You are browsing the archive for Adoption, biological parents, Washington | My.Kidjacked.com.

WA: CPS Removed Children

December 23, 2013 in Adoption, biological parents, Washington

Grays Harbor County:  CPS has taken both my babies from the hospital. I admit I needed help when they first got involved. Aug 1 2012 I gave birth to my son & tested positive for drugs.

A pregnant woman

The next day CPS came and said I HAD to sign my temporary rights away. They let me have the baby though day & night the 3 days I was in the hospital. I chose to be honest with them thinking it would help me with my case but all I did was give them what they wanted and they used everything against me.

But how was I suppose to know my rights. I’m a good person. And why would I study my parental rights with CPS. I admitted I needed the help with drug treatment and have accomplished the obstacles. I have done everything they have asked and more from day 1.

I found out I was pregnant (again) in December 2012 with 2nd baby. which sped up me getting in treatment faster to Harbor Crest that treats pregnant women. I graduated a 26 day in-patient Jan 7th 2013. I also did a nurturing parent class in treatment and completed that. I graduated Intensive Out Patient April 1,2012. I graduated Out Patient early July 5th 2013. I graduated the 18 week “The Incredible Years” parenting class in July 2013.

I started mental health counseling at BHR, when I was pregnant with first baby and got letters from my counselor saying I was fully invested with getting my children home & doing well. I am in Parent Protection Group since July & still attending. I started individual D.V./Anger classes and my instructor was an advocate at needed times.

I’m working with Dr. Shawn Andrews at Elma Family Medicine regarding my Suboxine medication. I meet with the Dr. frequently during the months and she has written me several letters to my caseworker and judge stating I was doing well and it was in the children’s best interest to be home w/me.

My second pregnancy the CPS worker made me feel like I had to choose between my unborn baby and my 1 year old.  But she didn’t bring up this baby I was carrying till May, the month before I had him. She gave me 2 options to adopt or she was filing for shelter care. Him coming home to me was not even an option.

She has threatened me, lied and so on. We had a meeting before I gave birth and she told me if I kept this baby also it would prolong my other baby coming home, which makes no sense because she has both my children. She also told me to write this baby a “good-bye letter”. And that I couldn’t take care of 2 baby’s. She was dead set on me adopting.

She had NO grounds on taking the new baby. Each reason she gave me I have documents resolving each of her decisions. Taking Kayden was premeditated. It was finalized before I gave birth. She told me the day before she was taking him, so obviously it wasn’t drugs because how could they determine if I was clean without having him born yet.

I even had a letter from my OBGYN saying I was in full compliance doing good. Something needs to happen. I want my boys home, I’ve never even gave the chance to be a mother to them so how can they judge me? How can they be for the family when you see your children once a week for 2 hours supervised.

Enhanced by Zemanta

NV: Adoption Gone Wrong!

July 1, 2013 in Adoption, Child Protective Services, corruption, foster parents, Nevada

I received this email a couple days ago.  I think it’s great that the great uncle came forward.  I believe children should be kept in the family if at all possible.  But I’ve included her contact information, if anyone cares to contact her.

My uncle Sieb as a child in a tub in the garde...

My uncle Sieb as a child in a tub in the garden. Notice the dog in front of him. It’s 1931.

We were interested in adopting three siblings in Clark County. We went to the case worker Seidy White. She told us to meet them and make sure we were a good fit. Which we did – on several occasions.

My second visit with Seidy I received the news that she was working with a great uncle whom she wanted to adopt the children. She still allowed us visits with the children.

I am upset because I feel there has been foul play within the department because:

  • They did not allow us to go before the judge or be heard in CFT meetings.
  • When there are more parties who are interested in the children, the judge deserves to hear what the entire story and ALL the options are. Not just what they (Seidy White and Damalia Guiterrez) want.
  • They did not allow the judge to hear all accurate facts (regarding the great uncle – who is getting them in spite of his total lack of involvement their entire lives and more). They also didn’t listen to the facts that due to the children being in foster care for more than 12 months it negated the family claim of being best choice automatically – they were in foster care for 16 months with no interest from the uncle during that time. A disinterested party who cares more about when he can claim them on his tax return and tax deductions is getting them. This cannot be right!

