 2005. And as Secretary of State she created a special advisor on international children's issues while bolstering foster care worldwide.
Hillary's current platform is equally ambitious. She calls for universal preschool, so that children with fewer resources can make strides alongside their wealthier peers. Meanwhile, her New College Compact promises lower tuition rates, which means people like Jelani can continue to succeed from foster care onto college.
Too Small to Fail, family planning, criminal justice--the list goes on. My point is this: when it comes to helping children, Hillary has far more experience and far more detailed proposals than her opponents, Democrat and Republican alike. That fact, alone, earns her my vote.
Congress can only do so much, even on issues where both parties agree. The power to protect foster children will largely rest with a bully pulpit and executive actions--with the next leader in the White House. Four (or eight) more years are too many to wait around on this issue.
Jelani's story follows a pattern. If you had successful former foster children how they came to succeed, I'd be willing to bet a person like Hillary played a role. And with Hillary's nuanced proposals, many more foster kids can be business leaders or civil rights activists--maybe, one day, the President of the United States.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate about issues with Medicaid and child welfare.
Former foster youth trying to survive after being tortured in care and dumped on the streets when they age out.
To begin, allow me to make a substantial correction to the reasoning behind this legislation to provide foster youth Medicaid.
The legislative analysis is still on the drawing table so I will save them some time and present my own version.
Foster youth do have legal guardians.
Not every state is structured the same, but for purposes of brevity in proving my point, I introduce Michigan as my example.
The legal guardian for more than 7,000 foster youth in Michigan is.... MCL 400.203 Sec.(3)(1)!
The Superintendent of the Michigan Children's Institute, Bruce Hoffman. (It used to be Bill Johnson but I guess he was needed full time to cover up the fraud in its child welfare contracting. Bruce Hoffman was always number 2.)
Then there is that nasty legal technicality of termination of the Michigan Superintendent's parental rights to these state wards, which of course is defined as "legal and physical guardianship and custody", and has never been examined, except by me.
Of course, I would be remiss if I did not bring up the fact that foster care is not what the pretty shiny brochures make it out to be. So, any child who survives foster care, whether it be through aging out, reunification or just not dying in care, should be designated, automatically, unless there is a petition to opt out, to be formally designated as disabled, under Social Security Administration, Social Supplemental Disability Income, better known as SSI.
Medicaid becomes an automatic provision of SSI, meaning the foster youths are guaranteed health care.
As it stands, former foster youth do not have access to proper health care, particularly services and resources for the hell they have survived under state care.
Much of the horrors of foster care stay with these survivors for their entire lifetime. Why limit to just 26 years?
To further support my position on transitioning foster youth in need of more assistance than what is currently provided, Michigan is still under federal monitoring of its child welfare system because it still sucks.
Lastly, keeping foster youth under the auspices of a state for the purposes of accessing health care is just plain stupid because I can already see the flood gates open to new and improved Medicaid fraud schemes in child welfare.
If we, as a nation, cannot stand up and admit that the entire U.S. child welfare system can only be measured by its success in creating the highest international levels of child poverty in the industrialized world, then at least we can throw these former foster youth a few scraps to survive on the streets once they are kicked out by the same "caring" foster parents who no longer receive maintenance payments for their care.
Claimant is disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act. Pursuant to § 416.924(a), the sequential evaluation steps of determining a child disability provides that the Administration “will consider all relevant evidence in a child's case record, that we will consider all impairments for which we have evidence and their combined effects, and that we will evaluate any limitations in a child's functioning that result from a child's symptoms, including pain.” (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 725, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 328 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S. Code, Cong. and Ad. News 2649, 2716. The House report contains similar language. See H.R. Rep. No. 651, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1385 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S. Code, Cong. and Ad. News 2183, 2444.)
Continuing with reference to Pub.L. 104193 Section 211(a) of Public Law 104193 amended section 1614(a)(3), claimants, foster youth, are disabled as the condition has lasted and is expected to last for a continuous period of more than 12 months, as supported with the duration of this administrative claim, 12 months being the average length of stay in foster care and 12 months being the tolling period to initiate termination of parental rights. Claimants, foster youth, are typically not working, and have impairments which is of the required duration and which significantly limits the ability to work, considering some foster youth who were able to be reunified with their original guardians are under the age of 16 years. [See 20 CFR §§416.920(a) through (c )(1989)]
This is a better policy companion to SB 1852.
This is the time to end the "groupthink" and start to listen to an original source.
