"SELLING YOUR CHILDREN"
free_...@lbogrease.com
Cuttin' through the Bull #116
Selling Your Children
By Ray Thomas Copyright © 2002
Published 05. 12. 02 at 22:37 Sierra Time
Did you ever wonder why the so-called "child protectors" work as hard as
they do to snatch as many children as they can? Why they lie, twist facts,
abuse the children themselves as they move them from one foster home to the
next. Why they put them through "medical" and psychological exams that are
often themselves sexual abuse? Why they use subjective testimony that
allows them to "define" child abuse down to something very simple (such as
one dirty sock on the floor or dirty dishes in the sink being defined as
bad housekeeping)? Why they use every trick and scam they can to swindle
you into giving up your parental rights, and then keeping the children
anyway when they can find no evidence of child abuse? Why they bill you for
"the cost of foster care" when it's all over, even if it is proven that
they never had a right to take them away in the first place? Even people
who have never had a personal experience with them know at least one family
that has been destroyed by them in their quest to get as much "inventory"
as they can for their "adoption mill," but they don't admit it, even to
themselves, because if they did admit it, they'd have to do something like
I'm doing or feel guilt all their lives because they didn't.
Why are they allowed to operate this way? That's simple if we but open our
eyes to the truth. The power seekers in government, at all levels, want to
be in complete control of what is taught to your children so they can teach
them to accept, and even believe that socialism (collectivism) is a viable
method of government. But when they teach that today, they get objections
from the parents of their students -- and they don't want that. So now
they've figured out a way to destroy the authority parents have over what
they're taught. That way, there can be no complaints as they go about
creating good little collectivists.
Child protection is essentially a local thing, but they wanted to make it
into a federal thing, so Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and
Prevention Act. This act, when it became law, started feeding massive
amounts of funding into states to set up programs to "combat child abuse
and neglect." The unfortunate thing is, it created a "business" in dealing
with children and, later, even Mondale realized this. But no one else did
-- except for those who wanted to destroy parental rights, and they
continued to promote it.
This bill created "incentive bonuses" to induce local child protection
agencies to snatch as many children as they can, keeping them in "the
system" as long as possible, and making it permanent every time they can
get away with it. There are bonuses at every juncture, from the $400 a
month per child bonus paid for every month a child is "in the system to the
subsidies paid for the psychological and medical exams and "treatments"
families are forced to undergo on the threat that their failure will be
used against them as "proof" of their abuse.
There are many more "bonuses" paid to local agencies which allow the feds
to control what they do, and when it's all over, if they can keep the
children and put them up for adoption, they get "the big one: the adoption
bonus of $4,500 per child who is adopted from foster care. They get $6,500
per child if the child had been declared "special needs." Of course, since
suddenly yanking a child from their loving home, putting them in a home
with strangers, and moving them from home to home, family to family will
inevitably cause them to "act out," almost every child in "the system" will
be a "special needs child" by the time they're adopted. They make sure of
it, first by the way they treat them, and second, by "defining down" the
meaning of "special needs."
One major problem they had was that many parents fought for their children
like tigers, and many of them had the means to make it stick. This tended
to make the time element critical, since it lengthened it considerably and
caused them to spend more money on the fight to permanently keep the
children. So the feds came through again. They passed the "Adoption and
Safe Families Act," which effectively shortened the "process" so that if it
took more than a year, it was decided in favor of the child protectors. In
other words, if the parents fight and it takes more than a year, they lose.
President Clinton signed it and promoted it as a way to "help abused and
neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being
shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and
family." A press release from the U. S. Department of Health & Human
Services dated November 24, 1999, refers to Clinton's "initiative to double
by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise
permanently placed." In other words, to hell with the facts of the case,
we're going to take them and adopt them out.
A whole new "business" was started. It's a "sweet marketing scheme." A way
for the locals to make a lot of money. The bad part is that if you have
something people start paying you a lot of money for, you go out of your
way to have an unlimited supply of that item. In this business, that item
is children. So they take as many as they can, on the thinnest of
manufactured "evidence" so they can have a lot of "inventory."
