Robert · Littlejohn

Merry Christmas Darling

Words and music by Karen and Richard Carpenter

Greeting cards have all been sent
The Christmas rush is through
But I still have one wish to make
A special one for you

Merry Christmas darling
We're apart that's true
But I can dream and in my dreams
I'm Christmas-ing with you

Holidays are joyful
There's always something new
But every day's a holiday
When I'm near to you
The lights on my tree
I wish you could see
I wish it every day
Logs on the fire
Fill me with desire
To see you and to say

That I wish you Merry Christmas
Happy New Year, too
I've just one wish
On this Christmas Eve
I wish I were with you

Logs on the fire
Fill me with desire
To see you and to say
That I wish you Merry Christmas
Happy New Year, too
I've just one wish
On this Christmas Eve
I wish I were with you
I wish I were with you

I'll Be Home For Christmas

Written by James 'Kim' Gannon, composed by Walter Kent, and originally sung by Bing Crosby for our World War II soldiers

I'll be home for Christmas;
You can count on me.
Please have snow and mistletoe
And presents on the tree.

Christmas Eve will find me
Where the love-light gleams.
I'll be home for Christmas
If only in my dreams.

And finally, my personal favorite...

Please Come Home For Christmas

Written by Charles Brown and composed by Gene Redd

Bells will be ringing this sad, sad New Year's,
Oh what a Christmas to have the blues.
My baby's gone, I have no friends
To wish me greetings once again.
Choirs will be singing Silent Night,
Christmas carols by candlelight.
Please come home for Christmas,
Please come home for Christmas,
If not for Christmas, by New Year's night.


Friends and relations send salutations.
Sure as the stars shine above;
But this is Christmas, yes Christmas, my dear,
The time of year to be with the ones you love.
So won't you tell me you'll never more roam,
Christmas and New Year's will find you home.
There'll be no more sorrow, no grief and pain,
And I'll be happy, happy once again.
Oh, there'll be no more sorrow, no grief and pain,
And I'll be happy, Christmas once again!

How ever long it takes, Diane and Charlie, come home for Christmas; and if not this Christmas, maybe next year -for you both will be 18 or over and not under the control of Richard and Shirley Rich. At the right time, I will come for you, or you can come home to me, where I will be your father and you will be my daughter and son.

If you come home to me, I will not want for anything more. There is not anything or any amount of money that will ever take the place of your love for me or my love for you. It is an emotion born of the heart that can never totally separate us, though the DCBS stole you from my heart and put many miles between us.

May God grant you the desire to return home to me, and to know and understand the truth about your mother and me, and why things came to their conclusion. At that time, you will understand that it was my desire to bring you home to me, but things were out of my hands and out of my control.

Merry Christmas, Diane and Charlie!

Love,
Dad

The words are from Roma Ryan, lyricist for Enya, from Enya’s CD Amarantine. I dedicate this to my daughter Diane and my son Charlie:
Where are you this moment?
Only in my dreams.
You're missing, but you're always
A heartbeat from me.
I'm lost now without you,
I don't know where you are.
I keep watching, I keep hoping,
But time keeps us apart

Is there a way I can find you,
Is there a sign I should know,
Is there a road I could follow
To bring you back home?

Winter lies before me
Now you're so far away.
In the darkness of my dreaming
The light of you will stay

If I could be close beside you
If I could be where you are
If I could reach out and touch you
And bring you back home
Is there a way I can find you
Is there a sign I should know
Is there a road I can follow
To bring you back home to me

April is Child Abuse Awareness Month. We all have read stories about all kinds of child abuse that would make the very hairs on our head curl. We abhor all forms of extreme punishment and deviant behavior toward children of all races. We even keep our children away from those who are convicted sex offenders. These actions are right, and we should not shy away from them in the name of "protecting our children." Even those who are child sex offenders will themselves say that they will commit such acts again if they are not castrated.