They KNEW the uncle had not initiated one visit with the children while they were in foster care – not even when they said they would take them. Who would do this? Who in their right mind wouldn’t be trying to get to know them to make transition easier? This is NOT right.

He has had no interaction with them except twice – once initiated by Seidy – the other by the foster mom. It was for a short time both visits. They were surprised he did NOT make an effort – but it didn’t sway their opinion of them wanting him to have them.

  • They have lied to the birth mom, the foster mom and me (since they told us all conflicting stories). They clearly had two parties interested and on equal footing since the time the children were in foster care negated the family claim on them.
  • Due to the [amount] of time that the children were in foster care, the great uncle was not automatically the “best fit” as stated.
  • CPS was surprised that he didn’t initiate visits even after he said he would take them – but they are giving them to him anyway.
  • They did not allow my lawyer an opportunity to speak.
  • They coerced the birth mom into things she didn’t want.
  • They promised her help which they did not give.
  • They promised her things that they know outright the uncle has no intention of doing.

It appears that they have done what they deemed to be best interest because it’s what they wanted – not what was truly in the best interest of the children.

To have those children with their foster mom for that long (more than 16 months – which for the baby is half of his life), finally have stability and not have them remain able to see her again is like cruel punishment to the children. Any person who spent any amount of time with the  children would see that they love her and feel secure around her. To yank them away and give them to total strangers is indeed cruel in my opinion.

We would have had the foster mom be “grandma” and kept the birth mom in the picture so she could heal and the children would have access to their identity of who they are and where they came from…

Had they allowed us to be heard by the judge and he ruled that it was in the best interest of the children to go with the uncle that would have been one thing- but they didn’t.

Why am I doing this?

  • Because I know these children. I love them, they are bonded to their foster mom and should have her as part of their lives. She would adopt them but feels she is too old.
  • And… because they didn’t let the judge hear the facts and decide what was best.
  • They also ignored the knowledge that a state psychologist said the scenario of us having them with the foster mom as grandma with us as adoptive parent was the absolute best scenario.

I don’t believe the uncle wants them for more than a tax write off and the money you will give him. His lack of interaction speaks significantly louder than his words.

I don’t know where to go – but there has to be someone who actually cares that there is corruption in DES CPS and that the judges are ruling on cases they don’t have the facts for – intentionally left out by the case worker and her supervisor.

Nancy Genys
ngenys@gmail.com
480-390-5790

Enhanced by Zemanta

DCFS and Rett Syndrome

October 4, 2011 in Adoption, Arkansas, corruption, DCFS, foster care, foster parents

Who will stand up and speak out against the power hungry DCFS workers in Little Rock, Arkansas? Even children with Rett Syndrome deserve parents! Why would the state prefer to warehouse children in an institution? It doesn’t make any sense. Read Jill’s story…

My daughter’s foster home closed this past week, due to some paperwork she had not turned in. I am by no means excusing this, as she has acknowledged she was in the wrong.

Official seal of City of Little Rock, Arkansas

Little Rock DCFS, Out of Control!

She and her husband were in the process of adopting three girls. The attorney for the 14 year old requested a hearing; the judge gave custody to my daughter and son in law. The judge said he was displeased with how DCFS had handled the case.

They removed the 4 year old from their home on Thursday; and placed her in an institution, located in North Little Rock. She suffers from Rett Syndrome, a severe form of autism, and she is unable to speak. They removed the six year old on Friday morning, and placed her in another foster home.

My daughter was told she could not speak to, nor assist with the transition of the four year old. My daughter is the only one who has cared for this child in three and a half years. She has fought the state on numerous occasions to get the training needed to care for this child.

DCFS also failed the children. The 14 year old met with her caseworker once – six months ago – the day before a court hearing. The next day, in court, the caseworker did not know her name, age, or where she went to school. Caseworkers, by law, are required to visit children on a weekly basis — no one has been in the home to check on any of the children in six months.

When we were in court, the DCFS workers were sitting directly in front of us, they talked about my family, knowing we could hear every word they uttered. One made the comment that she had wanted to close this foster home since last November. However, they placed another child in the home just this past spring.

