Rally Organizers Push For Change In Oklahoma Child Welfare System

[possumfritter]

"Petition Efforts Have Fallen Short"

BY RANDY ELLIS, NewsOK, Oklahoma City
Published: August 6, 2009

"A group pushing to overhaul Oklahoma’s child welfare system will host its second rally in less than two weeks today at the Oklahoma County Juvenile Justice Center.

The rally will be from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the center, 5905 N Classen Blvd.

The rally is sponsored by the Oklahoma Family Rights Coalition, which has circulated initiative petitions twice this year calling for a public vote on overhauling the child welfare system.

The group withdrew its first initiative petition in April after gathering only about 85,000 of the 117,013 necessary signatures within the 90-day period allowed.

A second petition drive failed when an air-conditioner leak collapsed the ceiling above a room where petitions bearing thousands of signatures were stored, said Clarence Cooper, president and chairman of the coalition.

The petitions were doused with water, ruining most of the signatures, Cooper said.

"That loss was just gut-wrenching,” he said.

Cooper said the coalition turned in a partial box of completed petitions July 29 but readily acknowledged there were too few names to get the issue on the ballot when the signatures are counted Aug. 12.

The coalition plans to begin a third petition drive this month or in early September, he said.

The July 24 rally drew eight participants. The coalition’s goal remains unchanged, Cooper said.

"Our single largest issue is the unalienable violation of civil and Constitutional liberties of families and children and lack of accountability,” Cooper said. "If you ever have to file a complaint on a Department of Human Services issue, good luck getting it through.

"We want them to focus on children who need protection and ... simultaneously focus on families who don’t need to be separated,” he said, adding he thinks many families would be better served by simple, in-home services."

-----end of article-----

http://www.newsok.com/rally-organize...rticle/3390762

State Question

[PennyQuilts]

God must hate those petitions.

[PennyQuilts]

Just kidding. I don't mean to make light of people's effort to bring improvements.

[possumfritter]

This is interesting. From KTOK Radio:

Family Rights Group Upset Over Eviction by Judge

Says the judge was wrong.
By Jerry Bohnen
Friday, March 20, 2009

"A dozen members of the Oklahoma Family Rights Coalition were ordered removed from a courtroom Friday by an Oklahoma County Juvenile Judge during a hearing on a child custody case.

Clarence Cooper II, director of the Coalition claims he was wrongly singled out by the judge as Coalition members sought to support a woman seeking custody of her children. The judge, said Cooper explained it was a closed hearing. Cooper said his group will file a complaint against the judge.

The Coalition is in the middle of a petition drive on State Question 45, which is a proposed vote of the people to reform the Department of Human Services."

>>>Newsradio 1000 KTOK-AM<<<

[PennyQuilts]

Most juvenile cases are closed to the public. I've had the press and hangers on tossed out a zillion times.

[possumfritter]

East Coast Okie,

I am curious if that's why Cooper started the "petition?" Because he was "evicted" from a hearing that he had no business being at.

I think I'll do some more digging.

[possumfritter]

Here is a very good example of why we "need" OKDHS/CPS in Oklahoma. It does not need to be overhaulded. They need more people!

"Boys with blood, feces on hands rescued from locked bedroom in Oklahoma City apartment"

By Randy Ellis - Staff Writer, NewsOK
Published: August 7, 2009

http://www.newsok.com/boys-with-bloo...ad_story_title

[PennyQuilts]

From reading the article, it sounds like drugs figure prominently. Believe it or not, I had a similar case when two little kiddos ended up on the roof of the house (they'd crawled out of the second floor window). They'd thrown out garbage and clothes and the neighbors called the cops for fear they'd fall. They ended up having to call out the swat team for some reason - took the mother 45 minutes to open the door. She claimed she was just sleeping but she was stoned out of her mind.

[W. Moore]

Just kidding. I don't mean to make light of people's effort to bring improvements.

I would think not considering all of the abuse and deaths of children those involved in the system are responsible for.

