Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Sec. Dreyfus Attends Washington Families United

I was double booked on Saturday. The largest Veteran's Day parade west of the Mississippi is in Auburn and I always attend. There is an inspirational memorial and great parade.

At the same time, in Olympia, there was an annual meeting of Washington Families United. Jim, my parade drive/husband, and I made it to the meeting just as it was closing. What a great group of people who had come from all over the state and at least one all the way from CA.

DSHS Sec. Susan Dreyfus and the new Children's Director were at the meeting. they listened to the many stories and I believe were trying to learn what they could do better.

Most people in the room felt that Sec. Dreyfus is committed to kinship. I know that she is not only listening but is proactively looking for ways to improve the system. There is a series of bills that the department has researched and that are now on the governor's desk waiting for pre-approval before being introduced in the 2010 Session.

The major messages for Sec. Dreyfus were:

*Follow Existing Law (If they would just do that....60% of the placement problems would not be in play...place with families!)
*Don't pick-up kids without a pick-up order.
*Don't use unsubstantiated hearsay.
*Many CASAs don't even visit the kids and yet they have so much control of the situation. That is a problem along with the drive for anonymity which will add to lack of accountability.



Anonymous said...

''Licensing of Parents

In addition to the Home Visitation program, which brings the government in control of the child before school age, Goals 2000 is being implemented through parent licensing, parent-teacher compacts, and parental report cards issued by the schools. These programs, under various names, are either in place or being proposed across the nation. Parental Licensing is still a point of controversial discussion, although legislation to pass it into law has been submitted in other states.

The government will determine who may have children and who may not. Jack C. Westman, a psychiatrist at the University of Wisconsin and author of Licensing Parents: Can We Prevent Child Abuse?, explains. “A parent license would place the responsibility on parents to be competent. The burden of proof would be on the parents to demonstrate that they are not abusing and neglecting their children rather than on the state to prove through quasi-legal proceedings that parents are unfit after they have damaged their children.” So, parents will be in the position of having to disprove a negative, and having to prove that they will not commit future acts.

As one of the most prominent advocates for parental licensing, he adds, “We must create a new paradigm in which parenthood is a privilege.” Most parents feel that being a parent is a privilege, a gift from God that gives our lives meaning and purpose. But, should it be an entitlement given to us by the government? Does this mean that some citizens will be deemed workers, and others breeders? If the government will select who may propagate and who may not, how many steps away are we from mandatory sterilization of those deemed unfit by the government, or those who do not conform to a societal ideal established by the government? Or will we allow “them” to breed to provide children to others?

David Lykken, author of Antisocial Personalities, and a strong advocate of parental licensing, calls for the immediate removal of newborns from unlicensed mothers so that they may be placed directly into foster homes and quickly adopted.''

Lovingfitfather said...

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's 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 oten 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!

MollyF said...

Mrs. Roach;

I was one that was at this meeting and it was very good! I truly hope the Secretary and Asst. Secretary are true to their words and want to help fix some of the problems we are having in this state. I have been a foster mom, adoptive mom, CASA and most recently had my grandkids placed in my care by CPS. Some of the things they do are inexcusable, illegal, immoral, abusive to the very children they are to protect, tear families apart rather than preserve them and literally make me sick to my stomach. Everyone that feels the same needs to become involved in change. I know I am. I'm very happy there are people like you that fight for what is right. Thank you for your service!

Anonymous said...

Well write the law better:
Children should be allowed to be picked up on an emergency order (ex-parte) unless CPS can show by clear and convincing evidence that the child has been seriously injured. CPS should not be allowed to keep children in foster care for more than 48 hours unless thay can show clearly and convincingly that the parent(s) seriously injured a child and that reasonable efforts can't be made to keep the child at home. When reasonable efforts can't be made the judge must write as part of the decision a description of why reasonable efforts can't be made with 24 hours. Appeals of not providing reasonable efforts need to be heard with 48 hours. If an appeal finds that the decision on efforts was not reasonable the decision must be reversed as to putting the child into care. Serious injury is described as an injury requiring more than 24 hours of out of home care (such as in a hospital). TPRs should only be allowed if a parent is shown to have injured his child and to can't be rehabilitated within 18 months to be able to care for the child beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hearsay should be eliminated from trials and only allowed at status hearings to review CPS' efforts. Trials should have to be in front of a jury if the child is going to be in CPS care unless ALL parties waive the jury.
CASA, CPS investigations, and foster care operation should all be financially and managerially separated. Usually CASA and CPS investigations report to and are financed by foster care operations.

strawberryblonde said...

Thank you, Senator Roach, for your tireless efforts to help all of us!

Anonymous said...

We already have laws in place that just are not followed. Adding more laws will only assist in the process if they are laws that impose prison time on anyone that lies or distorts the truth that either has a child removed from a home or keeps them from being returned. This is custodial interference.
Non profits providing services in the new privitation happening, around the state: performance needs to be based on how many families are kept intact. NOT HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE ADOPTED OUT QUICKLY. This performance standard needs to be in the department also.
For TPR's a standard of proof equlivent to one used in death penalty cases needs to be in place. Jury's need to be an option. Even civil trials involving insurance companies have that right.
Bottom line, is social services are suposed to help not rip families apart. When a TPR trial is held it is a failure of the department and providers and should be recognized as such.
If workers go to a termination it should reflect in their personell file as poor performance. No psycholigist contracted by DSHS should ever give a phych eval. Colateral information provided to providers by the department must be proven fact or the worker providing the information should be considered a felon for custodial interference.

We are sick and tired of children being destroyed by an industry.
It is time that the judicuary committee becomes involved to place these laws on our books.

Anonymous said...

I attended and had a sense that Susan Dreyfus and her assistant were interested and maybe even a little confused by the parady of public CPS display and the behind the scenes conflicting behaviors. There are a host of players in this game and changes will require co-operation from child protection government sponsors from legal, to legislative and other intested parties.
With an inspection coming up, I think documentation is critical and regular contact with Federal specialists coming this way to determine Washington State's worthiness imperative.
I stated a couple of years ago that if we want to change the nation regarding child protection, we must first start with Washington State who prides themself with their leadership and programming throughout the United States. As those of us caught in the system know, this state falls short of excellence behind their image and in so doing makes a mockery of all the created programming and salesmanship. Their statistics are false, the vision for child protection is fragmented, and the execution of services is laced with agenda.
Susan Dreyfus used the term "best interest of the child" numerous times and I wonder, if like so many before her, she failed to read between the lines of the originators of public policy soaking up the trend of that time that rooted and grew like a badly deformed tree. Critical analysis of the originator's intent reveals an undercurrent of pathology so perverse it makes one wonder why this many neglected to see it under the mask of intellectual dribble. Like all false doctrines, there has to be an element of truth mixed with a lot of lies to decieve the masses.
We need a visionary. One that can take the truths of the ages and make them once more palatable to the hard hearted - a preacher of reason, a voice for our ancestors as well as our lineage who will suffer under the tyranny of the judgmental elite. This is a serious hour and the character of man is revealing itself once again. Man, puffed up with an overinflated sense of self, will offer chaos and destruction all the while promising relief. It is time to meditate, pray, and clean house.
Jan Smith

strawberryblonde said...

Susan Dreyfus to be interviewed by Austen Jenkins on TVW. Was bumped tonight by Dave Reichert discussing healthcare. Stay tuned.