From "The Event Newsweekly" in Salt Lake City, Utah.
http://www.the-event.com/newsweekly/Pages/082699issue/coverstory1.html
8.26.99 "For Love Or Money" by John R. LlewellynOne year and six months ago, the daughters of Edith (Edie) Fernandez, ages 11 and 8, were removed from their Murray home by the Division of Child and Family Services while Fernandez visited with friends in Wendover, Utah. According to Michael Humiston, Fernandez's attorney, the children had been left in the competent care of their 18-year-old sister. Since then, Edie, a petite, attractive woman, has shed gallons of tears while struggling with the gargantuan bureaucracy of an all-powerful state agency. To this day, she still does not understand why she has been deprived of her children, even though she has tried to do everything humanly possible to satisfy DCFS directives.
What did Edie Fernandez do to cause DCFS to take her children?
When Edie found out that her daughters had been molested by a 15-year-old nephew, she immediately rushed the girls to Primary Children's Hospital where an examination confirmed the molestation. Edie says she was interviewed by a police officer at the hospital who told her he would send another policeman to her house to investigate the attack. Two days later, while Edie was away from home, her children were taken into custody by DCFS officials. Edie says that her 18-year-old daughter protested, but the DCFS officials told her to "shut up" and threatened to arrest her. [Sounds about average. The child protectors love the power. -RT]
How do you measure and describe the helplessness and emotional trauma a mother experiences when her children are suddenly and irrationally taken from her? [Because she found that they had been abused and reported it. -RT] While interviewed, Fernandez sobbed uncontrollably, looking at Michael Humiston through blurry eyes to exclaim, "You are my last chance!" Humiston asserts that he entered the case at the last minute, just as Fernandez's parental rights were about to be permanently terminated.
Humiston claims that "The federal government pays the state of Utah at least $25,000 for each child the state can remove from families and place in foster care." To bolster his claim, Humiston has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Utah parents confronted by zealous DCFS agents, naming Utah Attorney General Jan Graham and others as defendants. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are asking for a judgment of $500 million in damages, an amount Humiston contends is "the estimated amount of federal money Utah's Department of Human Services has been rewarded over the last five years." Humiston also offers lectures and classes, from Ogden to St. George, on how parents can, according to Humiston, "Protect themselves and their families from the legislative abuses of the Division of Child and Family Services."
Simply the accusation of neglect or abuse and the threat of having children forcibly removed by an all-powerful government sends frightening chills through parents. "My first impulse," says the mother of 4-year-old Kevin Hadley (not his real name), "was to pack him up and flee."
Precocious Kevin Hadley rode his tricycle to the 7-Eleven a block from his home to buy bubble gum. He slipped away from his father who was working in the backyard and within minutes had approached a heavily traveled street. A passerby, seeing the danger, called the police. Kevin was delivered home to parents who were sick with worry. The next morning, Kevin and his parents were visited by an official from the Division of Child and Family Services. The DCFS official stood in the doorway and asked what appeared to be a few harmless questions, and after five minutes, she departed. Three days later the Hadleys received a letter from the DCFS stating that an "allegation of child abuse or neglect against you" has been "substantiated." Kevin's parents looked at each other in disbelief. The Hadleys were now caught up in the same bureaucratic juggernaut that destroyed Edie Fernandez's family. [You only get one chance with the child protectors. They'll jump on any excuse to take your children to get that federal subsidy. -RT]
The Hadley family lives in a suburban, middle class neighborhood. Their house is two years old and in good repair. The verdant lawn is mowed each week. Tulips, snapdragons and other colorful flowers grow profusely around the borders. With the exception of a single toy out of place, everything is tidy and trim, and the refrigerator bulges with milk, eggs, vegetables-all the vitamin-filled and body-building foods a young boy would require. Kevin's clothes are clean and he attends a prestigious preschool. But most of all, Kevin, like the Fernandez children, is loved, and his young parents have great collegiate ambitions for Kevin's future. With tears streaming down her cheeks, Kevin's mother stares at her husband and asks, "How could anyone possibly think that Kevin is abused or neglected?"
Many parents have similar stories of emotionally draining encounters with the DCFS. Steven Ash, (not his real name) an indulged 14-year-old, sassed his mother in a moment of disrespect. The boy's comments caused his father to raise his hand and warn: "You better watch your language or I'll cuff you on the side of the head." The boy accepted the challenge, so the father kept his promise and cuffed him, more in fun than anger. He then gave the boy a helping boot in the rear and told him to mow the lawn. In seconds, the incident was over and forgotten. But a neighbor who had spied the raised hand and heard the father's threatening tone dutifully reported the matter to DCFS. The next day, the boy was yanked out of school and interrogated for three hours by DCFS officials who threatened to place the boy in a foster home. Steven's mother, who had to be sent to bed with a sedative that night, said she had never been so distressed in her life. "These people from DCFS have no idea how they disrupt people's lives," she says. [They do. They just don't care. -RT]
In his lectures, Humiston urges parents to keep in mind that DCFS officials are not friends. The disarming, congenial, affable mannerisms adopted by DCFS officials are designed to access information. Humiston asserts that where parental rights are concerned, "Whoever controls the information, controls the case."
