Greens Case Dismissed Under Section 8

[imiubu]

The latest from Maria Green:

 

I’m jumping for joy! This is the best news we’ve received in quite some time! Bree should be home either tomorrow or Monday!! The trial will not be happening on Monday!

So here are the details: Significant progress has been made in the case that will allow Bree to come home where she belongs and which will not give the court jurisdiction over her! Therefore, there is no plea, there is no sacrifice of the integrity of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. It is as though we are going back in time to go through steps that CPS should have offered before ever petitioning the court to remove her!

As long as we continue to show that we are being reasonable and they can be reasonable, all should be dropped at a review hearing in 30 days! And if not, we continue the fight exactly where we left off!

We get to have our baby home! And this should mean I get to see my son very shortly also! This is a great thing for us as a family and hopeful they’ve seen where they’ve gone wrong in dealing with Medical Marijuana Patients in Michigan!

 

Congratulations to you and your family, and thanks for standing tall.

 

Fabulous news! Thanks Greg.

 

Now let's hope that THS will make the same headway with the continuing cases across the State where CPS

is over stepping their boundaries and removing children from their parents home, for the sole reason of Medical cannabis.

[Kingdiamond]

http://www.freep.com/comments/article/20131025/NEWS01/310250112/Medical-marijuana-child-protective-services

[ozzrokk]

Thanks for posting that Greg............. So glad to hear of the positive progress you good folks deserve it.........

[kapt]

Bree is now home........

[northerngal]

There was a happy ending to this case for the family, for that I am sincerely glad.  

 

I would like to share a lesson I seemed to have forgotten.  Perhaps it will remind us all of some valuable lessons we have forgotten?? 

 

This case reiterated something valuable to me.  How the media and others are used to manipulate the population into believing anything that suits a particular situation!

 

One instance in this particular case: 

 

The media projected that Maria Green was currently breastfeeding Bree when she was removed by CPS.  Personally this was something MANY media members used to play on heartstrings.  This was a "reason" used by many when Bree was found to have trace amounts of mj in her system.  Personally I used the breastfeeding reference when sharing this story.  This part of the "story" was used to compel people.

 

In the following video,  Maria herself says she quit breastfeeding when Bree was 3-4 months old due to stress. (about 3 minutes in)  She was not forced to quit breastfeeding because of the removal of Bree by CPS, as portrayed. 

 

 

I felt "cheated" somehow when I found it to be another manipulation of facts.  Of course, I wasn't physically cheated.  I felt like I was cheated because I shared false information.  I fed into the news that was projected and shared it with others.  (My own fault, as I do know better)

 

Yes, I learned a good lesson here   Perhaps others will to?    Misinformation is shared so abundantly and when media portrays this misinformation as fact, we the people often buy into it.  We believe it to be fact, especially if it suits our own cause.  We feed into the false propaganda and share the misinformation. 

 

This led me to further thinking and the desire to understand.  As referenced by posts in this thread and others, many believed this misinformation to be factual.  Why?  Because a few groups we may have trusted tooted it as factual?  Because the media portrayed it as fact?   Because we desire it to be true?   Would we believe anything portrayed if it suited our fancy?

Edited October 27, 2013 by northerngal

[+Malamute]

Seeing the Fnords

[trichcycler]

I so happy for the baby returned, and so sad for the victims in this family. As their case was dismissed I would like to see CPS culpability. When I make a false assumption and infringe upon another's rights at work, I could be fired, jailed, fined or worse, as should be the decision makers of this tragedy. Afterall we don't want some self appointed baby stealer re-placing children...for the added bonus dollars the feds supply when .."a child is removed from a drug house"

 

Viva La Familia !

[northerngal]

I so happy for the baby returned, and so sad for the victims in this family. As their case was dismissed I would like to see CPS culpability. When I make a false assumption and infringe upon another's rights at work, I could be fired, jailed, fined or worse, as should be the decision makers of this tragedy. Afterall we don't want some self appointed baby stealer re-placing children...for the added bonus dollars the feds supply when .."a child is removed from a drug house"

 

Viva La Familia !

 

You believe CPS gets extra funds for removing a child from a "drug house"?  You need to do some legit research.  Another piece of "misinformation" being thrown out here

 

Children being removed cost the state money.  How is it an incentive monetarily for CPS to remove them?  Please enlighten me with FACT.

Edited October 27, 2013 by northerngal

[+Malamute]

I didn't verify the validity of the article,... but:

 

http://voices.yahoo.com/money-child-protective-services-greed-641016.html

[trichcycler]

http://bit.ly/17lTkDn

 

old news actually, according to google, but I'll show ya again. and you could have just asked me for a reference, rather than accusing me of providing misinformation off the bat. I thought all spot pokers were nice and granting of the benefit of the doubt, geesh

[trichcycler]

Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness
DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families

By Nev Moore
Massachusetts News

Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it. 

The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody. 

In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to take people’s children – and not give them back. 

In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child "Protective" Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a "business" in dealing with children. 

Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act." The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed." 

It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source." In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves. 

Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business. 

Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting… 

With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption of children. 

Where to Find the Children

A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right? 

The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen. 

Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m preaching to the already damned. 

The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us. 

How DSS Is Helped

The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. 

For every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000. 

But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year." In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that, "the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights." 

In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits. 

A report from a private think tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis, reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families." So we will be able to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don’t find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "Adopt Shoppe." 

If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS’s quaint "Adoption Fairs," where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking." The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I’m surprised we don’t have government agents breaking down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples you don’t chop down your apple trees. 

Benefits for Foster Parents

That covers the goodies the State gets. Now let’s have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized. 

After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of course, they all can. 

According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and separation would adversely affect the child’s development if not adopted by them." [but their significant emotional ties with their parents, since birth, never enter the equation.] 

Additional "special needs" designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the Children, Boston’s Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children may also get an additional Social Security check. 

The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and "reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process." Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact," including "daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services". [Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!] 

The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption" section. The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family." What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are. 

Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: "We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills." 

I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place? According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not involve child maltreatment." The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the natural parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society. 

That’s just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowley’s children on the government home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can buy them.

May is national adoption month. To support "Adoption 2002," the U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us hope they don’t feature pictures of kids who are for sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register complaints with the post office.

I know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?

[bobandtorey]

http://bit.ly/17lTkDn

 

old news actually, according to google, but I'll show ya again. and you could have just asked me for a reference, rather than accusing me of providing misinformation off the bat. I thought all spot pokers were nice and granting of the benefit of the doubt, geesh

i can agree

[trichcycler]

thank you for being respectful, even if we don't agree on everything. Examples man, seem like the best teachers

i can agree

[northerngal]

What I see is a dozen articles written by MEDIA or disgruntled parents with "theories".   This is a far cry from proof of what you stated.

 

Removal of a child DOES NOT equate to adoption.  Far from it.  The majority of children removed in Michigan are removed temporarily and reunited with family once certain criteria is met.   

 

I can not dispute the fact "adoption credits" are given.  This has never been a hidden thing.  Tax breaks and other "incentives" are often given to adoptive families as well.  I do not see this as a bad thing either.  To be honest, the credits only cover a portion of the costs associated with the whole process.   But again, we are speaking of ADOPTION here, not removal of a child.

 

  In order for the state to be able to place a child removed from their home up for adoption, the rights of the parent must be terminated.  To be able to do this through an open CPS case is a very lengthy process.  There are many court cases involved, much criteria to be met, lots of red tape.  Even in extreme cases, terminating parental rights in Michigan can take years dependent on many factors.  CPS does not have the authority to terminate parental rights.  All CPS can do is provide a petition to the prosecutor showing their findings in a case and recommend that a parents rights be terminated.

 

Perhaps this link will help understand the termination process.  www.michigan.gov/documents/MCWLChap11_34816_7.pdf

‎

This the LAW regarding termination, not new articles written by media.  The requirements of the state. 

 

With all of that said, you can not compare an adoption credit to a child removed from their home. 

 

Have you ever investigated the amount spent by the state to have a child in foster care?  (I am not claiming all amounts spent are right or justifiable)  In most cases, especially in those of a special needs child, the state spends so much more than it will ever receive on a child in the system.  (Yes, even after the parents are required to reimburse the state as well)

 

I am not advocating CPS in any particular case.  They make mistakes too.  Not every case brought up is fair.  Many frivolous claims are filed.  It is their job to investigate and when necessary act.  Sadly mistakes go both ways.  (cases that are investigated many times and nothing is done)

 

However it is inaccurate to believe that the state makes big bucks on temporarily placing children from "drug houses" into custody. 

 

You requested above that I ask for proof.  I would like some proof that what you say is accurate.  NOT on adoption but on temporary removal of a child  from a "drug house".  I don't want articles written by disgruntled parents or news media (unless proof is further provided)

Edited October 27, 2013 by northerngal

[trichcycler]

→

Another FBI Investigation into Child Protective Services child trafficking.2013 AMERICA WAKE UP

04Mar

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

2 Votes

 

Scheduled Protest for CPS and their cohorts.

We are still scheduled to have the largest protest Riverside County has ever seen at the 3 locations pointed out South West Court house, Moreno Valley CPS on Cottonwood and Kid Street CPS Riverside off of Tyler so keep the emails coming in so far we have had close to nine hundred responses and are working on a mas mailer for reminders the schedule.is still tentative in 3rd week we are still looking for volunteers to help make signs, THIS IS TRULY FOR THE CHILDREN SO PLEASE DO THIS?

Feature Story for DonnellyJustice.me

This child trafficking is still going on right now  March 2013 and I have verified this through families having their children kidnapped by the county and pushed by this court, in case after case coming out of South West Courthouse, Riverside County I am finding horror stories of parents losing their children and never allowed to present any evidence, so only the side of CPS is allowed on record and family is said to be bias while CPS testimony is all fraud and in a real court would be easily beaten if real evidence was shown not hearsay. Thus C.P.S victimizes those families that have no means available, to properly investigate C.P.S corrupt activities directed at their family. Since Federal and state matching funds generate the budget for C.P.S, the single means utilized to elevate the budget is to increase foster care and adoption caseloads. Bonus incentives for adoptions are currently $8,000 per child. $4,000 is given to the foster parents and another $4,000 is placed in a general fund, to reward workers for completing their job duties. Workers in this county, state that they do not personally financially benefit from this fund. Thus it leads us to believe, that other neighboring agencies are benefiting form this fund, in return for deceptive practices that support C.P.S decisions.