That takes care of the acquisition of "inventory," now let's talk about
marketing. After they've snatched bunches of children, they now have to get
rid of them in a profitable manner. So what do they do? They start web
sites where they post the pictures of children who are, or will be (read:
as soon as we can terminate the parent's rights) available soon. Some of
these web sites are private, done in cooperation with the local child
protectors, some are put out by the federal government. They also have
"Adoption Fairs," sponsored by the child protectors, where you can actually
"kick the tires" of the children. Where the children are paraded past
potential adoptive parents like they were in a slave market.
Then there are the subsidies for adoptive parents. Cash subsidies until the
child is 18, and if the child stays in school, until age 22. Some subsidies
are state funded as well as the federal subsidies. "Special needs," of
course, increases the subsidies -- and you know how many can be declared
"special needs." In their report on the State of the Children, Boston's
Institute for Children says: "In part because the states can garner extra
federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened
so far as to become meaningless." "Special needs" children may also get an
additional Social Security check. The adoptive parents also receive
Medicaid, a clothing allowance, reimbursement for adoption costs such as
adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and
"reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents
when necessary to complete the adoption process." In other words,
everything possible is done to facilitate adoptions.
They teach children in school that if they don't like things the parents
do, such as "grounding" them, all they have to do is "drop a dime" to the
child protectors. Soon, the children lose all respect for their parents'
authority because they know the child protectors will intervene at the drop
of a hat. What they don't know is that the child protectors will also
destroy their family.
So the scam is simple, although the execution is purposely complicated, so
fewer people understand it. They interfere as much as they can with the
parental process, destroy the parent's rights, both legally and in the
minds of the children, and soon the parents are too busy defending
themselves from spurious "child abuse" charges to be able to complain about
what's being taught to their children in school. People who wish to impose
a collectivist government know that it will be a lot easier for them later
if they teach children at a young age that collectivism is best. Hitler
knew it. Stalin knew it. Every dictator or would-be dictator knows it. They
can't afford to allow the parents to stop their plans, so they destroy
family after family and undermine the very foundation of the family.
Fully 80% of all child abuse reports turn out to be "unsustainable" by
their own numbers. There's a reason for that: in the process of getting as
many "reports" as possible, they have set up all kinds of "hot lines" where
people can call in anonymous reports and not have to even give their names.
It has become common practice for lawyers to advise their clients to file
child abuse charges against their opponents, even in non-divorce cases
because there is no penalty, even if the report is proven to be false. The
"Good Samaritan Laws" see to that. This way they get the "wedge" that
allows them to interfere and the rest is history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- The information on this site is not legal advice. Before carrying out
suggestions found here consult your attorney. To contact me by mail, write
to: P. O. Box 16247, Denver, CO 80216-0247
© 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of
our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times
news reports, and all editorials are © 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless
otherwise noted)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
SierraTimes.com™ A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/05/13/raythomas.htm
--
"..and that you may never experience the
humility that the power of the American Government
has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his
native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself."
Black Hawk, 1833
Beth
really don't see CPS making an effort to have children adopted. The
adoption fairs and "Wednesday's Child" and the internet photolisting
sites taken together promote only a TINY fraction of the children in
foster care. Apparently, about 4000 children (out of 100,000 plus who
are legally available for adoption at any given moment) are listed on
the photolisting boards at any one time, and according to the foster
parent message boards, many of the children "featured" on these
websites have actually been adopted already, or the children refuse to
be adopted. 200,000 additional children could supposedly be "freed"
for adoption, but many judges are reluctant to TPR in cases where the
children are unlikely to find adoptive homes, e.g., older
African-American boys.
CPS does indeed have a symbiotic relationship with the foster/adopt
parents, who generally do NOT take children beyond age five, at least
as far as I can tell. (Many of them only want infants.) But I have
seen foster caregivers discuss on foster care message boards that they
have older foster children who are legally available for adoption, and
they CANNOT light a fire under CPS to get the child photolisted, even
when they offer to provide professional photos, write the child's
biographical blurb, essentially, do EVERYTHING except upload the info
to the website. So, the child gets older and less adoptable with
every passing month.
CPS is aware that if foster/adopters don't have a decent success rate,
they will drop out of the program, but if the program works for them,
they will recommend foster/adopting to all of their infertile friends
and acquaintances, which keeps the supply of foster homes steady.