As they continue to address the needs of the hundreds of thousands of young people who are currently a part of the foster care system and the tens of thousands who leave the system each year, Reps. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) and Jim McDermott (D-Wash.)—Co-Chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth—announced they introduced H.R. 3641, the “Health Insurance for Former Foster Youth Act of 2015,” legislation that will close a loophole and guarantee that foster youth will still receive health insurance through Medicaid until they turn 26 years old regardless of their state of residence.
One of the goals of the Affordable Care Act was to ensure that young people could stay on their parents’ insurance until they turn 26. Because foster youth do not have legal guardians, the law addressed foster youth by guaranteeing that as long they were in the foster care system by the time they were 18 years old, they would be able to receive Medicaid until they turned 26.
However, because of ambiguity in one section of the law, foster youth who leave the foster care system may find themselves without health insurance through Medicaid if they decide to move out the state—even if they are attending college, working, or need to leave for personal reasons.
Although 13 states have addressed this issue, foster youth in the remaining 37 states and the District of Columbia face the choice of leaving the state for new opportunities or losing their health insurance. One of these young people is Lezlie Martinez, a 19-year-old former foster youth from San Diego, California.
Ms. Martinez was planning on moving to Colorado because of the lower cost of living there, and her boyfriend will soon be moving to the state—meaning that she will have a support system for herself as well as for her two-year-old son.
However, Colorado is a state that is not offering free Medicaid to former foster youth, and now Ms. Martinez is faced with having to decide between having healthcare while living in one room with her son or moving to Colorado so she can provide a better life for her child and herself but face losing her health insurance.
“This changes everything,” said Ms. Martinez as she is forced to confront decisions about not just her future, but for her child as well.
“The Affordable Care Act was designed to help young people like Lezlie, not force them to choose between school in another state or healthcare where they currently live,” said Bass. “I commend the states that have addressed this problem, but now it is time for Congress to provide a permanent fix in federal law.”
The “Health Insurance for Former Foster Youth Act” is particularly important to ensure that foster youth maintain uninterrupted access to health insurance. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 35 and 60 percent of youth who enter foster care have at least one chronic or acute health condition such as asthma, cognitive abnormalities, visual and auditory problems, dental decay, and malnutrition that require long-term treatment, and 50 to 75 percent of foster youth exhibit behavioral or social competency issues that may require mental health treatment. In 2013, nearly 50,000 youth exited the foster care system between the ages of 16-20.
“I am proud to join with Congresswoman Bass in introducing this important legislation. Young adults in the foster care system deserve our special care and concern, as they came into the system through no fault of their own. These young adults are among the least served populations and its vitally important that Congress does all it can to provide them affordable and reliable access to medical care. I believe this legislation will do just that by making small clarifying fixes to the Affordable Care Act,” said Congressman McDermott.
Congressmembers G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Tony Cardenas (D- CA), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Judy Chu (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Danny K. Davis (D- IL), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), John Garamendi (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Robin Kelly (D-IL), Ron Kind (D-WI), Jim Langevin (D- RI), John Lewis (D-GA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Donald M. Payne, Jr. (D- NJ), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Charlie Rangel (D- NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) joined the legislation as original co-sponsors.
Over 140 prominent advocacy organizations support the legislation, including First Focus Campaign for Children, The Alliance for Children’s Rights, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Psychological Association, Children’s Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, and Foster Family-based Treatment Association.
H.R. 3641 is companion legislation to S.1852, introduced by Senator Bob Casey (D-PA).
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure health insurance coverage continuity for former foster youth.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 29, 2015
Ms. Bass (for herself, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Doggett, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Norton, Mr. Payne, Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kind, Mr.Lewis, Mr. Butterfield, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Ellison) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure health insurance coverage continuity for former foster youth.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Health Insurance for Former Foster Youth Act”.
SEC. 2.COVERAGE CONTINUITY FOR FORMER FOSTER CARE CHILDREN UP TO AGE 26.
(1) in item (bb), by striking “are not described in or enrolled under” and inserting “are not described in and are not enrolled under”;
(2) in item (cc), by striking “responsibility of the State” and inserting “responsibility of a State”; and
(3) in item (dd), by striking “the State plan under this title or under a waiver of the” and inserting “a State plan under this title or under a waiver of such a”.
(b) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
If you rarely, even take the time to read what I present, I strongly encourage everyone to read, share, then open discussions because there is so much more to the cost of children than could ever be imagined.
