Victories like this fuel my tireless journey.
For those who are just now coming aboard, read the banner of this site.
My mission is to secure retribution for all persons who have been victimized in child welfare. It is my belief the responsibility to protect vulnerable persons lies within the powers of the State Attorney General, pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This is codified.
With that said, I have been longstanding on the position that the States Medicaid Fraud Control Units were flawed in their initial designs because children were never incorporated as a protected class.
Children were protected by the State Attorney General through child welfare laws.
Herein lies the conundrum. How can the Attorney General protect children when it is representing the people who are harming children?
I have identified the perfect applicant for this demonstration grant: State Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
Public Comment of Beverly Tran on Proposed Revision of Performance Standards for State Medicaid Fraud Contr...
This is a demonstration grant to address the aforementioned enforcement and protection challenges of children under the auspices of the state, serviced through Medicaid. It circumvents the secrecy laws of child welfare and improves delivery and quality of services.
PREA Demonstration Projects to Establish “Zero Tolerance” Cultures For Sexual Assault in Local Adult and Ju...
For those naysayers, the term "local juvenile detention facility" is the proper term for emergency shelters when your child is Legally Kidnapped by Child Protective Services. Children who are in juvenile facilities are wards of the state, and that is foster care.
U.S. DOJ Report on Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities 2010
Deadline for application is March 15, 2012. I am available for consultation.
Showing posts with label parens patriae. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parens patriae. Show all posts
Monday, February 13, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Anonymous Challenges Beverly Tran On Michigan Proposed Reinstatement Bill
Recently, I was challenged by an individual who goes by the name of Anonymous who brought to my attention that Michigan is not the first state to propose reinstatement of parental rights legislation. My contention, beyond not properly identifying oneself for credibility, was this:
I am quite familiar with that code which is one of 4 states that has a limited exception to reunification.
Unfortunately, you did not understand that this particular piece of legislation deals with a a reunification factor that provides services to that family.
In numerous situations, children are chattel ranched through the foster care system due to poverty.
Failure to provide for the necessary needs of the child. There have been multiple, well documented cases, presenting this pattern of practice. Parental rights may be terminated because it is the only way to access proper medical care for the child.
I actually helped on the Washington piece with Pam Roach's people.
Again, I remain steadfast on my position, there is no other full reunification for I refer to one particular section of the Michigan Bill that I truly enjoy:
"(4) THE COURT SHALL TERMINATE THE RIGHTS OF THE MCI AND
REINSTATE A PARENT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS..."
This is the only proposed legislation in the nation whereby the state actually 'terminates' its own grant of custody and guardianship of an individual. I wrote a book on it. Of Parental Rights: The Acquisition of Goods. I also filed a quo warranto in Michigan.
By the state self-terminating its own parental rights, it is properly applying the doctrine of parens patriae officially registering the transfer of the grant of custody and guardianship, the moveable good, itself. This is due process.
I thank you so much for engaging me and forcing me to clarify myself. For comparison, I have included the California Code below you have so graciously provided.
(i)(1)Any order of the court permanently terminating parental rights under this section shall be conclusive and binding upon the child, upon the parent or parents and upon all other persons who have been served with citation by publication or otherwise as provided in this chapter. After making the order, the juvenile court shall have no power to set aside, change, or modify it, except as provided in paragraph (2), but nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the right to appeal the order.
(2)A child who has not been adopted after the passage of at least three years from the date the court terminated parental rights and for whom the court has determined that adoption is no longer the permanent plan may petition the juvenile court to reinstate parental rights pursuant to the procedure prescribed by Section 388. The child may file the petition prior to the expiration of this three-year period if the State Department of Social Services or licensed adoption agency that is responsible for custody and supervision of the child as described in subdivision (j) and the child stipulate that the child is no longer likely to be adopted. A child over 12 years of age shall sign the petition in the absence of a showing of good cause as to why the child could not do so. If it appears that the best interests of the child may be promoted by reinstatement of parental rights, the court shall order that a hearing be held and shall give prior notice, or cause prior notice to be given, to the social worker or probation officer and to the child's attorney of record, or, if there is no attorney of record for the child, to the child, and the child's tribe, if applicable, by means prescribed by subdivision (c) of Section 297. The court shall order the child or the social worker or probation officer to give prior notice of the hearing to the child's former parent or parents whose parental rights were terminated in the manner prescribed by subdivision (f) of Section 294 where the recommendation is adoption. The juvenile court shall grant the petition if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child is no longer likely to be adopted and that reinstatement of parental rights is in the child's best interest. If the court reinstates parental rights over a child who is under 12 years of age and for whom the new permanent plan will not be reunification with a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its findings that it is in the best interest of the child to reinstate parental rights. This subdivision is intended to be retroactive and applies to any child who is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court at the time of the hearing regardless of the date parental rights were terminated.
