Vivek Sankaaran Was Seduced By Perkins Coie Sucks

Oh, Vivek!

For so long I had the greatest hopes for you.

Alas, you drank the Perkins Coie Sucks juice because you co-opted the privatized child welfare propaganda machine Chronicle of Social Change.

Behold, Perkins Coie Is Privatizing The Justice System Using MSU

#perkinscoiesucks

One day, we will end the multi-trillion dollar industry of trafficking of tiny humans of Medicaid fraud in child welfare, funding the States foreign children's trust funds and all their complex, financial fraud schemes.

Oh, Vivek.

You gave me saddy face.

Did they promise you orals in the SCOTUS DACA/DAPA case?

An Invitation to Remake Child Welfare

Vivek Sankaran
He forgot the meaning of GO BLUE.

A few days before Christmas, the federal government extended an invitation to state child welfare agencies that has the potential to completely transform the system.

The invitation did not arrive with great publicity.

Nor was it lengthy. Instead, it was announced in a few ordinary-looking sentences, in a very ordinary-looking email.

But looks can be deceiving. The change announced by the federal government could lead to far fewer children being placed in foster care. It could expedite the reunification of those children in care. It could increase visitation between children in care and their parents. And it could get children into permanent homes more quickly, even when they can’t return home.

So what is this change that could bring about these dramatic results? The federal government announced that it would permit uncapped, matching federal child welfare funds under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to support the representation of parents and children in the child welfare system.

The significance of this change cannot be overstated. For decades, the federal government has overlooked the fact that a functioning child welfare system needs effective advocates for parents and children. The United States Supreme Court, in Lassiter v Department of Social Services, held that the United States Constitution does not guarantee parents an absolute right to counsel before their rights are terminated.

No federal statute requires states to provide attorneys to parents and children involved in the proceedings. And the federal government has never required states to provide legal advocacy for families in order to receive federal child welfare funding. To the contrary, for decades the federal government explicitly prohibited child welfare funds under Title IV-E from being used to support legal advocacy for families.

Without federal support, states have struggled to provide families – the overwhelming majority of whom cannot afford a lawyer – with the advocacy they need to navigate the foster care system. In some states, a parent can have their child removed without ever having received the help of a lawyer.

Others are worse, even allowing courts to terminate parental rights without giving parents an attorney.

And in pretty much every state, lawyers for indigent parents are underpaid, overworked and lack important supports – like a social worker or investigator – to effectively represent clients. The reality in most jurisdictions is that families will not receive the type of legal advocacy that they deserve. But without an infusion of funding, little hope existed that the situation would change.

Until now.

The new availability of federal funding to support legal representation for parents and children allows states to remake their child welfare systems to produce the outcome that all stakeholders want – more children residing safely with families, increased contact between children and parents, and expedited legal proceedings. Study after study supports the conclusion that strong legal advocacy improves the outcomes of the child welfare system.

But while this opportunity is within our grasp, it will require significant action by the child welfare community to take advantage of it. Since federal funding under Title IV-E only flows to child welfare agencies and only matches state expenditures by that agency, states must now rework their payment structures for legal representation so that the current state funds supporting representation are being spent by the agency. Unless the state agency is the entity spending the money, the state cannot receive matching federal funds.

In a second part to this column on Monday, I’ll share my thoughts on how states should think through and plan to seize this momentous opportunity.

Vivek Sankaran is the director of the Child Advocacy Law Clinic and the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic at the University Michigan Law School. Follow him on Twitter at @vivekssankaran.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Does Vivek Sankaran Actually Think He Can Command & Cloak Perkins Coie Sucks Corporate Parental Rights Gerrymandering Ops In Michigan?

Vivek sold out.

He has not once communicated with me.

That is how I know he sucks.

He has not once, ever, ever, ever, spoken upon that forebodden term called fraud, or anything connected to the industry of trafficking tiny humans or the children's trusts.

Hey, Vivek!

Are you related to any Awans?

How much did you trick yourself out for?

Do kiss and tell.

You know how they like to roll in Detroit.

To Have Impact, Laws Must Be Enforced. Appellate Lawyers Help Do Just That.

You would think he could at least give a recent photo.
Vivek Sankaran is director of the Child Advocacy Law
Clinic and the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic at the
University Michigan Law School

Each fall, students in the University of Michigan Law School’s Child Welfare Appellate Clinic represent parents in termination of parental rights (TPR) appeals. We don’t cherry pick our cases for ones we’re likely to win.

Dude. Seriously. Tell us how many Termination of Parental Rights cases you have won in relation to the number of cases giving to you.  The only reason I want to know is to find out how much in false claims were generated during the time in privatized custody.

Instead, at the end of July, we call up local courts and ask them to send us TPR cases in need of an appellate lawyer. We accept the first six we get. Then our students scrutinize the record, draft briefs and deliver oral arguments at the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Oh, Precious, do you just like not know about the Title IV-A Poverty Means Test criteria for eligibility of foster care funding which means that the parents cannot afford an attorney?

