| CPS aka Child |
| CPS aka Child Abuse Services More Proof that these parasites at CPS abuse and kill our children. In every state county they are all the same under one |
| 18th of Jun, 2011 by User999704 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV_FLatZgek&feature=fvsr Here is a more proof that these mental mother abuse our children and in some cases kill them. Mother Shanda has prior CPS investigations substantiated for physical abuse or neglect of her children in 2002 and 2009. In 2009, mother hit child ... in the head with a wrench. Additional instances of children having their hair pulled, being hit with hangers and being pushed against walls by mother were reported, the petition reads.
only to have crooked paid of caseworkers cover it up and favor some of these mothers from Suffolk County to Alaska and where ever these abusers exist. In the News Court records indicate Waterford mother who killed herself accused of abusing children
Published: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 By ANN ZANIEWSKI
Of The Oakland Press Shanda Yenglin was accused last year of abusing her children but had undergone counseling and was making progress, according to a court report. The abuse allegations, Yenglins attempts to get personal protection orders against at least three people and other information about her life are detailed in Oakland County Circuit Court records. Meanwhile, police reported that Yenglin had poisoned the four children's milkshakes with sleeping medications. Yenglin, 37, who was found dead Monday in the garage of her Waterford Township home in what has been ruled a suicide, had four adopted children, two boys, 11 and 12, and two girls, 13 and 14. Court records show that Yenglin and her then-husband had adopted one child and were in the process of adopting another when she filed for divorce in May 2005. The marriage was annulled later that year. In May 2010, a child protective petition was filed that accused Yenglin of slapping a child and pushing his head onto the bathroom floor with enough force to crack three front teeth. She waited until the next day to seek dental treatment, the petition alleges, and told the child to lie to the dentist and say that his injuries were caused by slipping. Yenglin was also accused of slamming another child down on the floor with enough force to cause him to temporarily be unable to breathe. Mother Shanda has prior CPS investigations substantiated for physical abuse or neglect of her children in 2002 and 2009. In 2009, mother hit child ... in the head with a wrench. Additional instances of children having their hair pulled, being hit with hangers and being pushed against walls by mother were reported, the petition reads. She lost temporary custody and the children were placed under the care of the Michigan Department of Human Resources. Court documents show that Yenglin participated in individual counseling and family counseling with her children and had been reported to be making progress. The documents indicate that just a few weeks ago, Yenglin was allowed to have unsupervised visits, but not overnight visits, with the children. She was working to regain custody. Continued... 1
2
See Full Story Reader Comments
View reader comments (1) Comment on this story A dispositional review hearing was scheduled for March 23. Court records show that Yenglin filed for personal protection orders against three people. In 1997, she accused a former business partner of assaulting her. A personal protection order was granted and then dissolved weeks later. In April 2009, Yenglin filed for a personal protection order against a man and a woman who she identified as a boyfriend-girlfriend couple. Yenglin accused the woman of calling her a name, sending her threatening text messages, saying that she should have her children taken away from her, calling protective services on her and going to her house on Barker Drive in Waterford when she wasnt home, but her children were there. A personal protection order was entered against the woman. A judge denied Yenglins request for a personal protection order against the womans boyfriend. Contact staff writer Ann Zaniewski at (248) 745-4628 or [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @OPCourtReporter. 1
2
See Full Story Reader Comments
View reader comments (1) Comment on this story 1
2
3
See Full Story Reader Comments
View reader comments (1) Comment on this story 1
2
3
4
See Full Story Reader Comments
View reader comments (1) Comment on this story By ANN ZANIEWSKI
Of The Oakland Press Click to enlarge Shanda Yenglin was accused last year of abusing her children but had undergone counseling and was making progress, according to a court report. The abuse allegations, Yenglins attempts to get personal protection orders against at least three people and other information about her life are detailed in Oakland County Circuit Court records. Meanwhile, police reported that Yenglin had poisoned the four children's milkshakes with sleeping medications. Yenglin, 37, who was found dead Monday in the garage of her Waterford Township home in what has been ruled a suicide, had four adopted children, two boys, 11 and 12, and two girls, 13 and 14. Court records show that Yenglin and her then-husband had adopted one child and were in the process of adopting another when she filed for divorce in May 2005. The marriage was annulled later that year. In May 2010, a child protective petition was filed that accused Yenglin of slapping a child and pushing his head onto the bathroom floor with enough force to crack three front teeth. She waited until the next day to seek dental treatment, the petition alleges, and told the child to lie to the dentist and say that his injuries were caused by slipping. Yenglin was also accused of slamming another child down on the floor with enough force to cause him to temporarily be unable to breathe. Mother Shanda has prior CPS investigations substantiated for physical abuse or neglect of her children in 2002 and 2009. In 2009, mother hit child ... in the head with a wrench. Additional instances of children having their hair pulled, being hit with hangers and being pushed against walls by mother were reported, the petition reads. She lost temporary custody and the children were placed under the care of the Michigan Department of Human Resources. Court documents show that Yenglin participated in individual counseling and family counseling with her children and had been reported to be making progress. The documents indicate that just a few weeks ago, Yenglin was allowed to have unsupervised visits, but not overnight visits, with the children. She was working to regain custody. A dispositional review hearing was scheduled for March 23. Court records show that Yenglin filed for personal protection orders against three people. In 1997, she accused a former business partner of assaulting her. A personal protection order was granted and then dissolved weeks later. In April 2009, Yenglin filed for a personal protection order against a man and a woman who she identified as a boyfriend-girlfriend couple. Yenglin accused the woman of calling her a name, sending her threatening text messages, saying that she should have her children taken away from her, calling protective services on her and going to her house on Barker Drive in Waterford when she wasnt home, but her children were there. A personal protection order was entered against the woman. A judge denied Yenglins request for a personal protection order against the womans boyfriend. Contact staff writer Ann Zaniewski at (248) 745-4628 or [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @OPCourtReporter.
