February 11, 2008 Parent spurs change in juvenile court policy By Thomas Caywood TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF WORCESTER— For years parents have been shut out of a type of juvenile court hearing in which children with serious behavioral problems could be placed in foster homes. In some cases, parents were told by juvenile court judges they could be represented at the hearings, but only if they could afford to hire a private lawyer. That all changed last week, in part because of a local mother who took her fight against the policy all the way to the state’s highest court. The state Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday that parents who can’t afford to hire a lawyer have a right to be represented at public expense in “child in need of services,” or CHINS, hearings when the court could grant custody of the child to the state Department of Social Services. In such cases, parents may lose custody for the good of an unruly child, not because they were deemed unfit to care for the child. “Kids do better when parents stay involved, but until now we had a policy that essentially allowed a CHINS petition involving a transfer of custody to happen without any involvement from the parent,” said Lisa Lambert, executive director of the Parent/Professional Advocacy League. DSS argued unsuccessfully in court that the parent isn’t entitled to be represented at the hearings because a CHINS proceeding focuses on a child’s behavior, not the fitness of a parent. In a statement through a spokesman, DSS Commissioner Angelo McClain didn’t directly address the court’s ruling. “Generally speaking, parents should not have to lose custody to get services. The CHINS system should be transformed in a way that allows families to access in-home and out-of-home behavioral health services without giving up custody,” Mr. McClain said. Ms. Lambert, whose organization advocates on behalf of families of children and adolescents with mental health needs, said CHINS is the last bastion of a state social services system that once routinely forced desperate parents to trade custody for services. “It’s hard to know exactly how many this decision is going to affect, but we think it’s going to be significant,” she said. In an average month, the Worcester County Juvenile Court has a caseload of nearly 780 CHINS cases, according to state figures provided by Ms. Lambert. That works out to about 11 percent of the state’s average monthly caseload of 6,764 CHINS cases. CHINS cases accounted for 20 percent of all instances in which DSS placed a child outside of his or her home for at least one day in 2005. Most were girls, and about half were 14 or 15 years old, according to the state figures.
Because the SJC case involved a minor, the name of
the mother and where she lives aren’t listed in the
high court’s decision. The case originated in
Worcester Juvenile Court, and the mother was
represented by a court-appointed lawyer from the
Worcester office of the Committee for Public Counsel
Services. June 5, 2006 State owes $86.6m to the US, audit says Medicaid overcharges blamed on lax oversightBy Michael Levenson, Globe Staff State Medicaid officials repeatedly violated federal laws and regulations and must return $86.6 million to the US government, a new federal audit has found. The audit, by the inspector general for the US Department of Health and Human Services, found that from 2001 to the first quarter of 2004, state Medicaid officials overcharged the federal government for services provided by the state Department of Social Services. The audit found that the violations did not involve willful misconduct, but resulted instead from lax oversight. The questionable claims, the audit said, included salaries for DSS employees who were providing welfare and child protection services that were not related to medical care. Examples cited by the inspector general included instances in which the state billed Medicaid for DSS workers who were making referrals to district attorneys, developing service plans for special-needs children, participating in and preparing for legal proceedings, conducting investigations, and trying to find homes to place children. In addition to returning the $86.6 million, Levinson said the state must work with the federal government to resolve another $27 million in disputed Medicaid charges, about half of which was paid for by the federal government. He also recommended that the state establish stronger procedures to ensure that it does not violate laws and regulations again.