 

BABY TRAFFICKING False Allegations of drug abuse have been logged against mothers and their newborn infants as a means to place these infants into protective custody. The hospital staff has allowed C.P.S to remove infants (a hospital violation) prior to verification of blood and urine drug screen tests. C.P.S is mandated to secure verification of drug allegations via blood and urine results, prior to removing the newborn infant from the hospital. All cases known to us resulted negative for the mother and the newborn, but these infants were never returned, and were adopted outside of kinship. In the past year, the FBI has arrested and imprisoned C.P.S workers who were actively involved in baby trafficking for profit. These C.P.S workers knowingly abducted infants from the hospital where they in turn networked them into legal adoption agencies.

Augustus Fennerty, FBI director for Crimes against Children (Washington D.C) can verify this information. (202) 324-3000 CHILD SEX TRADE INDUSTRY Southern California FBI District has videotape recorded CPS workers placing foster care children onto planes via LAX, destination Europe for child sex trade industry. This can be verified through Ted Gunderson, (retired) FBI Director Southern California (310) 477-6565. SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION IN FOSTER CARE For the families in relation to our group in San BernardinoCounty, it has come to our attention while comparing similarities, that approximately half the children in foster care have been molested. These children were not sexually abused by their parents, but by the foster fathers or others in the foster home. It was also noted that these foster homes are still operating in the same capacity prior to complaints, without any investigation into these allegations. C.P.S officials were made aware of these accusations by the children, but failed to follow through with a criminal investigation. In conclusion, Child Protective Service is nothing more than an “oasis’’ for child molesters, to make a profit, while at the same time committing a crime, only to be protected by a malignant system that delivers a never ending supply of victims .

SYSTEMATIC FRAUDULENT MANEUVERS UTILIZED TO ENHANCE C.P.S BUDGET C.P.S manufactures multiple nonexistent /fictitious abuse case scenarios to offset true statistical abuse case information. C.P.S concurrently processes these children from foster care to adoption, in order to obtain perverse monetary incentives in the form of bonuses. C.P.S provides a market to neighboring agencies and the courts ( commissioners, psychologists, monitors, court mandated behavioral class instructors, court appointed legal counsel), in order for them to financially benefit from the foster care/adoption system. C.P.S victimizes innocent impoverished families, draws them into a corrupt system to utilize their children as pawns for commerce.

MALICIOUS OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES C.P.S is utilized by family court officials, as an adverse tool to extricate children from one parent to the other, with reference to “parent alienation syndromeâ€. Where, in truth, caseworkers are never allowed to testify in family court under the cloak of C.P.S authority, due to possible misuse or conflict of interest related to the right to privacy laws. C.P.S utilizes coercive measures to persuade parents to submit to statements of prior alleged abuse, when these actions were nonexistent. In other words, forcing desperate parents to “plea bargain†to a C.P.S fabricated crime, for the return of their children from foster care. C.P.S fabricates portions of investigations, where such duties have never been physically performed, to purposely mislead or direct a case. C.P.S knowingly abandons children into foster care, conscious of the fact that some foster care parents and or individuals in the home physically and sexually abuse the children in their protective custody. C.P.S intentionally fails to prosecute parents accused of child abuse, since in the majority of cases, no initial crime has been committed. C.P.S represents themselves in positive personas, by omitting, altering, and falsifying documents, so as to mislead the public and or government of their true actions as listed above. Thereby publicly grandstanding, displaying an inaccurate social martyrdom for the well being of children. C.P.S ignores crimes committed in foster care, such as the atrocious acts of unexplained deaths. C.P.S fails to question these individuals for their abusive conduct, whereby, if itwere not a foster care parent, these individuals would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

SHOULD CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE BE RESTRUCTURED? The police should determine if a child has a true need for protection from his parents, since child abuse is a criminal offence. Thus, C.P.S should be incorporated with Crimes against Children Units that are currently located within police, sheriffs and FBI agencies. The merging of the two would reduce the amount of false allegations reported, since complaints made to a police unit is a criminal offence. Also, the police have the training and resources needed to conduct a thorough investigation. This allows them to determine that if a crime has been committed that warrants the need for foster care. A parent/guardian under the suspicion of the crime “Child Abuse†would meet the criteria for removal. This would activate the foster care system. Only then would the foster care system be utilized as a response to a possible or suspected crime. Thus in turn, this would eliminate the unnecessary utilization of the foster care system that has been grossly misused in the past. Unwarranted victimization of children and their families would be greatly reduced and soaring costs would be contained. This would minimize the number of future cases that fall through the cracks and get lost in the system.

WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE SOCIAL WORKERS PLAY IN THE NEW CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE? All caseworkers must have a bachelor’s degree in social work from an accredited college. All states must create bachelor level licensing for social workers. All workers must have a current license to work within any state or county in the United States with reciprocity. All social workers must have a preceptor for at least three months prior to individual casework. WHO SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE TEAM WITHIN THE CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN UNITS? Other members from various agencies should be inclusive to this unit, since they bring their specific expertise to complete a proper investigation. It is our opinion that the following individuals who should comprise this team are as stated: Registered Nurse, School Principal, Detective, and Social Worker.

SHOULD AN OUTSIDE AGENCY SYSTEMATICALLY REVIEW THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE TEAM’S PERFORMANCE? All agencies must have an outside quality control board that monitors case investigations on a random basis and when requested by the public. This Board must include members similar to the Child Protective Service team, with the addition of an individual from the public. No member may be employed more than three years, to maintain the integrity of the boards’ unbiased decisions. SHOULD WE MAINTAIN A CHILD ABUSE INDEX LIST? The child abuse index list shall be maintained only when an individual has been prosecuted and convicted by a court of law for a crime against a child. Today’s said list shall be destroyed, so as to prevent harm to those currently listed who have been accused of a crime against a child, but that have never been prosecuted or convicted. And, children should never be placed on any list that would categorize them in an adverse manner, such as this. SHOULD THERE BE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO FOSTER CARE? There should be a limited number of children allowed to be placed in any single home under foster care, including adoption. No single family shall be allowed to adopt or provide foster care to more than two children at any time. The only exception shall be when siblings number more than two and are placed in the same single dwelling. This will eliminate the financial incentive for monetary gain related to housing foster children and adoptions

 

 While I admire your glass half full ideal here, I cannot believe that you do not already know these facts, and are counting on our google searching abilities to soothe your fears. Would your life change if I found just one case of bonus money for foster placement/child removal? If so, I suppose I could continue fishing, but somehow I think you must have a dog in the race, so I wont spoil the odds in your belief system.  I'm guessing you wouldn't believe that children are incarcerated for the handout money also, with frivolous ordinance violations and work camps, with judges and sheriffs all invested? There is much news outside of Fox2 and CNN.

[northerngal]

 

 

→

Another FBI Investigation into Child Protective Services child trafficking.2013 AMERICA WAKE UP

04Mar

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

2 Votes

 

Scheduled Protest for CPS and their cohorts.

We are still scheduled to have the largest protest Riverside County has ever seen at the 3 locations pointed out South West Court house, Moreno Valley CPS on Cottonwood and Kid Street CPS Riverside off of Tyler so keep the emails coming in so far we have had close to nine hundred responses and are working on a mas mailer for reminders the schedule.is still tentative in 3rd week we are still looking for volunteers to help make signs, THIS IS TRULY FOR THE CHILDREN SO PLEASE DO THIS?

Feature Story for DonnellyJustice.me

This child trafficking is still going on right now  March 2013 and I have verified this through families having their children kidnapped by the county and pushed by this court, in case after case coming out of South West Courthouse, Riverside County I am finding horror stories of parents losing their children and never allowed to present any evidence, so only the side of CPS is allowed on record and family is said to be bias while CPS testimony is all fraud and in a real court would be easily beaten if real evidence was shown not hearsay. Thus C.P.S victimizes those families that have no means available, to properly investigate C.P.S corrupt activities directed at their family. Since Federal and state matching funds generate the budget for C.P.S, the single means utilized to elevate the budget is to increase foster care and adoption caseloads. Bonus incentives for adoptions are currently $8,000 per child. $4,000 is given to the foster parents and another $4,000 is placed in a general fund, to reward workers for completing their job duties. Workers in this county, state that they do not personally financially benefit from this fund. Thus it leads us to believe, that other neighboring agencies are benefiting form this fund, in return for deceptive practices that support C.P.S decisions.

 

BABY TRAFFICKING False Allegations of drug abuse have been logged against mothers and their newborn infants as a means to place these infants into protective custody. The hospital staff has allowed C.P.S to remove infants (a hospital violation) prior to verification of blood and urine drug screen tests. C.P.S is mandated to secure verification of drug allegations via blood and urine results, prior to removing the newborn infant from the hospital. All cases known to us resulted negative for the mother and the newborn, but these infants were never returned, and were adopted outside of kinship. In the past year, the FBI has arrested and imprisoned C.P.S workers who were actively involved in baby trafficking for profit. These C.P.S workers knowingly abducted infants from the hospital where they in turn networked them into legal adoption agencies.