Uploaded by williamwagener on Mar 10, 2010 In Canada , just from Jan. 1, 2010 to March 8, 2010 Childrens Protective Services has managed to
Kill or place with Foster parents who killed the child they were paid to "protect against " the bio-parent
who was considered dangerous to their own Child. In this case, Every relative who applied to take the child into their home was denied. And shortly the child was MURDERED by a SYSTEM that has NO
EFFECTIVE - - Checks and balances, because NO one in the SYSTEM is EVER held accountable,
while the most stringent accountability is demanded from the Parents. Is it NOT Time, to demand that EVERY TIME a CHILD dies in the SYSTEM, at least one CPS worker goes to prison for malfeasance,
and the other who helped take the child lose their job permanently? Is it TIME yet?
================================
DSS Incompetence kills another child. October 20th 06, 02:29 PM posted to alt.support.foster-parents,alt.support.child-protective-services DSS Incompetence kills another child DSS Investigating Death of Foster Child http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=43114 (Sumter) Yvette Busby doesn't try to hide from her past. "I've been recovering off and on," she said. "I've had falls here and there." First and foremost, struggles with substance abuse. And she understands her problems justify why DSS took her son Darrell from her not once, but twice. But after the second time on October 7th, she never saw him alive again. "The Foster care parents were the last to be with my child." The Foster family said when Darrell Busby was brought to them on October 7th, the Department of Social Services did not inform them of his asthma condition. Only when he got sick 12 hours later, and they took him to Toumey Hospital in Sumter, that's when the family says doctors told them Darrell had asthma. They said they left the hospital believing Darrell's airways had been cleared up. But not long after, they say the 14 year-old started wheezing again. And on Friday the 13th, at the Foster family's home in Sumter, his asthma became severe. The 14 year-old's Foster dad says they rushed to Toumey hospital, but that Darrell was unconscious by the time they got there. They say they were never fully aware just how serious Darrell's asthma was. DSS tells us they are investigating the placement of Darrell into Foster care, and the events that led to his death. DSS General Counsel Virginia Williamson says "part of our review will be to ask what info was given and when." And one of the people they'll be asking is the DSS case worker who, Yvette Busby says, removed her 14 year-old from the family twice. She also says the worker was well aware of the boy's condition. "In spite of all my troubles, my problems, my child has not died in my care," said Yvette. "He died in the care of DSS and Foster parents." DSS tells us they have started their review of this incident, but that it will take them several weeks to complete. Meanwhile, visitation has been set for Darrell Busby. His mother tells us it will be held at Job's Mortuary in Sumter on Thursday, October 19th from 3:00 to 7:00.
============================= Investigating child protective services! Back to Michael Moore Discussion Board
Topic View Topic: Investigating child protective services!
Reply to Topic Displaying all 7 posts. Rachel JohannessenSome how in my heart i know my children were robbed from me .... somebody wanted my child... paid the right people..... and child protection servies... were involved... and still are today waveing my child... at least one.. they stole the other .....in front of my face..... they wont give me my papers... everyone gives me the run around...... i have done all i can do except blow up....? and it is illeagal ... to steal your children back?????? something is not right and somebody better do something.....or i will........
about 10 months ago Report Shamim KhaliqDear UK CHILDREN'S MINISTER, I am writing to highlight ground level corruption in children's services and to argue that family-support would be far more successful than child protection in reducing child abuse and neglect. I urge you to talk to MPs Tim Yeo and John Hemming who are already aware of this. Professionals with an area of expertise that measure directly are far better judges of risk to children than SS who focus on the negative (http://www.parental-alienation.info/publications/14-recresintrisassofchi.htm); children's services are more likely to award kids to abusive than non-abusive parents (http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html). In fact, direct observation of 90 minutes a day over 3 days can help determine if a child is abused or neglected (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/93/1/106/). Instead, once an allegation of child abuse is made, social workers begin with an assumption that the abuse has occurred and their investigations are skewed toward providing evidence to support the allegation and not to take an impartial, even-handed or open-minded approach. evidence which can exonerate parents is often disregarded, ignored or withheld, or in some instances the evidence against them is distorted, embellished and fabricated (Prosser and Lewis, 1992; 1995). evidence is often faulty due to biased or dishonest reporting or errors in communication and SS are slow to revise their judgements despite a mounting body of evidence against them. SWs rely heavily on faulty intuitive skills; SWs' first impression of a family has enduring impact and parents' reactions to professionals during the investigation are taken as representative of the quality of parenting normally available to the child. SS are sceptical about information when it conflicts with their view of the family but are uncritical when the new evidence supports their view. childrens testimony is accepted when it corroborates the social workers assessment and doubted when it challenges it. Evidence from members of the public is completely ignored and written evidence is repeatedly overlooked in preference for direct reports from those present. SWs have a poor understanding of statistical risk factors. (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/358/1/Common_errors_of_reasoning_1999.pdf). The basic principle of the case management approach (which first arose in the USA as a solution to the difficulties of providing community care) is that a case manager takes responsibility for a client; arranges an assessment of need, a comprehensive service plan, delivery of suitable services, and monitoring and assessment of services delivered. recent legislation has made case-management the cornerstone of community care in the UK. However, outcomes for clients helped by social services are no better after being managed in this way than not receiving any help at all (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-49J8HTB-J4&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F18%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor&view=c&_searchStrId=1326794613&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dfd0c1b325991c1150ce5eaf03ca50cc). children's services initial assessment has systemic weaknesses so fails to increase safety (http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/2/352). there's little consistency in the manner that children in need are assessed or services provided (turnstill & aldgate, 2000). 