Monday, November 15, 2010
From Russia, With Much Love
Very interesting. Russia has charges of "child harassment". What exactly is child harassment, you ask?
A nice way of saying torture.
Bullying is child harassment, but the concept is watered down in the United States. Bullying is still considered 'naughty', not worthy of prosecution as it is a free speech issue. We have leadership who engage in bully pulpit tactics, but we grown to accept this as a norm.
The point I am making is, there are very different social perceptions between Russia and the United States and we may be able to learn from them, being a much older culture.
There are three other points I must raise. The first being "corrective labor". A person convicted is sent to pay their debt to society, literally. The United States has prison labor camps but we call it privatization, except corporate industry profits. The state has a different social repayment structure. This is what foster care is. A child is removed from a poor parent as the parent must pay debt to society for being dependent, not productive. The child becomes the payment of debt, and the state claims the best interests to profit in the future by generating more revenue for society. In the immediate form it is through the tax dollar funded foster care (i.e. Title IV-B, Title IV-E, Medicaid). In the long term it ultimately taxes as the child matures to participate in the greater good of society and pays taxes, continuing the perpetuities of the state.
The second point is the revocation of adoption. Brilliant. As oppose to the term "termination of parental rights, the grant to the right of guardianship and custody is revoked. That is what it is, exactly. It is not whitewashed in the myth of parental rights because it does not exist in the form of what one would think.
Parental rights are parens patriae; it belongs to the state. Parents have rights as individuals and as citizens. What is being terminated is the grant of custody and guardianship, which is a privilege as it was, exactly as it was termed, "granted".
The only rights of parents is the right to pay the state to keep your child, and that is called taxes. You want street lights, roads, police? Then pay for it in taxes. If not, then pay with your first born.
At this point I am quite sure there are some who are reading this, fuming that I would spew such indolent rhetoric. Good. If you are upset, then it means I have struck a chord. I am not stupid as this social system is called feudalism. It is a reciprocal, mutual, military agreement. You pay taxes, the state protects and serves. The state grants you the right of custody/guardianship, you protect and serve the future interests of the state which are your kids. If you fail to provide for the necessary needs of the child, you have abused and neglected the grant and that grant is terminated.
It should be revocation, the converse of grant. To terminate is to provide the fallacious illusion of ownership of rights. To terminate means it had to begin somewhere. The state terminates because the state granted, recognizing the birth of your child, establishing ownership through the birth certificate. To revoke means to take back. This opens the door for a legal tug-o-war for parents who are battling the state with child issues.
In the U.S., there are no chances to have parental rights reinstated once terminated. Yes, there are about three states with limited criteria where the bar is so high it never happens, but basically, reinstatement of parental rights is not codified,. No where in the U.S. Once parental rights are terminated, that is all she wrote. Forever. I simply call it the greatest hustle of all times... the peculiar institution of slavery.
I am going to stop here as I go into much greater detail in my book soon to be released.
The last interesting point I would like to bring to attention is the concept of rehabilitation centers for children. In the U.S., industry standard for reunification is the dump the kids of the door step of the parents who have executed amazing feats of strength, jumping through rings of fire called the foster care system. The kids withdraw from unapproved FDA drugs that were shoved down their throats at massive above adult dosages, scream in the middle of the night with memories of the torture they have survived while in foster care and the parents should simply celebrate that their children were returned...
alive.
See, if the U.S. acknowledges children who have been in foster care need intensive psychotherapy and medical repair of their physical injuries, then that would be an admission of liability. This is why there is nothing in place to aid children who were in foster care. This is why there is virtually nothing for those who age out.
Russia never had a slave institution so it does not tolerate bullys.
The U.S. can learn from Russia, with much love.
A nice way of saying torture.
Bullying is child harassment, but the concept is watered down in the United States. Bullying is still considered 'naughty', not worthy of prosecution as it is a free speech issue. We have leadership who engage in bully pulpit tactics, but we grown to accept this as a norm.
The point I am making is, there are very different social perceptions between Russia and the United States and we may be able to learn from them, being a much older culture.
There are three other points I must raise. The first being "corrective labor". A person convicted is sent to pay their debt to society, literally. The United States has prison labor camps but we call it privatization, except corporate industry profits. The state has a different social repayment structure. This is what foster care is. A child is removed from a poor parent as the parent must pay debt to society for being dependent, not productive. The child becomes the payment of debt, and the state claims the best interests to profit in the future by generating more revenue for society. In the immediate form it is through the tax dollar funded foster care (i.e. Title IV-B, Title IV-E, Medicaid). In the long term it ultimately taxes as the child matures to participate in the greater good of society and pays taxes, continuing the perpetuities of the state.
