1699
Sharon Drive
Yuba
City, Ca 95993
530.673.6562
chucknpat@comcast.net
November
16, 2003
Congressman
Wally Herger,Chairman
Subcommittee
on Human Resources
of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S.
House of Representatives
Room
B-317, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington,
D.C. 20515
Dear
Congressman Herger:
We have been involved in the nation-wide effort to reform and bring
accountability into the child welfare system, especially here in California,
for the past five years following our granddaughters’ and our horrible
experience at the hands of Child Protective Services in both Yuba and Sutter counties. A six-page chronology of our experience with
CPS and the court is attached.
We are both conservative people (both retired from the California
Department of Transportation) who have become activists because of the great
harm we see being perpetrated on children and families by the very government
agency that is suppose to help children.
Since we went public with our CPS abuse story in 1998, we have counseled
and helped many families throughout California who have become involved with
child welfare services. The statements
we hear over and over again from parents and relatives of children in the
system are:
·
CPS
caseworkers lie in court documents to build a case against the parents
·
CPS
caseworkers lie in court documents about relatives in order to get them out of
the way and free the child(ren) for adoption, especially children under seven
years old
·
CPS
caseworkers did not investigate
·
CPS
caseworkers lie to the children about what is happening
·
CPS
caseworkers lie to the parents about what the children are saying
·
CPS
caseworkers ignore abuse in foster care.
An August 18, 2003, Associated Press article, attached, stated that 32
states evaluated by the federal government had failed to pass the 2003 Child
and Family Service Reviews. If states
cannot pass federal reviews, it should be obvious that the child protection
system is broke and needs drastic reform.
We urge Congress
to appoint a Congressional panel to investigate CPS abuse of families across
the nation. We also recommend a blue
ribbon panel be established to recommend changes in how the system to protect
children is set up to help and protect children and families. The panel should include attorneys who work
within the juvenile court system, parents, grandparents, judges, family
advocates, child advocates, representatives of the various departments in
Social Services and business leaders.
Financial incentives to remove children from their parents/relatives
should be eliminated, including
Congressman
Wally Herger
November
16, 2003
Page
2
adoption
incentives. We urge the panel to
consider the 10 policy items currently being recommended by Senator Mark
Anderson of Arizona as that state works to improve its child welfare system. These policy items are listed below and were
taken from a November 16, 2003 news article in the Arizona Capitol Times
entitled “‘Work Group’ Digs Into CPS Budget Lawmakers Ask Agency For Priorities” by Phil
Riske.
·
Joint investigations by CPS and law enforcement.
·
Family Builders program involvement in preventing child abuse.
·
Consequences for parental substance abuse.
·
Child safety as the top priority for CPS, with family preservation
second.
·
Open CPS records.
·
Pilot program for open CPS hearings.
·
In-home intervention as an alternative to removing a child.
·
Expansion of definition of chronic child neglect.
·
Child rights to testify at hearings to terminate parental rights.
·
Jury trial for parents choosing to oppose removal of a child.
We would add one more policy item that we feel is extremely
important: reduce CPS worker
immunity so that workers can be
held accountable for deliberate violations of the law and malicious actions
against parents and family members.
As far as our case is concerned, we request a federal investigation of
CPS agencies and government officials in both Yuba County and Sutter
County. The conspiracy by government
agents continues and continues to cause emotional damage to our three special
needs granddaughters -- one is ADHD, one is ADHD and dyslexic, one is bipolar
and has Central Auditory Processing Disorder.
Helping children and families stay together whenever possible, be it
parents or other family members, should be the goal, not tearing families apart
in order to generate federal dollars and boost adoption numbers to meet federal
adoption goals.
Sincerely,
/s/ Charles W.
Miller
/s/ Patricia A.
Miller
Charles
W. Miller
Patricia
A. Miller
Attchs. - 2
cc Senator
Sam Aanestad
Assemblyman
Doug LaMalfa
Laura
Koepke, Government Watch
Sue
McMeans, The Real Facts
Leonard
Henderson, American Family Rights Association.
Declaration
of Charles & Patricia Miller
CPS
Abuse and Court Abuse of Power
in
Yuba & Sutter Counties
The following is a brief summary of our experience
with Child Protective Services in Yuba and Sutter counties and the court system in the case of our three granddaughters (we
are the paternal grandparents). Yuba
County CPS had an illegal agenda to adopt our granddaughters out. We got in the way of their plans, so they
lied in court documents to impugn our character. Yuba County CPS workers placed the children in a situation in
which they were molested and pointed suspicion at us to protect themselves and
the county and to get us out of the picture.
When the case was transferred to Sutter County, Sutter County CPS
followed the law initially and helped us until the mother started using drugs
and it was apparent the children might be returned to us. We now know that Sutter County was
protecting Yuba County CPS.
Documentation is available upon request.
·
Our
granddaughters were taken into protective custody on May 10, 1994, primarily at
our urging because of the parents’ drug use, abuse and severe neglect. In retrospect, we believe Yuba County CPS
had an illegal agenda up front to adopt our granddaughters out. Under the law, relatives are to be given
first priority for placement. These
adorable little girls were 2, 3, and 4 and highly adoptable. CPS refused to place them with us initially
as required by law. Two months later,
the worker obtained her supervisor’s permission to move the children to
us. However, the order to accomplish
the move was held on the CPS attorney’s desk for three months. It was finally processed when the CPS
attorney was out of town and the worker had a substitute attorney take it
before the judge. The children were
moved to us on October 10, 1994. A
number of people associated with the case, including us, were told by CPS that
the children were going to be “adopted out.”