20% of child protection investigations lead to the child being put on the child protection register, 5% to care. many parents go through investigation without receiving a service. the story of children being taken away from good parents and then abused in state care (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=42559&id=100000785197833&ref=share), where abuse is covered up, and children's services monitoring as abused children are slowly killed by their parents, is common to the US, UK, Australia and Canada... (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr&id=Oy5gBzqEHP0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&dq=children%27s+services+uk&ots=NTrDJeiPMr&sig=KW1kib4kbQg2c0_dY1lbaasrN50#v=onepage&q=children%27s%20services%20uk&f=false). there are 2 child-care systems: 1) nordic countries' expensive "maximum public responsibility" one (sweden, finland, denmark) 2) hands-off "maximum private responsibility" british and american. Australia is lumped with the UK and US as being "major laggards" (Kamerman & Kahn, 1991, pg 201). america and britain are high risk areas where children's needs and rights are ignored (moss et al., 1999, pg 25-26). in the UK, it is believed that the state should not encourage dependency by offering support to families (pg 19, http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr&id=RJDb1JddG0sC&oi=fnd&pg=PA8&dq=children%27s+services+uk&ots=Rtr-FnB_e7&sig=tvKBjzOGfvzeLOwTdmg9Jr0gC4Y#v=onepage&q=children%27s%20services%20uk&f=false). in britain, child-care services cater to less than 1% of the age-group, only children from deprived or inadequate backgrounds (moss, 1982; cohen, 1993). australia saw many feminists in bureaucracy inspired by feminism when developing policies (Sawer, 1990; eisenstein, 1990, pg 89; watson, 1990, pg3-4). non-profit organisations provide child-care services in Australia with subsidies from the government so there is affordable child-care for all. there is a variation between countries and within countries. in the US judges have more power so decide on the basis of their own personal prejudices, e.g. against men. in the UK, this behaviour is only common in ground level children's workers and judges just rubber-stamp their decisions. denmark and finland have more child-care services than sweden, but in sweden, child-care services are embedded in parent-friendly policies regarding leave for sick children and to go to school events and reduced working hours... historically, sweden preferred to train and employ women more than immigrants (ruggie, 1984, pg 249; jonung & thordarsson, 1980, pg 109) so there was no second wave of feminism in this country. the swedish system provides more universally and protects children's rights more (moss et al., 1999, pg 37; dahlberg, 1997, pg22). the deployment of large resources to child protection rather than family support is inefficient and ineffective. a confidential non-punitive approach is preferable, such as a rapid-response, short-term intervention in times of family crisis (pg xix http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr&id=nBLClXPed08C&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=children%27s+services+uk&ots=S28mJiGNXs&sig=td4sNAIOYUPZZAUasoaFJmxqJwc#v=onepage&q=children%27s%20services%20uk&f=false). france is inbetween, feeling the job of the state is to create all equal (moss et al., 1999, pg 13). children's services are removing kids from good parents and leaving kids with bad by not investigating and relying on hearsay and first impressions instead. having decided on the basis of conventionality that a parent poses a risk, they look to manufacture evidence that they fall into the following red-flagged categories (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr&id=4BJRD9HfBRYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=children%27s+services+uk&ots=l5Tsg1x5iv&sig=jF7WYE719T8o8ySDxZ3D_3Van54#v=onepage&q=children%27s%20services%20uk&f=false): poverty (hughes et al., 1960; taylor et al., 2000; jack, 2001; rose, 2001; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14576893), men (though as they cannot say it is because they are a man, they look for un-investigated claims of aggression against the men instead) (emery at al., 1982; rutter, 1982), single parents (Rutter & Quinton, 1984; http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2155/1/download.pdf; Parker et al., 2008), large family size (Rutter & Quinton, 1984), mentally ill (children's services psychologists find anyone who is not self-actualised to have a mental illness) (orvachel, 1980; goodman & brumley, 1990; applebey & dickens, 1993), divorced parents or childhood abuse (d'orban, 1979), problems with dependency/care (childhood experiences of abandonment, neglect or rejection) or control/authority (inappropriate limit-setting or helplessness in the face of abuse) (reder & duncan, 1999), criminality (d'orban, 1979); poor parenting practices (kuperman et al., 1999; kendler, 2001; plomin et al., 2001; caspi et al., 2002; moffitt, 2002), infants under 2 years of age (durfee & tilton-durfee, 1995), people who are ill (don't put your kids in care temporarily because you won't get them back) (caring for a parent or taking on parental responsibility can leave you with needy love, pg 71 & 72, http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr&id=4BJRD9HfBRYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=children%27s+services+uk&ots=l5Tsg1x5iv&sig=jF7WYE719T8o8ySDxZ3D_3Van54#v=onepage&q=children%27s%20services%20uk&f=false), parents who've suffered domestic violence (Rutter & Quinton, 1984; harnish et al., 1995; frick et al., 1992; davies & windle, 1997), depressed (even when the treatment works, http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/191/5/378) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide; beardslee et al., 1998; nomura et al., 2002; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15070641; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351773), disabled (they do not provide effective assistance or services as in clarke et al., 2001) (o'connor et al., 1998), those who have been in care (Rutter & Quinton, 1984) or have a child in care, addicts (opiate or methadone: moss et al., 1995; nunes et al., 1998; pollock et al., 1990; weisman et al., 1999a), the non-resident parent almost always loses their case, if one child is injured or dies through no fault of the parent the parent loses all the children for not assessing risk, which is also the reason given why extended family lose adoption rights if they have supported the parent found wanting. SWs are more concerned with making a defensible decision than a right one (pg xix http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr&id=nBLClXPed08C&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=children%27s+services+uk&ots=S28mJiGNXs&sig=td4sNAIOYUPZZAUasoaFJmxqJwc#v=onepage&q=children%27s%20services%20uk&f=false) the children's courts, where parents never win (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=42691&id=100000785197833&ref=share; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/percentage_of_care_orders_indepe), are even more corrupt; parents have no say, non-children's services professionals are not invited to contradict slander and written testimonies from them are ignored, allowing hearsay which is slanted against the defendant, children's services are not prosecuted for perjury (http://www.parentsagainstinjustice.org.uk/index_files/Page567.htm), and parents are gagged afterwards so the miscarriage of justice cannot be made public (http://www.justice-for-families.org.uk/). Infants are preferred for removal from their family and adoption (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?vlnk=562&More=Y; http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?vlnk=565&More=Y) and adopted children lose their extended family forever, and government has adoption targets to meet and makes money through this system. children separated from their parents are alienated from them by telling them of their "abuse" and denying the parent contact on the grounds they are upsetting the child then telling the child the parent abandoned them. the situation is worsening, e.g. newborn babies of first time mothers are being taken into care for possible emotional harm in the future and pregnant mothers are being told that if they do not abort they will lose all their children. Note the importance of extended family is not valued by the system, where grandparents are often unaware till too late that their grand-kids are going to be adopted. the quality of extended family relationships buffers against negative mental health issues in the parent (leff, 2001) and correlates with better-adjusted grandchildren (http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/080604.html). Infanticide may be a natural outcome of a non-supportive child protection system (http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=947635 ) Three children are killed by abuse or neglect in England every week (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Annual-Report/2007-08/The-Annual-Report-of-Her-Majesty-s-Chief-Inspector-2007-08). 