Washington State has such a high payout of child welfare lawsuits strictly because there are bold attorneys who are not afraid to brandish the facts, in a court of law, of what happens to a child in foster care.
In most states, particularly Michigan, the legal profession has an unspoken code of being "blacklisted" if an attorney goes up against the state in a matter of child welfare. Then there is that pesky matter of one being able to afford an attorney to represent their child, or even themselves as the parent.
The stigma of being involved with Child Protective Services is so deeply embedded in social culture that it makes sense for everyone to remain silent, even the children who are, for whatever reason (i.e. unnecessarily, involuntarily, poverty) so that no political leader will directly touch this "tar baby" a ten-foot pole.
I must give credit to to Congresswoman Karen Bass and her founding of the Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth but it is a dearth, if any, activity in addressing the structural issues of the entire foster care system, mainly the billing and civil rights.
Political candidates of both sides of the aisle only have joined the aforementioned congressional caucus for D.C. political posturing, and not even for their constituents. I can attest, personally, first hand knowledge, that Congressional Chiefs of Staff will ignore and omit anything dealing with the child welfare system from the Offices.
(I would name names, but I believe it will be much more enjoyable to sit back and watch certain Chiefs of Staff to be escorted off the Hill.)
Why? Because they consider this to be a state issue and have never taken the time to even investigate as child welfare is a closed, secretively administered system.
State political leaders will vehemently exclude anything about child welfare from their rhetoric as it comes across as defending bad parents and an hindrance in helping the "poor, abused kids".
Child welfare is the last frontier of civil rights. Stated in this article, reiterated by my previous scribings, children have no civil rights because they do not pay taxes and cannot vote.
Cheryl Schaefer, 28, and three siblings suffered years of abuse in a foster home under DSHS supervision in northeastern Washington. She was angered to learn from a reporter there was no apparent record of discipline for...
Over the past eight years, the state Department of Social and Health Services’ child-welfare division has been hit with scores of lawsuits, paying $141.4 million for failing to protect children under its care.
The state of Washington’s largest department is tasked with caring for the state’s most vulnerable residents — abused children, foster kids, mentally handicapped adults. But time and again, it has failed.
Over the past eight years, the Washington state Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) has been hit with scores of lawsuits, ultimately paying $166.4 million for personal-injury claims. Many of the most severely injured were children who were tortured, starved or raped. Some died.
DSHS employees behind these failures rarely are punished, The Seattle Times has found.
From those scores of lawsuits, the newspaper selected one dozen of the high-cost, child-welfare cases for which records were readily accessible. Many of these cases made headlines and resulted in verdicts or settlements ranging from $750,000 to $11 million, some $75 million in all.
Using court records, public records and interviews, the newspaper identified 48 DSHS staffers involved in the failures in these 12 cases.
None of the 48 was fired or suspended. None was demoted or lost pay.
That is according to DSHS, which ran the 48 names through its human-resources databases at the newspaper’s request. (The database only shows records that affect compensation.)
Whether any of the 48 staffers were given lesser forms of discipline, such as reprimand letters, is unclear. DSHS in May said it would takes several months to provide answers. (Recently, the agency said one staffer had been given a letter of reprimand. It hasn’t completed its research.)
Slightly less than half the 48 still work for DSHS; some have retired.
The review of the 12 cases — as well as several dozen interviews with present and former DSHS employees, state employee-union officials, personal-injury lawyers, children’s advocates and others — turned up some common failings: overlooked complaints of abuse; delayed or inept investigations; placement of children in unsafe homes.
DSHS’ lack of focus on personal accountability is a significant problem, said Tim Tesh, a personal-injury lawyer who has sued DSHS many times. Policymakers can suggest reforms, he said, but “often, it’s that the worker didn’t follow procedures that are already in place. What good does reform do you when the worker just doesn’t follow them?”
DSHS said paying a victim does not mean an employee made a mistake.
“I don’t think anyone in the field can credibly deny that there’s a scary connection between overburdened workers and risk of harm to kids.” - Ira Lustbader, litigation director of Children’s Rights"
Jennifer Strus since 2013 has been head of the Children’s Administration, the division responsible for payouts of $141.4 million. She would not comment on how her predecessors handled employees who may have made mistakes years earlier.
Any failures must be well-documented before the agency can take action, she noted. DSHS in recent years has improved training and how it tracks complaints of abuse and also reviews the performance of employees implicated in claims against the agency.
