http://www.eagleforumofga.org/articles_and_alerts.php?filter=6
Just copy and paste the link to read what a former Senator said.........wow! It makes my blood BOIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone needs to STOP them now..........that someone is me, you, and every other American who loves a child.
This is REAL folks! I wish that it hadn't taken my nephew being detained from his parents and denied his family for me to see it. BUT I see it now.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Martin Luther King Jr. Quotes........................
•"A right delayed is a right denied."
•"Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them."
•"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."
•"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."
•"I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land."
•"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live."
•"I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law."
•"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."
•"Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase."
•"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
•"If you lose hope, somehow you lose the vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you to go on in spite of all. And so today I still have a dream."
~~~~~Wow is all I can say.~~~~~~~
•"Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them."
•"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."
•"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."
•"I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land."
•"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live."
•"I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law."
•"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."
•"Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase."
•"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
•"If you lose hope, somehow you lose the vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you to go on in spite of all. And so today I still have a dream."
~~~~~Wow is all I can say.~~~~~~~
Monday, January 11, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Parental Rights
ParentalRights.org
P.O. Box 1090
Purcellville, VA 20134-1090
Phone: 540-751-1200
Email: info@parentalrights.org
Check out their site and read the proposed Parental Right Amendment!!! Boy do we NEED it!!! Thank goodness people are becoming more aware.
Let your voice be heard.
P.O. Box 1090
Purcellville, VA 20134-1090
Phone: 540-751-1200
Email: info@parentalrights.org
Check out their site and read the proposed Parental Right Amendment!!! Boy do we NEED it!!! Thank goodness people are becoming more aware.
Let your voice be heard.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Avatar awakens strong feelings.
WOW the new movie AVATAR is wonderful!!! ;) What an amazing film to watch. The special effects are awesome to watch and the storlyline is well written. I easily fell in love with the believable characters and definitely rooted for the GOOD GUYS!
AND just WHO are the good guys? Is it the ALIEN humans trying to STEAL and take over the planet's resources OR is it the native people on the planet who try to defend themselves? Are the humans who turn on their OWN doing the right thing?
So many questions..........I know my answers.
I was vividly reminded of the Indians and their struggle for their land and lives when the white man (ANY men) came to claim their land! It was very sad and heart wrenching to watch and imagine the individual stories. People died and all they wanted to do was to KEEP their way of life and protect their people...children! hmmmm?
Many things remind me of these tragic times in our history. Funny how Avatar brought it to life tonight for me. I am SO sad for the people who have been wronged in this way.
I HOPE if I were there during ANY of those times, I PRAY that I would be one who would STAND up and fight for the good guys! AS I STAND now and fight for relative's rights to KEEP their family members / children!
The Indians, Slaves, Segregated, Jews..........the list is not a short one. The suffering is unimaginable! The pain is endless and no words can describe the feeling of loss.
Stolen children, land, lives.........when will it stop? When?
NEVER ever forget that just because someone says it is LEGAL or the NORM, does not make it OK to take what does NOT belong to you!
Stealing is not OK. Blood ties cannot be broken. A piece of paper does not make or break you. Children are not a commodity and cannot be sold to the highest bidder; no matter their color, race, or background.
Stealing a child does not make you a parent. Rehoming a child does not make you a doer of good deeds!! Remaining quiet and NOT helping these children return home does not make you neutral.........it makes you an accomplice!
Things WILL change............
AND just WHO are the good guys? Is it the ALIEN humans trying to STEAL and take over the planet's resources OR is it the native people on the planet who try to defend themselves? Are the humans who turn on their OWN doing the right thing?
So many questions..........I know my answers.
I was vividly reminded of the Indians and their struggle for their land and lives when the white man (ANY men) came to claim their land! It was very sad and heart wrenching to watch and imagine the individual stories. People died and all they wanted to do was to KEEP their way of life and protect their people...children! hmmmm?
Many things remind me of these tragic times in our history. Funny how Avatar brought it to life tonight for me. I am SO sad for the people who have been wronged in this way.
I HOPE if I were there during ANY of those times, I PRAY that I would be one who would STAND up and fight for the good guys! AS I STAND now and fight for relative's rights to KEEP their family members / children!
The Indians, Slaves, Segregated, Jews..........the list is not a short one. The suffering is unimaginable! The pain is endless and no words can describe the feeling of loss.
