A reader writes:
"Once again I will say that it is all about their federal IV funding. DSHS gets no money for letting relatives take the kids. Family should receive the same dollar amount."
Please take the time to comment on this issue. Thanks
First comment received:
1. 4-21 AM Thank you for all your efforts. There is absolutely no reason on this earth as to why we should be separated from two of our relatives. However, CPS ensures that this does happen. We don't know why; other, than my niece was a marketable baby. No there was no money or help when I was expressing an interest in obtaining custody. It was I who had to pay. If fact, I had no rights from the sounds of what attorney's were telling me. "I was not a party to the case"; although I believe there was a referance in a court order that stated that "there was no living relatives".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Senator Roach,
Thank you for all your efforts. There is absolutely no reason on this earth as to why we should be separated from two of our relatives. However, CPS ensures that this does happen. We don't know why; other, than my niece was a marketable baby. No there was no money or help when I was expressing an interest in obtaining custody. It was I who had to pay. If fact, I had no rights from the sounds of what attorney's were telling me. "I was not a party to the case"; although I believe there was a referance in a court order that stated that "there was no living relatives".
what I wonder though is how the big picture looks. the state doesn't get funding to place with relatives but they also pay out very little. Relatives receive barely anything to take care of kin-unless they are foster care licensed. even if a child is adopted the state still pays out a monthly amount that far exceeds what a relative can qualify for. are the funds from different places or have they just not thought it out that well?
Take away that funding and you will weed out many "foster adopt" parents.Which will then give relatives a better chance to have their "blood" returned to them where they belong. If there is no "incentive" for cps to kidnap the children maybe the "system" would crumble from lack of interest!
I think the first commenter has it right. After my sister's kids were taken, my parents had no rights and were offered no help at all. When someone wanted to adopt the younger 2 kids, but not the oldest boy, CPS offered the oldest boy back to my parents custody if my sister would sign off so the other 2 could be adopted out. Definitely all about the money.
Federal funding actually provides wide latitude on how the money is spent. There are guidelines but they are not really that set in cement. If the state wanted to turn things around and focus on family preservation, they could do so and use the money. It is OUR STATE decision makers that are the problem.
For example, public education is sorely needed BEFORE problems happen but they simply won't spend the money on that. Why? Keeping people ignorant provides a power base perhaps? It's written in the Federal funding guidelnes.
The same training and opportunities could be offered to extended family. For example, if extended family have a "fixable" character defect that could be erradicated with a service, why isn't that being offered instead of shipping out children to dysfunctional foster parents? The money is there for it. The focus should remain with the family and there is resistance to that. Many workers mouth lemming rhetoric fed to them by the higher ups regarding extended family and I think they should start thinking for themselves.
Jan Smith
That funding was ment one way, the state turned it to their advantage, found a loophole turned it into supply and demand and padded their own pockets!
You know senator I am leaning towards eliminating Foster Care.
I have always wanted to eliminate Foster –to –adopt homes.
Foster was set up to nurture children and make them feel more part of a family but it doesn’t work. First of all the Foster parents forget their role, it is caregiver, provider, not truly the parent. If they become attached to the child they hold on to them at all cost, including lying about the birth parents. In the story you are reporting about with Lilly if it wasn’t so well documented that the reason she is upset after visits is because she doesn’t want to leave Grandma they would have it twisted by now to she is so upset after each visit, we shouldn’t make her go any more.
If the foster care provider doesn’t become attached to the child they get bounced to another home, then another, then another.
Institutionalized care with trained professionals who are only there to make sure the child is properly cared for while determining first whether they can go back to their parents, second if that fails can they go to a relative, and lastly if all else fails can they go up for adoption to a home that IS NOT going to get paid to care for them after adoption may work best. In some ways it may sound cold towards the child but the warm and fuzzy feeling they try to give to foster care is really not true. This would make sure the child was well cared for and would eliminate the child becoming a commodity
Jan Smith, with Washington State Extended Families has told me about federal funding under the "America for safe families act".
note: we had a ruling at KCRJC in Kent. Dylan can see me, and dad is ordered to get a current domestic violence eval, and if it comes back as bad as the one hidden by CWS, "things can change very quickly". Another direct quote of the Judge, "I have minimal faith in CPS". (!)
Both Dylan and I thank you again dear Senator, we will never be able to thank you enough, but we will try!
Its all about the money. If people really cared about kids they would take care of them without compensation from the state/federal gov just like all of us parent/grandparents/kin do. We do it out of love not to be paid sitters. I am sick to death of this agency and their lies.
Pam, This is all too true! Here are the facts.
1) DSHS recieves federal funding ONLY if the child is placed in foster care.
2) Now that the child is in foster care, DSHS turns around and says the child has emotional problems and files for social security! HMMMM!
So now it's a win win situation for DSHS. THIS is where the problem lies. Do we place the child with a family member,-OR- do we place the child in foster care so we can recieve federal funding AND social security benifits?
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out! I have spent two years digging into DSHS and the further I dig the more sicker it becomes. DSHS always says family first! How do they expect us to believe that when there is sooo much money on the table? This is a billion dollar a year monster that needs to be fed! And they are feeding it OUR children! And leaving nothing but a HUGE wake of distruction in it's path. LAWS NEED TO BE CHANGED!
Federal funding needs to be re-directed towards returning to a family member NOT foster care.
Foster care needs to be a LAST resort not the priority!
Pam, I read the News Tribune article from the administrator in region 5. Obviously she spouted off without really thinking to much about what she was saying. She said that 40% of the children were in relitive placement! Actually, it's 32%. But hey, what's 8%? We're only talking about children here right? But the thing that got me the most was she actually seemed to be bragging about the percentage! What I got out of her statement was.....
That the other 60% of Washington families were so worthless they couldn't possibly be able to raise this child. Now, does anybody else think my logic of thinking is wrong here? Or is it that they need to keep a 60% or better percentage to feed the monster with federal funds and social security? Here is my message to everyone out there.......
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED!
YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
Thank You!
Accordinging to DSHS, when parental rights are terminated, that, in itself makes a child special needs and garners more money from the FEDS.
You people from DSHS are really sick tickets..Read your own propaganda..
I always had this nagging doubt that CA wasn't doing it for the money UNTIL I read some statistics from another state. One of the line items dealt with extended family informal placement (where they went outside the state and had custody) and the line item referred to this and all other line items as "market share." In effect, what they were talking about is the market share they were losing by not having state custody and placement. I stared at that line item for a long time and shuddered. I realized that they were going to try to find a way to keep extended family from informal placement in order to secure further federal funding. I am willing to bet that all states are looking at that lost "market share."
Jan Smith
Post a Comment