No money; No justice.

Despite the randomness of our case assignments, every semester we discover laws being unenforced, which we bring to the attention of our appellate courts. Because of this, since 2015, our clinic has won roughly a third of our cases. We’ve gotten appellate courts to strike down a TPR statute for being unconstitutional, find that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires agencies to design service plans to accommodate the disabilities of parents in child welfare cases, and hold that incarcerated parents can plan for their children by arranging for relatives to care for them. Again, our students have done this even though our cases are randomly assigned to us.

Did you ever file a False Claims Act case on Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare for the cases you were successful in reinstating parental rights? Oh, wait, there has never been a reinstatement of parental rights. Ever talk to Dan Beaton? I have. 

Our experience is not unique. In 2018, attorneys working with the Colorado Office of Respondent Counsel, a governmental agency that has overseen parent representation in the state since 2016, has gotten appellate courts in the state to find procedural violations in nearly one of out three cases. Advocates in other states with high quality appellate representation have achieved similar results.

Colorado? Oooooo..... Vivek......did you ever hear of Joseph Korbel or Claude d'Estre'e or Monica Petersen in Haiti when it comes to trafficking tiny humans?  Obviously not, which makes me think you are a generic personae as you have now lowered yourself to the have the Chronicles of Social Change, the notorious Clinton Propaganda machine for Silicon Valley in the financial fraud scheme called Predictive Modeling Crap.

These results deliver a straightforward conclusion – that child welfare systems need strong appellate advocates to enforce the law. In the past decade, both the federal government and states have passed an increasing number of laws to promote the interests of children involved with the foster care system. The federal government alone has passed four major pieces of legislation – the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act and the Family First Prevention Services Act.

Vivek!!! What are you doing? You are promulgating the peculiar institution.  You are advocating corporate layering of foreign private, children's trusts. Oh, wait. I got it.  You are a fake ass lil bitch who would sell your soul for a bit of credibility, if you are even real.

These laws, along with those enacted by states, have created a child welfare system governed by complicated procedures.

The procedures are not complicated. The procedures are christian law of chattels. You would know about Ecclesiastical Law if you were a licensed attorney, 

Yet talk to advocates on the ground, and they will describe laws that routinely go unenforced. Child welfare agencies fail to make reasonable efforts to prevent kids from entering foster care or to place siblings together. Courts don’t ask children about what sort of relationship they want with their birth parents before terminating those parents’ rights. And far too often, relatives aren’t informed about ongoing child welfare cases until it is far too late for them to get placement of their kin.

The list goes on and on. But without strong appellate advocacy, these laws – key to promoting good outcomes for children in foster care – will continue to get unenforced.

So how do we move forward? The recent federal policy change to permit states to use Title IV-E money to support the representation of parents and children in child welfare proceedings allows states to immediately increase the amount of funds to support quality appellate advocacy. States should move to create specialized appellate practices, like those that exist in New Jersey, Maryland and North Carolina, among other jurisdictions.

Money alone, however, won’t solve the problem. Appellate advocacy is a nuanced skill – involving meticulous research, writing and editing skills – and states must ensure that advocates have the necessary training to do this. Just last year, the National Legal Aid and Defender’s Association – for the first time – created a family defense track for its annual training for appellate attorneys, which provided participants with intensive feedback on their writing skills.

Based on the success of that training, this week, the Michigan Court Improvement Project is piloting a similar one for appellate attorneys. Each state’s Court Improvement Project must prioritize appellate advocacy as an essential component of the infrastructure needed in any functioning child welfare system.

In about two months, my appellate clinic will start getting new case assignments. I suspect that we’ll continue to find laws that aren’t being enforced. Each time we win a reversal or a remand from the Court of Appeals, we will continue to strengthen the legal infrastructure that is so crucial in ensuring the well-being of children. And even when we lose, we increase the legitimacy of our child welfare system by ensuring the public that it is acting in a matter consistent with statutes and the Constitution.

Vivek Sankaran is the director of the Child Advocacy Law Clinic and the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic at the University Michigan Law School. Follow him on Twitter at @vivekssankaran.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan Court Of Appeals Video Hearing On CPS Termination Of Parental Rights - (a.k.a. Trafficking Tiny Humans By Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare Featuring Vivek Sankaran

The case is about a mother about to have her rights terminated to her ninth child.

The man judge said,  "she should know how this works since she lost her eight previous kids."

So, I guess the case is about the attorney and, I shall assume the court, that the mother was not advised of her civil rights in the course of her Child Protective Services case.

{this is the point where I am going to walk away for a few moments to ground myself in that glorious chi, so I do not say anything too disparigning about these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

Each and everyone one of these individuals need to fall from the heavens.

These people refuse to accept that Michigan lies, promulgates lies through child welfare propaganda for the purposes of selling tiny human chattel.

When a mother has a child snatched and sold by the State, they typically will have another child to fill that void.

In Michigan, a previous termination of parental rights is automatic grounds for termination to all posterity of the mother, and sometimes the father, for all eternity.