Being a social worker is the “toughest job in state government,” Strus said. A combination of large caseloads, employee turnover and budget cuts makes it “pretty hard to do great work,” she said.
Cheryl Schaefer, 28, isn’t comforted by these words. She and three siblings suffered years of abuse in a foster home under DSHS supervision in northeastern Washington. Up until 2001, court records show, they were beaten, forced to overeat, throw up and eat their own vomit, and suffered sexual abuse.
According to court records, Schaefer and her siblings said the caseworker repeatedly ignored their cries for help.
A 2012 lawsuit, filed by Tesh against DSHS, was settled for $5.3 million. To Schaefer, money does not equal justice.
Paying for mistakes
DSHS paid out $166.4 million over eight years for injury claims. The largest cases involved the Children’s Administration, its child-welfare division.
Sources: Washington Department of Social and Health Services; Washington Department of Enterprise Services(Reporting by Will Drabold / The Seattle Times; Graphic by Mark Nowlin / The Seattle Times)
have tagged the agency for years. In 1998, lawyers for 13 foster kids filed a class-action lawsuit against the state, saying foster children were being harmed across the board by inadequate care. The state Supreme Court, in the landmark 2003 Braam decision (named after one of the plaintiffs), upheld a lower court and put Washington’s child-welfare system under judicial oversight.
The Braam case led to several improvements, including sharply cutting back on children bouncing from one foster home to another. The court oversight continues, in part because a key court-ordered mandate remains unfulfilled: foster-child caseloads of 18 or fewer for 90 percent of social workers.
Besides the court, state lawmakers recently required DSHS to be more accountable for mistakes.
DSHS was required to do automatic reviews of botched child-welfare cases only when someone died in state care, a “fatality review.”
As of July 24, under “Aiden’s Law,” DSHS must review worker actions if a child experiences a “near fatality” within one year of a previous incident of abuse.
State Sen. Steve O’Ban, R-University Place, who sponsored the legislation, called it an improvement. That lawmakers had to force DSHS to review such cases “speaks volumes,” he said.
Most of the multimillion-dollar settlements come from the DSHS Children’s Administration division. There more than 1,800 social workers oversee nearly 10,000 children in foster care and last year looked into 90,000 reports of child neglect or abuse. Turnover is high — about one in six staffers leaves each year. Starting pay can be as low as $32,688.
Joyce Murphy, a social worker in Vancouver who’s worked for a decade at the agency, said she has failed to see children once a month, as required by DSHS policy. She blames it on her caseload, which she says over the past four years has averaged about 25 children — well above the national standard of 15 and the DSHS average of 19.
"When we are some 30 percent above a reasonable caseload, that can be like sending the Seahawks to play the Super Bowl with two-thirds of a team, then firing them when they lose.” - Kevin Quigley, DSHS Secretary"
“I can’t do my job,” she said. She worries each night that one of her clients will die on her watch.
No one died in the case of two young Snohomish County boys, ages three and six, who were being starved and beat by their father and his girlfriend in 2006, but it does illuminate the tragic results when workers utterly fail to do their jobs. The case is one of many that reveals the personal consequences for such failures can be slight.
Between May and July 2006, a neighbor filed four complaints with DSHS, saying two young boys were being starved and beaten by their parents. She would later say that no one at DSHS ever followed up with her, court records show.
The father, Danny Abegg, and his girlfriend, Marilea Mitchell, kept a padlock on the refrigerator and withheld food to punish the boys. A social worker, Aubrey Kilgore, in one visit reported that the house “had plenty of food in it.”
He went back a second time after a sheriff’s deputy, shopping at Wal-Mart, saw bruises on the face of the 3-year-old, and alerted DSHS. This time, Kilgore required the parents to see a family therapist, documents show.
The child-welfare case was transferred that fall to another social worker, Deanna Neff. Among her failures, she gave Abegg eight-days notice she would be visiting the home, giving him time to hide evidence of abuse. Nor did she speak to the more severely abused younger brother, Shayne, records show.
A few months later, Ada Sharp, who had no experience or training investigating child abuse, was given the case, court records show. Other warning signs surfaced, records show, but Cherokee Screechowl, the area supervisor, ended the investigation in February 2007.
A month later, someone alerted authorities that a little boy was being “starved.” Paramedics rushed Shayne, now 4, to the hospital where he was found in urine-soaked clothes, emaciated, with a body temperature of 87 degrees. After being given food at the hospital, the boy told doctors not to let his parents know that he had eaten. A veteran paramedic later said he had not seen “a worse case of neglect or malnourishment.”