[PennyQuilts]

I know of a ton more children harmed by the parents than the "system." If we dismantle the system, do you think that number would go up or down? To hear some people tell it, the second a child goes into the system, it is doomed. How many kids are killed in the system in a year? Two years? By foster parents, correct? Is there a waiting list from the community to be a foster parent? Do you know how much they are paid?

There are a lot of sides to the story. I am not defending everything they do but I for one am glad some of these kids are removed from abusive parents. Taking pot shots at burnt out social workers and foster parents is easy. What is your solution? I am grateful they can get anyone to consider this as a career. The bad ones are awful but most are trying to do good. I'll save MOST of my angst for the deficient parents who are the reason we have the agency in the first place.

Let's just dismantle the agency if it is so awful.

[W. Moore]

My solution? Here are a couple of thoughts....
#1.Child abuse is a crime, we have professional law enforcement to handle crime, we don't need untrained, unprofessional wannabees involved.
#2. Mandatory Grand jury investigations for any case involving the abuse or death of a child under state supervision or in state care. And Mandatory prosecution for any violations by those involved.
#3. An immediate investigation regarding the "background check scandal" from two years ago, removal of any state workers or contractors with criminal convictions other than traffic violations.
#4. A Federal Grand Jury investigation regarding the Civil Rights violations revealed by the 2007 ABA report, the class action lawsuit, and the performance audit of OKDHS, with mandatory prosecutions.
#5. Psych evaluations for all child welfare workers, foster parents, CASA workers, and others involved.
#6. Making perjury, fraud, deception, or misrepresentation of any type in a child welfare case a felony, with mandatory prosecution.
#7. A financial audit of DHS and the Juvenile Courts.
#8. All abuse/neglect proceedings both administrative and judicial will be a "court of record" with a court reporter present.


I would think most any single item on this list, if implemented would be in the best interest of all involved and the public as a whole.

[PennyQuilts]

There is a reason there is such a turnover in social workers dealing with abused and neglected children. I am amazed that they can get anyone to do it for any length of time. It is gut wrenching in the extreme to listen to children describe what happens to them and the pictures are sometimes enough to make you want to vomit (speaking as someone who does not investigate the scene and comes in after the fact). To listen to abusers describe in chilling detail the things they have done - or watch them lie through their teeth - is enough to make you want to punch them in the face.

Well and good to say let the criminal justice system handle these things. Let's put on our thinking caps about that, shall we? They get a call of reported abuse - say - a teacher. No social services because this is a police matter, remember. Police show up at the school to interview the child? Go to the home?

Let's say they find enough evidence (assuming they don't do so much emotional damage to the child that they refuse to even speak). Police take the abusers into custody, charge them, whatever. I guess the kids will stay in the lobby of the school? At the jail? With a neighbor? What if there are no relatives? What if all the relatives are druggies? What if no one steps forward? You DO realize that when there is a crime committed, that the role of social services is to look after the child and keep him or her safe in the interiim and later?

So how long do you think the abuser will stay in jail? Until the post bond. Which usually isn't too long. Oh, a requirement that they have no contact with the child? And they have six months until trial? So, who looks after the kids? Can't let social services have them - they kill kids, remember?

Let's ream out the do gooders, call for psych evals, etc. But who looks out for the kids when there isn't a suitable relative? Oh, let them go stay with the abuser's mother? There is a good idea. Inside of two weeks the child won't dare say a word against the abuser because grandma will convince them that they'll go to jail for lying. Have I seen this happen? Oh, you betcha. Many, many, many times. And when they retract what they say (and most do), they go back to the abuser's care. Oh happy day, let's sue the state for not doing their fricking job of keeping the kids safe.

Yahoos who wade in and shoot off their mouths because they know best are never around when another little four year old is in having reconstuctive fricking surgery because her mom's boyfriend has a "problem." Oh, wait, they will be the ones who want to sue the state for not doing enough.