100-300 children die of abuse or neglect in England and Wales every year (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2007/01/11/102713/What-have-we-learned-Child-death-scandals-since-1944.htm; creighton & gallagher, 1988; wilczynski, 1994). kids make up a 1/4 of homicides (gibson, 1975), 80% of child-deaths are babies under the age of 2 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=2210; durfee & tilton-durfee, 1995; reder & duncan, 1999), and mums are 60% likely to be the kid's killer. 40% of these mums kill impulsively when their baby's behaviour angers them, 10% to get at the kid's father (d'orban, 1979). 30% of deaths are from neglect, and these mums are usually young and don't really want a baby (bonnet, 1993; reder & duncan, 1999). only 25-30% of these murderous mums are mentally ill at the time of murder (d'orban, 1979; reder & duncan, 1999; wilczynski, 1995), though nearly all of them have previously been referred to children's services (falkov, 1996; reder & duncan, 1999) and there is some history of mental weakness somewhere in the family 50% of the time, though their kids are not on the child protection register at the time of death. mums who kill their kids love them and feel guilty afterwards. severely ill women often kill their kids as part of their own suicide because there would be noone left to take care of them (d'orban, 1979). 55% of serious case review children were known to childrens social care at the time of the incident (http://www.brighton.ac.uk/sass/research/mrc/resources/PMH_300309_julia_stroud_presentation.pdf). some depressed or psychotic mums threaten to kill the child before they do while even more withdraw from professionals just before committing the murder (reder & duncan, 1999). children are more likely to be killed by their mum's boyfriend than their natural father but this makes up a tiny proportion of cases. partners of perpetrators are rarely (10%) mentally ill (falkov, 1996). ever since the numbers on child protection registers or subject to place of safety orders rose markedly (from 7,600 in 1985 to 29,800 by 1987 and 41,200 by 1989 http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2007/01/11/102713/What-have-we-learned-Child-death-scandals-since-1944.htm) and more mums are losing their kids (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?vlnk=562&More=Y), infanticide has been rocketing up ((http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Social-Care/991980/Baby-deaths-result-abuse-rise-Baby-P/; http://kids.nsw.gov.au/kids/kidsstats/agegroups/infancy/trends.cfm). the child protection system is causing mums to hide domestic violence (Royal college of psychiatrists, 2002 a & b), depression (Goffman, 1963; Phelan et al., 1998; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1120285/Half-new-mothers-suffer-post-natal-depression-lack-families.html; http://www.fassit.co.uk/media/real_story_bbc.wmv, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1893626,00.html, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=369896&in_page_id=1797, which is a pity because suicide is the biggest killer of young mums http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/journal/issue/journal_35_4/why%20mothers%20die.pdf; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14519602) and mental illness (http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/6/1/65). Care order applications to Cafcass are continuing to soar, according to the family courts body's latest quarterly figures which showed a 34% rise in the year 2009-10 (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/05/18/114531/record-high-month-for-cafcass-care-applications.htm). children in care are even more likely to suffer neglect and abuse than if kids stayed with their "abusive" mums (http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fosterlt_march07_aer.pdf ; http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16478552). children in care are more susceptible to being abused (Dawson, 1989, cited in Waller and Lindsay, 1990). foster children are 7-8 times and children in residential care 6 times more likely to be assessed by a pediatrician for abuse than a child in the general population (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626608). 25% of convicted child sex offenders worked with children (http://uksocialservices.blogspot.com/2010/04/25-of-convicted-child-sex-offenders.html; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/374558.stm). fatalities in foster care due to abuse and neglect, although small in absolute numbers, appear at two to three times the frequency of the general population (New York State Department of Social Services, 1980, cited in Nunno and Motz, 1988). children in care are 3 times as likely to die as other children due to malnutrition and disease, e.g. they don't get immunised or see a dentist (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=42559&id=100000785197833&ref=share). looking at council policies, it appears the response to foster care child abuse is that the SW, manager and foster carer sit down to cover it up (http://www.devon.gov.uk/cp_complaints_against_foster_carers_section9.pdf; http://www.wirral.gov.uk/LGCL/100010/200046/159/Safeguarding_children_placed_with_foster_carers.pdf; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-shocking-truth-about-child-abuse-in-northern-ireland-1689396.html; http://www.fosteringsupport.co.uk/documents/police_investigations.pdf). when children are received into the care system, the first step is to place them with a short-term carer to enable them then to be matched with a long-term carer, depending on the anticipated eventual outcome for the child - adoption, return to birth family or respite care. Frequent moves are very damaging for the child, leading to lack of trust in adults, disrupted education, loss of friends, disturbed behaviour, attachment disorders, etc. a foster setting for very young children and babies was investigated and it was found that the carers hardly ever spoke to any of the children they looked after and certainly never played with or spent time other than changing nappies or feeding them. Each child in that environment was much quieter that most other children and certainly more passive. It may have been the carers way of coping with the loss of each successive child but it was a huge price for each child to pay. Under-stimulation at this stage can have detrimental effects on the potential of children (http://www.childrenwebmag.com/articles/foster-care/attachment-during-a-foster-care-placement). State care predisposes to a pattern of hyperactivity/inattention (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10993). Researchers have identified changes in brain chemistry resulting from lack of love in early years. This could lead to drugs that help undo the damage, they say (http://www.world-science.net/othernews/051121_neglectfrm.htm). there are 538,500 referrals a year to social services because of concerns about harm to children and 29,200 children are subject to a child protection plan (http://www.brighton.ac.uk/sass/research/mrc/resources/PMH_300309_julia_stroud_presentation.pdf). 