Monday, February 29, 2016

vulnerable children the losers from law changes the loser are the honest parents who doc dhs child protection cause to lose the child with there lyes and false reports in a law of court misleading information to the good parents like fathers who have no rights in a court of law this is dam rite discusting

Crystal Moon has experience of the child protection system. Pictured with son Luke and grandmother Helen Aldersey.

Crystal Moon has experience of the child protection system. Pictured with son Luke and grandmother Helen Aldersey. 
It's about time we got angry, says Crystal Moon.
Removed from her alcoholic and drug-addicted mum to live with her gran at the age of four, Ms Moon has seen the state's child protection system at its ugly, flawed worst. 
She's furious that kinship carers, like her grandmother Helen Aldersey, often don't get enough support to cope with the traumatised children in their care.
Her grandma struggled alone to handle her volatile granddaughter, and it is only in recent years that they have healed the rift.

"She needed to be able to debrief and get skills and understand me in order to help me," says Moon.  

She is also angry that changes to child protection laws, which come into force on Tuesday, mean parents will only have 12 months (or 24 in exceptional circumstances), to show they can care for their children or have them placed in permanent care.

She's furious that kinship carers, like her grandmother Helen Aldersey, often don't get enough support to cope with the traumatised children in their care.
Her grandma struggled alone to handle her volatile granddaughter, and it is only in recent years that they have healed the rift
"She needed to be able to debrief and get skills and understand me in order to help me," says Moon.  
She is also angry that changes to child protection laws, which come into force on Tuesday, mean parents will only have 12 months (or 24 in exceptional circumstances), to show they can care for their children or have them placed in permanent care.
For Ms Moon, having a relationship with her troubled mother and the possibility of later reunification, was essential.
These changes will be retrospective, meaning they will affect families with children in out-of-home care. Once permanent care orders have been made parents can seek to have them revoked, but those working in the area say this is rare. 
Ms Moon spoke to 200 concerned social workers, lawyers and child advocates who gathered at a forum organised by the Law Institute of Victoria and others on Tuesday to express disquiet over the law changes.  
Law Institute of Victoria spokeswoman Fleur Ward, who acts for children in the Family court, said the changes take Victoria back to the days when wards of the state suffered without judicial or independent scrutiny.
Mandatory time frames are draconian and protect the court from acting in the best individual interest of the child, Ms Ward said.
Parents might take two or three years to address problems, but are then able to resume the care of their children, she said. 
"The power to remove children permanently is comparable to the power to incarcerate – the responsibility is huge."
The law changes come in response to the damning Cummins report in 2012, which found it took, on average, over five years for a vulnerable child to be placed on a permanent care order. 
The law changes reduce the role of the Children's Court and give greater power to the Department of Health and Human Services and its overstretched child protection workforce. 
It is a system already under pressure: recently The Age revealed almost 3000 Victorian children suspected of being abused or neglected had not been assigned a caseworker by the end of June.
The changes will have a particular impact on Aboriginal families, who are over-represented in out-of-home care, said former Family Court justice Alastair Nicholson.
In 2012-13 aboriginal children were almost 15 times more likely to be in out of home care compared with non-aboriginal children.
Mr Nicholson told the meeting the changes have the potential to create another Stolen Generation, noting the lack of judicial review or court ability to direct the contact children have with families. 
The state's newly-appointed Children's Commissioner,  will oversee a review of the changes in six months, but advocates say damage could be done to children and their families in that time.  
The Department of Human Services says it will not affect the number of children in out-of-home care or lead to an increase in the number of adoptions. 
Last week the Minister for Families Jenny Mikakos announced an additional $2 million would be available to help families whose children are at risk of going into out-of-home care, including services like counselling.
"We need to strike a balance in giving families help to stay together, but ensuring children are in the best care possible and not left in a state of uncertainty.



Here is another case of the doc taking the children out of a home with out warants and the strong arm of the law how bloody descusting are they

My mum was looking after my two sons 8 and 2 while I sorted some issues I am dealing with.During that time my brother and I had an argument that was non physical one night while boys were sleeping and police were called. Welfare came in the next day and removed my boys from her care.I have signed them over to her with full parental rights given to her as there mother is a junkie and hadn't seen them for over two years. Can someone help with information as to what she can do as welfare are going to court for a 2 year order to keep them in care.mum Has done nothing wrong she called the police and protected my boys from any dv Brisbane welfare stated to her the boys should not have been removed and should have been given straight back.She is lost as to what to do.they want her to apply as a foster carer .she is there grandmother not a foster carer please please please help this is destroying her and my children.kind regards nathan


YES IT IS TRUE DEAR THE HOLE SYSTEM IN CHILD PROTECTION HAS GONE TO THE DOGS AND IS SO CORRUPT BUT WE WILL FIGHT TO THE BITTER END STOP THE CORRUPTION AND SAVE THE CHILDREN OF AUSTRALIA BAND TOGETHER FIGHT HARD