Augustus Fennerty, FBI director for Crimes against Children (Washington D.C) can verify this information. (202) 324-3000 CHILD SEX TRADE INDUSTRY Southern California FBI District has videotape recorded CPS workers placing foster care children onto planes via LAX, destination Europe for child sex trade industry. This can be verified through Ted Gunderson, (retired) FBI Director Southern California (310) 477-6565. SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION IN FOSTER CARE For the families in relation to our group in San BernardinoCounty, it has come to our attention while comparing similarities, that approximately half the children in foster care have been molested. These children were not sexually abused by their parents, but by the foster fathers or others in the foster home. It was also noted that these foster homes are still operating in the same capacity prior to complaints, without any investigation into these allegations. C.P.S officials were made aware of these accusations by the children, but failed to follow through with a criminal investigation. In conclusion, Child Protective Service is nothing more than an “oasis’’ for child molesters, to make a profit, while at the same time committing a crime, only to be protected by a malignant system that delivers a never ending supply of victims .

SYSTEMATIC FRAUDULENT MANEUVERS UTILIZED TO ENHANCE C.P.S BUDGET C.P.S manufactures multiple nonexistent /fictitious abuse case scenarios to offset true statistical abuse case information. C.P.S concurrently processes these children from foster care to adoption, in order to obtain perverse monetary incentives in the form of bonuses. C.P.S provides a market to neighboring agencies and the courts ( commissioners, psychologists, monitors, court mandated behavioral class instructors, court appointed legal counsel), in order for them to financially benefit from the foster care/adoption system. C.P.S victimizes innocent impoverished families, draws them into a corrupt system to utilize their children as pawns for commerce.

MALICIOUS OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES C.P.S is utilized by family court officials, as an adverse tool to extricate children from one parent to the other, with reference to “parent alienation syndromeâ€. Where, in truth, caseworkers are never allowed to testify in family court under the cloak of C.P.S authority, due to possible misuse or conflict of interest related to the right to privacy laws. C.P.S utilizes coercive measures to persuade parents to submit to statements of prior alleged abuse, when these actions were nonexistent. In other words, forcing desperate parents to “plea bargain†to a C.P.S fabricated crime, for the return of their children from foster care. C.P.S fabricates portions of investigations, where such duties have never been physically performed, to purposely mislead or direct a case. C.P.S knowingly abandons children into foster care, conscious of the fact that some foster care parents and or individuals in the home physically and sexually abuse the children in their protective custody. C.P.S intentionally fails to prosecute parents accused of child abuse, since in the majority of cases, no initial crime has been committed. C.P.S represents themselves in positive personas, by omitting, altering, and falsifying documents, so as to mislead the public and or government of their true actions as listed above. Thereby publicly grandstanding, displaying an inaccurate social martyrdom for the well being of children. C.P.S ignores crimes committed in foster care, such as the atrocious acts of unexplained deaths. C.P.S fails to question these individuals for their abusive conduct, whereby, if itwere not a foster care parent, these individuals would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

SHOULD CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE BE RESTRUCTURED? The police should determine if a child has a true need for protection from his parents, since child abuse is a criminal offence. Thus, C.P.S should be incorporated with Crimes against Children Units that are currently located within police, sheriffs and FBI agencies. The merging of the two would reduce the amount of false allegations reported, since complaints made to a police unit is a criminal offence. Also, the police have the training and resources needed to conduct a thorough investigation. This allows them to determine that if a crime has been committed that warrants the need for foster care. A parent/guardian under the suspicion of the crime “Child Abuse†would meet the criteria for removal. This would activate the foster care system. Only then would the foster care system be utilized as a response to a possible or suspected crime. Thus in turn, this would eliminate the unnecessary utilization of the foster care system that has been grossly misused in the past. Unwarranted victimization of children and their families would be greatly reduced and soaring costs would be contained. This would minimize the number of future cases that fall through the cracks and get lost in the system.

WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE SOCIAL WORKERS PLAY IN THE NEW CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE? All caseworkers must have a bachelor’s degree in social work from an accredited college. All states must create bachelor level licensing for social workers. All workers must have a current license to work within any state or county in the United States with reciprocity. All social workers must have a preceptor for at least three months prior to individual casework. WHO SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE TEAM WITHIN THE CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN UNITS? Other members from various agencies should be inclusive to this unit, since they bring their specific expertise to complete a proper investigation. It is our opinion that the following individuals who should comprise this team are as stated: Registered Nurse, School Principal, Detective, and Social Worker.

SHOULD AN OUTSIDE AGENCY SYSTEMATICALLY REVIEW THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE TEAM’S PERFORMANCE? All agencies must have an outside quality control board that monitors case investigations on a random basis and when requested by the public. This Board must include members similar to the Child Protective Service team, with the addition of an individual from the public. No member may be employed more than three years, to maintain the integrity of the boards’ unbiased decisions. SHOULD WE MAINTAIN A CHILD ABUSE INDEX LIST? The child abuse index list shall be maintained only when an individual has been prosecuted and convicted by a court of law for a crime against a child. Today’s said list shall be destroyed, so as to prevent harm to those currently listed who have been accused of a crime against a child, but that have never been prosecuted or convicted. And, children should never be placed on any list that would categorize them in an adverse manner, such as this. SHOULD THERE BE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO FOSTER CARE? There should be a limited number of children allowed to be placed in any single home under foster care, including adoption. No single family shall be allowed to adopt or provide foster care to more than two children at any time. The only exception shall be when siblings number more than two and are placed in the same single dwelling. This will eliminate the financial incentive for monetary gain related to housing foster children and adoptions

 

 While I admire your glass half full ideal here, I cannot believe that you do not already know these facts, and are counting on our google searching abilities to soothe your fears. Would your life change if I found just one case of bonus money for foster placement/child removal? If so, I suppose I could continue fishing, but somehow I think you must have a dog in the race, so I wont spoil the odds in your belief system.  I'm guessing you wouldn't believe that children are incarcerated for the handout money also, with frivolous ordinance violations and work camps, with judges and sheriffs all invested? There is much news outside of Fox2 and CNN.

