With all the stories out there of all the things that happen to children while in DHS custody why do so many people still refuse to believe it is happening. Is it because once you do the research it will make you sick to know that DHS has the right to steal, abuse & kill our children and there is nothing we can do about it? As long as our Federal Government is giving out bonuses to pick up these children it will never stop. Kelsey Briggs for example every time she was picked up and replaced there was a new bonus. So in essence while her daddy was serving our country our Federal and State Governments were allowing someone to kill his child all for the money. I realize that Kelsey was actually killed by her step-father but DHS really dropped the ball on this one. Another example the Kiowa county case the little girl in this case is being abused on a regular basis and DHS knows it but they won't stop it. She has been in the care of her abuser for 6 years he beats her, he has sex with her, he puts foreign objects in this girls ******. On one occasion she told her grandmother during a visit that he stuck the bottom end of a metal fly swatter in to her privates. She took the girl to the hospital to be checked for fear of internal damage and they tried to have the grandmother arrested for kidnapping. The grandmother no longer uses her computer because she also knows they are posting pictures of their sexual exploits of this child on the net and she doesn't want to take the chance someone will find them and send them to her. Another case a case worker takes a child puts her in foster care she is informed that the child is being abused by the foster parents but she lives her anyway. The child develops a repertory infection but is not giving medicine and the worker knows. The house is infested with cockroaches so much so that when the girl died at 7 months she had bite marks on her private parts and her rectum from cockroaches. Now you say what happened to the worker how was she punished for not protecting this child. The RISK management team decided it was in the best interest to move her from the Oklahoma county office to Logan county. I wonder whose death she will be responsible for in Logan county. These are just a few of the stories there are many, many more just like it. There are also cases of DHS workers stealing children for The Adoption Incentive Bonus program. They take them while they are babies because they are easier to adopt while they are babies. They will lie to the judges and some judges know they are being lied to but they go along with it anyway. I am not sure how much of the bonus money the judges get. I do know that the state of Oklahoma got $28 million dollars last year for adoptions, and I have to ask myself I wonder how many of those adoptions were really legal. As an added note not many people know this they are doing a good job at keeping this a secret. Kelsey Briggs paternal grandmother tried to get Brad Henry to help her. As we all now know she didn't get the help she needed. What most people don't know is that Governor Henry's wife is related to Kelsey Briggs. So not only will Governor Henry not help the other children he wouldn't even help his own family. Unfortunately Kelsey's dad couldn't help her because he wasn't even in the states he was fighting in the war. The horrible pain this poor little girl had to go through and nobody could save her. how many more children have to be abused, scarred for life or even die before our government finally develops a conscience and puts a stop to this?

I work with DHS in a different jurisdiction. I am a guardian ad litem and don't actually work for or report to the agency. Sometimes I am on the side of DHS but frequently I oppose them in court. I won't say that there aren't some bad foster homes. I have seen them and complained about them and had my kids removed. I have also seen foster parents who take in a ton of special needs kids just to get the extra cash. I fight to get my kids out of there. I had a child sexually abused at a foster home which is horrifying. Some people who take in kids don't do it out of altruism, I'll give you that.

I have also seen spectacular foster parents. For the pittance they can afford to give them, I can't imagine why ANYONE would take in foster kids.

Truth be told, however, the families DHS works with tend to be nuts, especially the ones whose children are taken into foster care. I'll just say it. Many are drug addicts, mentally ill or social misfits who think they can do whatever they want and society is supposed to foot the bill. Individuals who have a relative in foster care, frequently make completely outlandish claims about the case without doing the research. You know that grandmother with the missing grand daughter down in Florida whose daughter has been in and out of jail? Yup, she in her many incantations, is what DHS workers (and GALs) deal with, everyday. I have lost track of how many difficult family members I have dealt with over the years who furiously insist that "their" child would never be abusive to the grandbaby who come back to me, years later, and admit they just had no idea...

A subset of the families DHS works with are the ones who still have their children but a protective order is in place requiring them to get counseling, go to parenting class, etc. I won't say these parents are all nuts. A lot of them are just overworked, overwhelmed, uneducated or have made poor choices in their life that leave them exhausted and overextended. The court procedings are a mixed blessing. On the one hand, they can get some services that could help them. On the other, they are already stretched so thin that the added stress of court, missing work for court appearances, etc. is just so hard.

My experience is that while staff at DHS make mistakes, they are in a situation where if they take the kids, they are criticized. If they leave the kids, they are responsible if they get hurt. Everly single family members insists the child be sent home to the person of "their" choice. A lot of them spend all their energy telling their friends and neighbors what they think should happen, and why, but never bother to show up to court.

As for calling the governor in the Briggs case, well, DON'T THEY ALL CALL THE GOVERNOR?????? You just have to live in my world to understand how these things go.

You have to be careful what you say to families because no matter what is said, it gets twisted into something that doesn't even resemble the conversation. They tend to hear what they want to hear or what they expect to hear. Sometimes I say something completely neutral and they report that I all but threatened them. Just as often, I will tell them I completely disagree with what it is that they did and they happily report that I completely agree with them and I am one swell lady. There is no rhyme or reason to it as near as I've been able to tell.

I have seen family members who take in their kin's family ("because they love them so much!") hit the ceiling when they don't get paid for it by the state. Parents who lose their kids due to abuse are furious that they have to pay child support for their upkeep after the state has to step in to keep them safe.

It is common in my custody cases for protective serviceds to be called with complaints that the child is being abused. In fact, a "good" case is one in which this doesn't happen. In fact, the common understanding is that first grandma calls in a neglect complaint about that no-good-former-son-in-law. If that doesn't work, here comes the one alleging sexual abuse. Grandma frequently does her own "examination" of the poor kid before dragging her to the doctor on the sly, all the time telling her exactly what she is afraid they will find. 99 times out of 100 there is nothing to it - just an hysterical noncustodial parent or grandparent who sees things through their own filter. And who feels NO unease at justifying the means to achieve whatever end he/she prefers.

A lot of parents come to court and offer the judge NOTHING to support their arguments. To hear them tell it, later, the court just ignored them when they laid it all out for them. Next to never happens. What actually happens is that they give their conclusory opinion, if they say anything, with no evidence beyond that THEY think things should be decided a certain way. "She is a crappy mother and I didn't want him to marry her in the first place," from the paternal grandparent just doesn't carry the punch as bringing in witnesses who can describe things that substantiate that the mother is a drug using, abusive parent.

Re: Adoption. I have been doing this for years. I have never ONCE had an adoption go through that had even a hint of illegality to it. I've never had another GAL tell me they were involved in an illegal adoption, either. Adoptions deal with the parents' constitutional rights - not just run of the mill "laws." Not only is there a very high standard for a termination of parental rights to be granted, the right to appeal is there to make sure nothing is out of order. There are a ton of procedural hoops you have to jump through before termination of parental rights (and subsequent adoption) is accomplished. Moreover, the state will supply the parent an attorney if they can't afford one. Claims that the judge gets a bonus are absolutely ridiculous and irresponsible. The feds will offer a special adoption subsidy for a special needs child but that goes to the adoptive parents. This is an attempt to get children a home - some of them are blind, crippled, need a G tube, are severely mentally retarded (will never even be potty trained), or otherwise hard or impossible to place.

I am not sure where Dana is getting her information about all these cases. As a GAL, I have access to all the information about a child I represent but I don't have any way of getting the type of "inside" information she describes about several foster kids. Most courts keep this strictly confidential. Perhaps she has an insider who is sharing these tales? Someone who, by the way, is not subject to cross examination to prove the factual basis of these tales?

I read about the Briggs story. The bonus argument is hogwash. No social worker or judge gets ANYTHING financial related to a child in foster care. The judge and DHS came under a lot of criticism but unless you were there, you have no idea what evidence was presented that led to her death. And BTW - the child was with her family when she died - not with a foster family. So, on the one hand, foster care is bad. On the other, DHS is stealing babies and money is changing hands. Oh, and when the child goes back to her parent? That is bad, too. It is all the government's fault.

I tell my families that the courts are a very poor excuse for families behaving as they should. It is easy to criticize DHS and I understand why people do it. But on the whole, it is staffed with what I call "do gooders" who have soft hearts and want to the do the right thing. A lot of them burn out relatively quickly because their high ideals don't stand up to misery and irrationality that the dregs of society tend to bring to the table. 99% of them are the dregs of society. Let me repeat that. Those among us who are functioning just fine can't imagine the lives many of these folks live. They are in and out of jail, rehab, relationships, jobs, never have transportation, frequently change residences and their kids' schools, and an amazing number are on pain medication from "back" pain.

The depravity that is visited upon kids by dysfunctional families and an overworked fostercare system is soul killing. Fact is, a child doesn't end up in foster care without a pretty good reason. Fact is, a lot of the families who lose their kids are nutty. Fact is, there is no real good reason beyond being a saint or being a sinner to take children into your home as a foster parent. Fact is, the combination of overworked social workers, jaded GALs, crazy, addicted, maladjusted or otherwise dysfunctional families, traumatized children, skeptical judges sometimes result in a child not being protected as they should. But the alternative is ... what? It is easy to criticize, particularly if you have an ax to grind.

I am so grateful to good foster parents. The bad ones, well, I hate them. Just hate them. But the alternative? I have never met a social worker or a judge that didn't care about the kids. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they miss things. Sometimes, believe it or not, the families lie. Hard to believe, but true. DHS staff and the courts are not god. They can't see into someone's soul and tell if they are good or bad, or if they are telling the truth and they can't read the future. They generally do the best they can. Sometimes it doesn't work out. If families would do their part, these agencies would be put out of business.

.o(don'tcha just hate it when someone holds back what they really feel)Oo.

A different perspective from the trenches, very well laid out as well.