Secret memo from the dept FAMILIES SA The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (15:49): Ladies and gentlemen, today, as the facilitator for the Families SA training day for new social workers, I welcome you here, and I want to make some general points. In Families SA, we work in teams, and your team leader will provide you with the original family report from which all your other reports can be copied and pasted. Should that file ever go missing, just find the last version you saved and begin a fresh cut and paste report. This is the ginger beer plant model and it never, ever fails. However, if you are ever in the position of interviewing a client for the first time, remember that you can write down any allegations at all on the file, and you do not have to put any basis for reaching those conclusions. You will always be guaranteed that those who follow you will reach the same conclusions as you have and that they will always back you up; in this way, the department is never caught out. We do not want any expectations of apologies, and we must always deny that we have a duty of care. A general rule of thumb, where parental relationship breakdowns result in accusations of abuse being made against partners, is to take sides with one of the partners. There will be times when staffing levels do not meet the demands. Your duty then is to be in as many meetings as you possibly can so that you cannot be contacted. If, for any reason, you are not in a meeting, then do not feel obliged to answer your phone—put it on voice mail. We do not want any one of us to become available to foster parents or clients on an on-call basis. They could become dependent on us and demand more services. If there are any requests by foster parents for fees to be paid for private religious schooling for foster children, check the religious background of the parent. If they are atheist or agnostic we will comply with the request as a way of disempowering the birth parents. No justification will be required and no expense should be spared—after all, the taxpayer will meet the costs. Page 458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Wednesday 29 October 2008 We are now going to move into break-out groups and here is some information to assist you in deciding which one to attend. We have been copping a little bit of political flak lately over our broken promises on family reunification. For this reason, there is going to be a break-out group to rename the reunification unit without letting on that we really do not want reunification. The Teenagers Know Best group welcomes newcomers. You will come into contact with a range of teenagers in this job and they know what they want. It is important that you respect them and that you allow them to make the decisions and not you. Then there is the Provoke the Foster Parents group. They have an interesting overlap with the previous group because we like to encourage you to believe every allegation made by a child, even when it has been shown that the child, through repeated placements, has learnt how to play foster parents off against the department. Keep them under-resourced as this may result in a loss of foster parents but, ultimately, we can return to an institutionalised model of care which will probably be for the best because we will then have total control. The Maximise the Number of Care Orders Until the Age of 18 group has delivered strong results in recent times and I am sure that will also be attractive to you. As much as possible, we do our best to ensure that, having determined natural parents are always in the wrong, the information they receive about their children is as limited as possible. The Keep the Birth Parents in the Dark group will assist you in developing those skills. Our High Churn Focus Workshop will develop methods to maintain rapid staff turnover to review and update the 'never to return to my section' policy and to ensure that children under the minister's care have constantly changing social workers. Life is tough and we need to make sure that these children understand that there is no-one you can rely on. The department changes its name every two to three years and the Deck Chairs on the Titanic group would welcome your participation to sort out the next name change. If the Ministerial Rapid Response Unit would move to the library and get some answers ready, that would really help to speed things up today. Do not worry what the questions are. The Access No Areas group will work on strategies to reduce access. We know that contact with birth families is upsetting so we must be a tiny bit devious at times to make sure it barely happens. I am sure everyone understands that. I hope this training day will be an enjoyable one for you all and, remember, the department (by whatever name) has always been right and always will be right. http://hansardpublic.parliament.sa.gov.au/#/search/1 Follow the above link, put in the date 29 October 2008, go to the legislative pdf option then go to page 458, it's there. Save the file as it will probably go missing soon.


This film was shot in a bedroom as dhs took no notice of this little boy in being beaten now two years later the little boy is suffuring from head aches and not doing well at all dhs you are Resposible for this child as you threw him in with the wolf and now you are covering it up saying this has not happend this is discusting leting a little boy be beaten by a mother and her creep of a boyfriend wake up as when a father says there are problems listen

This was report to the victorian police and no charges were laid on the mother and her so called boyfriend dhs said the father was mad and making it up the father was then told to go and have sike and iq test the father was made to be the big bad person and was ordered not to have any thing to do with his son until one day the phone rang it was dhs stating that the little boy had been beaten by the mother and her boyfriend the little boy was subjected to being bullied and punched and kicked around the head regent and now is suffuring from bad headaches dhs want to put him back with his mother as the mother is not fit to look after the little boy the mother has neglected him abuse him and just made his life hell dhs need to wake up as this is not the first time she has done this with her boyfriends as many other times this has happened in the past and dhs are still sweeping it under the carpet child protection are scum they put the child in danger every day with there text books of wrong doing the mother can never do any wrong the fathers are olgas this law must be changed and stop living in the stone age as equal rites for the father as the mothers wanted equal rites in the work place as father can raise a child as well as mothers cheers all from sirslackcat looking  out for the child 

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Affiliate Program ”Get Money from your Website”


THE CHILD PROTECTION GLOSSARRY THIS IS OUTDATED AND VERY ABUSIVE AND WRONG TO A CHILD RITES

Child protection
Child protection orders are granted by the Children’s Court on request from the Department of Human Services (DHS). Â The Victorian Child Protection Service is targeted to children and young people at risk of harm where families are unable or unwilling to protect them.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) may apply to the Children’s Court for protection orders. The grounds upon which the DHS can apply for these orders, as set out in section 162 of the CYFA, are:
the child has been abandoned by his or her parents and, after reasonable enquiries
the parents cannot be found; and
no other suitable person can be found who is willing and able to care for the child;
the child’s parents are dead or incapacitated and there is no other suitable person willing and able to care for the child;
the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, significant harm as a result of physical injury and the child’s parents have not protected, or are unlikely to protect, the child from harm of that type;
the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, significant harm as a result of sexual abuse and the child’s parents have not protected, or are unlikely to protect, the child from harm of that type;
the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, emotional or psychological harm of such a kind that the child’s emotional or intellectual development is, or is likely to be, significantly damaged and the child’s parents have not protected, or are unlikely to protect, the child from harm of that type;
the child’s physical development or health has been, or is likely to be, significantly harmed and the child’s parents have not provided, arranged or allowed the provision of, or are unlikely to provide, arrange or allow the provision of, basic care or effective medical, surgical or other remedial care.
Section 162(2) of the CYFA provides that harm may be constituted by a single act or omission or by the accumulation of a series of acts or omissions.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Director-General of CSV v B (unreported, 11 December 1992) considered the grounds for a protection application. That case related to an allegation of significant damage to emotional or intellectual development. The judge stated that it was not necessary for the damage to be lasting or permanent; the damage needed to be “important or of consequence†to the child’s emotional or intellectual development.
Tags: child at risk, child protection, child protection orders, Children's Court, Department of Human Services (DHS), emotional development, intellectual development, parents, Victorian Child Protection Service, young people
Look up legal terms in our glossary | View Cases and Law
Last updated: June 16, 2015