This case is about a mother who was poor and in need of help she never received because someone checked that "reasonable efforts" box.

If these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) cannot even mention fraud upon the court in the generation of false claims to be published in the public record, then how the hell can the mother understand.

Why do these parents take pleas?

Because it ends the suffering of her children's hopes of going home so they can move on to a life of being drugged, raped, tortured, and lab rated.

That is exactly what they did to Ricky Holland's original parent.

Ricky Holland: Murdered By False Claims In Child Welfare

Vivek Sankaran is grooming an army to continue cloaking the Michigan industry of trafficking tiny humans because he refuses to mention the fraud and corruption.

Interestingly, the next case is being adjudicated under the same transposable model in the termination of parental rights, in SNAP licensing.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

GO BLUE: Hillary Was There But Was Vivek Sankaran?

I really do not care.

Just documenting.

I wonder if she was mesmerizing Vivek Sankaran about being a superstar in her new and improved Children's Crusade Campaign 2020.

Hillary Clinton: America is losing credibility on world stage

As she gave an oral tour of the world's hot spots for a capacity crowd at the University of Michigan, Hillary Clinton had a suggestion for what needs to be done.

"There are ways of working on thorny problems, but they take thought and planning and diplomacy," said the former Democratic presidential nominee, secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady. And not just normal diplomacy — "intelligent diplomacy."

Then she paused for a long second for the crowd to read between the lines — that's not what the Trump administration is doing.

Later, she was more direct. Asked how America can better engage on the world stage, she said, "Our current president can have an epiphany," she said.

"We are losing our credibility. If you fight for America and then you are betrayed, what does that mean? We've got a lot of repair work to do.

"A lot of the voices who constrained the president are gone. I was lucky to work for a president who encouraged dissent."

During the 90-minute session, which started with U-M's Ford School Dean Michael Barr asking questions in a conversation and concluded with Clinton answering questions submitted by the audience, she touched on the hot topics of the day, including:

Ukraine: "The Ukrainian scandal should have triggered impeachment, but let's not forget the broader picture. The Ukrainian president is under pressure from Putin. He's under pressure from the American president. Ukraine (in Putin's view) belongs to Russia. Not to the Ukrainian people." She also pointed out that Trump recently withdrew the United States from the Open Skies treaty, which allowed satellites to take pictures of what was happening on the ground. She wondered aloud if that was done to let Putin move troops into the Ukraine without anyone noticing.

On pro-democracy rallies in Hong Kong: "When it comes to Hong Kong, I don't think Chinese would have a problem if we said we support democracy. I think it's a shame we've retreated so far. When America is silent about these fundamental human rights, no one else is going to speak."
On Turkey's invasion into Syria, and President Donald Trump's withdrawal of American troops: "I can't give you hopeful answer (to path forward in Syria). I fear it will give ISIS a revival. (Syrian President Bashar al-) Assad has become a tool of the Iranian and Russian interests." She said Trump gave Turkey "a green light" to invade Syria, adding everyone knew that's what was going to happen as soon as Trump announced the troop withdrawal.

On foreign influence in her election run against Trump and future elections: "First, acknowledge it happened. There seems to be very little appetite in our federal government to do anything about (foreign interference in elections). Here's what I tell Democrat candidates currently running for president who talk to me. You could lose for four reasons not under your control: Voter suppression; having information stolen from your campaign and weaponized against you; having a stream of outrageous stories fed to people's Facebook feeds;  and the actual foreign interference with the election."

The event was part of the launch of the Weiser Diplomacy Center at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, which is funded Ron Weiser, the current U-M board chairman and prominent Michigan Republican. Last week, former Republican Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke as part of the same series.

More than 1,000 tickets were distributed for the event. But how many showed up?

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Is privatizing foster care bad for kids and costing you more money?

Am I the only one screaming for federal intervention?

Is privatizing foster care bad for kids and costing you more money?



(WXYZ) - A grandma has been fighting the state to get her grandkids out of foster care for years. A great aunt has been trying to do the same for her niece. But both have been met with strong resistance—and it may be a matter of money.

The state pays private agencies to handle most foster care adoptions. By law, they are supposed to make placing foster children with extended family members a priority. But 7 Action News has found some cases where relatives say the agencies may be putting profits ahead of policy – and this can cut kids off from family forever. 

When Lori Scribner found out her grandchildren were put in foster care after the state declared their parents unfit, she came forward to claim them. 


“I have been telling them I want them all along,” says Scribner. 


But she also was told that she needed a bigger home for her four grandkids. So she bought a five-bedroom ranch with a pool. 


“That’s one of the things they love most is swimming,” says Scribner. 


Then she was told she had to earn more money. The registered nurse came out of semi-retirement and went back to work full-time.

“So I could support the kids. I understood that,” Scribner says. 


Scribner also says she has spent $50,000 in legal fees and other costs fighting for her grandkids. But she still faces the prospect of never seeing them again. 


“There was nothing I could do that they would let them come,” she says. 