DCFS operates under the aegis that their actions are in the "best interest of the child." However, according to Humiston, that catchphrase takes precedence over "all other rules of law, over all constitutional considerations and all constitutional rights." Humiston skillfully reminds parents that it is the United States Constitution and due process of law-trial by jury, the right to confront your accuser-that identifies Americans as a people, and the constitutional rights of many Americans are being abrogated by a "big brother" DCFS system that presumes to know what is best for parents and children. In the juvenile courts, he says, there is no accountability, and he charges that constitutional rights are being systematically eliminated by legislation. And the problem, Humiston says, is nationwide, not just in Utah.
After meeting with Edie Fernandez, one cannot help but wonder if separating the two daughters from their mother is really "in the best interest" of the children. The question must be asked: Do children in foster care, like Edie's children, receive the nurturing and love that they should? Edie claims that two weeks after the girls were taken away, she received a distressed telephone call from one of the girls pleading for help. She could hear her other daughter crying and screaming in the background. Her daughter shouted, "They're beating her," before the phone went dead. Noticing the number on the caller ID, Edie dialed back, demanding to know what was happening to her daughters. Edie says she was told by an adult female on the other end that it was none of her business and she would be arrested if she called again. [Again: "drunk with power." -RT]
Humiston believes that the more children DCFS handles, the more money they get, and according to Humiston, for every dollar spent by the state, the federal government grants the state three dollars. "It's ironic," Humiston says, "that after the state takes the children they bill the parents for the cost of foster care. [A cost that's already paid by the feds. -RT] That's what happens in a system based on power, not justice. And I cannot overemphasize that once DCFS has possession of your children, they are in control of the game." [The same as with other kidnappers. -RT]
In another incongruity, Humiston says children are more apt to be molested while in foster care than in their own home.
According to Humiston, "There is a very distinct pattern of those who become the victims of the system." He outlines three factors that distinguish those who most often find themselves in a conflict with DCFS:
- Poverty: It is rare that parents of affluence have their children taken away.
- Ignorance: Ignorance of the law and one's rights. Parents are under no obligation to let DCFS into their home without a search warrant, and parents have the right to remain silent. The more you volunteer, the better their case against you. [And they never tell you that. -RT]
- Isolation: If you are without influence, there is strength in numbers. Victims are astounded to find out they are not alone, hence Humiston's class action lawsuit.
Some parents face potential problems within their own homes. Cases involving the DCFS have garnered such a high profile that some children have threatened their own parents with calling the state agency. It is horrific for a parent to hear the words, "You rough me up and I'll report you to DCFS" coming from a child's lips. A sampling of teenagers in the Jordan School District confided that they are routinely taught that if they are ever abused at home, "The school will see that the proper authorities are notified." Humiston adds, "One more reason home school is so popular."
The DCFS Responds
DCFS Regional Training Manager Troy Randall says that his agency is indeed reimbursed by the federal government. Randall states that $3.00 are reimbursed out of every $4.00 spent, but only for "eligible children." An "eligible child," according to Randall, is one who has been removed from a home. In other words, the federal government funds 71 percent of the cost for each "eligible child." [In other words, they only get paid if the child is removed. And the $3.00 out of $4.00 is only the beginning of the money they get from each "removal." -RT]
In 1998, DCFS received 16,570 referrals. Of those, 5,424 were substantiated, 8,301 children were victims and 1,236 children were removed from the home. Approximately 260 children were permanently separated from their parents. DCFS currently has between 2,300 and 2,500 children "in care" at any given moment. In 1996, out of 15,254 referrals, 2,076 children were removed from their homes. [In other words, only about 20% of all the "referrals" could be substantiated. And of those, about one out of eight were removed and about 25% of those were permanently removed. Doesn't sound like the "epidemic" they want to promote, does it? I might also add that many of those "substantiated" were done so on the subjective definition of child abuse made by the worker, who is "predisposed" to find abuse. It's how they judge job performance.-RT]
In order for a case to be considered valid and for removal to ensue, the case must be substantiated. Substantiation means that a caseworker has determined [A subjective definition of abuse. -RT] that neglect or abuse of a child has occurred. In the Hadleys' case, their names have been placed in a permanent record that may affect future employment and can only be removed by requesting a formal hearing and proving that the allegations are either "without merit" or "unfounded." Humiston says that the burden of proof is on the parent. [And why should it be? As I remember it, we are "innocent until proven guilty" under our laws. In actual fact, their names can be placed on such a list without convicting them of anything, and it's nearly impossible to get off the list. -RT]
Troy Randall says the DCFS budget in 1994 was less that $50 million. Last year's budget was roughly $110 million, and 49 percent of that total came from the federal government via one program or the other. This means that DCFS in 1998 was reimbursed approximately $53 million for children placed in foster care. Therefore, according to Randall, Humiston's claim that the federal government has "rewarded" DCFS $500 million in the last five years is preposterous. [I saw no reference to "$500 million except as an "estimated figure" used to determine the amount asked for in a suit." In any case, the actual "fee" money is just a small part of what they get from each child. -RT]