68,000 children in the UK are in public care, with two-thirds in foster care. three in four children in care leave formal education with no qualifications, compared with only 6% of the general population (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/374558.stm). One in every four foster kids will become incarcerated with the first 2 years of leaving foster care. More than 20 percent will become homeless (http://www.ehow.co.uk/facts_4884577_facts-children-foster-care.html). Children who have been in the care system are far more likely to become teenage parents than their peers and twice as likely to lose the right to care for their own children. There is a very negative, repeated cycle with children in care having children they have children, and their children go through the care system again. More than half of all children in care leave school with no formal qualifications. Just 6% enter higher education. Since the vast majority of children in care are in foster care, any improvements to these outcomes will have to come through reform of the fostering system. fostering is one of the few reliable ways to earn a living if you have no qualifications and you want to work at home; between 30% and 40% of foster carers have no educational qualifications. carers take on difficult children (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/05/britains-foster-care-crisis). foster carers may not be fully investigated prior to placement (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0515/1224270464272.html). currently, mums come off SS at risk registers and kill their kids, unless they don't come off SS registers and the state kills the kids. parents and children are anxious about consequences of identifying need to professionals (Parker et al., 2008). by contrast, parental resilience to mental health problems is enhanced by understanding; employment; good health and professional, personal and community support (Brugha et al., 1993; Parrott L. et al., 2008). so stop getting kids off parents, set up free anonymous permanent support through the GP, children's centre, jobcentre or playscheme (like sort out their debts and set up their careers and get them the childcare. if they want a break from the kids for two weeks, give the kids back afterwards so they trust you and will ask again. let parents visit their kids at the foster carers to work with them, like parents have to work with teachers. make sure these kids get regular time with extended family who provide the best defence against maternal ill-health, like weekends with other parent/grand-parents, or part of father's contribution to child-support directly allocated to travel and courses). use SS unique inter-disciplinary position to hassle other departments to target the care they are supposed to provide. Yours sincerely, Shamim Khaliq (a mum who's been under investigation for over a year)
about 9 months ago Report Shamim Khaliqdear my MP, i wrote to you some time ago about my social services ordeal summarised at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=115499151818317&id=632569856&ref=nf . you promised to ring back. i made many suggestions ( http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=119360941432138&id=632569856&ref=nf). the gist is: we cannot detect abusers, child protection policies scare families into withdrawing from support so increase child cruelty, family support and equal opportunities at home and at work reduce child abuse ("more eyes on the child" is a slogan that works to convince people rather than the real reason that if a child has contact with many adults they are more likely to securely attach to one which serves as a protection against developing problems should an adult be abusive/neglectful) and domestic violence. imagine my dismay when you did not attend the bill granting fathers paid paternity leave. i understand, because it costs money, but unless kids have more contact with extended family and mothers become more educated and go to work (which also stops teen pregnancies), i.e. a societal change, I'm not sure how effective just changing children's services will be. i am also dismayed by cuts in adult services when child protection has the same budget. think about it, all those untreated mental health problems in parents.i just need you to attend bills related to children's services in the autumn. having read SS research, their motivation is horror at escalating rates of social violence not related to monetary crime (that's actually decreasing cos of better protection like locks and surveillance) which they put down to criminals breeding more than "good" people and american research showing early intervention breaks the transgenerational cycle. social violence costs the govt a bomb, so they jumped at this idea, poured loads of money into it and it hasn't worked.even the faulty SS methods are down to govt guidelines. they judge if you are abusive by looking at risk factors which mostly targets innocent parents. it's actually impossible to detect an abuser just cos of the low percentage in society. whatever test you use, even if every abuser shows these characteristics, loads of normal people will show them too. "all abusers are such and such" does not mean "all such and such people are abusers". once they have determined you are abusive, in my case she's personality disorder and her family have hit their kids since the beginning of time (the referral was from the police because my brother attacked me), courts just accept that they must have got it right. police think profiling is dumb and prefer to get physical evidence. doctors think confidentiality and informed consent are more therapeutic. govt love adoption because it is so much cheaper than fostering, they think it's better for the kids too cos of the idea: get them in a non-abusive family and they won't learn to abuse. i think this is a misconception too. cos they are looking for psychological risk factors for abuse, parents with heritable disorders are losing their kids and adoptive parent complain and return the kids cos they can't cope with the behaviour. SS put this poor behaviour down to earlier abuse.criminals have genes for violence and impulsiveness and poor childhoods. i have all three but i am not a criminal. i recognised my personality disorder long before social services found out and have been very loved as an adult so i actually care about people so i developed social strategies (like conflict avoidance, focus on faces and stop if they are not smiling, focus on my son, avoid temptation...). i compensate for my malfunctioning and swollen frontal lobes which control attention and impulse with the fully functional reasoning sides of my brain. i'm a psychologist so was able to heal myself. others will not be so lucky and will need therapy to overcome their social problems. in case you were wondering, SS didn't take my kid and i put this down to the fact i have a potentially abusive personality; i was able to turn other professionals working with my child against the SS. abusers are often charming. 10% of households are abusive to children. can you tell which of your friends are? my case is over. i am lobbying for the families of others. if you want to help me personally, i miss having a career. school-age attachment is fostered by parental availability so i want to be there for my child on sports days and on the mi...lk run to school and back. seeing as you have failed to give my parents the right to take time off work to help with child-care duties, can you not make it possible for me to work or study 20 hours a week while my kid is at school? i used to be a teacher but now i have an unclean CRB because the child abuse investigation shows up. i don' t want to be a cleaner. please help. half my neighbours have been investigated. we are a scared lot us parents who have been spat out by the social services. i don't want my name mentioned because when i got scared and dropped my complaint against my SW, her manager said "good. we'll close your case then". these people wield incredible power and they could easily take my child at any time. i am being brave and giving you permission to mention me because i don't want to be scared any more. shamim khaliq