 

 

I did not claim there could not be corrupt CPS offices.  There is always the possibility of corruption in any agency.  I will readily acknowledge this.  I still do not see any proof that the State of Michigan Child protective Service Division receives incentives from removing a child from a "drug house" as you stated.

 

I suppose you could find a dozen cases of corruption, hundreds of cases of wrongdoings on a worker or judges end.  I believe many are probably accurate.  I also believe mistakes are made, false allegations are reported, misunderstandings do occur.  Sometimes all of the facts are not available but based on the facts presented actions are taken.  What I also know is that IF the Michigan laws and procedures are followed, children aren't just snatched from decent homes and put up for adoption to grab incentives.  (that do not even cover a portion of associated costs) 

 

In conclusion, I do not have any "full glass ideals" nor any rose tinted glasses on.  I see reality for what it is.  I acknowledge that there are bad apples in every bunch, including CPS.  There is corruption everywhere.  I believe the good works are larger than the rest.  (does not justify "the rest")

 

You are correct.  I will always have a "dog in this race".  I was an advocate for children long before I was an advocate for medical cannabis.  Long before I was an advocate for children, I was a child.  A child "in the system".  A ward of the state.  I wasn't removed for unjust reasons.   I was "special needs" due to my medical conditions and I wasn't adopted out for incentives.  (I was adopted for love.)   As far as I am concerned,  children are the innocent victims in EVERY situation. 

 

As far as relevancy to this topic - take this thread/case-  Baby Bree was not sent to foster care, she was not shuffled through the system, she was not adopted out for incentives. Obviously the facts in this case allowed the judge to return the child home to her parents.  He must have found that her returning home was indeed in her best interest and she was not in any immediate danger.  It may be horrible and devastating that a baby is placed temporarily with family or in foster care while facts are sorted out in an investigation.  However, sometimes it saves children a worse fate. 

[GregS]

This has been an extreme case of government overreach fomented by officials with power enough to disrupt a family unnecessarily and irresponsibly. The prosecution, court, and CPS made despicable and unreasonable comments and decisions. That anyone in the activist community may have overstepped your delicate sensibilities, NG, I find not only justified, but more than arguably necessary.

[northerngal]

This has been an extreme case of government overreach fomented by officials with power enough to disrupt a family unnecessarily and irresponsibly. The prosecution, court, and CPS made despicable and unreasonable comments and decisions. That anyone in the activist community may have overstepped your delicate sensibilities, NG, I find not only justified, but more than arguably necessary.

 

We can agree to disagree.   Overstepped my delicate sensitivities, eh Greg?   I would have run away from this place long ago, with my tail between my legs if I let "delicate sensitivities" direct my actions!  Unlike some people in the community, I do my best NOT to spread misinformation and drama.  I do my best not to spread lies to suit my purpose.   Can you say the same?  Who is truly delicate in this situation? 

 

 I did not speak directly about the Green Case, did I?  Perhaps you need to put your reading glasses back on.  I was speaking on the need for divisions like CPS, through my own experience not only as a child, but as an adult as well.  I spoke about the misinformation specifically regarding monetary gains from children temporarily removed from "drug houses".  I am sorry that the Greens had to go through what they did.  I have empathy for their situation.  I am a mother and I have a heart.  I was not the judge or the CPS worker on this case, I did not see the facts leading them to take action.  I agree wholly with the fact the judge in this case used bogus wording and reasoning in this case, but let me ask you........did you see the facts?  How do you base your words?  On media reports?  Did you read the case file in this case?  I never claimed this particular case was or wasn't appropriate.  I can not judge that with the facts that I have.  Perhaps the judge needed further proof to understand that this baby was safe from harm.  Perhaps until such proof was provided a decision was not clear.  Like I said I do not have the facts presented to the judge when he made the decisions he did.  In the end he obviously was presented with enough fact to allow the baby to return home.

 

My post wasn't regarding the Greens or this particular case.  It was about misinformation regarding incentive money received from temporary removal of children from "drug house" situations.  Perhaps you didn't bother to read the whole thing before posting.

 

You would be up here beating your drum no matter how this had gone.  That's just you.  I get it.  I accept it. 

 

 Lets say hypothetically - CPS has been called 3 times on a family, nothing is found in initial investigations, cases are closed.  Weeks later a child is severely beaten, or shot, or dead.  You would blame CPS for not doing enough.  Why weren't they more thorough.  Why didn't they remove the child then finish investigating when there was signs of possible neglect/abuse, even reported signs.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  People have to do their jobs based on the facts presented.  Sometimes more fact is needed.   Sometimes it's not as black and white as it may seem.