[W. Moore]

First were not discussing "Social Workers", Child Welfare Specialist are not required to be and rarely if ever are licensed social workers in Ok. I will agree it is terrible to hear of a child harmed, but records indicate most removals are in cases where there are no injuries.

As for the criminal justice side of it only certified law enforcement officers handle investigations. If enough evidence is found to provide probable cause then a warrant can be obtained to remove the child from the home and or charge the offender. If it is proven by evidence,(not caseworker opinion or assumption) that there are no fit family members to care for the child then the alternative of foster care is appropriate.

Psych evals for parents in Juvenile cases and many parents in divorce cases are becoming the norm, why shouldn't those people who are entrusted with the safety of many children and whose actions will effect many families be checked out as well? The arrest of two child welfare specialist and suspension of a third in less than a two week period last year along with the fact that it is certainly a high stress and difficult job as you indicated would seem to support the idea that it would be in the "children's best interest" to be assured people in these positions are stable.



I never stated I "know best", I stated my opinion based on facts and documentation some of which I mentioned earlier, (ABA Report, lawsuit, audit) as well as news archives, court documents, etc. I provided some ideas for possible solutions as you asked based on the same.
Should the state and or those responsible not be sued when they don't properly do their job and children suffer or die? Should they not be prosecuted when they break the law? Should state employees or others in the system be treated differently than parents or the public?

[PennyQuilts]

First of all, most removals ARE where there is harm.

Second, the police have a far higher standard of proof that they have to show to make their case and an arrest. Beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence. To suggest that children in sexual abuse situations shouldn't be removed unless there is a probable criminal case is simply brain dead. Short of a confession or video tape, it takes time to make the case. While the investigation is going on to prove the criminal case, the kids would be left in the home, subject to further abuse or intimidation.

I can't tell you how many times I have had kids complain of sexual abuse and the mother initially doesn't believe them. In fact, it is typical. It is not until a full investigation is done and she is presented with the facts that she comes around. Taking out the ability to remove children at risk of being abused leaves them not just defenseless, but targets for retaliation if left in the home once it is known they told. I'd far rather err on the side of a wrongful removal than leave kids who are saying they are abused in the home with the abuser and a mother who is not willing to believe them.

If the police were the ones who were left to remove children out of harms way, there would be more cases than there are, already, with mistakes made, kids disrupted, criminal cases lost.

As for psych evals in custody cases, typically they are at the request of the other parent or the guardian ad litem. As a GAL, I wouldn't dream of asking for one absent evidence that the parent is struggling, emotionally to the point where the kids are affected.

And yes, the state has sovereign immunity so they have defenses parents don't. And they should. I don't know any people who work with children who are acting willy nilly because they think they are law suit proof. They may be incompetent, but they don't typically hide behind the law. Of COURSE there are bad apples. Pastors are abusive sometimes. So are scout masters. People who are overwhelmed with dealing with a difficult population sometimes aren't suited for dealing with the confrontations from irate parents and the public that come with the job. So they avoid them. They shouldn't be there, surely. But plenty of people just want to bitch and complain and they never say jack about the ones who go above and beyond. It is just to easy to point fingers than too be fair.

In my opinion, it is fine to bitch and moan about the bad apples. At the same time, those same people ought to be on their knees thanking plenty of the people who are working above and beyond to keep the kids safe.

[queen326]

Okie, I urge you to take a look at the statistics of removals on the OKDHS website. Less than 20% of the removals are do to child abuse. The other 80+% are classified as neglect. The majority of the percentage is because the parents lack basic resources. OKDHS perpeuates this misconception that all children placed in foster care are there because their parents are abusive monsters. Their numbers however, tell a different story.


There are also studies that show that children who are placed in foster care fair far worse than those who are left in equally unstable homes. These studies are not done by people in the social industry, but by an economist at MIT.


"An MIT Sloan School of Management professor has for the first time used the analytic tools of applied economics to show that children faced with two options - being allowed to stay at home or being placed into foster care - have generally better life outcomes when they remain with their families."