Although OKDHS Caseworkers may not receive "bounties," they do in fact receive "incentive" pay and "bonuses." Here are just a couple of links you can check out:

http://saveaparent. org/okdhs. php

http://saveaparent. org/docs/ okdhs/OKDHS- InsideOKDHS- december2004. pdf

There are others as well...

Dennis
Oklahoma City

LOL at the OP and the first response and them excpecting us to actually read all that

LOL at the OP and the first response and them excpecting us to actually read all that

What...Not enough "UR" and "NO WAI" going on in there to keep your attention?

Not like reading is important. Or you know...The subject matter at hand here. CHILDREN. They're not important enough for you to bother reading posts from people involved and learning a bit about how the system works are they?

Yeah. Kids. Not worth reading about huh.

I can't help but wonder just how many crazy, addicted, maladjusted or otherwise dysfunctional, traumatized, abusive, skeptical OKDHS Caseworkers there are? I mean, they are people just like us (parents) right?

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." -- Thomas Jefferson

Dennis
Oklahoma City

ECO - I went through the appeal process with one mom. She received her income tax return and spent it all on an attorney to help her get her child back. You see she had a hopeless moment and decided it was best to relinquish her rights. The world seemed too much to navigate at that time and she did it for her child, but also because the caseworker told her if she relinquished she might be able to get him back, but if CPS "terminated," she would have no chance. I was there the day she returned from relinquishing and that is the reason she gave that she did it. So when we got to the appeal process, the atty said she had never seen a termination overturned but she thought this girl had a chance. But no. The judge firmly established there is no difference between termination and relinquishment, and the case worker denied ever using that persuasion. And of course the termination was not overturned. So yeah, parents can legally appeal, but the first one goes to the judge that oversaw the termination and they aren't known to overturn their own decision. You can appeal again but that takes a lot more money as I understand it. So on paper it all sounds good but the reality is something else. And I still hear all the time caseworkers encouraging relinquishment as if its something different and better than termination.

angel27,

Can you provide the Judges, Caseworkers and Attorneys name in the matter you shared?

Thank You,

Dennis
Oklahoma City

East Coast Okie,

Could you please explain what a gaurdian ad litem is? What are the qualifications or requirements? Do the children get an attorney and a gaurdian ad litem? What's your opinion of the training requirements for DHS child welfare workers? You mentioned constitutional rights in regards to adoption and a little about the courts. What's your opinion of the court process as a whole? Do you think they are conducted properly? You mentioned how little was paid to foster parents, how do you think foster care payments are being handled in general?

Why would this woman relinquish her rights if she had an attorney telling her differently?

Angel, just so I understand, when you say "relinquishing rights," do you mean relinquishing "custody" or relinquishing "parental rights?" As you must know, it is not at all the same thing. I have known plenty of parents relinquish custody with the idea that they might get their kids back at a better point in their lives. And they frequently do. However, once the parental rights are gone, they're gone (once past the appeal process).

What you are telling me is that this person had an attorney but listened to the caseworker, instead? And the only person who heard the caseworker tell her she could change her mind, later, was the parent? The caseworker denied this? If she had an attorney, there is no excuse for relying on someone else's statement, in my opinion.

There are several ways the state can terminate parental rights. One of the most common is when the child is in foster care for a long time and the parent doesn't get it together.

It usually goes something like this:

The parent voluntarily gives up custody to get their lives back in order. Parents with drug problems seem to do this, a lot. They still retain parental rights. However, time goes on and they take FOREVER to get it together and after a year or so, the agency moves to terminate. After about a year to year and a half in foster care, the agency has to do something permanent pursuant to federal law.

When a parent voluntarily relinquishes custody, they aren't just handing the kids over to be babysat. The idea is, "State, take my child and I will do X, Y, and Z to get my life in order. Thanks for the help. I promise I will get it together and take back the kids and if I don't, you'll probably get to keep them." Really, that is what it amounts to.

In most cases, when a child is in foster care, a relative will step forward or the parent will get it together within that period of time. Unfortunately, sometimes that doesn't happen.

But back to what I was saying - after the parent is notified that their parental rights are likely to be terminated (usually after a year), they jump up and down and insist that they VOLUNTARILY relinquished custody and now they want it back. But it doesn't work that way. If they have sat on their hands for over a year and not done what they are supposed to do, or only done it half assed, it doesn't matter, procedurally, how the child came into care - the point is that the child needs permanancy and the parent has not stepped up to the plate in over a year. Federal law is not going to allow, at that time, to just hand back the child. Moreover, if a parent is willing to wait that long to get it together, on a factual level, they are going to have a tough time showing that it is in the best interests of the child that they be returned. Nine times out of ten, if it has taken a parent that long to get it together, with no relative stepping forward, they just don't have much resources, individual or through extended famiy, to care for their child. The truth is, a lot of parents, particularly drug addicts, think they can just take a break from parenting and then pick up the kids when it is more convenient. Children aren't furniture and they deserve to know where they are going to live and who is going to care for them.

But maybe you really are talking about voluntarily relinquishing parental rights. Usually, this happens in an abuse situation and the parent knows they don't have a leg to stand on to keep the child so they give up their paretal rights voluntarily. The reason they do this is because in most cases, if you voluntarily relinquish your parental rights (as opposed to involuntarily relinquishing), nothing negative attaches to your ability to keep existing children or children you might have in the future. You DON'T get THIS child back. In contrast, someone who has their rights involuntarily terminated sometimes can have this held against him/her if the state goes after other children, born or unborn. That is why a lot of parents voluntarily relinquish parental rights.

I have frequently seen mothers who show up at the hospital to give birth with drugs in their system. DHS takes the baby. Lots of times, no father is known (or mom protects him so he doesn't have to pay child support - what a great chick). Frequently, a mom will voluntarily relinquish her parental rights at that point. I guess they haven't really formed a bond, yet. There is a pretty short time to reconsider under those circumstances and, again, once it is done, its done.

The truth is, and here is the the biscuit, nearly anyone who voluntarily relinquishes parental rights does it because they know they are going to be involuntarily terminated, otherwise. That means something really bad happened to that child. Changing their mind about doing it voluntarily doesn't change the underlying facts and it doesn't mean that the state won't go right ahead and terminate their parental rights involuntarily. All that tells a judge is that the parent is a flip flopper about something as precious as their parental rights to their child on top of whatever other problems were going on.

Individual cases all have their own twists and turns - this is just a shotgun overview of how I've seen these things go. Not giving legal advice!

East Coast Okie,

Could you please explain what a gaurdian ad litem is? What are the qualifications or requirements? Do the children get an attorney and a gaurdian ad litem? What's your opinion of the training requirements for DHS child welfare workers? You mentioned constitutional rights in regards to adoption and a little about the courts. What's your opinion of the court process as a whole? Do you think they are conducted properly? You mentioned how little was paid to foster parents, how do you think foster care payments are being handled in general?

A guardian ad litem can be an attorney or not. In my jurisdiction, and I don't practice in Oklahoma although I am licensed here, attorney guardians ad litem are typical and advocate in the best interests of the child - and that is pretty standard in all jurisdictions. They are considered a party to the case on the child's behalf. Unlike a defense counsel, they aren't bound by the child's wishes, although the child's reasonable wishes are part of what must be considered in making recommendations to the court. Oklahoma has been in the process of putting together standards for GALs - most states require attorney GALs to have special training to deal with juveniles and need to be certified as a GAL. They have to have specialized experience in juvenile court and need to have the court and other experienced GALs vouch for them. Like all professionals, they need continuing education in the field.

Where I work, if a child is charged with a crime, they can have both a defense counsel and a GAL. It doesn't happen routinely but I frequently end up on cases where the child assaulted the parent or if they otherwise have family problems. A lot of custody cases have a GAL appointed but, at least in my jurisdiction, the child is not entitled to an attorney, otherwise.

As a rule, the training the DHS workers get is excellent but it is not executed fast enough and it is so hard to keep ahead of the eight ball. There is a great deal of turnover in this type of field due to burnout. People have no idea how emotionally grueling it is to deal with this sort of population. Moreover, at an entry level, a lot of professionals are also in the child bearing years. This means you have maternity leave going on all the time (contributing to turnover and changing hands of cases - which impacts the continuity of case management). In addition, it is just so hard to deal with the insanity and seeing children not being treated well when you have young children of your own. My kids are grown - I could NOT do this work if they were still small. It would be too emotionally painful. I don't see many GALs who stay with this very long who have young children. It is even harder on the social workers who have a closer relationship with the families. Even without children, there is a lot of turnover so training is always ongoing and it is hard to get people to stay and keep the experience that comes with years of experience. A lot of young people go from Child Protective Services to less stressful roles so you end up with a lot of young, inexperienced investugators. You can slam the agency if you want but unless there is an unending suppy of people willing to put themselves in that job, what are you going to do?

I tell my parents that the courts are an extremely poor substitute for families working. It is just that it is all we have. They do the best they can but ...

The evidence needed to remove a child from the home is relatively low but because parental rights are protected by the constitution, you need clear and convincing evidence that it is proper to terminate. It is HARD to involuntarily terminate the rights of a parent. There is hearing after hearing after hearing before it is done. Federal law requires that adoption can't be sought unless returning home or relative placement won't work. The agency has to demonstrate this and the parent is allowed to defend themselves.

Due to the high likelihood of reactive attachment disorder, once a baby has been with a foster family for any length of time, you run a very great risk that they will be permanently damaged if they are removed. You see more babies adopted than older children and this is one of the reasons. Up to about age three, it is imperative that a baby be able to bond with a consistent caregiver. You can't drop off a baby for the first year or so, then pick them back up without the very high risk of significant damage that is permanent and severe. It is a horrible disorder. My most damaged children suffer from this.

Do I think the courts are run well? Depends on the court.