Micky Gordon says she’s been fighting a system that seems set on breaking family bonds. The Department of Human Services (DHS), and the private agency it contracts, approved another couple to adopt her great niece who’s in foster care. 


“I feel like I have been living under a bully mentality," says Gordon, who is a social worker in Oklahoma, and is very familiar with foster care. She and her husband have foster-parented dozens of kids and adopted two of them. 


“My credentials are impeccable,” insists Gordon, who says she has spent about $30,000 in legal fees fighting to adopt her niece and has no plans to stop. 


“I’m not going away. She’s coming home to her family,” says Gordon.

The law is on their side.

“Both federal and state law require that the agency and the court give priority to relatives seeking placement of children in foster care,” says attorney Vivek Sankaran, who heads the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy and is an expert on child welfare law.

Sankaran says, “Systemic road blocks are created, license, home-study requirements, criminal background checks take time. By the time these checks are done, the child is living somewhere else.”

Scribner and Micky suspect this is about more than just bureaucratic red tape

“I think a lot of it has to do with these agencies earning money,” says Scribner.

DHS contracts with private agencies to handle foster care adoptions. But DHS wouldn’t talk to 7 Action News because Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases are being litigated.

The private agencies also wouldn’t talk about their cases, citing adoption confidentiality laws. But they did tell us that a child’s welfare is their top priority.

Scribner and Gordon aren’t buying it. They point to the current contract between DHS and the private agencies. The agencies get between $5,400 and $11,500 per adoption. The faster they get a child adopted, the more money the agency receives.

“We’re moving way too fast into adoption, close that deal, show me the money,” says Gordon.

Gordon and Scribner have something in common that would mean less money for the agencies. Both live in other states. For out-of-state adoptions, private agencies in Michigan get $3,500 tops.

“The whole system is set up to give the children away, and pay other people to take care of them when family is right there,” says Scribner.

In fact, the state would have saved more than $330,000 had the private agencies placed the children in Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases with them.

The state gives foster and adoptive parents $14.24 a day to care for a child until they turn 18-years-old. Scribner and Gordon say they told the agencies they didn’t want the subsidy, they just want their loved ones.

“I told the adoption worker with the agency, look, we’re not asking for your money,” says Gordon.

A recent study put together by a former county DHS director shows that it costs more for the state to pay private agencies to manage foster care than to have the state do it.

The report shows that for a state case worker to manage 18 foster care cases, it costs about $174,590 a year. That’s compared to about $297,087 for a private agency worker to handle the same case load.

Meanwhile Scribner and Gordon are not giving up.

“There are days you just sit and cry because you don’t know what’s happening,” says Scribner. “You don’t know anything about the kids and the more that they stonewall you, the more you think something must be wrong.”

In Scribner’s case, court records show the private agency had their recruited couple apply to adopt her grandkids—while, at the same time, they were telling Scriber that

the children were not available for adoption.

“The only thing they will tell you is you can’t have them,” says Scribner.

DHS admitted in court records that Scribner is a “loving, caring, nurturing and suitable care-giver,” but that the kids should be adopted by the agencies recruited couple since the children had already bonded with them.

Attorney Sankaran says he has seen agencies drag out the placement process and then argue it’s in the best interest of the child to stay with the recruited family.

By the time these checks are done, the child is living somewhere else and then bonding and things of that nature are brought up as the reason to keep kids away from family,” says Sankaran.

Bonding was the key reason in both Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases for not letting them have their loved ones.

“Do you think the agency purposely delayed this process?” Catallo asked Gordon.

“It certainly does appear that way,” says Gordon 


To be clear, a judge has the final say, but rarely goes against a DHS recommendation. And children can be cut off from family forever. 


“I want the kids to know that we fought and we tried everything to get them that we could,” Scribner says through tears. 


After 7 Action News contacted DHS about Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases, Scribner got a letter.

It says DHS is now reconsidering their decision to deny Scribner adoption of her grandkids. The letter also says it is looking at new information and will issue a new decision in 30 days.

Gordon’s hearing to challenge DHS’s decision is still ongoing.

We’ll stay on these stories and tell you the outcome of both.

Michigan Children's Daddy

Michigan Children's Institute Superintendent, Bill Johnson is the daddy, or rather the legal guardian of over 6,000 children who are wards of the state. Ask him why children in his care are dying.

Stranded in the Foster Care System



(WXYZ) - We do stories on kids abused in the foster care system. Action news has uncovered cases of foster kids who are loved and cared for by family members, but are still taken away. It’s a heart-wrenching saga of children stranded in the system.

The Martins were Jake’s foster parents when their niece couldn’t care for the little boy.
Action News was there the gut-wrenching day little Jake was taken from the only family he has ever known—that was likely last time they would see him.

Renee Neal’s step grandson Immanuel has been in her care since he was born. Now, he’s gone.

“I just hope he’s not feeling anything like I feel,” she says.

Neal will likely never see him again.

Richard McNeil had hoped to adopt his great grandsons. But the state took them away.