Kids gain more from family than foster care - MIT News Office

http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fo...arch07_aer.pdf

http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_jpe_aug08.pdf

[queen326]

As for the group being at the courthouse. You obviously have never been at the Oklahoma Co. JJC. While juvenile court sessions are suppose to be confidential, there is no privacy in the building. All cases are piled into the courtroom and everyone hears what is going on in everyone else's case. So much for confidentiality!

[W. Moore]

>First of all, most removals ARE where there is harm.

The citing of so many "unnecessary removals" in the results of the recent audit and found to be part of the overburden problem in the system here in Ok. indicates otherwise, if there were provable harm or injury a removal could not be "unnecessary" or wrong could it? The recent FLDS case in Tx. proves the same.

>To suggest that children in sexual abuse situations shouldn't be removed unless there is a probable criminal case is simply brain dead.

The higher courts and Constitution disagree below are 3 examples. There are more that should be studied especially the Roskas' casein the 10th. Cir. Court.

Child removals are “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. Seizure is unconstitutional without court order or exigent circumstances. Brokaw v. Mercer County, (7th Cir. 2000)
The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)
However, in order to qualify for the "exigent
circumstances" exception to probable cause there must be a showing of true
necessity-- that is, an imminent and substantial threat to life, health, or
property.
See Good, 891 F. 2d at 1093; United States v. Barone, 330 F. 2d 543, 545 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U. S. 1004 (1964). See also Mincey, 437 U. S. at 392.


"the police have a far higher standard of proof that they have to show to make their case and an arrest. Beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence."

>Incorrect, As stated before the standard for arrest is "probable cause", this is also the standard for warrantless child removals. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence a prosecutor must bring and a jury concur with for a criminal conviction. A "preponderance of the evidence", is the legal standard in civil lawsuits or for Juvenile Deprived cases. The public should ask why someone allowed to work in the courts can have such a lack of knowledge. Can you cite the "burden of proof " standard required to terminate parental rights?


>I can't tell you how many times I have had kids complain of sexual abuse and the mother initially doesn't believe them. In fact, it is typical.

Yes we've seen that here in Ok. with DHS workers who are foster parents, (not allowed in most states, conflict of interest.)

>It is not until a full investigation is done and she is presented with the facts that she comes around. Taking out the ability to remove children at risk of being abused leaves them not just defenseless, but targets for retaliation if left in the home once it is known they told. I'd far rather err on the side of a wrongful removal than leave kids who are saying they are abused in the home with the abuser and a mother who is not willing to believe them.

If we are to follow this route then I would think the public would expect and deserve that when someone in the system makes a choice to "err on the side of a wrongful removal" and they are wrong then they should be held responsible for any damages or harm caused by their wrong decisions/actions, those given such power must be held responsible/accountable would you not agree?

>If the police were the ones who were left to remove children out of harms way, there would be more cases than there are, already, with mistakes made, kids disrupted, criminal cases lost.

That is pure speculation.

>As for psych evals in custody cases, typically they are at the request of the other parent or the guardian ad litem. As a GAL, I wouldn't dream of asking for one absent evidence that the parent is struggling, emotionally to the point where the kids are affected.

In all the cases I'm aware of it is always DHS, through the state, (D.A.) who request psych evals. These evals are done by system/court approved entities, the corruption around that type issue exposed the Santa Clara "Ghost children scandal" and the Lurzene Co. "Jailing kids for cash" scandal. The point remains clear that many in the system are known to have "issues" as bad if not worse than the the public they're allowed to judge.

>And yes, the state has sovereign immunity so they have defenses parents don't. And they should. I don't know any people who work with children who are acting willy nilly because they think they are law suit proof. They may be incompetent, but they don't typically hide behind the law. Of COURSE there are bad apples. Pastors are abusive sometimes. So are scout masters. People who are overwhelmed with dealing with a difficult population sometimes aren't suited for dealing with the confrontations from irate parents and the public that come with the job. So they avoid them. They shouldn't be there, surely. But plenty of people just want to bitch and complain and they never say jack about the ones who go above and beyond. It is just to easy to point fingers than too be fair.

