Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Reader Comments On Saturday WFU Conclave

The following is the comment of an observer who attended Saturday's WA Families United meeting with Sec. Dreyfus. I was not there. I will publish other comments if they are returned in a timely manner,

I attended this meeting. The first thing secretary Dreyfus stated about children is how resilient they are. DOES THAT MEAN THEY WILL BE OKAY NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE NEEDLESSLY PUT THROUGH?
Given CPS's long history of intentionally failing children I am skeptical. Even if Susan Dreyfus wanted to create an ethical altruistic child welfare system for Washington State there are many ominous and onerous obstacles to overcome and she could not achieve this on her own.
Tellingly I don't think much will change this is based on Washington Family United Lobbyist Dave Woods recommendation that Pam Roach should be Washington State Washington State Children Administration Assistant Secretary and it was noted that Susan Dreyfus declined. In my opinion Pam Roach if willing would have been the better choice.
There are many vested interests at work maintaining the current faulty status-quo of child welfare.
Number one is the adoption initiative and quota no doubt supported by the unnecessarily gigantonourmas foster care industry and their deep pocket well organized lobbyists. CHILDREN ARE NOT A COMMODITY.
Number two big problem is the plethora of Non-Profit organized involved charities and or service providers. Many of these institutions also are totally unaccountable and there are many politicians, Judge's,Attorney Generals,Public Defenders,CASA and or their spouses who sit on these boards. If these all of these Non-Profits were ethical or accountable and did not pay the hands that feed them this would not such a conflict of interest to "BEST INTEREST OF CHILD."
While I am on that subject "BEST INTEREST OF CHILD," I believe that all documents should read "Best Interest to Child because" this statement as most often currently applied in legal proceedings or determinations involving children need not even consider the child at all and this loose definition only helps justify the intentional failure and deliberate disinterest prevalent in family court and by Our Politicians and CPS; CHILDREN AND FAMILY'S DESERVE BETTER!


DenisonPines said...

Best interest of the child is hammered into the law as if the child has no way to express intent. William O Douglas, US Supreme Court Justice wrote extensively about the age of a child to validly express intent in medical services. He felt that by age 10, a child had a clear expressed intent of life choices.

Thanks to family advocates in Washington State, a child may request a hearing at age 12 so that the court may attend to the child's INTENT of residence. How many CASA GAL have the moral integrity and guts to represent the child's INTENT of residence?

There are CASA GAL who really pay attention to the child's INTENT of family preference and are willing to champion the opportunity of choice of a safe loving placement of a child with the family of preference.

The state law 13.34 stresses priority placement of a child with the "family of origin" with the expectation and requirement of a safe and loving family. Despite the law, many advocates and families see county CASA and judicial systems corrupt the law to their own will, despite the child, despite the family.

Anonymous said...

Children are resilient? Is that why my granddaughter is hording food at her new home? Is that why her speech is delayed? Is that why she must grow up in day care? She has a loving sister and grandmother at home who can, and will, give her all the love and attention she can handle. If this is resiliance, God help us. Ms. Dreyfus, PLEASE go to the foster homes! Take a look around. Compare the family home vs. the foster home, just one time. Put yourself in the child's place, just one time.