Pregnant woman has unborn baby forcibly removed from her womb by social service

Pregnant woman has baby taken from her womb by social services




The woman had her baby removed after being forcibly sedated (Picture: PA)

Social services forcibly sedated a pregnant woman and removed her baby by caesarean section, it has been revealed.
Officials in Essex were granted a court order to take the baby from the Italian woman after she suffered a mental breakdown while in Britain on a work trip.
The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman.
 social services are refusing to give the baby girl, who is now 15 months old, back to her mother – despite the woman claiming she has recovered.
The case is set to be raised in Parliament next week, with the woman’s lawyers claiming the council should have consulted her family first and Italian social services should have been put in charge of the child.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, came to Britain last July to attend a training course at Stansted Airport.
During that time she suffered a panic attack, which her family claim was caused by a failure to take medication for her bipolar condition, and after calling the police was taken to hospital.
According to the Telegraph, the woman later tried to return to her hotel but was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act as social services acquired a High Court order to remove her baby.
Brendan Fleming, the woman’s British lawyer, told the newspaper: ‘I have never heard of anything like this in all my 40 years in the job.
‘I can understand if someone is very ill that they may not be able to consent to a medical procedure, but a forced caesarean is unprecedented.
‘If there were concerns about the care of this child by an Italian mother, then the better plan would have been for the authorities here to have notified social services in Italy and for the child to have been taken back there.’
The woman says she was not made aware of what was happening and woke up to find her child had been delivered by caesarean section and taken into care.
A council spokesperson is quoted by the BBC as saying: ‘Essex County Council does not comment on the circumstances of ongoing individual cases involving vulnerable people and children.’

Child Protective Services Victim Support

http://cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/a/anitapatterson/preview/fldr_2004_08_20/file0001434370573.jpg

KABUL, Afghanistan, Feb. 19, 2016 – Americans who still believe that the U.S. Constitution protects them have not yet dealt with America’s legal system. It’s no secret that the system is broken, but unfortunately most people do not realize how serious the problem is until they experience it first hand.

Sadly, court corruption is the most destructive force operating on American families today.
Most citizens are under the illusion that it’s impossible for the overseers of the law to ignore the law. They think there are government agencies that hold the courts accountable, that the jurists they see in movies and television are usually criminal or law courts.



Family courts are courts of equity conducted without juries and with litigants who are at the mercy of a single person’s opinion. Since these family court judges have absolute discretion and immunity, they cannot be held accountable. Unfortunately, due process and equal protection rights in too many instances are ignored, often destroying children’s lives and removing fit parents from being able to see their children, denying their basic human rights without notice or a chance to be heard.
Courts are supposedly limited by substantive and procedural rules, but there’s not a single agency that has the authority to intervene with their decisions. Due to this lack of oversight or routes of redress, the abuse of judicial discretion often goes beyond constraints set down by legislation, precedent and the U.S. Constitution.
Because we are conditioned to believe that judges have high levels of integrity, it’s hard for most people to imagine why they would ignore their oaths of office. But, if you follow the money, you’ll see that family courts and child protective agencies have been kidnapping children under “color of law” for decades so they can collect federal incentives. Family law is a $50-billion-a-year business that will extort your family’s life savings through deliberately prolonged litigation.
Manifesto groups have discovered a malicious way to take advantage of the billions of dollars in family court conflicts, real and imagined,  through a scheme that involves targeting “high conflict” divorces, using the children as pawns.
These groups use predatory lawyers and collusive judges to further perpetuate the conflict by intentionally shifting custody to abusers. The reason for making this custody shift is that abusers are twice as likely to seek sole custody, and good parents never give up fighting to protect their children.
So it creates very long litigation.
Family court judges fall back on “the best interest of the child” standard as an excuse to shift custody from the safe parent to abusive parent. An example of the courts’ double-down is where the safe parent has allowed the abusive parent to be around the child, all too often in hopes of forging some type of relationship.
When the safe parent, having reached limits, seeks relief from the court, with logs, photos and other evidence of abuse — sometimes the testimony of the children themselves — the judge will too often say, “If the allegations are true, then I have to question your ability to make good decisions regarding the safety of your child.”
In cases where the safe parent hasn’t allowed the abusive parent to be around the child, the judges will say: “You are committing child abuse by alienating the child.”
This insures that they can arbitrarily shift custody from party to the other. One may wonder if this is because the more conflict created, the more profit the courts and court-appointed services like psychiatrists and guardia ad litems, will generate.