The agency has opposed the adoption of the four year old because of her disability. They say she is better off in an institution.

We love this little girl and do not feel she is a burden at all. My daughter and son in law asked to proceed with the adoption of the four and six year old. They even offered to waive any stipend the state would pay, but the state workers declined. Maybe it is the position of the state that all handicapped children should live in an institution?

I believe these children belong in a loving home with friends and family to call their own. What the state is doing is wrong.

Jill H.
Little Rock, Arkansas

Learn More About Rett Syndrome

WebMD Medical Reference

Rett syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder that affects girls almost exclusively. When boys develop the Rett syndrome mutation, they die shortly after birth.

What Are the Symptoms of Rett Syndrome?

Although it’s not always detected, a slowing of head growth is one of the first events in Rett syndrome. Loss of muscle tone is also an initial symptom. Soon, the little girl loses any purposeful use of her hands. Instead, she habitually wrings or rubs her hands together.

Around 1 to 4 years of age, social and language skills deteriorate in girls with Rett syndrome. A girl with Rett syndrome stops talking. She develops extreme social anxiety and withdrawal or disinterest in other people.

Rett syndrome also causes problems with muscles and coordination. Walking becomes awkward as girls develop a jerky, stiff-legged gait. A girl with Rett syndrome may also have uncoordinated breathing and seizures.

Treatments for Rett Syndrome

There are treatments available for Rett syndrome. Rett syndrome treatments focus on helping a girl live the best life she can with the condition. Physical therapy can help improve mobility in these children. Speech therapy may help somewhat with language problems. Occupational therapy helps girls perform daily activities — like bathing and dressing — independently.

Experts believe that therapy can help girls with Rett syndrome and their parents. Although a “normal” life may not be possible, some improvement can be expected with therapy. Participating in activities — including school — and improved social interaction are sometimes possible.

Enhanced by Zemanta

White Children Targeted

September 30, 2011 in Adoption, California, corruption, CPS, family court, family rights, foster care

In June 2011, Sarah Sandy’s children were removed by Orange County Child Protective Services. She fought her battle for their return, in the family court of Orange County, California, where corruption appears to be the order of the day. You decide. Watch the video…

White Children being Targeted for Abduction By CPS

Jeanne Gelin, with the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) comments on the court proceedings. Gelin addresses the ethnic disparity issue. [Visit: NCCPR]

“Statistics show that almost 80% of children placed in foster care, should never have been removed from their homes. There was never any abuse.”

What do you think? Do you believe that CPS targets white children for removal?

Mississippi Therapist Requires Assistance

May 20, 2011 in Adoption, Child Protective Services, corruption, DFCS, Mississippi

I have been working with the C. family, a lovely young couple who are risk of losing their only son. These parents are in imminent danger of the loss of their parental rights.  As always, I suppose, the story is complicated but also very unusual and compelling.  They have had to fire their lawyer this week due to multiple failures to adequately represent their interests.  I have promised to do what I could to help them locate another lawyer.

The child’s father is deploying to the Middle East on Thursday of next week (May 26th, 2011).  The parents thought that there would be no legal action taken in the case until his return in February of 2012, but we have learned that the DFCS caseworkers are pressing for a quick hearing.  They are terrified to be without adequate counsel at this time.

I have just read Nancy Schaefer’s letter on your website.  We need information about whether the dollars available to the states through the Adoption and the Safe Families Act are currently available to this DFCS.  The youth court and DFCS county in which the parents reside has the worst reputation in Mississippi. 

We are working with an investigative reporter with a national reputation who is interested in doing the story.  We need documentary evidence or even good stories about loss of parental rights for cash from mississippi.  There is a new youth court judge who is a huge adoption advocate. We need the names of helpful contacts.  Would sure appreciate your help.  I have attached a letter to the judge which summarizes the case and explains my involvement briefly.

(Note: This letter has been edited to protect the families identity.)

This letter was received from an Occupational Therapist, who writes in part.

Dear Judge, 

I have written to you this morning regarding the case of the C. family whose case you were going to hear today.  I am an early intervention therapist helping children age 0-3 with developmental problems.  Last summer, while in the course of my duties, I stumbled into a situation that has struck me as so blatantly unjust that I could not dismiss it as being out of the scope of my professional practice and as such not my concern. 