“I can’t put it into words. Take a mother who just had a baby taken away from her. It’s the same feeling,” says McNeil.

Records show the state admits all these children were loved and well cared for, but in each case the state decided the kids would be better off with someone else. The man who makes those decisions is Bill Johnson. He heads the Michigan Children’s Institute. By law, he could not speak about specific cases when we interviewed him last year after the state took Jake

“…those obviously are people who you lived with, who cared for you and we are going to care for you here,” says Johnson, explaining what new foster parents would tell foster kids. “It’s sad, you’re going to miss them, and the child will adjust.”

But some believe it’s too much power for just one man. Cases like these are examples of his power. In Jake’s case Johnson removed him because Cheryl Martin, his great aunt and former foster mom, had a run in with the law because she was drunk in public. She has since quit drinking. Cheryl and her husband Rob Martin loaned money to a woman who later accused Rob of assault. He was charged though the woman’s own daughter told the court her mother has made the same accusations of others she owes money.

“I’m not denying that I made mistakes, but we learn from our mistakes and move on. We don’t get our children taken away,” says Rob Martin.

The state gave Jake to a couple who planned to adopt him, but Action News has learned that just three months later they changed their mind because Jake was having trouble adjusting. Now, he is with yet another foster family.

“It’s so hard, I miss him so much,” says Cheryl Martin, crying.

“Whether it’s Christmas or birthday, there is no easy date,” says Rob Martin.

In Immanuel’s case, Renee Neal and the boy’s grandpa were his foster parents. When they divorced, Immanuel stayed with Renee. Records show the state had granted Neal the right to adopt Immanuel. Records say it would be in Immanuel’s “best interest” to remain in Neal’s care.

“I was the only person who had an application in to adopt Immanuel,” she says.

But Renee says when she complained about a social worker not getting Immanuel services the worker accused Neal of interfering with Immanuel’s visitation with his grandpa—and recommended the adoption be revoked.

“…the only thing I had throughout the whole process was my word against the workers and they won,” says Neal.

Now, Immanuel’s grandpa is adopting the little boy and Neal has no right to see the seven-year old ever again.

“It’s like a death,” she says, crying.

Richard McNeil was the foster parent of his two great nephews. He was trying to adopt them when the state removed the boys based on a single accusation.

“I would rather have state police come to my home and do an actual investigation like it’s supposed to be done, not some half-baked investigation all slanted one-sided…” he says.

The boys were taken when a nurse’s aide accused McNeil’s ex-wife of slapping the oldest one. At the time, they were visiting a friend at a nursing home.

“…being accused of this is devastating to me,” says Anne McNeil, Richard’s ex-wife. “I don’t sleep.”

The McNeil’s say their nephew has attention deficit disorder. sometimes they hold is face to talk to him. They believe that is what the aide saw. The aide did not return our calls.

“What they did is not right. they say, oh the boy’s will bounce back. yeah, right, sure,” says Richard McNeil.

“I try to think about it as if I was to have a conversation with this child 20 years down the road,” says Johnson. “Would I be able to say that the decision I made was something I could defend to the child?”

Johnson decides 2700 of these cases a year—but says only about 10 percent are complex. It’s difficult to challenge Johnson. You need money for a lawyer to appeal him in court and the chances of succeeding are slim.

“It has been very rare that I have reversed him,” say Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Mary Beth Kelly.

Kelly has presided over hundreds of adoption cases. She says although she often has disagreed with Johnson, the law limits her ability to reverse his decisions.

“…it’s a very high legal standard,” says Kelly.

“…you have power that is concentrated in the department of human services within specific branch to make life altering decisions for children,” says Vivek Sankaran, assistant professor at the Child Advocacy Law Clinic at U-M. He also represents parents who appeal Johnson’s decisions.

“They’re relying on often one-sided information from a specific case worker without hearing, kind of getting the wealth and breadth of information from different parties…”

Sankaran says Michigan is unique in giving one person final say in adoptions. Most states rely on the courts to decide those cases and he believes Michigan should as well.

“…not because judges are perfect, but because we’ve created open processes,” says Sankaran. “We don’t have that type of openness right now in Michigan.”

In written responses the state says it works hard to get foster kids in good homes and that adoptions increased 10 percent last year—the highest number of adoptions ever in one year. The Martins and Richard McNeil have taken their cases to court. Renee Neal does not have the money to appeal.

Starved to Death in Michigan Foster Care

Investigators: Starved to Death in State Care
Contributor: Ann Mullen
Email: amullen@wxyz.com




(WXYZ) - For several months, the Action News Investigators dug deep into Michigan’s tragically-flawed foster care system. During our investigation, we uncovered the heartbreaking story of a 10-year-old boy who starved to death while a facility banked cash to care for him.

We began telling Johnny’s story over the last two days here on WXYZ.com. In that time, the response has been overwhelming and your comments confirm that Michigan’s children need a better foster care system.

Johnny’s mother, Elena Andron, dedicated her life to caring for her wheelchair-bound son. All she wanted was a little help.