Everyone agrees that truly abused and neglected children need to be removed from the home. But does the DCFS go too far? [Yes. -RT] Randall states that the rights of parents are "contingent" and the rights of children are "absolute." Children have the right not to be abused, the right not to be neglected and the right to a minimal standard of living. He goes on to say that legislation has deemed that the "absolute rights" of the child can supersede the "contingent rights" (due process) of the parents, and the juvenile court judge attempts to achieve parity between the rights of both parent and child. [Parental rights are not "contingent" on anything. They are as "absolute" as those claimed for the children. To remove them, abuse should be proven, not "inferred." -RT]
By law, a year after removal, a termination of parental rights hearing is held, and at that time the parents must prove that they have satisfactorily completed the "reunification service plan" and are qualified to be reunited with their children. A "service plan" is a DCFS program in which parents are required to complete certain requisites to the satisfaction of DCFS before they can be reunited with their children. According to Humiston, DCFS claims that Edie Fernandez has not met that requirement to the DCFS' "satisfaction." [Their "reunification service plans" are subject to change at any time the parents are seen to be succeeding in satisfactorily completing it so that they cannot possibly succeed. These "plans" are a "smoke screen." -RT]
Troy Randall emphasizes that DCFS exists only to serve the children and takes exception to Humiston's philosophy that parents should not cooperate with DCFS caseworkers. He calls Humiston's beliefs an "extreme right wing" approach, and states, "We are not the enemy." [DCFS, like most child protection agencies, exists to build its own fortunes, not to "serve the children." If they were there for the children, they would not abuse them in the name of "protection" and pursue the 80% of "reports" that aren't sustainable as if they were prima facie evidence that abuse did occur. And I might add that calling Humiston "right wing" is simply a ploy to use when you have no other arguments. If you can't answer a logical argument, just start calling names. It works for other power seekers, why not here? From their actions, in my opinion, they are the enemy. -RT]
Humiston, on the other hand, believes that while parents are cooperating, they are helping DCFS caseworkers complete their agenda of ultimate child removal. "In other words," he says, "the objective of each DCFS investigation is to remove children from the home." [Actually, the real agenda (of the federal government) is to take total control over what is taught in our schools without parental interference. To completely destroy parental rights and the family. The money the local agency gets at each step is merely the "grease" that lubricates the system that will ultimately destroy all families and parental rights. -RT]
However, Randall agrees that children do best in their own home, but DCFS has a legislative mandate to evaluate families and act in the best interest of the child. A juvenile court rules on what constitutes best interest. ["Lip service" is all this is. You have to go by what they do, not what they say. And what they do says Randall's statement is a lie. -RT]
Randall states that an operational reform program drawn up by DCFS Director Ken Patterson, called the "Milestone Plan," is being reviewed by federal Judge Tena Campbell. Milestone is the aftermath of a lawsuit filed in 1993 by the National Center for Youth Law, accusing the Department of Human Services of not doing enough to protect Utah's children. Randall believes that the Humiston lawsuit is "opposite" of the Youth lawsuit recently settled out of court. "Now we are being charged with leaning too far the other way at the expense of parental rights," he says. [Actually, they are being charged with trampling on the rights of both the parents and the children for the agency's gain, and for the gain of the federal government. It's not a matter of "leaning too far in the other direction." It's a matter of "criminal acts under color of law." -RT]
He believes DCFS carefully screens caseworkers and has, in the past, fired caseworkers who have abused their authority. [When? Where? Names, facts and figures, please, or it's another lie. -RT] He says that his organization is still in the "youth stages," only 19 years old. It has only been since 1994 that DCFS received the controversial mandate from the legislature. "We're still learning, reforming and improving," he says. "The 'Practice Model' in the Milestone will make more clear the direction of caseworkers resulting in improved performance." He asserts that among DCFS employees, "There are many dedicated, professional workers doing their very best to be fair to both parents and children." [Yeah, right. One or two, maybe. Until they figure out they're in a racket and quit in disgust. -RT]
On August 30, 1999, Edie Fernandez will appear in court, making a final appeal for the return of her children. She, like so many other parents in her position, looks forward to being reunited with her daughters. But any decision ultimately rests with a judge, and the mercy of the Division of Child and Family Services.
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Ref.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
To read more informative articles by Ray Thomas and others check out the rest of the "Information Central" section. Just click the "back" arrow.
The first thing you must do to help in this fight is to keep yourself informed as to things the power seekers don't want you to know.
To do that, join my "Forced Altruism List" by going to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/forcedaltruism and following the instructions to get a daily update on what's happening and a place where you can express your own gripes and frustrations by posting them to the entire List.
You may also read the current issue of the monthly online web based newsletter, "Beyond Common Sense," by going to: http:www.angelfire.com/co2/beyondcommonsense.
If you like what you see, you may subscribe to the Announcement List that notifies you when a new issue comes out by going to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/beyondcommonsense and following the instructions.
Email -|- HOME