No, I don't think foster care families are paid enough. That being said, I don't know how you could pay them enough.

_____

In response to the question, aren't social workers just as dysfunctional, etc. - NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To compare them to the population who have ended up in the system is ludicrous. Most of them have an abundance of empathy and good will. They want to help others and tend to be loving people who honestly believe they can make a difference. Yes, they get jaded, but they aren't the type of people who are self centered, drug addicted, switching partners every other week, calling the police to referee who has to wash the dishes, etc. Most of them are solid folks. Many of them come into the work with high ideas from kind homes and they think everyone is like them and just need someone who will understand them and be compassionate. A lot of them get out of the business when they realize that there are a lot of people who live like rodents, are utterly self centered and have no interest in making a better life for their children. Harsh, yes. I don't mean all of them, of course. You meet many saintly people in this business. So often you see a parent who is simply nonfunctioning and they come from a lovely family who will turn their lives upside down to shelter their grandbaby, neice or nephew. I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that there aren't a ton of wonderful people that you meet connected to the kiddos.

The allegations of the "bounty" and "bonuses," I find particularly humorous.

In 2004, they received a bonus because DHS had done an excellent job pushing paperwork and collecting child support which had created an excess in funding which. DHS workers aren't paid very well, so $1,000 is a big deal.

To suggest, however, that their work at taking kids out of homes is financially motivated is laughable. Look at all that must be true for your argument to be true:

In 2004, DHS employees received $1,000 "bounties" because the children they had collected had been served by other DHS employees who had collected child support (of which the agency keeps 3%), and disbursed a great number of TANF, etc. payments, which indirectly increased the funding of DHS which led Howard Hendrick (who didn't receive anything extra because of this increase in funding) to pay out $1,000 to each employee.

Doesn't work too well, does it?

It would also have to follow that in 2005, 2006 and 2007, DHS workers didn't do as well at collecting bounties, because no bonuses were paid.

Do you really expect them to admit about an illegal adoption? I do know of a case where the judge was even shown the drug test that they doctored just so they could keep the baby and the judge did nothing. Both of these test were taken the same day one says positive for marijuana and the other one 1 & 1/2 hours later was negative Hmmmm. And for those of you who think there is no bonus plan you should google "A carrot among the sticks" and by the way Oklahoma got $28 million dollars last year from the Federal Government for these adoptions. One more thing I can document everything I say I have the paperwork and audio tapes.

You think social workers are not just dysfunctional what about the Nancy Cannady case. What about workers who have criminal records and are allowed to make decisions concerning other peoples lives and their children. In one of these cases they took the child from the home where it lived with it's mother and grandmother. The worker has a currant warrant for her arrest and has previous felony charges and misdemeanor charges. The mother is 18 no record, no drugs. The grandmother has no record, no drugs, owns her own home free and clear and worked in the legal field at the same place for 8 years. The worker was also drawing TANF while the grandmother was working hard for a living and supporting her child by herself. Once again I can document all of this too.

I don't really think this thread is going anywhere.

Justice against corruption never does.

I agree, this thread is unlikely to go anywhere good.

That is the whole point corruption is evil so no good can come out of it as long as everybody closes there eyes to it. The problem it is the children who suffer and nobody cares.

You haven't proven corruption, just that federal funds are awarded to state agencies which disburse federal aid. You have also shown that in 2004, because DHS was efficient at doing their jobs, they had a surplus of money which was spent by giving all full time employees a $1,000 bonus.

Other than that, your allegations of "corruption" seem based upon your bad experience with the system and that you experienced a poor result. No system will ever be perfect and DHS is probably one of the most chronically underfunded systems which our state has to manage.

You shouldn't be seeking legal advice on a message board, you should be seeking the advice of an attorney who handles juvenile matters. If you can't afford an attorney, you should be able to get one through Legal Aid.

I am not seeking legal advice on a message board just trying to enlighten the people who don't know about the corruption going on. However you can provide all the proof in the world to some and they will still refuse to see it. Example dead children, doctored drug test corrupt workers etc. These facts are all easy to check out but those who really don't want to see it never will. And by the way those bonus also went out to those full time employees who have also been legally charged with failure to protect.

Dana,

These things you claim exist aren't facts. They're allegations. Dead children happen with or without DHS. In at least one of the cases, you cite, the child died after being returned to her biological parent.

The doctored drug test by itself doesn't prove anything because we don't know all of the circumstances surrounding the test. There could have easily been a lab mixup or the mother could have had a negative but diluted sample on the second go-round. I've seen folks pass drug tests when they shouldn't have. The fact that she passed the second test is not, however, by itself enough to 'expose corruption.'

As for the bonus going out to workers who did a poor job, that's immaterial. The bonus went out to all full time employees, incompetent or not.

No one disputes that there aren't a few workers over there who shouldn't be there. That, however, is not evidence of a corrupt system, it's just evidence that maybe there is a staffing shortage and tat there are accountability problems within the system, which, I'm sad to say is about the same in any government office.

#1 The only case I mentioned where the death occured by the parent was Kelsey Briggs. The 7 month old I mentioned died while in foster care 3 days after the worker supposedly made a home visit it was later revealed that she lied that is court record. The drug test, the man who took the first test swears there was no mistake the 2nd test was taken at S.O.S. which is the facility that the state of Oklahoma uses for there drug cases and DHS cases. It is the one that the state trusts and that was the test that was negative. She went straight there after the first test I know this for a fact because I gave her a ride. I also have proof that the worker has a criminal record and an active warrant for her arrest while the mother is clean. The workers record proves she has money problems and that she is motivated by money but I guess none of that matters either. I have to admit when I first started this research I was like you I thought it was just a mistake and would quickly be fixed I have since found that DHS is a lot more corrupt then people think. I have talked to ex-workers who admit to breaking the law for the bonus money. Lawyers who while they were in court proving that DHS was breaking the law have had their own children taken while they are in court. In one case the girl is still alive but will be forever scarred she continues to live with her abuser with DHS approval. She has been beaten raped and had foreign objects inserted in her private parts and DHS knows all about it. There is also medical evidence to prove this too. When DHS found out that the grandmother was taking her to the hospital to see a doctor they tried to have her arrested for kidnapping but yet you say there is no corruption.

This "bonus money" argument you keep making is completely bogus though -- a $1K bonus in 2004 due to something only tangentially related to the number of kids in foster care isn't going to motivate anyone to do anything. DHS workers are not paid on commission.

This 'research' you are doing, if you are using the sites I think you are is questionable at best.

When a state agency deals with children, there are bound to be screw-ups. Unfortunately, children are the victims here. There will even be a few corrupt incompetent state workers who lack humanity and perspective. This isn't necessarily a reflection on everyone in the system, but testament to the fact that no government bureaucracy in history has been perfect.

If you're telling the truth, good luck with your case.

Ok it is not bogus, the pamphlet is called "A carrot among the sticks" it explains the rules for picking up the children and which children are worth more money. It explains all about the quotas and the money. Also the state of Oklahoma made $28 million last year for these adoptions. I did not by any means say that all DHS workers are corrupt but the few that are can sure do their damage.

You say that they are doing this for personal gain, but your only evidence is that they and everyone else in DHS got a $1,000 bonus check in 2004 for something which is only tangentially related to the problem you're referring to.

As for the pamphlet, do you have a link? Does the pamphlet cite to credible sources?

I am not the one who brought up the $1,000 bonus that was someone else I only talked about the Adoption bonus for the state from the Federal Government that could be where the $1,000 came from but I do not know that for a fact so I can't say that for sure. I only talk about what I can prove. Ok here is the link I hope I did this right if not I have a copy of it on my computer.
[PDF] A Carrot Among the SticksFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
A Carrot Among the. Sticks. The Adoption. Incentive Bonus. Cornerstone Consulting Group, Inc ... Among other things, the legislation places renewed emphasis ...
cornerstone.to/images/carrot.pdf

I think I did that wrong try this.
http://cornerstone.to/images/carrot.pdf

The 'bonus' is paid to the state, not the caseworker. What makes you think that the caseworker has any individualized incentive to place children with adoptive families rather than return them to their biological parents?

The real smoking gun here is missing.

Numbers which might be interesting to look at would be the percentage of kids returned to their own families versus those adopted out to non-relatives.

I decided to give a few links to check out pay attention to how the media said that they had to go to court just to be able to air these stories because DHS didn't want them aired.

YouTube - More CPS Corruption... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RIychlsKl4)

YouTube - Child Protective System Part 1 - Video - WLKY Louisville (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAnjp7OnxNM&NR=1)

YouTube - Mass CPS corruption P2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8h4SOwWXdc)

YouTube - Forgotten Children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ORelECvz4&feature=related)

YouTube - Death of a foster child part1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gq0GSYpzGc&feature=related)

ECO - first - when this mother relinquished her rights, she still had a court-appointed atty. She relinquished against the advise of the judge and her atty at the time. Yes, she was persuaded by the case worker to relinquish as if it was a different circumstance than if CPS terminated her rights. She was able to pay an atty, that the judge mentioned was a good atty, later with her tax return money. I can produce the judge and 2nd atty in this case, I would have to look in my records to see if I have the case worker's name.

I just went through a case wherein everyone (I can produce names of caseworkers) told a mother that if she relinquished her rights to her 4 children, they (CPS) wouldn't interfere with the baby she was carrying when she was born -and that her old case would not matter to her new baby. So this mother, unwillingly, relinquished so she could at least parent her baby. We were able to get her into a good place and she was not homeless and had everything she needed to care for her baby. CPS came in & took the baby. They said it was because she had not corrected the conditions (hadn't completed the classes of her old case). You know, why didn't they say that to her. They didn't think she could get it together I guess. This woman had passed all drug tests administered by her doctor during her pregnancy. They couldn't even give her a reason for taking her baby when they did. And in neither of these cases nor any I have been involved in did anything horrible happen to any of these children. These are mothers who love and want their children. Most often the children were taken on neglect charges. A mother gets sick and can't get up to clean the house for a few days. Someone is mad at her and here come CPS. Most often they are poor, lack reliable transportation and -well- any number of complications can apply with their efforts to meet their Service plan. Reports get lost, she thinks she completed the class the agency says she didn't.