The state’s answer was to put him in a foster care facility. One year later, Johnny starved to death.

“He was a big part of my life. He was my life,” Andron told Action News Investigator Heather Catallo.

The state is quick to take kids from parents and put them in foster care, especially poor parents. The state makes it very hard to get them back. Experts say the state has a financial incentive to keep kids away from their families.

Johnny, who was nine at the time, could not walk, talk or feed himself. He had cerebral palsy and epilepsy.

“He was a lot of work, like any single mother, it was kind of hard,” says Andron.

Things got even tougher when she lost her factory job.

She turned to the Michigan Department of Human Services, a decision she will regret for the rest of her life.

The foster care facility where the state sent Johnny failed to feed him enough food. Andron says she watched her son waste away as she begged for help.

“I just wanted to carry him out of there, just pick him up and take him, and just take him home,” she says.

If only it was that simple.

Bill Mitchell knows how difficult it can be to get your kids out the state’s hands. He had to fight all the way to the Michigan State Supreme Court to get his three boys back.

“They’re my kids. I’m not going to give up on my kids,” says Mitchell.

Why did Mitchell and Andron have to fight so hard to try to get their children back? Some say it’s because the state gets a lot of cash for foster kids.

“Termination of parent rights is very high in Michigan,” says Warner. “But it’s also very high nationwide and it happened because of some laws that were passed by the federal government and encouraged states to terminate parental rights more often than they used to and promise to send them money if they would terminate rights and have the children adopted.”

According to the state’s own figures, the federal government gave Michigan about $110 million last year for foster care. That’s compared to the $26 million in programs that help parents keep their kids. Foster facilities also have an incentive to keep kids away from their parents. In Andron’s case, the foster home got about $12,000 a month from the state for Johnny.

“You’re getting paid, you’re getting a lot of money,” says attorney Arnold Reed, who represents Andron in a lawsuit against the foster care facility and several other state-contracted groups.

Reed says the foster facility profited big time off of Johnny.

“There is no shortage of money, plus you’re getting a stipend, you’re getting a clothes stipend and you’re getting a stipend for food,” says Reed.

But not enough of that food made it to Johnny.

“He started deteriorating so quick I could not believe my eyes,” says Andron. “He had gotten so weak to where he was just shaking constantly.”

She agreed to make her son a temporary ward of the state. She was supposed to bring him home after a year - once she got back on track financially. But she says the state didn’t tell her that she would be put on a central registry for parents who abuse and neglect their kids. To get Johnny back she would have to fight to get off of the registry by attending parenting classes and meeting other requirements—something that Andron says was nearly impossible to do with a new job.

“They wanted me to go through some evaluations, which I did,” says Andron.

When she complained about Johnny losing weight, she says the state turned on her.

“They didn’t care. None of my complaints mattered,” says Andron.

The Department of Human Services did not like Andron’s complaints or her efforts to get her son back. They took her to court and asked that she not be allowed to see Johnny.

Andron says the first time she met her court-appointed lawyer was that day in court. She says the lawyer didn’t put up much of a fight. The judge sided with the state. The next time Andron heard about Johnny he was dead.

“I entrusted people with my son and I thought they were good people. They were licensed,” says Andron.

Johnny weighed 120 pounds when he went into foster care, she says. An autopsy report shows he was only 48 pounds when he died of malnutrition.

“I just cannot believe that someone can have that kind of a heart, to starve a child like that,” says Andron.

Bill Mitchell also fought the state. His boys were living with their mom when his children were taken. Mitchell tried to get the boys, but the state asked the court to terminate his parental rights too, primarily because of his finances.

“I have the right to choose where I want to work,” says Mitchell, who is an engineer and works at Walmart. The state held this against him. DHS also didn’t like that he couldn’t keep up the mortgage on the family home after the boys’ mom walked out.

“She was responsible for $300 of the thing and it was too much for me to maintain, you know, all by myself,” Mitchell says.

The state also said Mitchell didn’t try hard enough to get his kids back. But he says he changed his shift to work nights to make state scheduled visits with his sons and parenting classes.

“It wouldn’t have mattered what I said or what I did, they had already determined their course and now we were just going through the motions,” says Mitchell, who didn’t even get a court appointed lawyer until nine months and three hearings into the case.

The lower court sided with the state and terminated bill’s rights but he appealed and three long years later the Michigan Supreme Court sided with him.

“You shouldn’t have to go to this point,” says Mitchell.

The ruling says Mitchell’s finances should never have been held against him. Mitchell is set to get his kids back. But he says it’s all taken a toll.

“Birthdays, first time they discover something, first time they make a new friend, things that will never be returned to me,” he says.

“He’s one of the most outstanding parents ever to have been run through a termination preceding, and if it can happen to him, it can happen to anybody,” says attorney Elizabeth Warner.

“We’re spending a ton of money for putting these kids in foster care,” says Vivek Sankaran, an assistant professor at the Child Advocacy Law Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School. “But for these children we are irreparably scaring them by damaging the bonds that they form with their families.”