about 9 months ago Report Shamim Khaliqdear govt researcher, having read SS (when i say SS i mean Social Services and CAFCASS) research, their motivation is horror at escalating rates of social violence not related to monetary crime (that's actually decreasing cos of better protection like locks and surveillance) which they put down to criminals breeding more than "good" people and american research showing early intervention breaks the transgenerational cycle. social violence costs the govt a bomb, so they jumped at this idea, poured loads of money into it and it hasn't worked. this is because in the original research intervention helped families whereas now it detects child neglect and abuse. i'll leave it to you to do the literature search, but would like to point out a few issues you won't find in research because they are only evident to parents who've been investigated. first i'll discuss referrals. the current system of referrals is working fine; nearly all mums who kill their kids have previously been referred to social services. we get caught when we seek help, e.g. requesting counselling, calling the police, mother and baby units, hospitals... however, fear of losing children means that mums are now withdrawing from seeking help, e.g. we are now hiding mental illness and depression. this is dangerous because mums who kill their kids withdraw from services first. moreover, fear at not being able to protect your kids from state abuse and neglect in care increases infanticide. it is what you do with those referrals that is not working. countries with less child cruelty help these families instead of trying to destroy their support. it's actually impossible to detect an abuser just cos of the low percentage in society. 30% of households are minorly abusive to children, 10% majorly abusive. the only place you can predict and prevent death is in "minority report" as there is a strong situational influence. whatever test you use, even if every abuser shows these characteristics, loads of normal people will show them too. "all abusers are such and such" does not mean "all such and such people are abusers". sociologists are taught that children experiencing domestic violence (DV) show insecure attachment resulting in adult antisocial behaviour, they test the child of every DV victim for secure attachment and use insecure attachment as a reason for removing kids. however, 40% of the general population are also insecurely attached. say 10% of mums are neglectful. then out of 100 mums, 10 mums have insecurely attached kids because they were neglectful, and 36 non-neglectful mums will also show this. so whatever test you use, most of the parents you get will be innocent. SS get round this by saying, "ah ha! but we are looking for a syndrome of multiple factors which is much less likely by chance". examine their criteria for removal of kids after DV: dissociation from feelings, eating disorder, insecurely attached, profound fear response to the hypothetical possibility of losing a caregiver, drugs and depression... well, it appears their researchers did not measure the confounding factor of heritable psycho-pathologies in the abusive parent being passed onto the child which accounts for all these symptoms without need to deduce neglectful parenting style. house md, by contrast, would look at the symptoms, discuss all the possible causes, then through a process of elimination determine the correct diagnosis. once they have determined you are abusive, in my case "she's personality disorder and her family have hit their kids since the beginning of time" (the referral was from the police because my brother attacked me), courts just accept that they must have got it right. police think profiling is dumb and prefer to get physical evidence. in fact, it would be wise to look for physiological ailments first as looking for social causes of symptoms means these are not detected. SS have a history of overusing munchausen's syndrome by proxy, which is extremely rare and discredited, to remove children from their parents with, e.g. autism and ME/CFS. these days we call it medical abuse as mothers are not after attention when they, e.g. poison their kids, and the most likely culprit is the doctor, e.g. stem cells in vaccines causing autism. the most common reason for removing a child is psychological traits of the parent associated with abuse. for example many cases of infanticide occur when the mother kills their kids as part of their own suicide. so SS psychologists look for narcissism in the parent because it is believed these parents overestimate their own importance in their children's lives. these traits are heritable and neglected in care as they are attributed to prior often non-existent child cruelty and compounded by reactive detachment disorder from losing your primary caregiver in the early years and the fact that even the best foster-parents are unresponsive to children and there is more liklihood of abuse in care till they become full-blown disorders. i know a lot of the abuse in care comes from other children but even this can be attributed to poor foster parenting as the relationship between children is entirely dependent on how adults treat them. even those adopted at birth are frequently returned to foster care as adoptive parents cannot cope with their poor behaviour. true, parents with psychological disorders are more prone to child cruelty, and true children with SENs are more likely to be abused, but given the extremely poor outcomes of being in care it seems preferable to provide adult mental health services and ensure contact with extended family which will protect against abuse and promote early detection of SENs as it is usually the residential parent who makes the referral. once SS have determined you to be abusive, they set you up, e.g. gossiping behind your back with no evidence, telling everyone to look out for mental health problems, then lying and saying people said bad stuff about you to destroy your family and marriage, using whatever medication you are on against you so you can't even go to the doctor, telling you to do things which will make you lose your child, putting ideas in your kid's head... all parents who've been through the system agree, social workers (SW) need to be recorded. i wish i'd sought parent support earlier because recording equipment would have really prevented most of of the corruption in my own case. there are a few family support charities that i trust not to report to the SS. B Safe Always and Cross of Change focus on victim support so are aware of the state being abusive. please suggest non-governmental charities, acting like a parents' union, be provided early on to families to support and provide advice on what tactics are going to be used against them and how to counter. it would also be nice if SS could not go round all professionals telling them lies before meetings, and you are first told about these false accusations at the meeting, leaving you gobsmacked and not having counter-evidence. i suggest these charities follow medical guidelines of: do no harm, only report if there is immediate risk of injury or death, and informed consent. people post-trauma should be given time to sort themselves out, find accomodation, counselling, time to negotiate ground-rules with your ex post divorce, before the barrage of tests. and could SS please not do the tests, because they have no idea how to do an observation and interfere to get the result they want, especially on home turf like contact centres. poor parenting skills appear to be a common reason given by SS for removing children. this i do not understand because there's no connection between good parenting and child cruelty. ok, yes, there is a connection between punitive parenting and child abuse, e.g. introducing anti-smacking laws reduces child abuse. but improving a parent's parenting has no effect on reducing abuse unless combined with increasing that parent's self-esteem, e.g. the critical factor in making sure a child exposed to violence has no negative behavioural symptoms is that the non-abusive parent is confident about their own parenting skills, so 60% of children exposed to DV show no symptoms. it is not being a good parent but being a confident parent that counts. kids are being removed from parents with physical disabilities. they are not