Dana, whenever we encounter a positive drug test by SOS or others and we know that it shouldn't be positive, we send clients to CRG (who performs SOS tests) and request a hair follicle. I think those are most reliable, go back 3 months or more and can't be affected by the sometimes mystical diluted status. I can think of one very close doting mother and precious child that were saved by that move and are out from under DHS radar today, but it took some years and a lot of set backs.

We can't prove anything on this thread. My motive is to get this information out there. Very often I feel like I'm the only one in this City that provides support to mothers in this system. Everyone else is against her, and very and most often her atty does not care. I know everyone is overworked with too big a case load. But that in itself says this can't be fair or right. The mother-child bond is supposed to be the most important factor to the health of a child - and we disrupt that for what? It used to take a village to raise a child. Then all of a sudden about 8-10 yrs ago the village was mandated to report any suspician that the mother wasn't perfect. And this is what we've got. A new mother falls alseep with her baby and that bond is forever altered.

What if we left unharmed children with their moms. What if we offered her all of that education and support without depriving the child of its family? Wouldn't that be in the better interest of everyone. With all the money being spent it just seems its being spent in a counterproductive way. And I believe that these children are the ones who suffer most from this system. What if we formed a support group so that we could mentor and shepherd these mothers through this system in hope of reuniting every and all families that could be made better and stronger. What if we came together with DHS and the courts and judges and said what other possible system is there than seperating this family and we all came up with a plan? How much better would that be. I can't help but think it can be done. Or maybe I'm just dreamin.

In the case I am referring to the judge has seen both tests and knows that the first one was doctored but refuses to do anything. It is not a point of knowing that laws were and still are being broken. The point is DHS is a government entity and nobody will stop them even when it has been proven that they broke the law. They have unrestrained power to do whatever and whenever they want. Plus people refuse to see the writing on the wall because they don't want to or they just can't believe these things really happen. Some even after it hits them like a pie in the face still refuse to believe it is easier to just ignore it afterall it is not their children that DHS has decided to focus on. DHS is the new Hitler of the century and in time when their quotas will get so high, and they have to keep looking for new babies they are going to pick the wrong person that will have the money, power and whatever else they need to blow the lid off of this. Then some of these people are going to remember they were told. Some may even say I didn't know this was going on how did this happen? Now how long it takes for DHS to pick that wrong child who knows. I do hope that the 2 class action law suits against DHS may do some good we shall see. Funny that the law firms that are doing these cases are not even in Oklahoma County and 1 of them I know for a fact is in New York. It is an unwritten law you don't F**K with DHS in Oklahoma because if you do they will come after your children, your job, and anything else they can do to shut you up. They don't want people to know what they are doing and will do anything to keep people quiet. Gee it sounds like I am talking about the mob but that can't be right it is the government.

Obviously I am not the only one who knows how corrupt DHS somebody else posted something along the same lines. Here is the thread Header.

Childrens Rights File Class Action Lawsuit on behalf of Oklahoma's Children
this thread has 33 replies and has been viewed 1114 times

East Coast Okie,

So you really aren't speaking to the situation in Ok. but your perspective of how it works where your at. You said your licensed here but don't practice here, are you a lawyer or a psychologist? Does the DHS where you're at use clinical psychologist to make the "diagnosis" of "nuts" you applied in blanket coverage to parents with kids in foster care and many involved with the system in other ways. You appear uninformed about Ok. in general and assume things work here as they supposedly do where you're at. Adoption incentives are a matter of public record and knowledge. Federal adoption incentives are paid to the states. The issue of incentives to workers is based on a state program. Things considered are, time employed, continuing education, and performance. One of the ways state DHS's are evaluated by the feds is "outcome". That would be outcome of the permanency plan, and if that plan included adoption (which many do because of concurrent planning for permanency, having plan b in place in case plan a fails.) then I guess those could be said to be adoption incentives couldn't they? And as far as workers go isn't there always incentive to do what the boss wants? You stated, "The evidence needed to remove a child from the home is relatively low", probable cause of "immanent danger", (death, injury) is what the 10th.Cir. said is required for emergency temporary removal, otherwise it's a 4th Amendment violation. (Roskas case, appealed from Utah I think)
Back to Ok. As you said Ok. is putting standards in place for GAL's. They now have a manual which all GALs are required to read and agree to. But in Ok. there are two types of GAL. One is a CASA worker,(by CASA's estimates they're involved in about 25-30% of Juvenile Deprived cases in the Tulsa area. More often the child's lawyer acts as both GAL and legal representation. What is your professional opinion of that? The OBA has not adopted the standards of practice for representation of children in these cases put out by the ABA, what is your opinion of that?
You said,"As a rule, the training the DHS workers get is excellent". In Ok. "child welfare specialist" are not required to be licensed social workers and most often they're not. In Ok. a B.A. degree in any field and 5 weeks of training, some of it on the job is all it takes. And due to other licensing exemptions most working in the Ok. system and it's contractors practice in areas they're not certified in and would not be allowed to in the private sector.
You mentioned the Kelsey Briggs case, were you aware the judge in that case was removed/left the bench due to that case and later wrote a book to try to tell "his side of the story"? Have you read the official state report on Kelsey's death? Kelsey's law resulted from that case and it was touted as DHS reform when in fact it speaks more to Juvenile Court procedures.
In the class action lawsuit filed by children's rights org one of the causes of action is that children are not receiving legal representation. This is also confirmed by the 2007 ABA report on the OKC. Juvenile Court, and has been testified about in the legislative hearings going on here regarding DHS. So if children aren't getting to see their lawyers and most of the time the lawyer is the GAL my guess would be they're doing neither job. Which could help explain how so many children are dying either in foster care or in their home after a failed or faked investigation such as in the Taylor case recently in Tulsa. If there was proper oversight of the child's situation and investigation by the child's GAL and lawyer like is supposed to be done then maybe more of these "mistakes" by under qualified workers would be discovered before the child dies.
You act as if corruption is out of the question, to know Ok. at all and not consider corruption more likely than not being involved in any part of the government is very naive.
There are many problems and questions regarding DHS/Juvenile Courts in Ok., many more than can be explained away by the high number of "nuts" or otherwise unfit parents overloading the system as you seem to indicate is the problem.

DHS Bonuses

Shawnee News-Star 2005/11/25

It was announced recently that 7,400 employees of the Department of Human Services each would be receiving $1,000 bonuses. This money is being doled out to the DHS by the federal government with an additional sum to be used for other DHS needs.

There are several things that are disturbing about this. ... This is public money, funded by the taxpayers, and should be based on performance rather than an across-the-board raise.

It appears there is simply no accountability with this award. It seems to indicate that all DHS employees are performing at equal levels. It's hard to imagine that is true in any organization or business, public or private, and remember that DHS has 7,400 who are receiving this. Logically, it would make more sense to recognize those employees whose performance levels are higher and who excel in their jobs to be given more than the $1,000 if they are deemed worthy of it. At the same time, those who are not meeting expected performance levels should receive less with the understanding that to receive the $1,000 bonus or more they must achieve certain standards.

This argument for difference levels in bonus awards really comes to light, we believe, in several instances of confirmed child abuse and child neglect cases that have received considerable medial attention. We are not at all convinced that DHS employees couldn't have done much more to have saved these children from the suffering they sustained, even death in at least a couple of cases. The most recent one deals with Kelsey Shelton Smith Briggs, little 2 1/2-year-old Meeker girl who died Oct. 11. While some DHS officials aren't yet ready to say that the system failed Kelsey or possibly some of the other children in recent years, something isn't right. If the system is operating like it should be, these children wouldn't continue to be injured and in the extreme cases like Kelsey and Precious Doe in Muskogee die.

We've reviewed what the DHS has sent out to the media and the little information provided is pathetic. More about what took place from January of this year should be made public. ... Frankly, we are appalled that some DHS employees, who will be awarded a $1,000 bonus, didn't do much more to prevent her death along with the death and injuries to other children across the state. We question their level of performance as people continue to ponder what happened to Kelsey and these other children.

Shawnee News-Star

Published April 28, 2008 10:22 pm – Muskogee Phoenix
Adoption success earns OKDHS incentive payment

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth and Families awarded the Oklahoma Department of Human Services an adoption incentive payment of more than $600,000 for finding new, permanent families for Oklahoma children leaving foster care.

For federal fiscal year 2007, OKDHS finalized 1,250 foster care adoptions, 86 more than the baseline set in 2006. OKDHS also finalized 591 special needs adoptions, an increase of 144. Each foster child adoption above the baseline earned the state $4,000; each child under the age of 9 with special needs earned the state $2,000.

Information: OKDHS.org - Adoption Success Earns OKDHS Federal Incentive Payment (http://www.okdhs.org/library/news/rel/2008/04/cfsd04182008.htm)

I'm aware of what you are reporting in your post although don't agree with all your conclusions. You can't build an individual case just because there are problems in the system. There are always problems in the system, especially when they serve a largely dysfunctional population. I didn't say they were all nuts so please don't put words in my mouth. A lot of them haven't handled their lives well, however. And many are mentally ill or have substance abuse issues. The healthiest ones, if you ask me, tend to be the ones who engaged in "excessive discipline," i.e., just a parent who overdid it but isn't really mean or trying to hurt a child. Usually their motives are the opposite. I am not sure it is really fair to lump that group in with the others. Some of them are the angriest but at least their anger is rational.