DID YOU NO THAT CHILD PROTECTION STALK THE PARENTS AFTER HOURS THEY FOLLOW THE PARENTS WHILE SHOPPING WITH THERE LITTLE ONES THEY PUT UNREGISTERD MAIL IN YOUR LETTER BOX THEY MAKE THREATS IN MEETINGS THEY TRY AND TELL PARENT WERE THEY CAN LIVE THEY HARRASS THE FATHER OF ONE CHILD SO BADLY THAT HE HAD A STROKE THEY ARE SCUM THEY WORK OUT OF TEXT BOOKS THAT ARE STONE AGE THEY HAVE NO IDEA ON THE FAMILY THEY ARE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES CHILD PROTECTION DOC DHS CHILD FIRST THEY TAKE A CHILD OUT OF A NICE QUITE HOME AND THROW THEM IN A DRUNKEN DRUG INVESTED HOME WHERE THE MOTHER NEGLECTS AND THE BOYFRIEND BEATS THE CHILD AND PUT THE CHILD IN FORSTER CARE THE FATHER HAS DONE NO WRONG RETURN HIS BOY CHILD PROTECTION NOW THEY TELL LYES TO COVER UP WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN COURT THEY EMPLOY CORRUPT WORKERS THEY ARE CORRUPT THEY ARE A GOVERMENT DEPARTMENT THEY HUMILATE PARENTS THIS IS THE CIRCUT FAIR GO FOR THE GOOD PARENTS


Onlinecasino.website

<p align="center"><small><a href="http://www.onlinecasino.website/" target="_blank">Onlinecasino.website</a></small></p>