Also, when a two-year-old becomes legally available for adoption, the
foster family begins agitating for the immediate adoption of the child
that is ALREADY PLACED WITH THEM.
But if Ward & June Cleaver go to a CPS adoption seminar and ask about
adopting a boy between the ages of 8 & 12, my understanding is that
CPS blows them off -- either by never phoning them, or by introducing
them to children with issues completely beyond whatever parameters the
Cleavers have outlined during the homestudy process.
From what I have pieced together from reading the foster parent
boards, I think CPS would rather continue to get federal
reimbursements for a legally adoptable child for as many years as
possible. Then, when the kid is 16 or 17, they start putting big-time
pressure on whatever foster family the child happens to be living with
at the time to legally adopt the child "because permanency is SO
IMPORTANT to kids." If the teenager is adopted, CPS then gets the
special needs bonus (after YEARS and YEARS of getting fat federal
checks each month) as well as getting brownie points on their
statistical spread sheet. The foster parents get the $10,000 tax
credit and can start claiming the child on their tax return. And the
foster child presumably gets screwed out of the four-year college
scholarship that he would have gotten if he had aged out of the
foster-care system. [I wonder if the typical foster teen has ANY IDEA
that he is kissing a scholarship good-bye if he allows himself to be
adopted?]
The foster-parent message boards have also had some good posts about
the EXTREME difficulty of adopting across state lines, despite the new
laws which are supposed to facilitate this. One woman wrote that when
she finally got through to the placement center in one state (Ohio???)
she was asked by two different workers, "If we found you a child to
adopt, would you agree not to request an adoption subsidy?" This
particular question intrigued me, since my understanding was always
that these subsidies were NOT coming out of CPS pockets, but were
either federal or general state funds, depending upon whether or not
the child was welfare-eligible at the time he was taken into custody.
One of the foster parents who lived in Utah said that in Utah,
volunteers from the community have been trained to match up adoptable
children with families wanting to adopt (the volunteers agree to abide
by all confidentiality rules,) but after they have made a "match,"
they can't get the caseworker to do anything about it, and the kids
still don't get adopted.
An eight-year-old kid in long-term foster care is a consistent source
of revenue for CPS, with very little work involved after that first
busy year of court dates and case plans. If the federal government is
giving CPS thousands of dollars per month as long as the child is in
foster care, why would they want to sever that relationship in
exchange for a piddly little one-time payment of $6000 plus or minus?
Donna Metler
"Beth" <mas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:335bd376.02051...@posting.google.com...
I have to wonder on this as well. While you hear a lot about children
waiting for homes, when I started contacting agencies about trying to adopt
(elementary age, willing to deal with some learning, behavioral or special
needs issues, but nothing too extreme), in general they either talked about
LONG waiting lists, or wanted to give us older teenagers. Somehow, I don't
think that adopting a 17 yr old is likely to give that child much of any
family structure. When I've contacted about children who are photolisted,
the child is ALWAYS unavailable.
I'm now to the point of being VERY wary about adoption. The agencies which
primarily deal directly with birth parents really do seem to be selling
babies/young children, and the governmental agencies don't seem to actually
want to place a child in a home.
Just going through the homestudy and preliminaries, where your home and life
is scrutinized, makes me very sympathetic to parents who come under CPS
fire.
Marilynn
> free_...@Lbogrease.com wrote in message news:<20020513200413.595$w...@newsreader.com>...
> > Courtesy of Jamie : )
> >
> > Cuttin' through the Bull #116
> > Selling Your Children
> > By Ray Thomas Copyright © 2002
> > Published 05. 12. 02 at 22:37 Sierra Time
> >
> > Did you ever wonder why the so-called "child protectors" work as hard as
> > they do to snatch as many children as they can?
I wish we could get Doug on this -- it seems to me I read something
that part of ASFA was that the federal money for fostering got cut off
somewhere along the line because the feds wanted to encourage
adoption. I will try to find the reference for this.
Marilynn
Raymond Johnson
<free_...@Lbogrease.com> wrote in message
news:20020513200413.595$w...@newsreader.com...
Greg Hanson
> Now that is mostly BULL
Destroycps!
Raymond Johnson
> Now that is mostly BULL
Destroycps!
I appreciate your contribution, Ray, but could you be more specific
about what you consider "bull"?
Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!!