Sankaran says only about nine percent of the 16,000 kids in foster care were sexually or physically abused. The majority were taken from their parents because of poverty-related neglect.

“Removal is too often thought of as the first option for protecting children and child welfare rather than working with families, engaging with them, providing them services in the home,” says Sankaran.

His organization, the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy, helps parents on the front end—getting them the services they need so their kids are not taken. He says so far they have had 100 percent success.

“We need to create a culture where parents are willing to say, ‘I need help, help me, I need to become a better parent, here is what I need,'” says Sankaran.

That is exactly what Andron tried to do, but with heartbreaking results.

“I gave them my healthy child and to get him back in a casket. I feel like he’d still be a live today if he was home with me,” says Andron.

State officials would not speak on camera. But they told Action News that their top priority is to return kids to their birth parents. The state also says the number of kids in foster care is down by about 3,000 and fewer parents had their rights terminated last year.

As for the foster home that housed Johnny, the state shut it down.

We are working on an additional story for Friday night, on Action News at 11 p.m., about what some people go through as they try to adopt relatives who are in the Michigan foster care system.

Now, it's my turn...

Hey, Mike Cox, I smell Medicaid fraud.  Am I going to take this one or are you?

A grandma desperate to adopt her grandson fought the state and lost to Medicaid fraud

A grandma desperate to adopt her grandson fought the state and lost

(WXYZ) - Michigan families are being torn apart and critics blame the privatization of the foster care system. Actually, I do not blame privatization, I blame the lack of: contractual debarment; sanctions; license revocation; referral mechanism to the attorney general; prosecution; grievance rights; recovery and penalties to name a few off the top of my head. Families desperate to care for loved ones say they are spending thousands of dollars to fight a hostile bureaucracy to get children out of state hands. The bureaucracy is not really hostile, it is the fraud protection policies.  A simple indicator that a child welfare case is riddled with all forms of violations of the false claims act is when a privatized agency teams up with Bill Johnson, Superintendent of the Michigan Children's Institute to quickly proceed to adoption.

A grandmother has done everything she can to get her grandson and she says she has been sharing her story because she doesn’t want anyone else to face this kind of pain. Roxanne Gant adores her grandson.  Now, Heather, I know you are a fan.  Call me.  Let's do lunch.  I will give you a story, complete with court documents, federal, state and county audits and a whole array of fraudulently generated billing complete with a story.

“He’s a little sweetheart. He’s blond, very loveable,” says Gant.  In our line of exposing the industry for what it is, we call these kids "baby dolls" because they fetch the highest prices in adoption.  Yes, some of these private agencies sell kids.

When she learned Bradley was taken from his parents and put in foster care, she came forward immediately.

“Right away. That day I said, I want, I want Bradley,” says Gant.

But Gant says she was met with strong resistance.

“They got the ball in their court. They can do what they want and they did,” says Gant.  Christmas is coming and the majority of case workers like to go shopping and buy presents for co-workers to celebrate getting their adoption bonus money.

Gant is talking about the private agency the state contracts to handle foster care and adoption cases. By law, extended family members must be given first consideration when placing a child taken from their parents.  Also by law, the state is suppose to have competitive bidding,  comparable price setting and a reporting policy to the attorney general for antitrust violations.

“Both federal and state law require that the agency and the court give priority to relatives seeking placement of children in foster care,” says attorney Vivek Sankaran, who heads the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy and is an expert on child welfare law.  Both federal and state law require reporting of Medicaid fraud to the Attorney General and I am an expert on child welfare law.

“All too often what happens is that systemic road blocks are created - license, home study, requirements, criminal background checks take time because bureaucracy is taking too long to get them done, the child is living somewhere else,” says Sankran.  The "bureaucracy" was designed under the leadership of Maura Corrigan when she was over SCAO.  This "bureaucracy" should be properly identified as a revenue-maximization scheme.

That is what happened to Gant. Fed up, she got a lawyer and has spent $15,000 fighting for Bradley. The private agency finally approved her to adopt—another child. But Gant didn't want just any child.

“I just want Bradley,” she says.

She went to the State Office of the Children’s Ombudsman (OCO). It investigated her complaints and issued a report. It says both the private agency and the Department of Human Services violated a half-dozen policies. Did you know they are big Bill Johnson fans over at the OCO?  Bill Johnson never does anything wrong because he is omnipotent!

“It was so blatant they didn’t even try to hide it,” says Gant.  And why should they?  No one is going to do anything about it, especially not Maura "Cash Cow" Corrigan.

The OCO report says the agency referred Bradley to a couple for adoption months before a court terminated his parents’ rights, “…and had fully intended to implement that plan despite policy requiring first consideration be given to relatives.” 


“They already made up their minds. The Ombudsman’s Office told me that promises had been made,” says Gant.” There was nothing I could do.”  And Bill Johnson never looses in court because ole Danny boy will lie through his teeth to cover up the state's dirty secrets.

Attorney Elizabeth Warner represents families in these kinds of disputes. She says this is exactly why private adoption agencies should have no part of the foster care system.