 

  Do I agree that children should be taken from dispensary operators?  Not for that reason alone. (even though there actions are not clearly within the law)  Do I think that children should be removed from patients that grow legally, absolutely not, based on that reason alone.  Do I think all medical marijuana patients/caregivers/dispensary owners are good parents that would not endanger a child, HELL NO!  Being a medical marijuana patient does not automatically make a person a good person or parent. 

 

Post something relevant to my posts in this thread when addressing me or go bark up another tree.  Insult someone else.  I don't have time for Greg's Drama Llama today when its irrelevant to anything I said. 

Edited October 28, 2013 by northerngal

[GregS]

Erm. The title of the thread speaks expressly to the Green case. For that reason it is not unreasonable to expect to continue in that vein. My posts are germane to that. While I can appreciate your fervent concern for child protection, this has been a perfect example of a court insanely out of control. I did see video of Garcia dismissing the law, which is very, very clear, out of hand, stating that he just does not care. His orders were not in keeping with the law and he has behaved that way in other Oakland County cases. Others are happening in the State. Cooper has shown her stripes for years. I kept my ear to the tracks throughout the case (which might explain a lot about what happened to my head. Ow!) and communicated with some of the principals directly.

 

If anything, the wider conversation regarding child protection, while an important discussion, is something of an intrusion into a specific circumstance and might be better put in its own thread because it is that important, and because it is so much more wide ranging and general. Here, the government has come in at a hard angle at members of our own community in contravention not just to the mm law, but to any reasonable regard to parental rights. Steve and Maria are exemplary parents from what I have gathered. Community activism played a huge role in blocking the court, bringing it to drop the damm thing, and I maintain moreso than the facts, which the court cavalierly ignored. The nexus is the law itself, viz., that the government is enjoined from removing a child from a home solely because the parent or parents are qualifying individuals authorized to use cannabis, which is precisely what happened here. It is not that going off on tangents is not one of my delights, but I can handle that criticism when it comes.

 

And please. Apologies that I offended you, and I do understand and appreciate the benefits of a tough hide.

Edited October 28, 2013 by GregS

[northerngal]

Erm. The title of the thread speaks expressly to the Green case. For that reason it is not unreasonable to expect to continue in that vein. My posts are germane to that. While I can appreciate your fervent concern for child protection, this has been a perfect example of a court insanely out of control. I did see video of Garcia dismissing the law, which is very, very clear, out of hand, stating that he just does not care. His orders were not in keeping with the law and he has behaved that way in other Oakland County cases. Others are happening in the State. Cooper has shown her stripes for years. I kept my ear to the tracks throughout the case (which might explain a lot about what happened to my head. Ow!) and communicated with some of the principals directly.

 

If anything, the wider conversation regarding child protection, while an important discussion, is something of an intrusion into a specific circumstance and might be better put in its own thread because it is that important, and because it is so much more wide ranging and general. Here, the government has come in at a hard angle at members of our own community in contravention not just to the mm law, but to any reasonable regard to parental rights. Steve and Maria are exemplary parents from what I have gathered. Community activism played a huge role in cornering the court to drop the damm thing, and I maintain moreso than the facts, which the court cavalierly ignored. The nexus is the law itself, viz., that the government is enjoined from removing a child from a home solely because the parent or parents are qualifying individuals authorized to use cannabis, which is precisely what happened here. It is not that going off on tangents is not one of my delights, but I can handle that criticism when it comes.

 

And please. Apologies that I offended you, and I do appreciate the benefits of a tough hide.

 

Perhaps you are correct Greg, as far as this post goes.  Perhaps my posts strayed off topic somewhat.  I would not have directed the things I did at this particular post had I not been responding to another post in this thread directly. Responding to incorrect information.   My original post in this thread did pertain to the Green case.  It pertained to the untruths portrayed by media reports.  You also know from experience that if I drifted too far off topic, moderators would have corrected the situation. 

 

I have said what I needed to say in response to "Grassmatch".  I have made my point.   Unless I see proof that the state receives incentives from babies temporarily removed from "drug houses", I will maintain my stance through experience. 

 

I am glad you were directly involved with this case Greg!  Good for you!  Everyone that helped on this case deserves praise!  I know many groups, organizations and individuals were involved.  My hats off to them.  Justice seems to have prevailed here.  I am glad this case was a success.  (I have expressed this several times)

 

 I thought the criminal charges against the Greens were in Oakland County.  The CPS charges and case were brought up in Ingham County, weren't they?  I suppose it's really irrelevant, either way. 

 

Just curious,  how does one determine that parents are exemplary?  Just for clarification.  I would have to know a person VERY well and their children to make such a determination.  I would have to see facts and experience firsthand to make that determination. (if it were my job to do so)

Edited October 28, 2013 by northerngal

[GregS]

I think you are correct regarding the venues. No worries. My take on Steve and Maria's parenting skills is just that: my take. Conversation with them has not revealed that they are creeps or degenerates, and I believe their stated concern for their children is pretty genuine.