Remember the "people" in the system do not have sovereign immunity. State actors would like people to believe they can't be sued. Does your mention of pastors and scoutmasters come from factual numbers/studies you can cite or from the long accepted possible "indicator" of pedophiles, those who choose careers or activities that provide assess/control of children.

>In my opinion, it is fine to bitch and moan about the bad apples. At the same time, those same people ought to be on their knees thanking plenty of the people who are working above and beyond to keep the kids safe.

If the system would remove the "bad apples" instead of covering up and allowing them to continue in their jobs then there probably wouldn't be as many problems or incidents for people to complain about huh?

[PennyQuilts]

W. Moore, your post has a lot of stuff in it and I'd have to write a book to address all of it - no one wants that.

What strikes me is that you likely care a great deal about the kids and don't want them hurt which we can all appreciate. I don't want to try to respond to all of it because the law in your post is pretty mushy and you also don't seem to have a good grasp of the procedures or defenses involved. If we were sitting face to face, I could start at the beginning and answer your questions, also clear up some basic inaccuracies and THEN we could continue with the discussion of how best to address social services. Since we can't do that, I am not exactly sure the best way to respond to I probably shouldn't.

My suggestion is that you sit down with an attorney who specializes in these sorts of cases and pick their brain to educate yourself the way the criminal law and social services law works and how they work, together. Also, you'd need to have a better grasp of how probably cause fits with the different standards of proof between civil and criminal law to understand the benefits/drawbacks of the arguments you are making. Criminal law has completely different timelines for trial than what the social services arena provides, and different penalties. Criminal law is intended, for the most part, to punish. Sometimes the kids need a lot more than that - just keep that in mind.

And also remember that social services has a lot of things they do that don't involve removals - protective orders, for example. The quotes you gave stated that there are unnecessary removals and that certainly is true. Mistakes happen and bad judgement calls are made. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't harm done or that many removals - probably most - are appropriate.

Social services can do a lot of things with a protective order without removing the child in the right circumstances. If you had to wait for a criminal charge, you'd still be waiting on most of it. You might think that is a good thing and perhaps it is - but my experience is that a lot of kids would get hurt if you had to wait for that. Or the parents would move on while the police investigated to keep them out of scrutiny - we see that a lot.

You asked about the standard of proof to terminate parental rights - it is by clear and convincing evidence since you are dealing with constitutional rights. Many people automatically equate removals with termination of parental rights and that is completely inaccurate. In my practice, we get a TPR about 1 out of 150 removals. I just made up that statistic but the point is that it just doesn't happen much and we'd only consider it for very egregious abuse, abandonment (including a long jail sentence) or someone who is a drug addict and can't get control. And even then, if you have a suitable family member willing to take the child, they would go there, first.

My experience is that the fact pattern most likely to give rise to a TPR is a mother who gives birth to a crack baby (or some other drug in the system at birth), no dad identified, who can't or won't get with the program. By the time their rights are terminated a year or year and a half later, nearly all of them have been in and out of rehab and caught more drug charges so they are jail bound. Older kids rarely end up having their parents' rights terminated unless it is one of those weird, make the news situations.

[Midtowner]

I think what is really being overlooked here is not procedural or fiscal or anything like that. It's a quality of work/quality of worker issue which DHS simply doesn't have the funds to deal with. The only qualification I know of to work for DHS as a caseworker is that the applicant have some sort of college degree. That person is then handed an impossible load of cases and a paycheck which puts them below the poverty line.

This is further complicated by the fact that as public servants, it's damned near impossible to fire case workers.

Bellyaching about the policies and procedures above the first level is sort of pointless when the ground level is so fundamentally flawed.

[PennyQuilts]

I think what is really being overlooked here is not procedural or fiscal or anything like that. It's a quality of work/quality of worker issue which DHS simply doesn't have the funds to deal with. The only qualification I know of to work for DHS as a caseworker is that the applicant have some sort of college degree. That person is then handed an impossible load of cases and a paycheck which puts them below the poverty line.