Yes, there is true child abuse, and we should not excuse it; but there is another story that gets lost in the shuffle - A STORY THAT THE CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES OF THIS COUNTRY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT! It is so important for you to know this that it may change your mind about how we go about identifying who is a true child abuser and who is not! It will make the difference between keeping families together and splitting them apart - FOREVER! I AM SPEAKING ABOUT FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT! It is documented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that 75% of the cases reported to the Child Protection Agency ARE FALSE. That means that approximately 3/4ths of the cases are falsely reported. There are reasons for this, and it stems from the Child Protection Agency receiving $100,000 in federal funds for each new child brought into the system. In an effort to keep the money flowing in each year, they must show to the U.S. Government that they are following up on ongoing cases - NO CASES, NO MONEY! IF THE CASE IS DETERMINED TO BE UNFOUNDED, THE CASE IS ENDED - AND SO IS THE FEDERAL MONEY!

They claim to want to keep the family together at all costs, BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE! They know about such programs as the Family First Program administered by the same Department of Human Services (or whatever they call the Child Protection Agency in their state), which is designed to help families work out their problems so that they can stay together. The reason that these agencies do not use this program is that they get less money for implementing the program, and it keeps the families together; AND ONCE THEY ARE OUT OF THE PROGRAM, THE FEDERAL MONEY ENDS!

SO WHY ARE MANY OF THESE CASES THAT ARE APPEALED EITHER DENIED OR TOLD THAT THEY ARE SO UNDERSTAFFED THAT THEY CANNOT GET TO HEARING THE APPEAL IF THEY HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO GET THE JOB DONE? IS THE REAL PROBLEM A LACK OF MONEY, OR IS IT THE SYSTEM ITSELF?

Children ages four and above are often separated from their parents and asked by two Child Protection Service (CPS) investigators a number of leading questions (both open- and closed-ended) until they get the answers they want to hear. If the child denies that anything went on, they consider that the child is trying to protect the alleged parent and assume that something went on. The children are often distracted, and the investigators keep asking the children the same questions over and over again. They even bring out Anatomically Correct Dolls in hope that they will show them what the alleged parent did to them! The children see these dolls and believe that they are playthings, so of course they will be curious and poke their fingers into whatever holes are there. They will suggest to the children that their actions represent what the alleged parent did to them. They also satisfy themselves by asking the children to differentiate between colors. This way, they can determine if the children know the difference between the truth and a lie. This only shows that they can tell the difference between colors; IT DOES NOT PUT THEM IN A SITUATION WHEREIN THE CHILD COULD LIE JUST TO GET OUT OF TROUBLE!

After they get the children to answer their questions to their satisfaction, they bring the mother in and tell her the wild story that she and/or her husband are child molesters because the children said so! They claim that "Children don't lie about sex abuse," which is to make the parents cave in and supposedly go along with the claim. They end up berating the innocent parents and kick them out of their house and give their children to a foster home of the CPS's choosing. If the wife believes their claim that the father is the molester, the husband is kicked out of the house and his name is smeared and slandered across the community as an alleged child molester!

AND DO THEY TAKE THIS TO COURT? NO THEY DO NOT! They know that the children will be considered incompetent to testify in court, but they take the word of the CPS caseworker who claims that the children are indeed credible. QUITE HYPOCRITICAL; FOR IF THE CHILDREN ARE CREDIBLE TO THE CPS, THEY SHOULD BE JUST AS CREDIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW! However, they will claim that they operate under a lower standard of evidence (51% to be exact). Worse yet, all this interviewing in a police interrogation room with a law official accompanying the CPS investigators is without the officer reading your Miranda Rights and having an attorney present during questioning. They claim, "you're not under arrest," and that excuses them from reading your Constitutional Rights. AREN'T ALLEGATIONS MERE SUSPICIONS, AND MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA STATES THAT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MUST BE READ IF YOU ARE SUSPECTED OF WRONGDOING?