79 out of 100 child abuses deaths were committed in DSS care as reported March 15, 2002 In Massachusetts the general public fails to comprehend that it is not just one component of the church scandal, Social Service abuse or questionable DA tactics that can be individually corrected; this multifaceted problem must be addressed concurrently. To only say we seek to support victims would be meaningless without the system correction in which the re-victimization of the victim is allowed to routinely occur. Truthful disclosure of childhood injustice in Massachusetts must begin. The Catholic Church having been exposed by the media in this most horrible childhood sex scandal has opened the minds of the many to see injustice has occurred at the most scared of levels. Six months ago most of the known sexual abuse information would have been viewed as unthinkable. Yet as a nation we remained numb to the depth of disperse, that betrayal of trust by the Catholic Church upon the victims. The disregarding of children safety, in preference to maintaining reputation is beyond reproach. Childhood injustice committed by the Department of Social Service presently is peeking at explosive levels. DSS statistics fail to disclose actual perpetrators of childhood abuse. Recently a Collation to save Social Workers jobs held a rally at the State House. They clearly stated 100 children have died from abuse in Massachusetts in the past year. The fact that seventy-nine (79) of these children died while in the custody of the state of Massachusetts remained hidden. It is not parental abuse upon children but the State of Massachusetts. DSS reigns unchecked power threw the judicial system unmercifully. Fueled by an unlimited ability to collected Federal funds, foster care placement, remains paramount while family reunification is disregarded. The system designed to protect children routinely now abuses them, without fear of prosecution. The District Attorney position to protect the individual member of society has been lost. Which is perhaps the greatest injustice of all. As many of these clergy abuse victims from the past comes forward and reported going to the police, seeking prosecution of the perpetrators only to be told no. How can we not illustrate that prosecutorial actions were denied. In Worcester county it is apparently obvious that selective prosecution occurs routinely. Prosecution of state official's who routinely "look away" at abuse in state facilities must begin to maintain safety for all citizens. The time to change has been painfully illustrated by the uncovering of events of the past, events that other wise would of been swept away. Out line of basic problem with Department of Social Serve: FOSTER CARE: STATE PROFITS IN FEDERAL FUNDS FROM CHILDREN WHO ARE PLACE IN FOSTER CARE, FUNDS DEPOSITED INTO CHILDREN'S TRUST FUND: Private non profits are paid by children's trust fund, If they do not as DSS request funds are jeopardized. Kinship placemen is often denied based on lack of DSS time or actions Residential Programs are not monitored by outside agencies Transitional housing for children ageing out does not service older children correctly. ASSESSMENT Once you receive the letter from DSS stating you have been "supported" you need to file a Fair Hearing request with in thirty day of this letter. Failure to do so will leave you listed as an abusive or neglectful parent on the Family net computer system resulting in your being denied attendance at school functions as well as certain emplacement) A forty five (45) day period which actually is based on calendar working day results in a three months time span at which time DSS will come to your house to visit you and the children on three separate occasions. Often DSS employees will say "just cooperate with us" and then we will close this case at the end of the forty five days. DSS has already determined that you are an abusive or neglectful parent. This "assessment" time is used to find out your background so they may determine what services you are in need of. Some common questions are do you drink? you answer yes once and awhile. Then they ask how about High school or college days, didn't you really had a great time I remember my days back then. You admit to some type of illegal substance experimental behavior and perhaps drinking at parties. DSS writes in their assessment prior history of illegal drug use. History of long term drinking since young adult. DSS will usually ask you to sign a release for the children (s) medical, school and or therapist records. At no time are you obligated to sign a release. MAKE SURE YOU READ ANY FORM CAREFULLY. SERVICE PLANS: Your child is asking to come home every day, for this chemical restraints are being designated for children who want to go home. (A natural reaction to being taken from all you know, allowed no interaction with family members) Parents allowed no input. Service Plans demand task to be completed, most at cost to parents (parenting class) Multitude to task not related to issues at hand (mandatory AA meetings, battered woman classes) No services provided by DSS to family or children (clothing, medical, rent, food) Monthly visit by case worker who must always check with their supervisor. FAIR HEARING: Process by which you can receive an impartial ruling if you disagree with a DSS decision. CMR calls for three month time period, routinely a one year time frame to have a hearing. DSS hearing offices position not funded. JUVENILE COURT: Parents charged by DSS under a non criminal offense, denied due process. DSS can over rule a Juvenile judge regarding a request for custody and often will threatened Judge to gain leverage in case of "punitive prosecution" for those parents who do not "play Nice" with DSS. Children stolen under “presumption” no proof needed just the fact DSS request custody, Juvenile Judges routinely grant children into DSS temporary custody. 72 hour emergency removal hearings to have child returned (if taken without court action) requires on average two or three weeks. DSS denies access of their records to parents routinely. Families divided as each is a guilty party with different attorneys. Children can be taken on premise "may be" in danger, no actual criminal charges are required for removal. Children are given no voice. Continuances, delays common, average one to two year court process not uncommon to the system. Private DSS Attorneys, charge thousands of dollars as basic retainers. Appointed DSS legal representation mostly conducted by attorney's who take appointed cases and become known associates of DSS. (They get along with DSS ) email at: indpadvocate@comcast.net |