Most of the states have been in the process of reviewing children's rights to attorneys or gals for the past fifteen or more years. Some are further in the process than others. Some have encouraged it but then cut back.

I am not acting as if corruption is out of the question. What I will say is that claims of corruption, even when it doesn't exist, are standard fare for paranoid, mentally ill parents. Dealing with people who are out of touch with reality make it difficult for workers who ARE trying to do their jobs to want to stay in place - thus leading to turnover which causes problems with training and work performance. I already said that leads to problems. I wish we had a never ending supply of fresh workers to keep up morale. I am skeptical of many foster homes - they aren't paid enough to make it worth their while unless they are saints or have ulterior motives.

People on the outside constantly want to attack the system, wholesale, because no one likes an agency that goes in and gets into people's business. As long as no child is harmed, they get criticism for being nosy and oppressive. As soon as they "don't do their job," and a child gets hurt, they are criticized for being lax. They are a punching bag that few stand up for and applaud when they go in and assist a child or a family. And since they have to be confidential, they can't exploit the cases that work or when families are assisted.

Go back and post the statistics of how many families, annually, are served. The focus is always on the ones where the families are unhappy because DHS can't go to the press. It skews the perception and people want to pile on because there is no upside to defending an agency that is not in a position where it can publicly defend itself. No one wants to see a child hurt. To imply that workers at DHS don't care, or the courts don't care, is unwarrented. Even someone who screws up doesn't want a child harmed.

If you could change the job requirements - what would you change them to? Okay. And after that, how are you going to recruit workers for the salaries available? It is what it is.

You seem quite informed. Could you post for the thread how much it costs to place a child in residential care? How much it costs for counseling, especially home based counseling, per child? per family? Most people have absolutely no idea the mind boggling expense involved with providing services to needy families.

My professional opinion is that serving as defense counsel and GAL is a bad idea - too many conflicts.

While I was writing you posted the information about adoption incentives. There have been a number of posters who are trying to tie that to individual adoptions to the workers and even used the ridiculous term, bounty. Some have even suggested the judges got a cut. WHen you start going down that road, there is really no point in even trying to have a discussion.

You really need to go back and read about what adoption subsidies are and how they are distributed. It is not the way some have been trying to suggest. And moreover, could someone please tell me what is wrong with finding permanent homes for special needs children? Isn't that a good thing?

What is going on at OKDHS?

I guess we will have to wait until the lawsuit filed by the Children's Right Council (CRC) and the investigation by Oklahoma lawmaker, Rep. Morrisette (sp) have concluded before we have a clearer picture of what is going on?

I have no problem with finding permanent homes for the children that need it. What I was saying is that they took a perfectly healthy child out of a home where it lived with it's mother and grandmother. The grandmother is a law abiding citizen, no criminal history ever, never even had a traffic ticket, went to work everyday. She has her own home that is paid for. The mother lives with the grandmother no criminal history no drugs etc. The worker has a criminal history and a currant warrant for her arrest and her reasons for taking the child are strictly personal. She didn't take him because he was in danger even the police told her that but still they have him and nobody can stop her. Now do you see something wrong with this picture? The grandmother works in the legal field and knew they were breaking the law so she started asking questions. The worker found out and went to her boss and now she doesn't have a job anymore. So you see you can't tell me that this worker is not corrupt and won't retaliate just like I said some do. The worker is lying and is getting the judge to go along with her he wouldn't even do anything when he saw the doctored drug test. So you see because I am seeing this stuff first hand nobody will ever convince me that she is not corrupt besides her criminal record speaks for itself. Plus since she works for the government she can do whatever she wants and nobody can stop her. In my opinion that is a dangerous position to put someone like her in. According to their own pamphlet the child should have gone to the grandmother as kinship placement and since the grandmother is still buying the diapers and the formula I don't see why not. According to DHS it is not any of her business then why is she still taking care of the babies needs?

I didn't even make it through this entire thread, but I will say this: implying that judges are receiving innappropriate financial kickbacks for making certain decisions is a serious, serious allegation. You don't just toss that around; that's like saying "rape" in a fraternity house.

I didn't even make it through this entire thread, but I will say this: implying that judges are receiving innappropriate financial kickbacks for making certain decisions is a serious, serious allegation. You don't just toss that around; that's like saying "rape" in a fraternity house.

All I said was that the judge saw both tests and did nothing I didn't say why he did nothing only he knows the answer to that question. It does make me wonder why when I have proven they doctored a test he decided to do nothing.

I am not sure how much of the bonus money the judges get. I do know that the state of Oklahoma got $28 million dollars last year for adoptions, and I have to ask myself I wonder how many of those adoptions were really legal.

just seems like you're implying the judge are doing something wrong, that's all.

just seems like you're implying the judge are doing something wrong, that's all.

Well what would you call it when you look at proof that a drug test was doctored and do nothing? Also I did some checking and it was East Coast Okie who said in her post that she had people tell her that judges were getting part of the kick back money. She didn't say who told her that she just posted it on her post. I myself do not know for a fact that the judges get any of the money it has been implied but I don't know it for a fact so therefore I can not say for sure that they get any of it.

and it was East Coast Okie who said in her post that she had people tell her that judges were getting part of the kick back money. She didn't say who told her that she just posted it on her post. I myself do not know for a fact that the judges get any of the money it has been implied but I don't know it for a fact so therefore I can not say for sure that they get any of it.

Er - no, I never said that, never implied it, am offended that anyone else would suggest such a thing absent solid proof. The notion of judges getting kickbacks on such things is ludicrous.

I think the best thing to do is to try to get a different case worker if at all possible.

You tried to go over her head and that probably made her mad and the situation much worse for you.

I mentioned this before, this is a horrible predicament to be in...yes, it's sad that you have to grant these people so much power and control and if they abuse it, you have little recourse.. but the bottom line is you have to swallow your pride and do what you have to do to get this baby back home with you.


I wonder if you took your case to an instructor or professor at a law school and asked them to review it (maybe a class project/discussion ?) and see if you might be able to get anywhere with instructors or attorneys that might be able to help you. Just a thought...

I'd try every avenue available to get assistance, short of making them even more mad, but first things first, I'd request another caseworker and shift the focus from the legal travesty that you feel has occurred to doing whatever it takes to get your grandson back.

Does your caseworker have a plan of action, parenting classes you or your daughter can take, objectives to be met before they give him back?

Can you take all the classes and become a certified foster parent and possibly get temporary custody of him? (or does your past experience prevent that?)

Or are they pretty much just saying ' we have him, you can't ever get him back?'

Nearly all of the DHS workers I've ever met and I've met a lot of them...all had the children's best interests at heart, but I also noticed that they also were very compassionate to the plight of the parents once they realized the parents wanted their children back and were willing to work toward that goal.

The first thing I would do if it were me is to ask the question ' Please, what is it that I can do to get him back? Just advise me on what steps to take to get him back so I can do it ' and then go do it.

Good luck

Well what would you call it when you look at proof that a drug test was doctored and do nothing? Also I did some checking and it was East Coast Okie who said in her post that she had people tell her that judges were getting part of the kick back money. She didn't say who told her that she just posted it on her post. I myself do not know for a fact that the judges get any of the money it has been implied but I don't know it for a fact so therefore I can not say for sure that they get any of it.

Well, first of all, allow me to say I don't take anonymous messageboard posters at their word. Nothing personal- I've foudn that people misunderstand things quite often in this medium, and it's even moreso when the law is involved.

If you really think the judge did something completely unlawful, you need to talk to the Oklahoma bar or appeal the case through the proper channels. Oteherwise, it hink it's one of those unforunate STFU and GBTW things. Haphazardly accusing judges of corruption isn't something one should take lightly.

I think the best thing to do is to try to get a different case worker if at all possible.

You tried to go over her head and that probably made her mad and the situation much worse for you.

I mentioned this before, this is a horrible predicament to be in...yes, it's sad that you have to grant these people so much power and control and if they abuse it, you have little recourse.. but the bottom line is you have to swallow your pride and do what you have to do to get this baby back home with you.


I wonder if you took your case to an instructor or professor at a law school and asked them to review it (maybe a class project/discussion ?) and see if you might be able to get anywhere with instructors or attorneys that might be able to help you. Just a thought...

I'd try every avenue available to get assistance, short of making them even more mad, but first things first, I'd request another caseworker and shift the focus from the legal travesty that you feel has occurred to doing whatever it takes to get your grandson back.

Does your caseworker have a plan of action, parenting classes you or your daughter can take, objectives to be met before they give him back?

Can you take all the classes and become a certified foster parent and possibly get temporary custody of him? (or does your past experience prevent that?)

Or are they pretty much just saying ' we have him, you can't ever get him back?'

Nearly all of the DHS workers I've ever met and I've met a lot of them...all had the children's best interests at heart, but I also noticed that they also were very compassionate to the plight of the parents once they realized the parents wanted their children back and were willing to work toward that goal.

The first thing I would do if it were me is to ask the question ' Please, what is it that I can do to get him back? Just advise me on what steps to take to get him back so I can do it ' and then go do it.

Good luck
I tried to get a different caseworker I even tried to move her case to Oklahoma county since she lives with me again and I live in Oklahoma county. Everything I do makes them madder. When I started asking questions is when they went to my job and told my boss you need to find a way to shut her up. These are his exact words to me"You need to shut up, leave it alone, just let it go and let them do what they want before it effects your job." Needless to say I let him know my grandson is more important then my job. I am definately going down every avenue possible anytime someone comes up with one I haven't already tried I do that one. I agree with you about the question and that is the first question I asked and I was told by the worker they would not give him to me. As far as my daughter she has done parenting classes twice. Now they want her to go to drug counseling for a drug problem they fabricated. I explained to her that if she goes they will test her once a week at SOS which is where the courts and DHS send their clients. That is also the place I took her when she tested negative. So I told her this will just continue to prove you don't do drugs and that you are complying to their rules it's a win, win situation. Thank you for wishing us luck it is greatly appreciated.