Why do children of innocent parents so accused by the Child Protection Agencies cry out for their parents when they are nowhere to be found? Why do they tell these caseworkers and their sub-contracted counselors "Where is Mommy and Daddy? I love them! I miss them! I WANT THEM TO COME HOME!" Such children are given to the foster care system or to stepparents who bad-mouth the non-custodial parents and tell them, "Your parents are NO GOOD! IF THEY WERE GOOD, THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER MISTREATED YOU LIKE THEY DID!" Sometimes, the father and mother split up because the CPS claims he abused the children. The mother is then told to bad-mouth the father every chance she gets to the children. WITH ALL THE UNNECESSARY COUNSELING AND BAD-MOUTHING TO THE CHILDREN ABOUT THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT, IT'S NO WONDER THAT THE CHILDREN ARE SO CONFUSED!

The non-custodial parents then turn to the courts, who then are told to go into a psychological evaluator who will make his findings to the judge. They are asked a series of questions by him, and then are given the MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INQUIRY (MMPI) - a test of approximately 300 questions. Then he sees the parents with the children, and then interviews the CPS involved in the case. HIS FINAL REPORT USUALLY MIRRORS THAT OF THE CPS; SO AGAIN, THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS LOSE!

Another board-certified counselor was asked why it was this way, and he said that they either side with the system or have their license revoked and be declared to the court as an unreliable witness. Not only is this true of these counselors, but the same is true of medical doctors, public school teachers - full-time and substitute - and other professional employees so certified by the state - EITHER YOU REPORT A SUSPICION OF CHILD ABUSE OR HAVE YOUR LICENSE REVOKED AND FACE A STIFF MONETARY FINE AND JAIL TIME!

To protect them from getting slapped with a lawsuit, state law protects them and the CPS under a law called Sovereign Immunity (or "Good Faith" law) - i.e., AS LONG AS YOU WERE ACTING IN "GOOD FAITH," YOU CANNOT BE SUED FOR FALSE ACCUSATION. The protection of anonymity is further provided to both the professional and private citizen in order that they may be well-protected from any kind of a lawsuit - "WE WERE JUST DOING OUR CIVIC DUTY TO REPORT A SUSPICION OF CHILD ABUSE!"

There are many changes which need to be made so that the Child Protection Agencies can cut down on the number of False Accusations of child abuse which are reported and investigated. The system, its employees, their sub-contracted counselors, and the reporters both professional and private should be under the threat of a lawsuit if these findings are indeed false! If police departments and private citizens can be sued for false arrest, the aforementioned departments and people should as well be sued for being so bold as to make a false accusation of child abuse or neglect - IT'S CALLED GETTING SUED FOR SLANDER! If I were to make the claim that one of these CPS investigators molested my daughter, they could sue me for slander and get away with it; BUT LET THEM MAKE THE CLAIM THAT I MOLESTED MY DAUGHTER, AND THEY ARE PROTECTED BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS FROM BEING SUED! LET'S FACE IT - THE LEGS OF THE LEGAL LAME ARE NOT EQUAL!

Yes, this very thing happened to me, AND IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU! Yes, dear reader, YOU COULD BE NEXT - AND NEVER KNOW IT UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE!

Yes, there is true child abuse, and we should not excuse it; BUT TO LIVE IN FEAR OF SOME PRIVATE OR PROFESSIONAL CITIZEN TURNING YOU INTO THE CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY IS TANTAMOUNT TO "BEARING FALSE WITNESS AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR"!

You have a responsibility to change this! GET OUT THE VOTE WHEN CONGRESS AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE ARE UP FOR RE-ELECTION AND CHANGE THIS STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO BRING BACK SOME OF THE COMMON SENSE BIBLICAL BASED LAWS INTO THIS COUNTRY WHICH WERE MODIFIED BY OUR LIBERAL "COMPASSIONATE-MINDED" POLITICIANS; and if you do need to call the Child Protection Services, PLEASE MAKE SURE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE PERSON IS INDEED GUILTY BEFORE YOU GO CALLING THEM - LEST YOU BE LIABLE FOR A LAWSUIT! ANYONE WHO DOES NOT VOTE FOR CHANGE FOR THE BETTER WILL GET WHAT HE OR SHE DESERVES - MORE OF THE SAME POLITICAL FEARMONGERING AND NAME CALLING BY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT USE THE WISDOM OF GOD AS THEIR STANDARD FOR MAKING DECISIONS!