disabled. it's environments which are disabling. short people can't reach the light switch. they're not too short, the switch is too high. it's the same old problem of high-functioning parents being denied their children. one mum lost her kid cos it took her too long to open the door so she must be neglectful. i had no idea speed of walking had anything to do with neglect. slow response time is not unresponsive; the kids'll just realise mum needs a second to respond is all. on that topic of neglect, neglect is a very dangerous thing, retarding brain development so kids grow up to have little outer brain inhibition of lower brain instinctive desires, grow up savage and antisocial. SS say, "you're depressed/suffered DV so you must be neglectful". but this effect is temporary and wears off after time. the hardest part of parenting for me is not having sick days. i regret to say that when i am running a high fever i might not be as responsive as i should be. everyone is neglectful when they are worried or ill. heck, loads of people are neglectful cos they've got work to do. neglect is the modern ailment and SS are useless at detecting it because it's a societal problem. it's solved, like nearly all these problems, by giving non-residential family the right to take time off work to take care of the kid. whoever came up with the idea that we could exclude a family member because they are not perfect didn't realise you don't need to be perfect, you just need a lot of imperfect adults in your life. in excluding family and ripping kids from their parents, SS have actually compounded societal problems and increased social violence. could you please stop SS from not returning kids after respite care; just cos i've gone to hospital does not mean they can nick my kid. and what is the SS definition of neglect? it's often not even based on responsiveness. they say you are neglectful if one of your kids got injured accidentally. in one case a parent left their kid with a babysitter who killed him so they lost all their kids. did you know that putting your kid on a diet makes them obese? parents don't know everything so how is an honest mistake neglect? note neglect is quite different to abuse which doesn't retard development just teaches kids bad behaviour which they'll probably teach to their kids. and even this can be avoided if the child forms a secure attachment to another saner family member which will make them resilient to developing poor behaviour after trauma. of course, here i am just talking about smacking and shouting and going off on one. i would prevent revictimisation in cases of known injury. i would only take kids away from family if that person is known to have injured them in the past, just to stop them injuring the kid again, and even then i'd let them visit every day whenever they want cos they will be missing their kid and their kid will be missing them so much. if you just think they might hurt their kid, then it calls for support, not blame. let's go onto paedophilia. paedophilia is a selfish crime where you only care about gratification and don't care about the other person's pain. though many may be born with an attraction to children, for most it's satisfied by schoolgirl outfits. only those who have had this behaviour released through childhood modelling will act on their urges. the only thing that stops reoffending is not having availability. convicted paedophiles often have previous convictions for conning adults, like fraud and rape. antisocial personality disorders are often quite charming and manipulative and attain positions of power where they come into contact with children, like foster care. did you know that councils' policy on abuse in care is that the foster-carer (FC), SW and SW's manager sit down to cover it up and find the complaint malicious. the police won't investigate. paedophiles have become quite organised and have infiltrated children's services and are using the fact there are no parents to protect the children to get a steady supply of fresh meat. i could show you the court judgement which states that the judge and SW knew a man to be a paedophile and awarded him visitation while cutting out the mother. but that would be breaking the gagging order and the mother would go to prison. gagging parents from speaking about injustice at court leaves the whole system prone to abuse. known perjury cannot be prosecuted so SWs lie all the time. the current system goes, look at the residential parent. if they are deemed inadequate, the kid goes to the non-residential parent. you do realise that for both men and women bonding hormones only occur with post-natal contact? i'm not sure i'd search out someone who did a runner the moment he found out his girlfriend was pregnant and has shown absolutely no interest in the child as a parent when the mum is found guilty. but then, often when women break up with the dad they run off with the kid and won't let the dad see them. there is a gender difference, but only in the types of abuse favoured by each sex, not in the percentage of abusive parents (except for infanticide which is the maternal response to postnatal stress in mammals. though i have wondered if men's tendency to kill their entire families when they are stressed may not be another version of the same response). men externalise stress, women internalise. boys fight at school, girls ostracise. men commit DV, women PA. abusers never recognise themselves to be so, feeling quite justified and blaming the victim. DV dads do love their kids and the best way to convince them to change their behaviour is to get them to notice what their behaviour is doing to the kid. the victim parent of an abusive personality is often messed up by contrast with the abuser who is much more confident, but negative effects on parenting settle down the longer the warring couple are apart. abusive parents are more likely to want sole custody, but then victims of DV are likely to want sole custody too. it is very difficult to distinguish between DV and PA in those 30% of cases without physical evidence proving DV. SS have no idea which is the abusive parent so we have this awful situation of children going to solely live with abusers. prosecuting perjury in court would definitely help stop these injustices occuring; family courts need to be opened up. my personal opinion is scrap DV/PA altogether and make contact with both parents non-negotiable so noone can bicker about it. equal opportunities at home and at work reduce DV as it correlates with sexist ideas about gender-roles. i am not arguing for equal-parenting which makes the child insecure, not 3 days with the mum then 3 days with the dad, but that both parents should be encouraged to spend time doing kiddy stuff, e.g. maybe the mum takes the kid term-time and dad holidays, or mum weekdays, dad weekends. of course it should be child-appropriate, e.g. maybe babies shouldn't leave the mum for long in the first 3 years, but sometimes we have to compromise, e.g. i allowed my son to become a little clingy with me visiting his dad because the advantages of having a strong relationship with his dad outweigh the disadvantages. when kids lose a parent they always side with the parent they've got left fearing their loss too. the first year my son was aggressive with me after visits. it settled down after visits became regular and expected. visits must be non-negotiable to overcome this reluctance. as the residential parent has all the power, they must be forced to keep to contact arrangements. maybe the canadian system of, if the residential parent doesn't share, the kid goes to the other parent? if you've got shared parenting, you can scrap maintenance payments too which really divide parents. women need access to career and men need access to their kids. talking about abusers using poor child behaviour to cut out an innocent parent. SS, who are a subset of PA abusers, are so sure they are right and the parent they've removed the child from is abusive that they convince the child the abuse occured, implanting false memories