Stolen children, land, lives.........when will it stop? When?
NEVER ever forget that just because someone says it is LEGAL or the NORM, does not make it OK to take what does NOT belong to you!
Stealing is not OK. Blood ties cannot be broken. A piece of paper does not make or break you. Children are not a commodity and cannot be sold to the highest bidder; no matter their color, race, or background.
Stealing a child does not make you a parent. Rehoming a child does not make you a doer of good deeds!! Remaining quiet and NOT helping these children return home does not make you neutral.........it makes you an accomplice!
Things WILL change............
Friday, January 1, 2010
Article: Applying The Goldman Standard To Foster Care
http://nccpr.blogspot.com/2009/12/applying-goldman-standard-to-foster.html
The above link is to an article that I found SO very interesting!
I am quite happy that this man has his son back. I am saddened that it took so VERY long and SAD that this is NOT what happens every day in America when relatives FIGHT CPS or State Adoptions for THEIR nephews (relatives)!
Even if the child lives with you for the first 10 months of his life (along with his mother),
then they move out of town,
he is detained at 17 months of age,
within hours YOU contact CPS and request both temporary & permanent placement,
YOU follow up with WRITTEN request,
YOU send history & medical information for his welfare to agency,
YOU keep calling & sending letters, gifts, photos, etc.,
YOU request an application,
THEY take 7 months to approve you for relative placement,
THEY never notify you of rights & court dates,
YOU ask for visits,
YOU drive multiple times (12 hrs. one way) for visits & court,
YOU retain an attorney,
YOU ask what ELSE you can do to receive placement,
THEY place child in fost/adopt home,
THEY don't tell court OR minor's counsel about YOU at ALL,
YOUR attorney notifies court & minor's counsel you EXIST,
NEPHEW'S PARENTS ask to sign over rights to YOU to adopt,
THEY deny, stall, lie............FOR MONTHS (5 months denying FAMILY CODE 8700(f)),
YOU ask for an application for an adoptive home study,
THEY DENY you one,
YOU track down nearest State Adoptions and ask for application,
THEY (Fresno;) allow you to apply!!! ;) ,
THEY (Fresno;) approve your adoptive home study,
THEY frustrate visitation and PERJURE themselves in court,
THEY finally allow PARENTS to sign their designated relinqishments 8700(f),
YOU complain to their superiors & ombudsman,
THEY mostly ignore you,
THEY name you PAP's (Prospective Adoptive Parents),
YOU watch in court as they SAY they signed assessment but don't AGREE with it,
THEY keep child with foster parents,
APPEALs are filed,
APPEAL is won in our FAVOR & published,
THEY STILL keep nephew and frustrate visits...........
...........to be continued!!!!!!
The above link is to an article that I found SO very interesting!
I am quite happy that this man has his son back. I am saddened that it took so VERY long and SAD that this is NOT what happens every day in America when relatives FIGHT CPS or State Adoptions for THEIR nephews (relatives)!
Even if the child lives with you for the first 10 months of his life (along with his mother),
then they move out of town,
he is detained at 17 months of age,
within hours YOU contact CPS and request both temporary & permanent placement,
YOU follow up with WRITTEN request,
YOU send history & medical information for his welfare to agency,
YOU keep calling & sending letters, gifts, photos, etc.,
YOU request an application,
THEY take 7 months to approve you for relative placement,
THEY never notify you of rights & court dates,
YOU ask for visits,
YOU drive multiple times (12 hrs. one way) for visits & court,
YOU retain an attorney,
YOU ask what ELSE you can do to receive placement,
THEY place child in fost/adopt home,
THEY don't tell court OR minor's counsel about YOU at ALL,
YOUR attorney notifies court & minor's counsel you EXIST,
NEPHEW'S PARENTS ask to sign over rights to YOU to adopt,
THEY deny, stall, lie............FOR MONTHS (5 months denying FAMILY CODE 8700(f)),
YOU ask for an application for an adoptive home study,
THEY DENY you one,
YOU track down nearest State Adoptions and ask for application,
THEY (Fresno;) allow you to apply!!! ;) ,
THEY (Fresno;) approve your adoptive home study,
THEY frustrate visitation and PERJURE themselves in court,
THEY finally allow PARENTS to sign their designated relinqishments 8700(f),
YOU complain to their superiors & ombudsman,
THEY mostly ignore you,
THEY name you PAP's (Prospective Adoptive Parents),
YOU watch in court as they SAY they signed assessment but don't AGREE with it,
THEY keep child with foster parents,
APPEALs are filed,
APPEAL is won in our FAVOR & published,
THEY STILL keep nephew and frustrate visits...........