The Effects of Foster Care Placement on Young Children’s Mental Health

Introduction Young children are more likely than older children to be placed in foster care and to spend a larger proportion of their life in the foster care system (Goerge & Wulczyn, 1998). In a recent review of foster care in several states, the incidence of placement in foster care for children under age 5 was double that of children aged 5–17 (4 per 1,000 vs. 2 per 1,000) (Goerge & Wulczyn, 1998). Young children are in foster care longer than older children and infants are in foster care significantly longer than other age groups (Goerge & Wulczyn, 1998). In the 5 states studied, the median length of time infants spent in foster care ranged from 11 to 42 months (Goerge & Wulczyn, 1998). This paper explores the potential impact of foster care placement on young children’s attachment relationships and mental health. Factors Leading to Placement in Foster Care Children are removed from their homes to protect them from immediate physical harm (Zuravin & DePanfilis, 1997). Substance abuse and the drug culture account for the majority of young children placed in foster care (Simms, 1991). Race and socioeconomic status does not appear to have a major impact on decision making regarding foster care placement (Zuravin & DePanfilis, 1997). In general, foster care placement adequately provides for the physical protection of children. For example, in a study comparing home and out-of-home placements of infants born to substance-abusing mothers, there was a 7% death rate and a 4% rate of abuse and neglect in the home placements compared to none of these events in the infants placed in kinship or foster care placements (Tyler, Howard, Espinosa, & Doakes, 1997). However, foster care placement has implications for the healthy emotional development of young children. Attachment Disruptions Among Young Children in Foster Care Out-of-home placement is typically associated with numerous disruptions in attachment relationships. These losses and lack of permanence undermine a child’s attempt to form a secure attachment with a primary caregiver. The more changes in caregivers young children in foster care experience the more likely they are to exhibit oppositional behavior, crying, and clinging (Gean, Gillmore, & Dowler, 1985). Disruptions in attachment relationships can lead to Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), a disorder in which the child exhibits severe disturbances in relationships with caregivers. The importance of the relationships foster children develop with their foster parents is sometimes underappreciated. Psychiatric emergencies among children in foster care are often precipitated by disruptions in their attachment relationships with foster parents (Pilowsky & Kates, 1996). Infants placed in outof-home care for several months will come to view the caregiver who provides for their daily emotional and physical needs as their attachment figure. When working with infants in out-of-home placements, it is important to keep in mind that, unless the out-of-home placement is very brief, reunification with parents or placement in an adoptive home constitutes an attachment disruption. Reducing Attachment Disruptions In order to reduce attachment disruptions for infants, there has been an increasing emphasis on allowing infants to stay with their mothers despite the mother’s difficulties. For example, allowing babies to stay with incarcerated mothers (Harris, 1992) or mothers in residential treatment for substance abuse (Wobie, Eyler, Conlan, Clarke, & Behnke, 1997). Ideally, these programs not only reduce attachment disruptions but allow close supervision of the mother and infant and the opportunity for interventions to enhance the quality of the motherchild interaction. In an attempt to expedite placement with a consistent caregiver, concurrent planning has been promoted as a useful tool. Development of concurrent plans, when a child is in foster care, allow efforts to reunify children with their biological parents to take place simultaneously with efforts to achieve an alternative plan. Concurrent planning is one feature of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) which was passed in 1997. An additional feature of ASFA is that the length of time for the biological parents to make significant progress on the goals outlined by the reunification plan is limited to twelve months, though judges can make exceptions. Both policies have the potential to reduce the attachment disruptions experienced by young children in out-of-home placements. Concurrent planning has the potential to limit the attachment disruptions faced by infants placed in substitute care. By placing the child in the home of a foster family or family member who could become the child’s adoptive family if the biological parent fails to regain custody, further disruption of attachment relationships is prevented if the child is unable to be reunified with biological parents. Concurrent planning does not eliminate the stress that attachment disruptions cause babies and toddlers. However, it may limit the extent of the disruption by reducing the number of disruptions the child experiences. According to ASFA guidelines, if biological parents have failed to make significant progress toward reunification at the end of twelve months, a petition to terminate parental rights can be filed. This time limit serves the ultimate goal to reunify child and biological parents within a timely manner. If the biological family is unable to make the changes needed to provide adequate care by this deadline, then the child may obtain permanency by remaining with the current caregiver for the purpose of adoption. This time limit is more congruent with a child’s sense of time and a child’s need for a stable, continuous relationship with a caregiver. There are a number of issues with the application of concurrent planning that have not been resolved. For the attachment needs of infants, concurrent planning is clearly superior to the current system as it has the potential to reduce the number of attachment disruptions experienced by the child. For caregivers, however, the loyalty conflicts inherent in the plan have the potential to create friction between substitute caregivers and the biological parents. Although time limits are responsive to the child’s sense of time, this deadline creates additional stress for parents seeking to resolve the difficulties that lead to their child’s placement in foster care. It is unclear whether concurrent planning and the new time limits will affect quality of care. It is possible that concurrent planning may indirectly have a positive effect on the quality of care children receive in foster care. The possibility that foster parents may adopt the child may increase their emotional investment in the child, enhancing the quality of care. However, there is also the possibility that reduced time lines in ASFA may lead to premature reunification with parents in order to avoid termination of parental rights, indirectly causing a negative effect on quality of care. Maintaining Attachment Relationships with Parents While in Foster Care One of the biggest challenges faced by young children in foster care is maintaining attachment relationships with their parents. Children and parents need the opportunity to maintain an attachment relationship and develop more positive interactions. However, visits with parents can be upsetting to young children in foster care and disruptive to other aspects of their development (Gean, et al., 1985). The majority of young children who visit their biological parents in the parents’ home exhibit symptoms (toileting problems, sleep disturbance, aggressive behavior, clinging, and crying) before, during, and/or after these visits (Gean, et al., 1985). This difficulty in maintaining a relationship with a non-primary caregiver is not specific to foster