The second point is the revocation of adoption. Brilliant. As oppose to the term "termination of parental rights, the grant to the right of guardianship and custody is revoked. That is what it is, exactly. It is not whitewashed in the myth of parental rights because it does not exist in the form of what one would think.
Parental rights are parens patriae; it belongs to the state. Parents have rights as individuals and as citizens. What is being terminated is the grant of custody and guardianship, which is a privilege as it was, exactly as it was termed, "granted".
The only rights of parents is the right to pay the state to keep your child, and that is called taxes. You want street lights, roads, police? Then pay for it in taxes. If not, then pay with your first born.
At this point I am quite sure there are some who are reading this, fuming that I would spew such indolent rhetoric. Good. If you are upset, then it means I have struck a chord. I am not stupid as this social system is called feudalism. It is a reciprocal, mutual, military agreement. You pay taxes, the state protects and serves. The state grants you the right of custody/guardianship, you protect and serve the future interests of the state which are your kids. If you fail to provide for the necessary needs of the child, you have abused and neglected the grant and that grant is terminated.
It should be revocation, the converse of grant. To terminate is to provide the fallacious illusion of ownership of rights. To terminate means it had to begin somewhere. The state terminates because the state granted, recognizing the birth of your child, establishing ownership through the birth certificate. To revoke means to take back. This opens the door for a legal tug-o-war for parents who are battling the state with child issues.
In the U.S., there are no chances to have parental rights reinstated once terminated. Yes, there are about three states with limited criteria where the bar is so high it never happens, but basically, reinstatement of parental rights is not codified,. No where in the U.S. Once parental rights are terminated, that is all she wrote. Forever. I simply call it the greatest hustle of all times... the peculiar institution of slavery.
I am going to stop here as I go into much greater detail in my book soon to be released.
The last interesting point I would like to bring to attention is the concept of rehabilitation centers for children. In the U.S., industry standard for reunification is the dump the kids of the door step of the parents who have executed amazing feats of strength, jumping through rings of fire called the foster care system. The kids withdraw from unapproved FDA drugs that were shoved down their throats at massive above adult dosages, scream in the middle of the night with memories of the torture they have survived while in foster care and the parents should simply celebrate that their children were returned...
alive.
See, if the U.S. acknowledges children who have been in foster care need intensive psychotherapy and medical repair of their physical injuries, then that would be an admission of liability. This is why there is nothing in place to aid children who were in foster care. This is why there is virtually nothing for those who age out.
Russia never had a slave institution so it does not tolerate bullys.
The U.S. can learn from Russia, with much love.
 |
15.11.2010, 12.20
| |
| 
MOSCOW, November 15 (Itar-Tass) -- A city court in the town of Vidnoye is to pass a verdict on Monday to foster parents - Anton and Larisa Ageyevs, who are standing trial on charges of child harassment.
The Prosecutor’s office demanded to convict Larisa Ageyeva for neglect of her duties to an adolescent child, causing harm to the child's health and tortures. Anton Ageyev -the husband of the accused woman, faces nine months of corrective labor for neglect of his duties to the child.
The defendants and their lawyers insist on full acquittal. Earlier, they claimed they wanted to return their adoptive children - the five-year-old Gleb and the four-year-old daughter, Polina, back into the family.
Hearings into the case which began in March were often adjourned because of additional inquests. A criminal case against the foster parents was opened last March after the three-year-old boy, Gleb, was brought to a children’s clinical hospital in Moscow with numerous injuries on his face and body, including thermal burns.
The couple, Larisa and Anton Ageyevs, adopted the boy and the girl in 2008 and moved to a private house in the settlment of Korobovo in the Moscow region. The regional Prosecutor's office established that the woman – an emotionally unstable person who cannot control her temper, disliked the boy. She was cruel to the child and often beat him up, putting the child's life at risk. Her husband knew what was going on, but preferred not to interfere.
The investigation claims that on March 20, 2009 the woman beat up the child once again. A forensic examination found thermal burns on the child's body, numerous bruises and signs of hemorrhage on his face, head, belly, diagnosed that the child suffered a concussion, had his nose broken, face injured and lower teeth extracted.
At present, the boy and the girl are undergoing a course of rehabilitation at a children’s rehabilitation center in the Moscow region.
Earlier, the Moscow Preobrazhensky district court had revoked an act on the child adoption.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)