...........to be continued!!!!!!
State Ombudsman Grievances
California State Ombudsman for Foster Care
Karen Grace-Kaho
California Department of Social Services
744 P Street, M.S. 9-025
Sacramento CA 95814
(916) 651-6560
(916) 651-6568 FAX
Toll Free 1-877-846-1602 E-Mail: fosteryouthhelp@dss.ca.gov
Website: www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov
Karen Grace-Kaho
California Department of Social Services
744 P Street, M.S. 9-025
Sacramento CA 95814
(916) 651-6560
(916) 651-6568 FAX
Toll Free 1-877-846-1602 E-Mail: fosteryouthhelp@dss.ca.gov
Website: www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov
Child Welfare Services Program
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/ord/entres/getinfo/pdf/cws1.PDF
The above link is the the Child Welfare Services Program.
If you are dealing with an agency, you should know their rules and regulations!
Don't let them use your ignorance against you to keep your relatives. If you don't hold them accountable then no one will.
The above link is the the Child Welfare Services Program.
If you are dealing with an agency, you should know their rules and regulations!
Don't let them use your ignorance against you to keep your relatives. If you don't hold them accountable then no one will.
Family Code Section 8700
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 8700
8700. (a) Either birth parent may relinquish a child to the
department or a licensed adoption agency for adoption by a written
statement signed before two subscribing witnesses and acknowledged
before an authorized official of the department or agency. The
relinquishment, when reciting that the person making it is entitled
to the sole custody of the child and acknowledged before the officer,
is prima facie evidence of the right of the person making it to the
sole custody of the child and the person's sole right to relinquish.
(b) A relinquishing parent who is a minor has the right to
relinquish his or her child for adoption to the department or a
licensed adoption agency, and the relinquishment is not subject to
revocation by reason of the minority.
(c) If a relinquishing parent resides outside this state and the
child is being cared for and is or will be placed for adoption by the
department or a licensed adoption agency, the relinquishing parent
may relinquish the child to the department or agency by a written
statement signed by the relinquishing parent before a notary on a
form prescribed by the department, and previously signed by an
authorized official of the department or agency, that signifies the
willingness of the department or agency to accept the relinquishment.
(d) If a relinquishing parent and child reside outside this state
and the child will be cared for and will be placed for adoption by
the department or a licensed adoption agency, the relinquishing
parent may relinquish the child to the department or agency by a
written statement signed by the relinquishing parent, after that
parent has satisfied the following requirements:
(1) Prior to signing the relinquishment, the relinquishing parent
shall have received, from a representative of an agency licensed or
otherwise approved to provide adoption services under the laws of the
relinquishing parent's state of residence, the same counseling and
advisement services as if the relinquishing parent resided in this
state.
(2) The relinquishment shall be signed before a representative of
an agency licensed or otherwise approved to provide adoption services
under the laws of the relinquishing parent's state of residence
whenever possible or before a licensed social worker on a form
prescribed by the department, and previously signed by an authorized
official of the department or agency, that signifies the willingness
of the department or agency to accept the relinquishment.
(e) (1) The relinquishment authorized by this section has no
effect until a certified copy is sent to, and filed with, the
department. The licensed adoption agency shall send that copy by
certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight courier or
messenger, with proof of delivery, to the department no earlier than
the end of the business day following the signing thereof. The agency
shall inform the birth parent that during this time period he or she
may request that the relinquishment be withdrawn and that, if he or
she makes the request, the relinquishment shall be withdrawn. The
relinquishment shall be final 10 business days after receipt of the
filing by the department, unless any of the following apply:
(A) The department sends written acknowledgment of receipt of the
relinquishment prior to the expiration of that 10-day period, at
which time the relinquishment shall be final.
(B) A longer period of time is necessary due to a pending court
action or some other cause beyond control of the department.
(2) After the relinquishment is final, it may be rescinded only by
the mutual consent of the department or licensed adoption agency to
which the child was relinquished and the birth parent or parents
relinquishing the child.
(f) The relinquishing parent may name in the relinquishment the
person or persons with whom he or she intends that placement of the
child for adoption be made by the department or licensed adoption
agency.