care. Infants of separated and divorced couples who have overnight visits with their fathers are more likely to have insecure attachment relationships with their mothers (Solomon & George, 1999). However, the overnight visits do not lead to improved attachment relationships with their fathers (Solomon & George, 1999). In both studies (Gean et al., 1985; Solomon & George, 1999), the attitude of the primary caregiver (foster parent or mother) towards visitation affected the infant’s adjustment to visitation. Thus, it may be that having to place the infant in a situation the caregiver is uncomfortable with undermines the caregiver-child relationship. Risk of Unresponsive Care in Foster Care Care that provides for the infant’s basic physical needs but is relatively insensitive or unresponsive to the infant’s attachment signals and emotional needs can lead to an insecure infant-caregiver attachment (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; De Wolff & van Ijzendoorn, 1997). Although early insecure attachment relationships are not pathological, they place children at risk for subsequent emotional and interpersonal difficulties (Carlson, 1998; Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985; Lyons-Ruth, Alpern, & Repacholi, 1993; Lyons-Ruth, Easterbrooks, & Cibelli, 1997). Among infants placed in foster care at less than a year of age, the nature of the infant-foster mother relationship is a reflection of the foster mother’s attachment style (Stovall & Dozier, 1998). That is, sensitive foster mothers provide responsive care that leads to a secure attachment relationship with their foster infant. Conversely, with toddler placements, the child-foster mother relationship reflects the child’s previous attachment experiences (Stovall & Dozier, 1998). Thus, toddlers placed in out-of-home care after experiencing neglect, abuse, and/or unresponsive care actually need more responsive care than typical toddlers in order to develop a secure attachment. The type of out-of-home placement most likely to interfere with the development of healthy attachment in infants and toddlers is placement in a group care setting. During the 1930s and 1940s, there were detailed observations of the deleterious effects of group care on the physical and emotional health of young children (Freud & Burlingham, 1944; Spitz, 1945). Although the events of the 1980s and 1990s have been less dramatic than the events leading to the out-of-home placement of children in the 1930s and 1940s, the number of "displaced" children has again led to the placement of young children in group care settings. Thirteen to eighteen percent of children placed in group settings in California from 1988 to 1995 were under age six (Berrick, et al., 1998). The minimum staffing ratio for infants in California group care is one adult to ten infants and there is a high staff turnover rate (Berrick, et al., 1998). Thus, it seems highly unlikely that babies placed in group care will receive consistent, responsive care in these settings and make good attachments. Improving the Responsiveness of Foster Care Foster parents may need guidance in how to effectively respond to the special attachment needs of infants and toddlers in their care (Stovall & Dozier, 1998). The more opportunities foster parents have to make decisions about the child’s needs (e.g., how to reduce distress associated with visitation), the more likely they will feel confident in their abilities to provide a secure base for the child in their care. In addition, foster parents may need concrete support such as day care or respite care that helps them have the energy needed to respond to the attachment needs of young at-risk children. Day care or respite care should be brief and predictable in order to minimize attachment disruptions. When a young child’s previous experiences in relationships make it difficult for him to communicate his needs to a caregiver, it may also be necessary for a play therapist to work directly with the child. When it is necessary to place infants in group care, the care should simulate, as much as possible, the type of care infants receive in a family setting. Caregivers should be assigned to particular infants rather than to particular tasks. The group care should be organized such that caregivers have the time and flexibility to learn the infant’s attachment needs and communications and respond to them. Conclusions Safeguarding the physical safety of infants and toddlers in foster care is not enough. Although there are no easy solutions, it is important that we address the mental health needs of young children in foster care. Both the child’s need for continuity of relationships and his need for sensitive, responsive care should be considered in foster care placement decisions. When it is necessary for the child to experience an attachment disruption, we need to maximize the possibility of him experiencing sensitive, responsive care with the alternative caregiver. Beth Troutman, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics; Susan Ryan, M.A. is a Doctoral Candidate in the School Psychology Program at the University of Iowa; and Michelle Cardi, M.A., is a Research Assistant at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. All are located in Iowa City, Iowa. References Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatry Association. Berrick, J., Needell, B., Barth, R., & Jonson-Reid, M. (1998). The Tender Years. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carlson, E. (1998). A prospective longitudinal study of attachment disorganization/disorientation. Child Development, 69, 1107-1128. De Wolff, M., & van Ijzendoorn, M. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A metaanalysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571-591. Erickson, M., Sroufe, A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds.). Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 147-166. Freud, A., & Burlingham, D. (1944). Infants without families. New York: International Universities Press. Gean, M., Gillmore, J., & Dowler, J. (1985). Infants and toddlers in supervised custody: A pilot study for visitation. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 5, 608-612. Goerge, R., & Wulczyn, F. (1998). Placement experiences of the youngest foster care population: Findings from the multistate foster care data archive. Zero to Three, 19(3), 8-13. Harris, J. (1992). Babies in prison. Zero to Three, 13, 17-21. Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment classification and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development, 64, 572-585. Pilowsky, D., & Kate, W. (1996). Foster children in acute crisis: Assessing critical aspects of attachment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1095-1097. Simms, M. (1991). Foster children and the foster care system, part II: Impact on the child. Current Problems in Pediatrics, 21, 345-369. Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). The development of attachment in separated and divorced families: Effects of overnight visitation, parent and couple variables. Attachment and Human Development, 1, 2 - 33. Spitz, R. (1945). Hospitalism: An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1, 53-74. Stovall, K., & Dozier, M. (1998). Infants in foster care: An attachment theory perspective. Adoption Quarterly, 2, 55-88. Tyler, R., Howard, J., Espinosa, M., & Doakes, S. (1997). Placement with substance-abusing mothers vs. placement with other relatives: Infant outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 337-349. Wobie, K., Eyler, F. D., Conlan, M., Clarke, L., & Behnke, M. (1997). Women and treatment in residential treatment: Outcomes for mothers and their infants. Journal of Drug Issues, 27(3), 585-606. Zuravin, S., & DePanfilis, J. (1997). Factors affecting foster care placement of children receiving child protective services. Social Work Research, 21(1), 34-42.