which means reunion when the kids search out the parent in their teens as they always do is unlikely to succeeed, especially as the kid is messed up after years of chronic abuse. they make parents pretend to be happy they've lost their kids, willingly gave them up, to force the child to bond with the FC. SS use the fact meeting their parents makes the kid upset to deny contact. of course the child is upset; they feel abandoned. As with other cases of PA, visitation has to be regular and non-negotiable. parents and children would really appreciate it if they could visit on special occasions like birthdays. it really helps outcomes for the child when they are eventually chucked out by the state if their parents are there to catch them. forced adoption is called genocide of the poor in europe because children are stolen from the poor to give to the rich and lose their families and culture. britain is almost unique in europe in allowing it and in having the emotional abuse category. the "possibility of future emotional abuse" is used to take more and more newborns at birth. it's not just us parents who lose our kids but entire families that lose their young ones. i understand that parents are going to be fearful of giving grandparents rights. but i am not arguing for grandparents to get equal status to parents, just for them to get automatic involvement early on so they can apply to adopt immediately when parents lose their kids. SS are not legally bound to inform extended family at all, they are not invited to meetings, they have NO rights. but it's their family too. from reading people's stories, if SS don't like the residential parent, they give the kid to the non-residential parent (no matter how many criminal convictions for violence they have. an anger management course suffices). but if the non-residential parent supports the parent, they lose the kid for not detecting risk and they look at the grandparents. if the grandparents too have supported the mother, then they don't notify them of adoption at all, then say "it's too late". unwritten law: SS are so sure they are right and you are a bad parent that they will not give the child to anyone with the remotest possibility of ever meeting you again. some grandparents had had their grandchildren for years and the kids were happy there and SS took the kids off them cos they let their daughter visit twice in 2 years for half an hour each time. unless kids have more contact with extended family and mothers become more educated and go to work (which also stops teen pregnancies), i.e. a societal change, i'm not sure how effective just changing children's services will be. i am dismayed by cuts in adult services when child protection has the same budget. think about it, all those untreated mental health problems in parents.
about 9 months ago Report Shamim KhaliqDear Police, i am writing to report child abuse and neglect and to request that you investigate. these thousands of children suffer early years trauma because they are told falsely their parents abused or neglected then abandoned them; detecting abuse on the basis of risk factors means there will be a lot of false positives because most people with many of the risk factors have kids who are fine (Baartman and Hoefnagels, 1995; Peeters & Woldringh, 1993; Corby, 1996; Baartman, 1996; Cleaver et. al. 1998; Hermanns, 1998; cited at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/apsocsci/staff/documents/movingtowardseffectivechildmaltreatmentpreventionstrategiesineurope.doc ). in fact only 10-15% of these parents with multiple risk factors actually neglect or abuse their children (Peeters & Woldringh, 1993). add to this social workers' errors of reasoning, like judging on first impressions and ignoring counter-evidence (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/358/1/Common_errors_of_reasoning_1999.pdf) and methods, like focussing on the negative and relying on hearsay instead of direct observation (http://www.parental-alienation.info/publications/14-recresintrisassofchi.htm), and it is no wonder they are more likely to award kids to abusive than non-abusive parents (http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html). in fact any other professional is a better judge of risk to children (http://www.parental-alienation.info/publications/14-recresintrisassofchi.htm). moreover, these poor children's new foster parents will neglect them by being non-responsive (http://www.childrenwebmag.com/articles/foster-care/attachment-during-a-foster-care-placement). children in care are 3 times as likely to die as other children due to malnutrition and disease, e.g. they don't get immunised or see a dentist (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=42559&id=100000785197833&ref=share). neglect is the developmental killer, not violence (Crittenden, 1988; Erickson & Egeland, 1996; http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/apsocsci/staff/documents/movingtowardseffectivechildmaltreatmentpreventionstrategiesineurope.doc), yet it is the least likely to be detected (Wilding & Thoburn, 1997, p.353; Erickson and Egeland, 1996). the results are life-long special needs for these children (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10993). children in care are also more susceptible to being abused (Dawson, 1989, cited in Waller and Lindsay, 1990). 25% of convicted child sex offenders have previously worked with children (http://uksocialservices.blogspot.com/2010/04/25-of-convicted-child-sex-offenders.html; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/374558.stm). foster children are 7-8 times and children in residential care 6 times more likely to be assessed by a pediatrician for abuse than children in the general population (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626608). fatalities in foster care due to abuse and neglect, although small in absolute numbers, appear at two to three times the frequency of the general population (New York State Department of Social Services, 1980, cited in Nunno and Motz, 1988). looking at council policies, it appears the response to foster care child abuse is that the SW, manager and foster carer sit down to cover it up (http://www.devon.gov.uk/cp_complaints_against_foster_carers_section9.pdf; http://www.wirral.gov.uk/LGCL/100010/200046/159/Safeguarding_children_placed_with_foster_carers.pdf; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-shocking-truth-about-child-abuse-in-northern-ireland-1689396.html; http://www.fosteringsupport.co.uk/documents/police_investigations.pdf). no surprise then that children are better off with their "abusive" parents than in care (http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fosterlt_march07_aer.pdf ; http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16478552). i do hope you will look into this matter urgently as this child abuse and neglect is severe, widespread and growing. Shamim Khaliq (a mother trying to protect her child from abuse and neglect by children's services) p.s. i spend a lot of time on facebook support pages, as do certain police and social services departments ;-) i have two current cases where parents are concerned about sexual abuse in foster care triggered by behavioural problems in their children. in one case a pre-pubescent girl has become suddenly sexual, demanding of attention and lying. in the second case a teenager says she lives with two men who are encouraging her to get herself a boyfriend, and says she fell asleep on the floor and doesn't know how she got into bed. in both cases, police refuse to investigate. do you have any suggestions about what i could advise these parents to do?
about 9 months ago Report Shamim Khaliqthese letters are only appropriate for australia, NZ, US, UK, Canada. as usual mainland europe decided not to copy america so has less child abuse, child poverty, child deaths... but pls, if u come from a kill-the-children country, feel free to adapt and post my letters as your own.
about 9 months ago Report |
|
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