(g) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), if the relinquishment names
the person or persons with whom placement by the department or
licensed adoption agency is intended and the child is not placed in
the home of the named person or persons or the child is removed from
the home prior to the granting of the adoption, the department or
agency shall mail a notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the birth parent signing the relinquishment within 72
hours of the decision not to place the child for adoption or the
decision to remove the child from the home.
(h) The relinquishing parent has 30 days from the date on which
the notice described in subdivision (g) was mailed to rescind the
relinquishment.
(1) If the relinquishing parent requests rescission during the
30-day period, the department or licensed adoption agency shall
rescind the relinquishment.
(2) If the relinquishing parent does not request rescission during
the 30-day period, the department or licensed adoption agency shall
select adoptive parents for the child.
(3) If the relinquishing parent and the department or licensed
adoption agency wish to identify a different person or persons during
the 30-day period with whom the child is intended to be placed, the
initial relinquishment shall be rescinded and a new relinquishment
identifying the person or persons completed.
(i) If the parent has relinquished a child, who has been found to
come within Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or is
the subject of a petition for jurisdiction of the juvenile court
under Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to the
department or a licensed adoption agency for the purpose of adoption,
the department or agency accepting the relinquishment shall provide
written notice of the relinquishment within five court days to all of
the following:
(1) The juvenile court having jurisdiction of the child.
(2) The child's attorney, if any.
(3) The relinquishing parent's attorney, if any.
(j) The filing of the relinquishment with the department
terminates all parental rights and responsibilities with regard to
the child, except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h).
(k) The department shall adopt regulations to administer the
provisions of this section.
8701. At or before the time a relinquishment is signed, the
department or licensed adoption agency shall advise the birth parent
signing the relinquishment, verbally and in writing, that the birth
parent may, at any time in the future, request from the department or
agency all known information about the status of the child's
adoption, except for personal, identifying information about the
adoptive family. The birth parent shall be advised that this
information includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) Whether the child has been placed for adoption.
(b) The approximate date that an adoption was completed.
(c) If the adoption was not completed or was vacated, for any
reason, whether adoptive placement of the child is again being
considered.
SECTION 8700
8700. (a) Either birth parent may relinquish a child to the
department or a licensed adoption agency for adoption by a written
statement signed before two subscribing witnesses and acknowledged
before an authorized official of the department or agency. The
relinquishment, when reciting that the person making it is entitled
to the sole custody of the child and acknowledged before the officer,
is prima facie evidence of the right of the person making it to the
sole custody of the child and the person's sole right to relinquish.
(b) A relinquishing parent who is a minor has the right to
relinquish his or her child for adoption to the department or a
licensed adoption agency, and the relinquishment is not subject to
revocation by reason of the minority.
(c) If a relinquishing parent resides outside this state and the
child is being cared for and is or will be placed for adoption by the
department or a licensed adoption agency, the relinquishing parent
may relinquish the child to the department or agency by a written
statement signed by the relinquishing parent before a notary on a
form prescribed by the department, and previously signed by an
authorized official of the department or agency, that signifies the
willingness of the department or agency to accept the relinquishment.
(d) If a relinquishing parent and child reside outside this state
and the child will be cared for and will be placed for adoption by
the department or a licensed adoption agency, the relinquishing
parent may relinquish the child to the department or agency by a
written statement signed by the relinquishing parent, after that
parent has satisfied the following requirements:
(1) Prior to signing the relinquishment, the relinquishing parent
shall have received, from a representative of an agency licensed or
otherwise approved to provide adoption services under the laws of the
relinquishing parent's state of residence, the same counseling and
advisement services as if the relinquishing parent resided in this
state.
(2) The relinquishment shall be signed before a representative of
an agency licensed or otherwise approved to provide adoption services
under the laws of the relinquishing parent's state of residence
whenever possible or before a licensed social worker on a form
prescribed by the department, and previously signed by an authorized
official of the department or agency, that signifies the willingness
of the department or agency to accept the relinquishment.