There is still time for change. Make the right choice in voting before we have a return to Communist Russia and Nazi Germany in this country - THE MOST FREE NATION IN THE WORLD, SO THAT "GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH! WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND PUSH FOR THE REPEAL OF THE FEDERAL CHILD ABUSE AND TREATMENT ACT, THE ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT OF 1997 AND 2001, AND ALL LAWS THAT ARE BASED UPON IT!

Dear Diane and Charlie,

Around this time of year it is always hard to fathom that it is now one more year added to 1994 since I have been taken from your love. In that day, I was ushered out of the mobile home in Sandwich, IL to live the rest of the week with Oliver Walker and Jim and Ruth Wood.

I spent only a couple of days with Oliver and Ollie. I went to give him some money for his trouble, and he said for me to keep it. Before I left, he told me that he knew in his heart I did nothing improper toward you Diane.

I then went to live with Jim and Ruth Wood, but I went to church with Nancy, because I didn't want to face the Plano church at that time. After that, I spent two weeks with Phil Chumbley, an older brother of Berlin Chumbley, whom I attended college with in Florida.

After that, I spent the last week of April with Rick and Chris Adkerson. On Thursday, your mother informed me that the DCFS asked her for directions to Rick's house. If she had been on my side, she would have said for them to go soak their heads and leave me alone. However, it was determined after it was all over and done with that I should leave and move to West Tennessee to live with Grandma and Grandpa Littlejohn.

That is why I left in the middle of the night and told no one, because I couldn't have Oliver, Dan, or Mike to keep what they knew to themselves. I won't make anyone promise to keep secret what I don't believe that they in their hearts can keep. I was afraid that if your mother did call the DeKalb DCFS, she would try again to keep me in Illinois when I did not want to stay there. In fact, she did tell me that she did appeal to DCFS in Ottawa, Illinois, but they said that it would be more trouble than it was worth, so they would let me stay in Tennessee for as long as I wanted.

I hope that if you do find this, you will have a better understanding of what happened that fateful day of March 31, 1994 - the day that I was not allowed to kiss you both good-bye. I continually pray for your safe return to me, and that by then you will not have been poisoned against me by your mother, social worker, or your foster/adoptive parents.

As ever, you are safe in my heart, and I am safe in your hearts, and our hearts will go on until we meet up together on this side of eternity. I have people who will help us reconnect as Father and Daughter and Father and Son. We WILL work through this and become that family that God wanted us to be - before Satan threw his brick and hid his hand!

I love you dearly,
Dad

I would like to say thank you to all who have commented - both pro and con - on this moving memorial tribute to those who have died within the hands of the Child Protective Services.

Many have said that the list is incorrect, and the latest one said that I might be opening up myself to an unwanted lawsuit. It is for that reason that I have decided to take this entry down, as I can ill afford a lawsuit on my hands.

Again, thank you for your comments, as they were well received and your positions were treated with the respect that you have treated mine. If I want people to treat my postings or responses with the respect they deserve, then I must be ready to treat any response with the respect it deserves.

I have tried to treat all of you as human beings. There are times that I have run across postings that do nothing but treat me and my positions with so much disrespect and character assassination ad nauseum that they really have no backing to what they say - but this is not how I characterize your responses in the previous year to this posting.

Thank you again for your comments.

Robert Littlejohn
United Family Rights Association

Some of you think that I must be crazy, but if you ever lost your children to Child Protective Services, you know whereof I speak. Every song you hear reminds you of them. Some of my own family have said it would have better for them to go into foster care than to stay in a situation where there was too much drama for the children. On that point, they think they are right. However, let it be one of their children, and the story becomes completely different.

For instance, several years before I was forced to lose contact with my children, Elton John's Can You Feel The Love Tonight was their favorite song, not to mention that they loved the Disney animated movie The Lion King, which was great in its own right. The one thing I took away from that movie was Simba's father reminded him through his spirit, "remember WHO you are!" THAT was what I tried to impress to Diane in her birthday card on her 13th birthday - REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE!