 

The following pointedly shouts out how irresponsible Judge Garcia is regarding the issue. It is almost assured that this thing would have gone very wrong had it not been for the noise made by activists in courtrooms, rallies, social media, and the press:

 

LANSING- The judge who refused to return baby Bree to her parents is insisting on a trial to determine the legitimacy of father Steve Green’s medical basis for his medical marijuana certification. Green suffers from epilepsy and other ailments.Judge Richard Garcia from Ingham County delivered his verdict on Friday, September 20. Although he could have returned Bree to her parents, Steve and wife Maria Green, he chose instead to continue the Referee’s order and keep custody of the child in the hands of her grandmother while demanding a trial to determine the validity of marijuana use and epilepsy. That case is set to be heard in early October.Steve Green reported the startling development during his appearance on Michigan’s only real radio program focusing on marijuana issues, WFNT’s The Political Twist Up Show, which came less than 24 hours after the Judge’s ruling.Judge Garcia doesn’t believe in the medical benefits of marijuana: at least, his actions indicate this. In the Green case he decided that the marijuana garden in the Green home creates a risk to the children, hence his decision to keep Bree from that building. If his trial proves that Green’s use of marijuana is justified, he will have to return Bree to the family and reverse his opinion that any marijuana garden in the home represents risk.The chance of him making a pro-marijuana decision is minuscule. Tiny. Almost non-existent. We know this because he said so, two years earlier, when he threatened to take a child from another patient suffering from epilepsy.Judge Garcia has made news in the past for using children as weapons to force parents out of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Program. In 2011, Garcia forced Livingston  Thompson Jr (no relation to this article’s author) to spend a weekend in jail for refusing to give up his doctor-certified medical marijuana certification, threatening to revoke Thompson Jr’s custody right to his then-10 year old daughter Shylynn.The story was told via WILX, who reported that Garcia refused to accept Michigan’s state-issued card as proof of any illness- just as he has in the Green case. ”I understand he says he has a license. I told him a long time ago that I don’t accept that on its face value,” Garcia was reported to have said, referring to Thompson Jr. “I think he obtained that card fraudulently. I don’t think there’s a legitimate reason why he needs to smoke pot because he may have epilepsy.”That statement by Garcia to Thompson Jr proves that, no matter what evidence the Greens can produce in court, Garcia will not deliver a pro-marijuana decision, a pro-family decision, a decision that connects a daughter and her parents while respecting Michigan’s medical marijuana laws.“The case worker feels Shylynn is doing find and well adjusted and so does the court because the court put Shylynn back with Mr. Livingston,” said Thompson Jr’s attorney, Matt Newburg, at the time.WILX reported that Judge Garcia believed that Thompson Jr was addicted to marijuana and smoking it clouds his judgment as a father.“If you continue to smoke, l will continue to put you in jail until you stop using,” Garcia said in court.Attorney Thomas Lavigne, of Detroit’s Cannabis Counsel, told The Compassion Chronicles that “Judges are practicing medicine without a license, ordering patients to ignore their doctor’s recommendation to use an herbal alternative that has no overdose risk.  Judges order patients to take instead the pharmaceutical drugs- but not too many or you overdose.”It is time to petition another judge to handle the Green case as Garcia is clearly biased on the issue.Source: The Compassion Chronicles

 

Edited October 28, 2013 by GregS

[northerngal]

I did mention that I thought that wording the judge used was bogus.  Probably more than once.  I completely acknowledge that. 

 

Just for reference, I supported this case.  I supported it based on the wording the judge used.  That was factual information.  I drove many miles to show my displeasure over the judges reasoning and to attend the press conference.  I also donated cash in support.  I did what I thought was right and what I was able.

 

I was not asking specifically about the Greens when I asked about how you define "exemplary parents".  I was gathering information on your judgement and formation of opinion.  I am also generalizing when I say, even child molesters could be "exemplary parents" based on your defined standards.  (Many do not appear creepy, "love" their child, show concern and can talk a good game-all that you required )

Edited October 28, 2013 by northerngal

[GregS]

Thanks for your part in this. I know you to be a compassionate woman.

 

Your point about appearances is taken. While my own understanding regarding what is exemplary parenting may or may not be what is seen here with this couple, there is nonetheless reason to believe they are, at least, adequate. Exemplary is a pretty apt term here, I think, inasmuch as their children are healthy and well cared for. Their efforts to bring this to this favorable conclusion benefited them nothing aside from avoiding the prospect of having their children forcibly taken against their will and without adequate provocation. There was no alternate agenda. Admittedly very successful parenting goes far beyond that, but that is another discussion that goes places not necessary here. Just quickly, raising children to be happy, successful adults, and without the excessive neuroses and character flaws that are so much in display wherever we look, is key. I have many other thoughts, consider that there is no more urgent and important thing an individual can do, and some really great kids of my own who have grown into that.

Edited October 28, 2013 by GregS