(e) (1) The relinquishment authorized by this section has no
effect until a certified copy is sent to, and filed with, the
department. The licensed adoption agency shall send that copy by
certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight courier or
messenger, with proof of delivery, to the department no earlier than
the end of the business day following the signing thereof. The agency
shall inform the birth parent that during this time period he or she
may request that the relinquishment be withdrawn and that, if he or
she makes the request, the relinquishment shall be withdrawn. The
relinquishment shall be final 10 business days after receipt of the
filing by the department, unless any of the following apply:
(A) The department sends written acknowledgment of receipt of the
relinquishment prior to the expiration of that 10-day period, at
which time the relinquishment shall be final.
(B) A longer period of time is necessary due to a pending court
action or some other cause beyond control of the department.
(2) After the relinquishment is final, it may be rescinded only by
the mutual consent of the department or licensed adoption agency to
which the child was relinquished and the birth parent or parents
relinquishing the child.
(f) The relinquishing parent may name in the relinquishment the
person or persons with whom he or she intends that placement of the
child for adoption be made by the department or licensed adoption
agency.
(g) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), if the relinquishment names
the person or persons with whom placement by the department or
licensed adoption agency is intended and the child is not placed in
the home of the named person or persons or the child is removed from
the home prior to the granting of the adoption, the department or
agency shall mail a notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the birth parent signing the relinquishment within 72
hours of the decision not to place the child for adoption or the
decision to remove the child from the home.
(h) The relinquishing parent has 30 days from the date on which
the notice described in subdivision (g) was mailed to rescind the
relinquishment.
(1) If the relinquishing parent requests rescission during the
30-day period, the department or licensed adoption agency shall
rescind the relinquishment.
(2) If the relinquishing parent does not request rescission during
the 30-day period, the department or licensed adoption agency shall
select adoptive parents for the child.
(3) If the relinquishing parent and the department or licensed
adoption agency wish to identify a different person or persons during
the 30-day period with whom the child is intended to be placed, the
initial relinquishment shall be rescinded and a new relinquishment
identifying the person or persons completed.
(i) If the parent has relinquished a child, who has been found to
come within Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or is
the subject of a petition for jurisdiction of the juvenile court
under Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to the
department or a licensed adoption agency for the purpose of adoption,
the department or agency accepting the relinquishment shall provide
written notice of the relinquishment within five court days to all of
the following:
(1) The juvenile court having jurisdiction of the child.
(2) The child's attorney, if any.
(3) The relinquishing parent's attorney, if any.
(j) The filing of the relinquishment with the department
terminates all parental rights and responsibilities with regard to
the child, except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h).
(k) The department shall adopt regulations to administer the
provisions of this section.
8701. At or before the time a relinquishment is signed, the
department or licensed adoption agency shall advise the birth parent
signing the relinquishment, verbally and in writing, that the birth
parent may, at any time in the future, request from the department or
agency all known information about the status of the child's
adoption, except for personal, identifying information about the
adoptive family. The birth parent shall be advised that this
information includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) Whether the child has been placed for adoption.
(b) The approximate date that an adoption was completed.
(c) If the adoption was not completed or was vacated, for any
reason, whether adoptive placement of the child is again being
considered.
Article from Salem-News.com by Neal Feldman (Interesting view)
Nov-17-2007 14:11
Oregon Human Services: Today's Gestapo?
Commentary by Neal Feldman Salem-News.com
Is it in a child's best interests to always be placed in a family that is more affluent?
Image of Gabriel Allred
constitutionallyright.com
(SALEM, Ore.) - No wonder Gestapo CPS continues to get away with the attacks on families that it constantly perpetrates. There is clearly a very vocal contingent in this country to whom the concept of family and blood relations are meaningless.
This is the "Best Interests of the Child" crowd ... but of course what is REALLY in a given child's best interests are entirely up for debate.
Is it in a child's best interests to always be placed in a family that is more affluent? If so then all children of families on welfare or in the lower income brackets are up for grabs to any parents who want to adopt them if these adoptive parents are more affluent than the family the child is currently with. That would be an extremely perilous road to start down.
The current case celeb in the news is that of 2-year old Gabriel Allred, born in Oregon to a drug addict mother and sexual predator father. DHS in this case rightly terminated the parental rights in one of the rare cases that the parents were actually abusive and harmful to the child. And again in one of the rare instances DHS is uniting the child with its blood family, in this case a grandmother in Mexico.
But the foster parents, Steve and Angela Brandt of Toledo, Oregon, southwest of Salem near the coastal town of Newport, who have admitted they became foster parents for Gabriel in the hopes of adopting him, are fighting this every step of the way, and they have no small number of supporters.