Diane is now 19 years old, but she is still in high school because she was held back in the 7th grade. It is now her time to shine, but the glory God gave to me in my children was taken away from me. I heard a black minister over the radio once say "the devil throws a brick and hides his hand." Insofar as my situation goes, when the A-bomb hit, I looked around and asked one question, "WHO DROPPED THAT A-BOMB??????" It wasn't until August 30, 1996 that I would find out who did drop the A-bomb, but I couldn't do anything about it - and they knew it!

So, Diane, you are graduating from high school. It matters not that it took you one year longer, but that you made it! It took me about ten years to get my Bachelor of Music degree, but I got it! Now I am going for my Master of Music degree. If you want to, you can come with me and study up here in Illinois. It doesn't have to be music, but it can be whatever you want it to be. As long as you keep you nose to the grindstone and finish what you started, you can do it!

I am so close to getting back to my daughter that by faith I can see you in the distance. Remember, you are never far away from me. You are safe in my heart, as I am safe in your heart. We will see each other - if the Lord wills - on this side of eternity.

I want my readers to keep Diane and me in your prayers, that we will return when the time comes. One year from now, Charlie will be graduating; and I will need those prayers again, and until then, Charlie is safe in my heart, as I am safe in his heart.

None of you have ever met my children, but there still isn't anything that I wouldn't do for them if it were possible. Since with God all things ARE possible, He WILL return my children safely to me.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love the Lord, to those who are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:38).

"Just a closer walk with Thee,
Grant it Jesus, this my plea;
Daily walking close to Thee
Let it be, dear Lord, let it be."

A Critical Look at the Child Welfare System's Reunification Plans

Kevin Norell is one of the newer foster care caseworkers in the Utah Division of Child and Family Services, hired to satisfy child-welfare reform laws and the terms of a recent lawsuit settlement in Utah.

According to Norell, the state asks a lot of parents who want their children returned home. They have to find a job, find housing, all of which can be "tough to do for anyone in Salt Lake County." Parents are ordered into therapy, parenting classes, perhaps drug rehabilitation, and they have to find time to visit with their children.

"Even an organized parent might have trouble with all that. And many of these parents are anything but organized," says Morell.[1]

The intent behind court ordered reunification plans may be admirable, but the reality appears to be that many plans are designed for failure, according to the 1991-1992 San Diego Grand Jury:

"Testimony was received regarding the hours of time which must be spent in order to comply with these plans. Defense attorneys have testified that they have told clients that it is impossible for them to work and comply with reunification. Judges and referees were observed, seemingly without thought, ordering parents into programs which require more than 40 hours per week. Frequently, these parents have only public transportation. Obviously, there is no time to earn a living or otherwise live a life. A parent often becomes a slave to the reunification plan."[2]

On April 20, 1993, a Florida father entered into such a "performance agreement" with the Florida Department of Health and Human Resources. The performance agreement, which is now referred to as a "case plan" pursuant to revisions in the Florida statutes, required the father to perform nine tasks to be reunified with his child:

(1) completion of an abuse counseling program and its recommendations;

(2) completion of a psychological evaluation and its recommendations;

(3) completion of a parenting program and demonstration of proficiency in parenting skills;

(4) evaluation for anger management and follow recommendations;

(5) evaluation for individual counseling and follow recommendations;

(6) monthly contact with HRS;

(7) follow reasonable requests and recommendations of the supervising counselor;

(8) provide HRS a list of relatives, their addresses, and phone numbers; and

(9) maintain adequate housing and demonstrate financial ability to provide for the child.

The father, through sheer determination, managed to comply with the provisions of the performance agreement. But was HRS satisfied with the result?

On November 22, 1994, HRS filed a motion for change of goal, requesting that the father's rights regarding the child be terminated because he had 'failed to benefit from services in a reasonable length of time.'