Well, first of all, allow me to say I don't take anonymous messageboard posters at their word. Nothing personal- I've foudn that people misunderstand things quite often in this medium, and it's even moreso when the law is involved.

If you really think the judge did something completely unlawful, you need to talk to the Oklahoma bar or appeal the case through the proper channels. Oteherwise, it hink it's one of those unforunate STFU and GBTW things. Haphazardly accusing judges of corruption isn't something one should take lightly.
I did not accuse the judge I accused the worker I only make statements I can prove I believe I explained that to you. If you really want to see a copy of both tests taken on the same day you can go to this link and it will show you. Now these two tests are 1&1/2 hours apart after they let us go I called my friend with the courts and asked her where the best place to go was. After she told me I went straight there, checked in and then we sat in the lobby and waited our turn.


YouTube - Oklahoma DHS Corruption (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLIRFtZ1m64)

I found a few helpful links, you're probably already joined but just in case.

I just hope and pray that this baby will have the best possible care with you and your daughter. I'm not a fan of the system but I realize that most of the workers do what they do to protect the children.

Please encourage your daughter to get help if you think she needs it.

Yahoo group for the victims of Oklahoma DHS fostercare system. To join the group go to

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OK_DHS_Victims (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OK_DHS_Victims)

Lawsuit Filed Against Department Of Human Services - Topix (http://www.topix.net/forum/business/law/TGMETUUMDRVE1H8DQ/p3)

I found a few helpful links, you're probably already joined but just in case.

I just hope and pray that this baby will have the best possible care with you and your daughter. I'm not a fan of the system but I realize that most of the workers do what they do to protect the children.

Please encourage your daughter to get help if you think she needs it.

Yahoo group for the victims of Oklahoma DHS fostercare system. To join the group go to

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OK_DHS_Victims (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OK_DHS_Victims)

Lawsuit Filed Against Department Of Human Services - Topix (http://www.topix.net/forum/business/law/TGMETUUMDRVE1H8DQ/p3)

Thank you and yes I am a member of the yahoo group and the law firm out of New York called to see if they could add me to the class action law suit but, she said these kinds of suits take a long time. I did tell them to feel free to add me and that I will give them whatever documentation they want. I can mail it e-mail it doesn't matter whatever they want.

The main reason I am joining these sites is to get the word out and to do whatever I have to in order to stop the adoption before justice can be done. Once they adopt him out we will never know where he is or if he is even being cared for properly.

Dana I know you've answered a lot of questions but I don't remember your stating the basis for their decision to terminate? How long has the baby now been in DHS custody? Are they offering you a jury trial? What does your atty say?Who is your DA?

East Coast Okie, My replies have>

“Truth be told, however, the families DHS works with tend to be nuts”
“I'll just say it. Many are drug addicts, mentally ill or social misfits”
“that the dregs of society tend to bring to the table. 99% of them are the dregs of society. Let me repeat that.
“Fact is, a child doesn't end up in foster care without a pretty good reason. Fact is, a lot of the families who lose their kids are nutty.”
crazy, addicted, maladjusted or otherwise dysfunctional families
“There are always problems in the system, especially when they serve a largely dysfunctional population.”

>Those are your words, anyone can review the post to confirm it. I ask again who and with what qualifications were these diagnosis of “mental illness” or “nuts” made.

These are your words;
Those among us who are functioning just fine can't imagine the lives many of these folks live. They are in and out of jail, rehab, relationships, jobs, never have transportation, frequently change residences and their kids' schools,

>I think this is another very opinionated and judgmental statement, much like your “dregs of society” statement. Many of the situations you mention are often a result of socioeconomic status, which has many variables involved. Then you add, “and an amazing number are on pain medication from "back" pain.” Is that meant to say a lot of lazy fakers or druggies are involved, (if so then many Dr.s will need to be arrested for writing bad prescriptions if there are no valid indicators of need)or maybe it just figures that people with injuries or illnesses are more likely to be involved because many times they're at a lower socioeconomic level.
You have given your “professional opinion” now please give your professional credentials or qualifications that your statements are based on.


Your words;
Parents who lose their kids due to abuse are furious that they have to pay child support for their upkeep after the state has to step in to keep them safe.

>If the children have been taken for their safety as you say then the “reasonable efforts” requirement of federal law has supposedly been fore filled and those children are in foster care and the state is receiving receiving foster care payments from the federal government for their care. Evidence in the class action suit and other lawsuits here indicate all the funds were not being payed out at proper amounts. So DHS isn't paying out the funding it receives and at the same time judges who are aware the child is supposed to be getting funds for care order the parents to pay DHS child support. And since it's clear the money isn't getting to the children this would certainly indicate a need for a full financial audit that our legislature refuses to do. It should be noted that such an audit brought down the director of the Office of Juvenile Affairs do to $20 million in questionable contracts as well as over $1 million in “bad” contracts. The feds have now taken over operations of some of the agencies functions. By the way the “Drug Court system” was audited and also revealed “financial questions” There's a lot of money unaccounted for in many areas and a scandal was revealed just a couple of years ago that revealed “Ghost Employees” in our state Health and Human Services agency. So I guess it's fair to say that in Ok. claims of corruption where it hasn't been revealed yet are more than just “standard fare for paranoid, mentally ill parents.” it's business as usual in Ok. Government.

Your words;
Most of the states have been in the process of reviewing children's rights to attorneys or gals for the past fifteen or more years. Some are further in the process than others. Some have encouraged it but then cut back.

>In re: Gault, the USSC laid out due process for minors in juvenile Court, state courts either comply or they are violating Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, and Federal Laws Title 18 sec.241-242 as an example.

Your words;
Some have even suggested the judges got a cut. When you start going down that road, there is really no point in even trying to have a discussion.

>Why do you say that? Are Judges beyond reproach or above the law?Interesting facts about Ok., in the 1960's we had the biggest judicial scandal in the nations history, more than a couple of judges have been removed from the bench in just the last year and last I knew we had one on trial for felony sexual assault. Next we don't know what judges are getting because only Supreme Court Justices have to file financial disclosure forms in Ok, lower judges don't. There have been calls for it in the past but it hasn't happened. If they're innocent and have nothing to hide they shouldn't mind should they? Isn't that what we're told when the court wants information from us? I believe judges have their own retirement plan also, separate from other government employees, why?

Your words;
I'm aware of what you are reporting in your post although don't agree with all your conclusions.

>You're aware lawyer/GALs are not for filling their duties, one of which is meeting with the child and investigating their situation or placement? Yet if the child is injured, raped, or killed you don't agree that they bear some responsibility? They have neglected their fiduciary duty, their professional code, and oath if they're lawyers. And if not they're under qualified CASA volunteers who should never have that level of responsibility anyway.

Your words;
“You can't build an individual case just because there are problems in the system.”
>I'm not attempting to, you have it reversed. Individual cases like Dana's, the Hall case and many more where there is evidence to prove facts and not just the subjective opinions of those in the system who might believe themselves above or superior to others. These facts build the case against the system.

Your words;
If you could change the job requirements - what would you change them to? Okay. And after that, how are you going to recruit workers for the salaries available?

>Put child abuse and neglect back in the criminal Court where they belong, they are crimes, and nobody working as a “child welfare specialist” at DHS is qualified to investigate crimes. Their testimony would be thrown out of Criminal Court as would most things that are allowed in Juvenile Court. Let DHS serve the poor and needy as they are supposed to and not act beyond their scope of qualifications. With the police handling any crimes that there is “probable cause” to investigate there will be a lot less for DHS to handle. Then we can start to deal with the scandal of background checks not being done, (and the embezzlement suit against the director over it) as well as why so many DHS workers and foster parents have been convicted of crimes recently, or why day cares with multiple abuse complaints and records of violations were not shut down.

Your words;
How much it costs for counseling, especially home based counseling, per child? per family? Most people have absolutely no idea the mind boggling expense involved with providing services to needy families.

>These things relate to service providers that have contracts with the state. There has been corruption involving service providers in other states and as I pointed out earlier contracts like this is where problems were found in the Office of Juvenile Affairs. So if we ever get that audit and have some accountability in the system, (where it's known others involved aren't doing their jobs) to make sure who's doing what and to be able to find the true cost and where the money's going.


Your words;
My professional opinion is that serving as defense counsel and GAL is a bad idea - too many conflicts.
>I would think you would know it's against the law in Ok. For the child's lawyer to be the GAL.

Dana I know you've answered a lot of questions but I don't remember your stating the basis for their decision to terminate? How long has the baby now been in DHS custody? Are they offering you a jury trial? What does your atty say?Who is your DA?
There reason was going to be failure to protect. They have had my grandson since July 18th. Now we are going for something called a bench trial and our DA is David Prater. The lawyer says nothing you can't even get her on the phone or get her to call you back.

Recent news headlines in Oklahoma:

DHS to pay for handling case in a negligent manner

NEWSCHANNEL 4 OKLAHOMA CITY -- The State of Oklahoma will pay $160,000 for the death of a two-year-old. A judge decided the Oklahoma Department of Human Services handled the care of the child in a negligent manner. Keenan Taylor died after having boiling water poured on him in 2005.

DHS wants curtailed discovery process

Associated Press TULSA, Okla. - The Oklahoma Department of Human Services wants to curtail the pretrial discovery process in a lawsuit that seeks top-to-bottom reform of the state's child welfare system. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Tulsa in February.

DHS worker accused of failing to report abuse

ASSOCIATED PRESS OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A state Department of Human Services employee is being charged with misdemeanor failure to report child abuse. Bernadette Mwangi is accused of failing to report the sexual abuse of a 14-year-old foster child after seeing the girl's foster father kiss her.