To put no dull point on it these are kidnappers. They are holding this child hostage to their needs and wants. They could not care less what is 'in the best interests of the child'.
Far too many people become foster parents not to provide safe temporary homes for the kids placed in their charge but in a deranged form of meat market as they seek kids to steal for themselves.
Such fosters routinely undermine reunification and drag separation out as long as they can so that they can claim to have 'bonded' with the kids and to put forth this claim as justification to terminate the rights of the real parents so that the fosters can then adopt.
Story continues below
This is why I favor a law barring any foster parent from ever adopting a child that was placed in their care. It would eliminate the meat market aspect entirely.
If a kid's parents lose custody and the kid goes up for adoption so be it... to anyone but those they were in foster care with. It is far too great a temptation for fosters who wish to adopt their charges to undermine reunification to their own benefit. And this happens with far more regularity than most would comfortably like to believe.
They argue that they are the only family he knows. In the case of little Gabriel, it is quite true since he is only 2-years old and they have gone to great lengths to make sure this was the case. But just because some kidnapper snatches an infant and holds them for a couple years we do not let them keep the kid 'because they have bonded'. Gabriel is 2-years old. He will bond to the grandmother too.
Supporters of the Brandts have accused the grandmother of only wanting the $375 per month taxpayer provided stipend, but it is interesting to note that the grandmother was entirely unaware of this stipend when she sought custody of the boy the moment she learned of his situation. And yes he was several months old when she finally learned of it because she is not a mindreader and to my knowledge has never claimed to be. And why are the Brandts not accused of 'just being in it for the check'? It seems quite the one sided argument.
But as the saying goes... those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
We seem to have learned nothing from the media circus that was Elian Gonzalez.
He, too, had blood relatives, in this case his Cuban father wanted his son back. and after years of orchestrated BS on the part of the would be kidnappers of Elian he was, eventually, at gunpoint, returned to his father.
Will we need to send in SWAT teams to get Gabriel too?
And we have Senator Gordon Smith and Governor Ted Kulongoski, proving that neither political party respects the concept of family rights, trying to force DHS to do that which its own rules preclude it doing - placing the child in a family other than blood relations if an acceptable blood relation is willing to take in the child.
Government officials doing their able best to interfere in private family matters and in the process trampling their entire concept of family rights.
Does the name Terri Schiavo not still ring in peoples' ears? Another case where government officials, and others, sought to step into personal private family matters where they had no legitimate business doing so. That case was in Florida. This case is in Oregon.
Different stage, different players, same old anti-family song and dance.
Gabriel is a US citizen by birth, with dual citizenship (he is also a Mexican citizen) If placed with the grandmother when he is an adult he will have every right, if he so chooses to exercise it, to re-enter the US.
But as a 2-year old child he belongs with his family. And in this case his family is his grandmother in Mexico. It most certainly is not the babysnatching Toledo couple Steve and Angela Brandt.
In one of the rare instances Gestapo CPS actually has it right and should be allowed to do what its own rules state it must do without politically postured interference from outsiders who seek only to turn this case into another media circus.
If Steve and Angela Brandt want a kid why don't they have one the old fashioned way instead of trying to steal a child from another family?
Much is made of the mother and father of Gabriel supporting the Brandts. Hmmmm... a crack whore and a predatory sexual deviant deemed unfit to be parents and stripped of all rights regarding Gabriel. Why should anyone care a whit what they think? If they had even half a clue the entire situation would not exist.
Send Gabriel to the grandmother. If she has any sense she will get a restraining order against the Brandts keeping them from having any contact with Gabriel ever again. In 2 years Gabriel will have entirely forgotten them as he bonds with his real family.
As it should be.
Oregon Human Services: Today's Gestapo?
Commentary by Neal Feldman Salem-News.com
Is it in a child's best interests to always be placed in a family that is more affluent?
Image of Gabriel Allred
constitutionallyright.com
(SALEM, Ore.) - No wonder Gestapo CPS continues to get away with the attacks on families that it constantly perpetrates. There is clearly a very vocal contingent in this country to whom the concept of family and blood relations are meaningless.
This is the "Best Interests of the Child" crowd ... but of course what is REALLY in a given child's best interests are entirely up for debate.
Is it in a child's best interests to always be placed in a family that is more affluent? If so then all children of families on welfare or in the lower income brackets are up for grabs to any parents who want to adopt them if these adoptive parents are more affluent than the family the child is currently with. That would be an extremely perilous road to start down.