The lower court, on this basis, terminated the father's parental rights. The etermined father appealed to the District Court of Appeal. On March 22, 1996, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the lower court, holding that HRS had not met its burden of proof. The case was remanded for further proceedings. By this time, the child had been in foster care for three years.[3]

In another recent case, HRS filed a petition to declare a child dependent, and to terminate the parental rights of the mother. The lower court dismissed the petition, as it failed to allege any abuse or neglect.

The Court of Appeal ruled that abuse or neglect need not be alleged, and that the lower Court was in error holding that it could not terminate parental rights on the ground that HRS had alleged only that the mother failed to comply substantially with her performance agreements:

Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.500(b) provides that the only substantive allegation required in a termination petition, aside from the parents' and child's identities, etc., is that 'the parents were offered a performance agreement or permanent placement plan and did not substantially comply with it,' when required by law. The petitions conformed with this requirement.[4]

In most states, allegations of abuse or neglect are not necessary to remove a child, or to permanently sever parental rights. In virtually every state, the laws have been constructed in such a way as to allow the removal of children on the basis that they may be abused or neglected at some point in the future.

In the State of Montana, for example, temporary removal orders require the department only "to submit to the court facts establishing a probable cause that a youth is abused or neglected or is in danger of being abused or neglected."

According to a recent judicial assessment of the Montana juvenile justice system, such treatment plans are often implemented early during the proceedings, even though a child may not have been adjudicated "a youth in need of care."

"Adjudication provides the basis for state intervention in a family," reviewers note. "Therefore, enforcement of treatment which is not required for the immediate protection of the child... is an inappropriate exercise of the state's power."

Citing state law, assessment reviewers explain the dire consequences of failure to complete the "treatment plan" constructed by the department of social services:

"the failure of a parent or guardian to participate in, comply with, in whole or in part, or to meet the goals of the treatment plan is prima facie evidence that return of the child to the parent or guardian would be detrimental."[5]

Incredibly, rulings like this can be found throughout the states. In California, an often-applied ruling used to terminate the parental rights of parents who simply refuse to comply with social worker demands that they attend "treatment" or "therapy" reads:

"the failure of the parent or guardian to participate in any court-ordered treatment programs shall constitute prima facie evidence that return [of the child] would be detrimental."[6]

Hence, the refusal to participate in these programs will result in the permanent separation of a child from his parents--whether or not any maltreatment had actually occurred.

In examining studies conducted by the American Humane Association during the mid-1980s, Dana Mack of the Institute for American Values found that half of the families that child welfare agencies compelled to undergo therapeutic services for child maltreatment never mistreated their children at all, and that many removals of children are capricious actions of "preventive intervention," based on a caseworker's presumption that although abuse may not have occurred, it may at some time in the future.[7]

Even for those parents who comply with the reunification terms, the state has another way of using these plans to terminate parental rights.

The laws throughout the states are written in such a way that "failure to substantially comply with the terms of the performance agreement," or "failure to derive benefit from the services provided by the Department" are reason enough to have children permanently separated from their parents, once they have become dependents of the court.

In a recent Minnesota case, for example, the "disposition plan" for reunification included the following elements:

(1) that appellants work with a housekeeper provided by the county to maintain the housekeeping standard from week to week;

(2) that appellants cooperate with an assessment and goals as determined by an in-home skills counselor, to provide a safe, clean, and organized living environment for the family;

(3) that prior to reunification, the home environment will have an adequate level of housekeeping, as determined by the social worker and public health nurse;

(4) that appellants keep all scheduled appointments with service providers or cancel and reschedule appointments in a timely manner;

(5) that appellants complete individual psychological and psychiatric evaluations and follow all recommendations;

(6) that appellants attend individual therapy to determine and address issues of depression, grief, and loss, and other issues as may be recommended by the treating therapist;

(7) that appellants cooperate and work with the assigned financial worker from the county and comply with the budget or recommendations of the financial worker;

(8) that appellants follow all recommendations of [the child's] treating physicians and keep all appointments with the home health aide for the purpose of childcare, nutrition, and bathing; and

(9) that appellants maintain a working telephone in the residence at all times.[8]

The sad reality is that abuse or neglect need not be demonstrated. Simple failure to maintain a purely subjective housekeeping standard, the missing of an appointment, failure to "adequately assimilate" budgeting skills, or the disconnection of a telephone can result in the permanent separation of a child from his or her parents.