After Abegg and Mitchell were charged with first-degree criminal mistreatment, the case, with its sickening details and claims of DSHS failures, exploded in the news. Gov. Chris Gregoire asked for a special review, and DSHS said its employees failed to protect the two boys.
At the time, a DSHS spokesman said two employees linked to the case had resigned. DSHS recently said one of the four did receive a letter of reprimand.
Kilgore and Sharp still work at DSHS. Neff resigned from the agency. Screechowl resigned in 2007, came back in 2011 and then re-retired.
Screechowl could not be located; the other did not return calls for comment.
Shayne Abegg received $5 million from the state in 2009 after a judge compared him to a concentration-camp survivor. His older brother received $2.85 million two years later.
Danny Abegg sits after being arrested for criminal mistreatment of son Shayne, 4, who weighed 22 pounds. Shayne got $5 million from the state after judge compared him to a concentration-camp survivor. (Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office)
“It is a war zone”
If the high-profile Snohomish stavation case didn't result in someone being punished, what sort of case would?
“This story has been going on for 30 years,” said Dennis Braddock, DSHS secretary from 2000 to 2005. He oncedescribed DSHS’ culture as “bunkerlike” and said he tried to hold staffers to account but faced an uphill battle.
“Republicans don’t like administration,” he recently said. “Democrats all side with the union. So management gets the short end of the stick in [employee] disputes.”
It’s a proven formula: To effectively serve children and families, social workers need a reasonable number of cases to manage, a finding backed by decades of state and national studies.
Currently, the average caseload for child-protective-services (CPS) workers — Children’s Administration employees who investigate reports of child neglect — is 16, well above the national standard of no more than 12. Also, it takes on average two years for a CPS investigator “to become proficient,” DSHS said.
Since 2008, the Children’s Administration has lost 300 employees. This year, for the first time since, the division received an additional $7.2 million for 43 employees and other resources, an attempt to lower caseloads and improve investigations.
Greg Devereux, executive director of the Washington Federation of State Employees, which represents unionized DSHS staff, describes social-worker caseloads, burnout and turnover in dire terms: “It is a war zone.”
Some former DSHS officials and child advocates point to his union when noting that individual discipline doesn’t always occur. DSHS is required to have substantial documentation to punish negligent employees, they assert, and the arbitration process can be time-consuming.
“That’s ridiculous,” Devereux said. The union makes sure DSHS “fairly holds people accountable.”
In the past eight years, the union went to arbitration on only two cases of Children’s Administration social workers who were terminated, he said. One firing was upheld; the other employee was reinstated.
“I don’t think anyone in the field can credibly deny that there’s a scary connection between overburdened workers and risk of harm to kids,” said Ira Lustbader, litigation director of Children’s Rights, a national organization that advocates and files lawsuits to bring accountability to child-welfare systems.
Lustbader’s organization has filed lawsuits in other states arguing high caseloads are a civil-rights violation for children because it puts them in harm’s way.
“They’re poor. They’re disproportionately of color. They’re not a legislative priority.”
“These kids don’t vote. They’re poor. They’re disproportionately of color. They’re not a legislative priority,” he said.
Not held accountable
Even so, heavy caseloads cannot always explain away mistakes or why they go unpunished. According to interviews with 10 plaintiff attorneys who have brought personal-injury cases against DSHS, none of them has heard of a social worker being disciplined for failing to protect someone.
David Moody is a Seattle lawyer who has brought lawsuits against DSHS that resulted in $86 million in verdicts or settlements since 2000. “There’s a constellation of warnings and a corresponding constellation of failures by DSHS to heed those warnings,” said Moody, lawyer for the Abegg children. “No one is held accountable.”
DSHS Secretary Kevin Quigley declined to be interviewed. In an email, he wrote that the agency has an improved performance-evaluation system and is more aggressive about dismissing subpar workers during their probation period.
“I understand the solution for some is to blame the caseworker every time a mistake is made but when we are some 30 percent above a reasonable caseload that can be like sending the Seahawks to play the Super Bowl with 2/3 of a team then firing them when they lose,” Quigley wrote.
Some officials note that the state does have another tool to hold DSHS accountable: The Office of Family and Children’s Ombuds. Director Patrick Dowd says the office plays a neutral role when it intervenes in cases in which DSHS failed to act or was unreasonable.
However, he said, his office’s “focus is on the actions of the agency and not the specific caseworker.”