When the state takes a child from a parent and places the child in foster care, private agencies are supposed to make every effort to reunify the child with their parents— they are not supposed to adopt them out.  Yes they are.  That is how they can keep people working.

Warner says what the agency did in Bradley’s case may be more than a policy violation.

“It’s a crime,” she says. "It’s a misdemeanor, people can be prosecuted for it. People who are doing that should lose their job. And somebody ought to be calling Bill Schuette at the AG’s Office.” Never happen.  The Maura will put the kabash on that so fast it will make your head spin.  Trust me.

Warner explains that it is illegal in Michigan to tell a couple they have been chosen to adopt a foster child and to place the child with them before the child's parents' rights have been terminated.  Naughty, naughty.  Now, they have been punished.

The private agency, D.A. Blodgett-St John’s in Grand Rapids declined to do an interview. But in an email said that their priority is to reunify foster kids with their parents… “and they “…strongly advocate for relative placements for children when safety can be assured.”  I have witnessed workers lie on the stand to keep kids in care longer because their supervisors threatened to fire them and take their kids.  Seriously.

But the Ombudsman’s report tells another story. D.A. Blodgett admitted fault to every violation, including not placing Bradley with his grandma. How was the agency punished? It wasn’t. 


The Ombudsman does not have that kind of authority.  They are very good at stripping court and case files from the public purview.

“They’re getting away with it,” says Gant.  And will again, again, and again...

The Department of Human Services oversees the private agencies it contracts. And Bill Johnson is the one.  DHS also wouldn’t talk to 7 Action News. Why did the agency deny Gant her grandson?  Money, money, money.

“The private agencies simply have an affiliation, a familiarity, a working relationship with their foster family, they recruited and they want to help those people get a child,” says Warner.

Warner claims private agencies have an allegiance first to their clients – the couples looking to adopt.  Again....money, money, money.

"They may say they are doing this for the children, but in reality you can tell when a case is being managed by an agency,” Warner says.

Warner and other experts told 7 Action News they have seen widespread problems with private adoption and foster care agencies. They say they don’t follow policy, stonewall families and manipulate cases to get the outcome they want.  One last time....money, money, money.  In order to stay in operation, the agencies must make more money to fund their child abuse propaganda campaigns.

“It’s some pretty blatant tactics to try and shut the doors to relatives who want to adopt,” says Warner.

One report says Michigan ranks sixth in the nation for placing children with relatives. DHS numbers show that for each year from 2006 through 2009, a little less than half of foster care children were adopted by extended family members. Despite those numbers, experts say too often, relatives are losing loved ones to the system.  The reason most of the kids do not go to relatives is because many of them have been drugged, beaten and raped.  If you send the kids to relatives, they will tell their story and there would be lawsuits.  If this every happened, the cases would expose the filing of false claims.

“They’re not just doing it to the grandparents or the aunts or uncles. That’s eventually going to mess up Bradley. He’s going to wonder why my family didn’t want me,” Gant says.  Do not fret, the state is too dense to realize technology is far more advanced than its ethical core.  Keep doing these interviews and stories.  The internet is permanent record.  Did you know Twitter is now preserved in the Library of Congress?  Maura Corrigan is a fraudfeaser.

Private agencies don’t have final say on foster care adoptions. His name is Bill Johnson.  They He makes a recommendation to DHS, which then reviews it and sends a decision to a judge. But experts say judges rarely go against DHS, and children can be cut off from family forever—that’s exactly what has happened to Bradley. Remember that Ombudsman report? Bradley has a half-sister Kelsi, who he also may never see again.

State child welfare policy says that private agencies are supposed to maintain sibling bonds. But the report says D.A. Blodgett also violated this policy when it denied Bradley visits with Kelsi, and even told the ombudsman, “the children do not know each other.”  Like the state every cared.

“Every time we get her, she asks about Bradley,” says Gant.

But Gant’s legal appeals are done. Bradely is gone – to the very couple the agency had referred him for adoption.  Bill Johnson always wins.  Gant finally broke the news to Kelsi.  

“She cried. I cried with her. You know, what else do you tell her?” says Gant. “I said some day, hopefully, they’ll tell him he’s adopted and he’ll come looking for us.”

7 Action News has been asking DHS Director Maura Corrigan for an interview for months. She eventually agreed and then cancelled citing adoption confidentiality laws. On November 9, she issued this statement:  This is a classic.  This is so funny and no one sees anything wrong with this secrecy.

Laws protecting family privacy prohibit DHS from discussing specific cases, but the department is committed to placing children in homes that best meet their needs. Relatives are always our first choice, as the law demands. And, in fact, children in out-of-home care are more often placed with relatives than with unrelated foster parents.

However, relative families are not always a willing, able, or appropriate choice for a child. Ultimately, this decision is made by the courts with the child’s well-being at the forefront.

DHS’s responsibility is to ensure the health and safety of children. That is our mission and our highest calling – and it applies to every single child in our care.