In most states, social workers have been granted the authority to construct these reunification plans at their sole discretion. And, there is precious little oversight from the courts in the construction of these plans.

Montana reviewers found that most judges rarely issue orders or make recommendations addressing reunification or treatment plans, finding also that: "Some judges assert that it is appropriate for the courts to defer to the department's expertise in these matters because of the social workers' experience and education."

One judge reported that while he often orders parents to take parenting classes, he does not actually know what those classes entail!

Hence, the construction of these plans is left to social workers who typically have precious little training, oversight or experience.

Worse, over half of counsel representing parents said that they seldom receive information from service providers or the department regarding the availability of services. Reviewers determined that: "Parents' counsel are, therefore, unable to to effectively challenge the appropriateness of a treatment plan."[9]

Personal bias or prejudice often play a role in how these plans are constructed.

Veteran Juvenile Court Judge Judy Sheindlin recounts the story of one young couple named Robin and Tim. Robin had two children before she met Tim. She also had a drug problem. City caseworkers stepped in and removed her three children when the third was born with cocaine in her system.

Tim, who was separated from Robin, lived at home with his parents and his brother, all of whom were employed. Judge Sheindlin describes the obstacles Tim had to face when he sought custody of his child:

First, he had to establish paternity, proving that he was the biological father of his child. Tim did this. Next, the caseworkers told him that before he could even be considered for custody, he had to take parenting classes. He had to provide the name of the person who would be caring for his child while he worked during the day. He had to establish a permanent, independent residence. There was not a scintilla of evidence that he was an unfit parent, but these were the rules that Tim had to follow. He met all of the conditions. Meanwhile, Robin the drug addict had it easy. All she had to do was enroll herself in a drug treatment program and get on welfare. That, my friends, was it.

When Judge Sheindlin asked the caseworker about this obvious gender disparity, her answer was simply: "Well, she's the mother."[10]

The San Diego Grand Jury confirmed that these plans are sometimes intentionally made impossible to prevent reunification:

Failure to comply with any element of a reunification plan is sufficient for termination of parental rights. We have taken testimony from attorneys, court appointed therapists, and social workers, that some of these plans are intentionally made impossible, particularly when infants or toddlers are involved.

Chief Administrative Officer Norman Hickey conducted an independent investigation of the San Diego Department of Social Services. His report confirmed the San Diego Grand Jury findings, following on the heels of another stinging critique of the system by the county's Juvenile Justice Commission.

The system is too demanding of the parents, distracting them from more important issues, he wrote. "Too many tasks or unproductive requirements overwhelm parents and reduce the potential for priority behavioral change."

His report also indicated that foster parents may try to thwart reunification efforts. "A desire to take care of the child on a permanent basis must not be permitted to work against the parent's goal" of reunification.[11]

The Juvenile Justice Commission examined several troubling cases in which social workers sought to prevent reunification of children with their parents. They found such cases in their representative sampling to be "numerous and diverse."

In one such case, a social worker threatened that a child would be removed from the mother's home if she allowed the child to attend a scheduled birthday party with her father in a public place. She further advised the mother to move to another part of the County, and keep her whereabouts unknown to the father.

In another case, a social worker sought to prevent the development of ties between a child and her maternal aunt, even though the aunt was known to the worker as a licensed foster mother. The worker sought instead to maintain the child in a foster home in which the foster parents had expressed a desire to adopt the child.

"The unwillingness of the Children's Services Bureau staff, from line to administrative, to listen to opposing views to the point of being hostile and threatening has resulted in a backlash from the community, as well as tragic consequences for families," the Commission found.

"Court time and real time are world's apart, so that while a case drags on from week to week and month to month, the agony of separation continues," the Commission concluded. "While Court cases often require lengthy investigation and preparation to ensure due process of law to all involved, it must never be forgotten that these cases are ultimately about living, breathing human beings."[12]