Lawsuit against DHS seeks changes in state child welfare system

Associated Press TULSA, Okla. - A national child advocacy group, four Oklahoma law firms and an international law firm have filed a federal class action lawsuit against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. The lawsuit by the group Children's Rights and the five law firms was filed...


DHS falls behind on child abuse investigations

Associated Press OKLAHOMA CITY - State Department of Human Services officials say they're taking longer to complete investigations of child abuse and neglect complaints because they can't keep enough employees. Records show DHS had 363 child welfare cases pending for more than 60 days in...


Grandmother says DHS warned before death of child

Associated Press OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma City woman says she warned the Department of Human Services that her nearly two-year-old granddaughter was in danger less than a week before the girl died. Olivia Scroggins died at an Oklahoma City hospital Monday and her mother and the mother's...


State DHS head under investigation for son's burns

ASSOCIATED PRESS OKLAHOMA CITY - The head of the state Department of Human Services is under investigation because of burns his son suffered on a family trip. Howard Hendrick confirms the attorney general's office is investigating and says he's cooperating. A DHS spokeswoman say 13 year old...


DHS fires two workers over alleged tax fraud

Associated Press OKLAHOMA CITY - The Oklahoma Department of Human Services has fired three workers over allegations of a tax fraud scam. The employees are accused in termination papers of claiming children of department clients as dependents in order to increase tax refunds. The three workers...


DHS workers file discrimination complaint

ASSOCIATED PRESS OKLAHOMA CITY -- Six investigators in the civil rights division of the state Department of Human Services are filing a discrimination complaint against their former boss. The six accuse Sherleen Jackson of creating a hostile and intimidating work environment and say they've been...


DHS worker says he was punished for reporting illegal immigrants

ASSOCIATED PRESS OKLAHOMA CITY -- A state Department of Human Services worker says he was punished for trying to report illegal immigrants who were applying for state benefits. Steve Thomas told the House Revenue and Taxation Committee he tried to follow a rule requiring memos be written to DHS...


Missing DHS children

CHEROKEE BALLARD REPORTING OKLAHOMA CITY -- A NewsChannel 4 investigation reveals the state's inability to keep up with all of the children that are in state custody. Cherokee Ballard found out how many kids are missing and why there are no active searches for them. When a child is in custody...


Former DHS worker accused of giving alcohol, drugs to minors

ASSOCIATED PRESS NORMAN, Okla. -- A former Department of Human Services worker who was in Norman for a training session is now accused of providing alcohol and drugs to two teenage boys in a Norman motel room. Karrie Lyn Martin of Duncan was arrested after a witness told police Martin had sex...

Now, tap your heals together three times and and repeat after me... there's no place like DHS...there's no place like DHS.

(source: KFOR Search (http://www.kfor.com/Global/SearchResults.asp?vendor=wss&qu=DHS))

W. Moore, I stand behind all my words. They are what they are.

Just in passing, let me note that just because DHS can deal with child abuse civilly, the law already allows for criminal penalities to attach. They are simply two separate areas of law and remedy. Once DHS has to prove abuse or neglect beyond a reasonable doubt you can kiss goodbye any protections in place for a huge number of children. Without a civil finding of abuse or neglect to hold over the parents' head, forget about court ordered counseling, parenting classes, etc. A lot of kids who think their parents will go to jail won't testify. They WILL testify if they know that the parents are simply facing civil penalties and will be required to go to counseling or therapy or something like that.

W. Moore, how much time and energy have you spend dealing with families whose children are brought within the DHS system? Do you think I am opinionated because you don't like to think that people are the way I've described, or because you have walked down the same corridors and seen something different? I don't know anything about you and for all I know, you work with these folks all the time and have come to a different conclusion. So which is it? Are you going on opinion, perhaps based on nothing more than your world view? Or are you basing your position on experience with this population? It makes a difference if you are looking for solutions to a difficult problem.

In the trenches, knowing what you are dealing with is essential. I learned a long time ago to call it straight and not jerk families around being "nice" when, in fact, you are dealing with a bad situation and no one is addressing it. You do no favors to a child to reassure her mother, who is drunk every night, that you know she "means well" and you know she "loves her child" and leave it at that. At a certain point, that is a waste of time and time is not something a young child has. You say, "Lady, your drinking has placed your child in danger. You are exposing her to unsavory characters and are too drunk to protect her or care for her properly. Give up the booze or the baby - your choice." I don't believe in jerking around families. Nine times out of ten, there are some pretty straight forward things they can do that will help a situation, even if it won't completely cure it. Make the kids go to school. Get a job. Clean your house. Take your child to the doctor (that is paid for by the state so it is not like it is costing you). Get up and moving before 9:00 in the morning. Dress for the weather. Take a frickin' bath. Wash their clothes, in the sink if you have to. Don't leave your kids with strangers. Don't call the cops everytime you get mad. Don't throw things everytime you get mad. Read to your child and if you can't read, play a recording you can get from the librairy. Tell them a story. Take a walk with them. Shut off the TV and spend time with them. Quit drinking all the time. Go to AA. If you have to tell someone that, they aren't functioning too well. A lot of these families don't do even this much and that is not counting the ones who are actually abusing them.

I stand by my words that the folks who tend to end up with kids in the system by and large, are dysfunctional, either through mental illness, substance abuse or just because they are dysfunctional. Not all of them, but most of them who end up with a conviction.

Jacodenn, the vast number of headlines you have posted are nothing but accusations and charges, negligence (vs. deliberate). Of COURSE there are bad apples in DHS. There are bad apples everywhere. How about putting up the articles about all the babies out there killed by dirthead parents (and their boyfriends) or the one about that poor baby who was eaten by the puppy in Tulsa when her mama slept in? Does that mean that all parents are bad?

I suspect if Dana's grandbaby were given back to the family and, heaven forbid, harmed, a lot of the same people wringing their hands over how mean DHS is to Dana would then switch and use that as evidence that DHS is incompetent, or worse. It is not an easy decision to decide if a child is safe with its family, sometimes.

Sounds like they have not even had a trial on the merits in Dana's case which is frustrating to me because she claimed DHS had stolen the child and were giving it away in an illegal adoption. Apparently, this is a complete misrepresentation of what is happening in the case, so far. I am not sure how you get from "DHS stole the child and are going to give it away for an adoption subsidy" to - "they have brought charges, the child is in care and we have a trial coming up to see what the judge says." (quoted material is actually just paraphrases).

Sleeping mom in Claremore accused of rolling onto baby



CLAREMORE — A 21-year-old mother was arrested on a manslaughter complaint this weekend, accused of rolling over on her 6-week-old daughter while the two were sleeping on the floor, according to police

Kristi Nicole Hiser appeared to be intoxicated when she was arrested Saturday morning at a Claremore apartment complex, police Lt. Chuck Goad said.

"We believe that the mother, during her sleep, rolled over on the baby, causing its death,” Goad said.

The state medical examiner has not determined an official cause of death, and the local district attorney has not filed charges in the case, he said. Blood alcohol level tests on the mother are pending, Goad said.

Goad said the death of Trinity Hiser appeared accidental. The mother and baby were sleeping on blankets on the living room floor when the mother awoke to discover her baby wasn't breathing, Goad said.

He said Kristi Nicole Hiser's roommate called 911 to report the incident about 7:45 a.m. Saturday. The infant was driven to Claremore Regional Hospital and died a short time later, Goad said.

Dangers of co-sleeping

Goad said it is dangerous for adults to sleep in the same spaces as babies.


"They are so small. It is not a good idea to put an infant in bed with you,” he said. "They don't have the strength to roll over if you accidentally roll them over on their face.”

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission released a study in 1999 that found an average of 64 deaths per year of children younger than 2 are caused by strangulation or suffocation that occurs when parents sleep with their babies.

The federal commission also warns parents against sleeping with their child in an adult bed — or co-sleeping — because it can result in strangulation or suffocation.

Proponents of co-sleeping say mothers and babies get more rest and form stronger bonds when they sleep in the same bed, especially since the baby can breast-feed more frequently.

They argue the practice can be safe if mothers are aware of safe sleeping positions and bedding.
Mothers should never sleep beside their babies if they are smokers, even if they don't smoke in bed, or have been using any substances that would make them drowsy or not alert, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

W. Moore, I stand behind all my words. They are what they are.

Just in passing, let me note that just because DHS can deal with child abuse civilly, the law already allows for criminal penalities to attach. They are simply two separate areas of law and remedy. Once DHS has to prove abuse or neglect beyond a reasonable doubt you can kiss goodbye any protections in place for a huge number of children. Without a civil finding of abuse or neglect to hold over the parents' head, forget about court ordered counseling, parenting classes, etc. A lot of kids who think their parents will go to jail won't testify. They WILL testify if they know that the parents are simply facing civil penalties and will be required to go to counseling or therapy or something like that.

W. Moore, how much time and energy have you spend dealing with families whose children are brought within the DHS system? Do you think I am opinionated because you don't like to think that people are the way I've described, or because you have walked down the same corridors and seen something different? I don't know anything about you and for all I know, you work with these folks all the time and have come to a different conclusion. So which is it? Are you going on opinion, perhaps based on nothing more than your world view? Or are you basing your position on experience with this population? It makes a difference if you are looking for solutions to a difficult problem.