This is further complicated by the fact that as public servants, it's damned near impossible to fire case workers.

Bellyaching about the policies and procedures above the first level is sort of pointless when the ground level is so fundamentally flawed.

Perhaps so, Mid.

My latest response was related to W. Moore's proposed solutions. My point was that those solutions - most of them - aren't feasible given how the law works and the underly structure and needs of the kids. That doesn't mean I don't think there can be improvements but at the end of the day, it is a terribly difficult job that doesn't pay well and people mess up. Attacking them shotgun style is unlikely to be a solution - it is just a screaming tantrum at the state of affairs and I can certainly sympathize with that. But it overlooks the good that they do, when they do it.

The question of child abuse and neglect is not going to go away and attacking the individuals who are not keeping ahead of the tide feels good and righteous but doesn't go to the underlying problem of how in the name of god can we get enough qualified people with good sense and training to work for peanuts in a job that, at the end of the day, is full of heartache, tragedy and angry people (many of whom are mentally ill and untreated, or substance abusers). Threatening them with psychologicals, Grand juries and criminal charges is not a real clever tool to encourage recruitment.

[possumfritter]

Most juvenile cases are closed to the public. I've had the press and hangers on tossed out a zillion times.

I am not finding out a whole lot about the Oklahoma County Justice Center or Cooper. Seems you may be right. I may have to ask my daughter to take over the computer. She's quite good at finding things.

[possumfritter]

"Police seek murder charges in shaken infant's death"

By NICOLE MARSHALL World Staff Writer
Published: 8/10/2009 2:34 PM
Last Modified: 8/10/2009 2:38 PM


Tulsa World: Police seek murder charges in shaken infant's death

[possumfritter]

"Oklahoma City man avoids death for child killing"

BY NOLAN CLAY
Published: August 7, 2009

http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-...rticle/3391040

[W. Moore]

I've provided documentation and legal citation, you counter with opinion and "made up statistics", please provide some legal documentation or official reports. I've spoke with many attorneys in this area, please bring forth any you know who will go "on the record" backing up what you say regarding Constitutional questions in Administrative and Juvenile Court issues. Why don't you come out publicly and we can discuss these issues "on the record". We could do it on internet radio and it would be a community service to show and explain to the public how the system works, especially in light of the record of problems here, high numbers of abuse and deaths of children in care, DHS workers failing to report child abuse and falsifying reports, the credibility of Child Welfare Supervisors who are arrested for trying to stab their own child with a fork because he hid her wine, or embezzling funds from the child abuse account to pay gambling debts, or finding boxes of child abuse records and personal info in the basement where the CWS supervisor was evicted from a feces filled house, children not receiving proper legal representation, the class action lawsuit, audit, ABA Report, etc. All of the information I've mentioned and more is online at Home and OKFAMRA, other information the public will find useful in study of this subject and others, like the fraud occurring through Title IV and other fed funding, "Ghost Children", "Jailing Kids fo Cash", and why the the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges will pay $300,000 to settle allegations that it committed fraud to get grant money from the U.S. Department of Justice, while its director will pay $16,500 to settle conflict-of-interest charges,
Youth Today - Page Not Found on/article.cfm?article_id=1801
can be found at AFRA, fightcps.com, http://nfpcar. org, legallykidnapped.com, kidjacked.com, THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER: CHILD SLAVE TRADE PROJECT, firststar.org, and others.
As for warrantless removals why did the case below bring a $2.6 mil judgment for a warrantless removal?
United States District Court,
E.D. California
Dennis Keller and Crystal Keller, Plaintiffs,
v.
City of Stockton, et al., Defendants
No. CIV S-04-1325 LKK/DAD

Note the case below current USSC precedent says custody, not termination of parental rights.

Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children, requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents' due process rights (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 [1982]). Freedom in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest evidentiary standard.

[PennyQuilts]

Okay then. Hate on, brother!