About a thousand children a year die under "Child Protection"









Here is the story of the four children, one my own, and the three others belonging to other parents that I have met in the last year since my son died.
Like the others in our sad little group, I do not like to talk about what happened to my beautiful son, Luke Borusiewicz. I will say one thing, when I look at the photos of our last visit together, I can see the love for me in his eyes, on his poor little scratched face. Two days later a scratch on his penis that needed him to be taken to the doctor it was so severe. They ignored pleas from myself and Lukes mother. These people answer to noone.
I have the parents of these deceased children's permission to discuss it though, and to cast it into the public light. None of us want our children to be forgotten, and we all want justice. I know it is inevitable that I will meet more parents whose children have died in foster care due to this departments blatant negligence. If you know of anyone, please send them to me, it is time that we all came together, and expose what has, is and will be happening.... michael@lukesarmy.com Here is my profile on facebook...http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=177005468124&v=photos&ref=ts#!/pro...
This department believes that 100% of it's workers are right, 100% of the time. Nobody is perfect, we all know that. I tried and tried and tried to get my son back. Ask any one of the thousand who have been wronged by these child safety departments Australia wide, to these workers, many of the senior ones especially, this is some sick sort of game, where their prejudices and narrow mindedness is at the forefront, they are right no matter what, and if there is a personality clash, watch out, your child is going to pay for it.
My son was born on september 22 2006. He died on the 18th of January, 2009. He was two years and four months. It breaks my heart to talk about it, to think about it, I dream almost everyday about it, waking up crying, how I miss my son so much....After every visit I would watch them drive away with Luke and pretend all was as it should be, then drop to the ground and cry in front of the playground. Two hours a week for the last six months of his life was all I got to spend with the son I loved, adored, treasured, worshipped...and then he was sent back to foster care, a little baby being moved from strangers house to strangers house, not having a clue what was happening, terrifying to him, and to the father that loved him so much.
Because it pains me so to talk about it, I would ask that if you would like to know more about his story in particular, please visit the site I have built for him at http://lukesarmy.com/
If you would like to show your support, there is little you can do apart from joining Luke's Army at that site, and also becoming a member of Luke's Army Group on Facebook.
The coroners report is going to take around three years I have been told. This should shed some more light onto what actually happened to Luke, how he was injured so severely, and why he had constant injuries, and why the department failed to act on this information, as well as the complaints from both Luke's Parents.
I will now begin to tell the story of how the next child, a ten month old baby girl died due to the negligence of The Department of Child Safety in South Australia.
The mother of this baby was in foster care when she was a child, with a good family and therefore thought it prudent to ask the department to place her beloved daughter in foster care for a week, as she was homeless, but her dream home was to be completed in a weeks time, and they would live out their dream together as a family, she also had two older sons.
The department assured her that the baby would be placed into a safe environment. This was definitely not the case. The ten month old, beautiful, innocent, helpless.....little girl was put with an old lady, so severly handicapped that this woman was unable to even change nappies for the baby. She could not lift the child, and the child was placed into a cot and left, left to drown on her bottle, covered in truly severe nappy rash, from not having her nappies changed.
The day after that little girl died, the old lady had carpul tunnel surgery. She was severyly handicapped, and the department knew of it. This matter has been through the courts in SA, and the mother is forbidden to talk of it. This is how they keep this epidemic quiet, as well as media laws working in the favour of these child safety departments Australia wide. It all gets swept under the carpet....Until now.
Since I started Luke's Army, which was to be just me, there are thousands who have rallied behind me giving me support and strength. There is not a week goes by when I am not contacted by a devistated parent, feeling powerless and mistreated by these departments. There are also numerous groups that have formed all with the one goal of exosing this corrupt and unjust system, and fighting to have the children they love returned.
This brings me to the next child. We have a ten month old, my two year old, and this child was three years old, one of a pair, twins, taken by DoCS NSW. The mother fought tirelessly to have her children returned, and won.
DoCS appealed this decision, and the twins remained in foster care. There is a serious shortage of foster carers but this makes no difference to the child safety departments. They also stand by their claims that removing a child from their parents does not harm a child at all. This makes it all the more frustrating for the loving parents who know and also feel the pain of being torn from a loving family.
Tragically, one of the twins died a month after the appeal. The story gets worse.
The baby was so sick, she had pnemonia. The child was not even taken to the doctors. Worse still, the baby was not even in the care of the foster carer when she left to die. Instead of taking this critically ill child to the doctor, these foster carers put them with a baby sitter and went out. The child was left unchecked and died of pnemonia whilst laying in the cot at the baby sitters. This is a child that was everything the parents lived for, as was my son, and the next child I will bring to light.
Whilst my son died due to the negligence of the department of child safety in Qld, The ten month old girl died due to the negligence of child safety SA, the three year old twin was in NSW and so is the next child.
This child was sixteen, and in foster care. This was not due to bad parenting, but by choice. This sixteen year old boy chose to stay with this foster carer.
This is the site that the boy Nathan's mother has built for him.
http://www.nathansjustice.com/
Here is Nathan's mothers version of what has happened, taken from this site.
May this be shared with the AUSTRALIAN people and with people all over the WORLD. I am hoping in the face of humanity people will open their hearts and it be PETITION with me to no longer allow Nathan to be silenced. I hope his voice will finally be heard and the FIGHT for his JUSTICE OCCUR. We all need to make this life a safer place, for the best part of who we are, our children. My beautiful baby boy was taken from me avoidably too soon and if the tragic loss of his life can save another in a similar position, his death will not be completely in vain. The truth needs to be heard.
Nathan was only 16 years old when his life was cut short by a stab wound to the heart. He was in the care of Graham McLeish, now known as Mark McLennan.
THIS MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NATHANS DEATH AND CHARGES NEED TO BE LAYED.
These are the findings of the Coronial Inquest into Nathans death. Case No: 1134/05
‘222. It is from this point on that the evidence Mr. McLeish’s contribution to Nathan’s death becomes more overwhelming. The evidence is that Mr. McLeish sought medical assistance for Nathan in the immediate wake of the injury. However, the evidence also is his failure to tell the true history of Nathan’s injury to the hospital misled the medical investigations. The evidence is that the accurate history of would have caused a different medical response and may well have resulted in the true extent of Nathan’s injury being discovered on his first presentation.’
?. The evidence is that Nathan’s prospects of survival from that injury with appropriate diagnosis and timely treatment were not in question. Mr. McLeish, despite his own views about what the hospital needed to know was told by his own friend whose counsel he sought early that morning that he should tell the truth. Throughout the day he made several calls seeking medical advice. It was all the same advice. Advice that he should return Nathan to the hospital and have him re assessed. Advice he did not take at any point up until it was too late. Even after Nathan lapsed into unconsciousness Mr. McLeish did not tell the truth to the treating paramedics or doctors’