The current case celeb in the news is that of 2-year old Gabriel Allred, born in Oregon to a drug addict mother and sexual predator father. DHS in this case rightly terminated the parental rights in one of the rare cases that the parents were actually abusive and harmful to the child. And again in one of the rare instances DHS is uniting the child with its blood family, in this case a grandmother in Mexico.
But the foster parents, Steve and Angela Brandt of Toledo, Oregon, southwest of Salem near the coastal town of Newport, who have admitted they became foster parents for Gabriel in the hopes of adopting him, are fighting this every step of the way, and they have no small number of supporters.
To put no dull point on it these are kidnappers. They are holding this child hostage to their needs and wants. They could not care less what is 'in the best interests of the child'.
Far too many people become foster parents not to provide safe temporary homes for the kids placed in their charge but in a deranged form of meat market as they seek kids to steal for themselves.
Such fosters routinely undermine reunification and drag separation out as long as they can so that they can claim to have 'bonded' with the kids and to put forth this claim as justification to terminate the rights of the real parents so that the fosters can then adopt.
Story continues below
This is why I favor a law barring any foster parent from ever adopting a child that was placed in their care. It would eliminate the meat market aspect entirely.
If a kid's parents lose custody and the kid goes up for adoption so be it... to anyone but those they were in foster care with. It is far too great a temptation for fosters who wish to adopt their charges to undermine reunification to their own benefit. And this happens with far more regularity than most would comfortably like to believe.
They argue that they are the only family he knows. In the case of little Gabriel, it is quite true since he is only 2-years old and they have gone to great lengths to make sure this was the case. But just because some kidnapper snatches an infant and holds them for a couple years we do not let them keep the kid 'because they have bonded'. Gabriel is 2-years old. He will bond to the grandmother too.
Supporters of the Brandts have accused the grandmother of only wanting the $375 per month taxpayer provided stipend, but it is interesting to note that the grandmother was entirely unaware of this stipend when she sought custody of the boy the moment she learned of his situation. And yes he was several months old when she finally learned of it because she is not a mindreader and to my knowledge has never claimed to be. And why are the Brandts not accused of 'just being in it for the check'? It seems quite the one sided argument.
But as the saying goes... those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
We seem to have learned nothing from the media circus that was Elian Gonzalez.
He, too, had blood relatives, in this case his Cuban father wanted his son back. and after years of orchestrated BS on the part of the would be kidnappers of Elian he was, eventually, at gunpoint, returned to his father.
Will we need to send in SWAT teams to get Gabriel too?
And we have Senator Gordon Smith and Governor Ted Kulongoski, proving that neither political party respects the concept of family rights, trying to force DHS to do that which its own rules preclude it doing - placing the child in a family other than blood relations if an acceptable blood relation is willing to take in the child.
Government officials doing their able best to interfere in private family matters and in the process trampling their entire concept of family rights.
Does the name Terri Schiavo not still ring in peoples' ears? Another case where government officials, and others, sought to step into personal private family matters where they had no legitimate business doing so. That case was in Florida. This case is in Oregon.
Different stage, different players, same old anti-family song and dance.
Gabriel is a US citizen by birth, with dual citizenship (he is also a Mexican citizen) If placed with the grandmother when he is an adult he will have every right, if he so chooses to exercise it, to re-enter the US.
But as a 2-year old child he belongs with his family. And in this case his family is his grandmother in Mexico. It most certainly is not the babysnatching Toledo couple Steve and Angela Brandt.
In one of the rare instances Gestapo CPS actually has it right and should be allowed to do what its own rules state it must do without politically postured interference from outsiders who seek only to turn this case into another media circus.
If Steve and Angela Brandt want a kid why don't they have one the old fashioned way instead of trying to steal a child from another family?
Much is made of the mother and father of Gabriel supporting the Brandts. Hmmmm... a crack whore and a predatory sexual deviant deemed unfit to be parents and stripped of all rights regarding Gabriel. Why should anyone care a whit what they think? If they had even half a clue the entire situation would not exist.
Send Gabriel to the grandmother. If she has any sense she will get a restraining order against the Brandts keeping them from having any contact with Gabriel ever again. In 2 years Gabriel will have entirely forgotten them as he bonds with his real family.
As it should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)