In the trenches, knowing what you are dealing with is essential. I learned a long time ago to call it straight and not jerk families around being "nice" when, in fact, you are dealing with a bad situation and no one is addressing it. You do no favors to a child to reassure her mother, who is drunk every night, that you know she "means well" and you know she "loves her child" and leave it at that. At a certain point, that is a waste of time and time is not something a young child has. You say, "Lady, your drinking has placed your child in danger. You are exposing her to unsavory characters and are too drunk to protect her or care for her properly. Give up the booze or the baby - your choice." I don't believe in jerking around families. Nine times out of ten, there are some pretty straight forward things they can do that will help a situation, even if it won't completely cure it. Make the kids go to school. Get a job. Clean your house. Take your child to the doctor (that is paid for by the state so it is not like it is costing you). Get up and moving before 9:00 in the morning. Dress for the weather. Take a frickin' bath. Wash their clothes, in the sink if you have to. Don't leave your kids with strangers. Don't call the cops everytime you get mad. Don't throw things everytime you get mad. Read to your child and if you can't read, play a recording you can get from the librairy. Tell them a story. Take a walk with them. Shut off the TV and spend time with them. Quit drinking all the time. Go to AA. If you have to tell someone that, they aren't functioning too well. A lot of these families don't do even this much and that is not counting the ones who are actually abusing them.

I stand by my words that the folks who tend to end up with kids in the system by and large, are dysfunctional, either through mental illness, substance abuse or just because they are dysfunctional. Not all of them, but most of them who end up with a conviction.

Jacodenn, the vast number of headlines you have posted are nothing but accusations and charges, negligence (vs. deliberate). Of COURSE there are bad apples in DHS. There are bad apples everywhere. How about putting up the articles about all the babies out there killed by dirthead parents (and their boyfriends) or the one about that poor baby who was eaten by the puppy in Tulsa when her mama slept in? Does that mean that all parents are bad?

I suspect if Dana's grandbaby were given back to the family and, heaven forbid, harmed, a lot of the same people wringing their hands over how mean DHS is to Dana would then switch and use that as evidence that DHS is incompetent, or worse. It is not an easy decision to decide if a child is safe with its family, sometimes.

Sounds like they have not even had a trial on the merits in Dana's case which is frustrating to me because she claimed DHS had stolen the child and were giving it away in an illegal adoption. Apparently, this is a complete misrepresentation of what is happening in the case, so far. I am not sure how you get from "DHS stole the child and are going to give it away for an adoption subsidy" to - "they have brought charges, the child is in care and we have a trial coming up to see what the judge says." (quoted material is actually just paraphrases).

Ok as far as misrepresentation goes I did not misrepresent anything I told the facts as they are. I also realize you are like one of those people that I mentioned earlier you could be hit with it like a pie in the face and you will still defend DHS no matter what. God himself could come down here and tell you what is going on and you still wouldn't believe it. Well that is your choice it is a free country at least for some anyway. I am open minded enough to say that there are some children who don't need to be with their parents that is why I took care of 3 children that weren't even mine with no help from DHS I might add. However I am not one of those people I happen to be the exception to your so called rule but you refuse to see it. To bad you are not as open minded as I am. I understand that you work with DHS so of course you have to cover for them. According to your posts the only guilty workers of wrong doing are only the ones that get caught. I can say this because even when Mr. Moore showed the exerpts from the law suits you deny those too. It seems you are more worried about protecting DHS workers then those poor babies who died in their care and that is the real shame in all this those poor children. Who is going to care about the children and you can continue to call me a lier or crazy even though the proof is staring you in the face but the fact is these children are still dead and are still being abused.

Sleeping mom in Claremore accused of rolling onto baby



CLAREMORE — A 21-year-old mother was arrested on a manslaughter complaint this weekend, accused of rolling over on her 6-week-old daughter while the two were sleeping on the floor, according to police

Kristi Nicole Hiser appeared to be intoxicated when she was arrested Saturday morning at a Claremore apartment complex, police Lt. Chuck Goad said.

"We believe that the mother, during her sleep, rolled over on the baby, causing its death,” Goad said.

The state medical examiner has not determined an official cause of death, and the local district attorney has not filed charges in the case, he said. Blood alcohol level tests on the mother are pending, Goad said.

Goad said the death of Trinity Hiser appeared accidental. The mother and baby were sleeping on blankets on the living room floor when the mother awoke to discover her baby wasn't breathing, Goad said.

He said Kristi Nicole Hiser's roommate called 911 to report the incident about 7:45 a.m. Saturday. The infant was driven to Claremore Regional Hospital and died a short time later, Goad said.

Dangers of co-sleeping

Goad said it is dangerous for adults to sleep in the same spaces as babies.


"They are so small. It is not a good idea to put an infant in bed with you,” he said. "They don't have the strength to roll over if you accidentally roll them over on their face.”

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission released a study in 1999 that found an average of 64 deaths per year of children younger than 2 are caused by strangulation or suffocation that occurs when parents sleep with their babies.

The federal commission also warns parents against sleeping with their child in an adult bed — or co-sleeping — because it can result in strangulation or suffocation.

Proponents of co-sleeping say mothers and babies get more rest and form stronger bonds when they sleep in the same bed, especially since the baby can breast-feed more frequently.

They argue the practice can be safe if mothers are aware of safe sleeping positions and bedding.
Mothers should never sleep beside their babies if they are smokers, even if they don't smoke in bed, or have been using any substances that would make them drowsy or not alert, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
I agree the big point here is the mother had been drinking other people who should not sleep with there children are people known to be hard sleepers. I have a sister that when she sleeps a freight train couldn't wake her. I slept with both of my children but as you posted there is a safe way to do it. I personally know hundreds of people who have done it and those children now have children of their own.

W. Moore, I stand behind all my words. They are what they are.

Just in passing, let me note that just because DHS can deal with child abuse civilly, the law already allows for criminal penalities to attach. They are simply two separate areas of law and remedy. Once DHS has to prove abuse or neglect beyond a reasonable doubt you can kiss goodbye any protections in place for a huge number of children. Without a civil finding of abuse or neglect to hold over the parents' head, forget about court ordered counseling, parenting classes, etc. A lot of kids who think their parents will go to jail won't testify. They WILL testify if they know that the parents are simply facing civil penalties and will be required to go to counseling or therapy or something like that.

W. Moore, how much time and energy have you spend dealing with families whose children are brought within the DHS system? Do you think I am opinionated because you don't like to think that people are the way I've described, or because you have walked down the same corridors and seen something different? I don't know anything about you and for all I know, you work with these folks all the time and have come to a different conclusion. So which is it? Are you going on opinion, perhaps based on nothing more than your world view? Or are you basing your position on experience with this population? It makes a difference if you are looking for solutions to a difficult problem.

In the trenches, knowing what you are dealing with is essential. I learned a long time ago to call it straight and not jerk families around being "nice" when, in fact, you are dealing with a bad situation and no one is addressing it. You do no favors to a child to reassure her mother, who is drunk every night, that you know she "means well" and you know she "loves her child" and leave it at that. At a certain point, that is a waste of time and time is not something a young child has. You say, "Lady, your drinking has placed your child in danger. You are exposing her to unsavory characters and are too drunk to protect her or care for her properly. Give up the booze or the baby - your choice." I don't believe in jerking around families. Nine times out of ten, there are some pretty straight forward things they can do that will help a situation, even if it won't completely cure it. Make the kids go to school. Get a job. Clean your house. Take your child to the doctor (that is paid for by the state so it is not like it is costing you). Get up and moving before 9:00 in the morning. Dress for the weather. Take a frickin' bath. Wash their clothes, in the sink if you have to. Don't leave your kids with strangers. Don't call the cops everytime you get mad. Don't throw things everytime you get mad. Read to your child and if you can't read, play a recording you can get from the librairy. Tell them a story. Take a walk with them. Shut off the TV and spend time with them. Quit drinking all the time. Go to AA. If you have to tell someone that, they aren't functioning too well. A lot of these families don't do even this much and that is not counting the ones who are actually abusing them.

I stand by my words that the folks who tend to end up with kids in the system by and large, are dysfunctional, either through mental illness, substance abuse or just because they are dysfunctional. Not all of them, but most of them who end up with a conviction.

Jacodenn, the vast number of headlines you have posted are nothing but accusations and charges, negligence (vs. deliberate). Of COURSE there are bad apples in DHS. There are bad apples everywhere. How about putting up the articles about all the babies out there killed by dirthead parents (and their boyfriends) or the one about that poor baby who was eaten by the puppy in Tulsa when her mama slept in? Does that mean that all parents are bad?

I suspect if Dana's grandbaby were given back to the family and, heaven forbid, harmed, a lot of the same people wringing their hands over how mean DHS is to Dana would then switch and use that as evidence that DHS is incompetent, or worse. It is not an easy decision to decide if a child is safe with its family, sometimes.

Sounds like they have not even had a trial on the merits in Dana's case which is frustrating to me because she claimed DHS had stolen the child and were giving it away in an illegal adoption. Apparently, this is a complete misrepresentation of what is happening in the case, so far. I am not sure how you get from "DHS stole the child and are going to give it away for an adoption subsidy" to - "they have brought charges, the child is in care and we have a trial coming up to see what the judge says." (quoted material is actually just paraphrases).

I hope you are not trying to say that I would hurt my grandson I have never hurt a child in my life I have even been known to help children. I have been at places like Wal-Mart and have seen parents hit their children and I have stepped right up and said hey how would you like me to hit you like that? They don't like it but tuff I will not stand by and watch anyone hurt a child so don't even start trying to say that about me. Oh gee why am I surprised I already said that DHS will do anything to do what they want and prove that what they are doing is right by whatever means possible even lying. Thank you again for making my point for me that you will cover for DHS no matter what. At least I am open minded enough to admit that there are some good workers out there I know them personally. My point is the one I am dealing with is not. I notice in all your posts you have not once mentioned her criminal record I wonder why that is Hmmmmmmmmmm
I also know you said that this thread was worthless and you wanted to squash it by telling people it would go nowhere. Seems to me you were wrong about that too and if it is so worthless why do you keep coming back. Plus for your information I don't think that the children are worthless they are worth fighting for they are too little to fight for themselves it is up to us adults to do that or it should be don't you think?