‘225. I conclude from the weight of the evidence that had Nathan been returned to the hospital earlier in the day, even in the wake of the call McLeish made at about 2pm and then given a truth of the mechanism of Nathan’s injury Nathan’s prospects of a correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment and therefore survival would have been reasonable.
?. …In my view Graham McLeish’s failure to give a true account to the hospital of Nathan’s mechanism of injury, compounded by his failure to return Nathan to the hospital in circumstances where his condition remained unimproved and he was sufficiently worried to be calling for advice and receiving advice to return Nathan to the hospital contributed to Nathan’s death’ .
WHY HAS THIS MAN, 4 YEARS AFTER NATHAN DIED, STILL NOT BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN A COURT OF LAW FOR THE DEATH OF MY SON?
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND NATHAN'S FINAL DAYS
Grahame McLeish, who was nominated as being adequate by the department of HUMAN SERVICES DANDENONG, had taken Nathan to hospital on the 31st of March, 2005 with a wound to his chest and wounds to his wrist SAYING that Nathan had been running while wearing socks to turn up his stereo and had slipped and fallen into a Louvre window which broke and that is how Nathan sustained his injuries. THAT was proven in the Coronial Inquest TO BE A LIE.
Nathan was driven to the hospital by Graham McLeish who did not call an ambulance.
Nathan was taken in via wheelchair, described as being pale, very distressed, gagging and vomiting violently and wretched.
McLeish told medical staff he was Nathan’s stepfather. THAT IS A LIE.
Nathan was put onto oxygen and treated for a NON-PENETRATING chest wound (falling glass) as the incident history McLeish supplied had implied this was the case. IT WAS NOT
Nathan’s injury had been in fact caused by an 8cm KNIFE.
Nathan needed treatment for a PENETRATING chest would as the knife had actually been plunged into him 6cm deep and wounding his heart.
Nathan did not communicate with medical staff as McLeish insisted on doing all the talking. He only answered monosyllabically to where the pain was in his chest. The medical staff reported to the Coronial Inquest that they found it odd McLeish did not leave Nathan’s side AT ALL.
Nathan’s chest was sutured and was released back into McLeish’s care after he was regarded as stable. He was still unwell, vomiting some bilious fluid as he left and dozing due to the morphine that he was given a few times in relation to his pain. He did not appear to be a child ready to go home.
Nathan was in fact DYING from internal bleeding.
The knife, not glass as reported by McLeish, had sliced 6mm through his heart. The skin, cartilage and muscle tissue in the chest area is described as tough like leather. To penetrate this area of the body requires tremendous and deliberate force.
Nathan returned home with McLeish at 8.45 am. McLeish called the hospital later that day at 2pm as Nathan was still vomiting. He was told to bring Nathan back. HE DID NOT.
At 6.30pm Nathan was still very ill and McLeish called a locum service for a doctor to see Nathan. He was told it was a 3-4 hour wait and was advised by the nurse who took the call, to take Nathan back to the hospital. HE DID NOT
At 10.00pm again McLeish called the hospital reporting Nathan was very ill. The nurse who took the call reported hearing noises and McLeish said Nathan had fallen out of bed. The nurse advised him to bring him back to hospital. HE DID NOT.
At 10.25pm finally McLeish called and ambulance as Nathan’s heart had stopped. Paramedics were able to restore circulation however Nathan had lost a considerable amount of blood and been without oxygen for a prolonged period of time. Nathan’s neurological state was very poor and his pupils were unresponsive to light.
Nathan was pronounced dead by two doctors and life support was withdrawn at 6.05 pm on the 3rd of April, 2005.
FACTS.
If the injury was known by doctors was to be caused by a knife different investigations and treatments would have been CONDUCTED by the hospital. Nathan would have had the URGENT MEDICAL ATTENTION he required. He WOULD have made a full recovery. HE WOULD still be here today.
MCLEISH WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE NATURE OF HIS INJURY AND THE FACT IT WAS A KNIFE.
NATHAN BECAME CRITICALLY ILL OVER A 10 HOUR PERIOD AND LAY DYING WHILE MCLEISH KEPT LYING.
WHY?? WHAT DID HE HAVE TO HIDE?
EVIDENCE OF MCLEISH’S CONTRIBUTION AND GROSS MISCONDUCT & CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
1. Here was a man fully aware of the nature of Nathans injury and refused to take him to hospital 3 times when advised to. McLeish has been fraudulent in the past and portrayed himself as a solicitor involved in criminal and family law for many, many years. He was in fact a law clerk. He lied about Nathan’s injury; he lied about being Nathan’s father. What else is he lying about?
2.THERE WAS A DOCTORS SURGERY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE ROAD THAT WAS OPEN THAT EVENING ,TO JUST AFTER 5PM,where he had been himself before and could have gone and sought urgent medical attention ,either by taking Nathan there or requesting a doctor come see Nathan as he lay in bed incapacitated and critically ill.
3.HE HAD MADE A PHONE CALL TO THE HOSPITAL AT 2PM CONCERNED ABOUT NATHANS VOMITING ALL DAY AND WAS ASKED IF HE WAS CONCERNED TO BRING HIM BACK AND HIS VOMITING WAS UNLIKELY DUE TO MORPHINE BECAUSE OF THE TIME THAT HAD LAPSED AND SAID HE WAS HIS.. FATHER...
4. THE HOSPITAL WAS A 7 MINIUTE DRIVE OR LESS.
5.NATHAN WAS SO CRITICALLY ILL, THAT MCLEISH ORDED HIMSELF A PIZZA AND DECIDED TO EAT IT DOWN STAIRS AS NATHAN WAS SO ILL AND VOMITING & DRY WREACHING,WAS DESRCIBED AS SWEATY AND PALE,WOULD HAVE, I IMAGINE BEEN FAR MORE DISTRESSED THAN HE WAS IN HOSPITAL ON HIS FIRST ADMISSION AS HE WAS GETTING WORSE NOT BETTER AND DYING.
6. MCLEISH BURNT NATHAN’S T/SHIRT, HIS DIARY ……HIS EXPLANATION WAS THAT THE T/SHIRT WAS BLOODIED AND YET DIDN’T BURN NATHANS BLOODIED PANTS OR SOCKS??
7. WHEN NATHAN PRESENTED THE FIRST TIME TO THE HOSPITAL THE WOUND WAS GAPING BUT DRY AND HIS WRIST WOUNDS WERE ALSO CLEAN AND DRY AND HE WAS WEARING A CLEAN T/SHIRT WITH NO BLOOD ON IT……
8. EVIDENCE BY A PROFESSIONAL SAID HE WAS SURPRISED AT NATHANS CHEST WOUND BEING DRY & WOULD HAVE EXPECTED IT TO HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY BLEEDING FOR 45 MINIUTES OR MORE, which allows you to see that Nathan wasn’t taken straight away to hospital and was instead cleaned of blood loss evidence. Bare in mind he was described as being wretched and violently vomiting and been brought in via a wheel chair. How much had he suffered before finally getting medical attention?
9. WHY DID MCLEISH BREAK THE WINDOW TO CORROBORATE HIS STORY TO THE POLICE!!!!
PROSECUTIONATHAN AND I NEED YOU, YOUR FRIENDS AND YOUR FAMILIES HELP TO HAVE ALL THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED OF GRAHAM MCLEISH IN A COURT OF LAW. THE CORONIAL INQUEST’S RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE NOT YET BEEN PASSED ONTO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC NS. WHY NOT? WE NEED 18,000 SIGNATURES ON OUR PETITION THAT WILL BE SENT TO PARLIMENT, THE DPP AND THE PREMIER’S OFFICE IN VICTORIA. PLEASE JOIN US IN SENDING A MESSAGE TO OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT DESPITE THE MONETARY COST OF A TRIAL, ONE LIFE, NATHAN’S LIFE AND NATHAN’S JUSTICE IS PRICELESS.
PLEASE CLICK ON THE PETITION LINK AND SIGN YOUR NAME.

This is what you can expect to see when the adoption laws have kicked in and there are too many stolen children to get rid of them all. Your child on a web site up for sale..here is the url of this web sitehttp://www.adoptuskids.org/ this has got be stoped please repost my site and help stop this

Meet the Children

AdoptUSKids Photolisting

Search the AdoptUSKids database of thousands of children available for adoption using the search methods below.

General Characteristics


  • 1

    12

  • Infant

    21
  • Limit Search
  • Geographic Location

Get Social

Request to be contacted - get more information!
Get started in your journey to foster or adopt by using our step-by-step information.
Find out about our array of free services for families and child welfare professionals.
Sign up for our Newsletter