I met toddler C. (now 27 months old) and his parents in mid August while responding to a request for an oral motor and sensory processing skills assessment.  This request was made by toddler C.’s Service Coordinator for the First Steps Early Intervention Program, a service of the MS State Department of Health. I met briefly with them in their home to observe the child’s play and feeding skills which were significantly delayed.  During the course of my initial interview I learned that he had been in foster care and was being supervised by a case manager with the Department of Human Services.

The following week Mrs. C., called to cancel our appointment saying that his doctor had admitted him directly from his clinic appointment to the hospital.   Mom then called to tell me that the child would miss his second appointment because a hearing had been called to determine if he was unsafe in their custody and needed to be removed from their home for his safety.  She was clearly distraught, had recently moved into the area, and had no local family support besides that of her husband.  I felt a moral obligation knowing the circumstances to respond to her request for my presence at the hearing.

What occurred at the hearing in the Harrison County Youth Courtroom both shocked me and offended my sense of justice.  The conduct of the guardian ad litem struck me as deeply inappropriate and insensitive in relationship to the removal of a child from his parents.

Many accusations were leveled at the parents with no attempt to support them with any evidence. I heard that the same attitude and hearsay was displayed by the DHS supervisor at the follow up hearing a few days later.  

At this hearing neither the parents nor their lawyer were permitted to say anything in their defense.   Their lawyer unsuccessfully attempted to introduce a report completed by a pediatric gastroenterologist who had diagnosed the child with digestive problems. This report challenged the opinion of the physician that had admitted him into the hospital and had pressed for protective custody in the belief that his weight loss was due to his parents’ failure to feed him adequately.  

It is my understanding that this physician denied the parents a referral to a gastroenterologist and in fact the parents were accused in the courtroom of “doctor shopping” for seeking any other medical advice regarding their son’s condition. According to the boy’s mother, threats were made by DHS caseworkers and supervisors that if they sought alternative medical advice this would decrease their chances that they would be given custody of their son.

The reasons for the refusal of the pediatrician to pursue gastroenterological evaluation are unknown.  To our knowledge she has not yet provided a detailed rationale for this either verbally or through medical documentation. 

Other troubling aspects of this case which I know only through the parents, include advising the parents to plead no contest prior to the first hearing, conflicting messages and inadequate information from case managers and their supervisors, the repeated removal of case managers who indicated their support for the reunification of the family, and the lack of information and advocacy with the goal of family preservation. 

I did witness a statement made by a case manager supervisor following the August hearing in which, while refusing to answer the parent’s questions, she stated, “I am glad that you have a good lawyer” and “this is bull-it”.  Multiple efforts to engage high level staff at DHS through phone calls and e mails have either not been returned or not followed up. 

The parents have completed a detailed chronology of the events that have led to each of their losses of custody.  This includes an exhaustive body of data in support of their contention that the child’s removal from their custody is based on unwarranted assumptions, hearsay, misinterpretation, and a failure to investigate the reasons for his weight loss.  There is a lot of detail in their chronology about weight loss incidents that has been correlated with the physicians’ documentation.  

This young but resourceful family has experienced such isolation throughout this period, now over a year long.  Great psychological harm has been done to them.  The parents have received thorough and ongoing psychological evaluation and they are found to be normal for people under great stress.  There are indications that the boy has experienced psychological harm, but this has not been investigated by a credentialed mental health professional. 

This crisis has served to reunite and strengthen the parent’s relationship with one another. They have benefitted from the parent education experiences in which they have participated. They live for the weekly visitations with their child, which have on several occasions, been denied.  Their perception is that no one in the Department of Human Services supports their goal of  reunification.

It is my opinion that the relationship between the department and the family has been characterized by ignorance, withholding of information, and use of manipulation through threats of the permanent loss of custody.  These parents are two loving and competent parents that are at this time beside themselves over this last postponement, only one of many.  I ask that you do what you can to end the victimization of this child and his parents at the hands of the Department of Human Services.

Sincerely, 
Mississippi Occupational Therapist

css.php
Skip to toolbar