·
All
went well the first year with two case workers. When they left for other jobs, the case was turned over to
supervisor Phyllis Bullard and the problems started. Penny Elliott was assigned to the case in October of 1995 and the
problems escalated. CPS granted the
mother unsupervised visitation after she returned from a year in Arizona during
which she had little contact with the children and failed to comply with her
reunification plan. This was after the
mother’s reunification services had been terminated. Granting of unsupervised visitation after termination of
reunification services is highly unusual.
·
When
CPS was not successful in getting the children away from us through conflict
and lies in court documents, CPS influenced a U.C. Davis psychologist to
recommend the mother be given another chance.
This was summer of 1996.
·
We
believe the children were molested by their maternal uncle during a 2-week
court ordered visit with the maternal grandmother in August of 1996. We have much circumstantial evidence that
the children were indeed molested and that the molester was the uncle. He has a criminal record and the maternal
grandmother stated in 2000 that she did not know where her son is.
·
The
children went to their maternal grandmother’s to transition back to their
mother on September 2, 1996 prior to the knowledge the children had been
molested.
·
The
possibility that the children were molested came to light in early October when
the two older girls developed vaginal infections.
·
Because
Yuba County CPS disliked us for getting in the way of their plans to adopt the
girls out and they knew they were responsible for placing the children in a
situation in which they were molested, they immediately pointed suspicion at
us, ignoring the fact that the children had been with us for 23 months and
during that time there were no concerns from teachers or day care providers --
we have letters praising our care of the children from many of them. CPS knew that if they investigated
appropriately and prosecuted the perpetrator, the children would have come back
to us and we would have filed a lawsuit against the county on the children’s
behalf.
·
We
were never interviewed about the molestations by either CPS or the Yuba City
Police Department which was in charge of the investigation. CPS cut off all our contact with the
children for 7-1/2 months, leaving the girls in the care of their maternal
grandmother and mother who had everything to gain if they could influence the
children to either be quiet or say that Grandpa Chuck molested them. The girls told their counselor they
"had a secret." That was the
last visit the girls had with that counselor -- CPS switched counselors to
prevent the "secret" from coming out.
·
On
December 2, 1996, we wrote a letter to Judge Thomas Mathews, telling him of the
CPS lies and asking him to request an investigation. He did not request an investigation, but merely transferred the
case to Sutter County on February 21, 1997.
Sutter County accepted the case on April 1, 1997.
·
In
Sutter County we were granted supervised visitation on May 15, 1997 after the
children were interviewed by a sheriff’s department multi-agency team and
stated that no one touched them inappropriately. We were granted unsupervised visitation and de facto parent
status on August 7, 1997 by Sutter County.
·
The
children visited with us almost every other weekend from August 8, 1997 through
mid-November 1997.
·
During
this time it became apparent the mother was again using drugs, neglecting and
abusing the children. This was reported
by us, by the children’s father, by the landlady and others to Sutter County
CPS. The CPS workers own notes
reflect abuse, neglect and drug use (we have the notes). The power and telephone had been turned off
and the mother evicted. CPS took no
action, whitewashing a report to the court (we have the report) and
recommending dismissal of dependency.
The case was dismissed on November 13, 1997. (We have affadavits from
the landlady, a Rent-A-Center employee and teachers documenting the neglect and
drug use.)
·
From
mid November 1997 through early January 1998 the children were with us almost
every weekend, including four days over Thanksgiving and four days over
Christmas. The mother was heavily into
drugs and turned to us to take care of her children which she would not have
done if she believed we would harm them.
·
The
children again lived with us from January 9, 1998 until February 12, 1998 at
the mother’s request. On February 12,
1998, the mother and maternal grandmother pulled the two older children from
school and picked up the youngest child from our home. The mother stated at the time, “I just talked with Penny Elliott and she
told me you were trying to get guardianship of the children based on my
homelessness, drug use and abandonment.”
Someone in Sutter County had to have informed Yuba County CPS of our
plans since Penny Elliott is the Yuba County CPS worker who handled the case
and the case had been dismissed by Sutter County. We were communicating at the time with Sutter County Health and
Human Services Director Ed Smith and believe he is a part of the conspiracy to
keep the children from us.
·
The
mother and the children were on a plane to Arizona that evening, the trip paid
for by the maternal grandmother. When
things did not work out there with the mother’s grandmother, the maternal
grandmother arranged for them to go to Anchorage, Alaska to join the mother’s
former boyfriend.
·
It
was at this point that we hired a private investigator to document the mother’s
drug use while she was in Yuba City and to locate and check on the children
since the maternal grandmother would not tell us where they were. Affidavits of deplorable conditions and drug
use from the manager of the apartment in Yuba City and a Rent-A-Center employee
convinced our attorney to seek guardianship.
·
During
the hearings for guardianship from late June 1998 through October 16, 1998:
à
Sutter
County Intervention Counselor Diane Rosenberg asked the Anchorage Police
Department to do a welfare check on the girls which again revealed deplorable
conditions in the home in Alaska -- no food, beer cans everywhere, filth,
children’s hair had been washed with Coleman fuel to get rid of the lice,
hitting the children with wooden objects (we have the police reports).
à
Yuba
County CPS sent information to the Department of Justice placing Chuck on the
Child Abuse Central Index. This was a
deliberate attempt to block us from getting guardianship of the children. Yuba
County CPS refuses to remove his name despite the fact that we were granted
guardianship of the children.
à
The
investigation of the case by Sutter County probation officer Diane Rosenberg
following Yuba County CPS’s placement of Chuck on the Child Abuse Central Index
revealed information that video tapes of the children done by Yuba County CPS
concerning the molestation were taped over because the CPS attorney questioned
the validity of the tapes.
à
The
investigation also revealed that a psychologist whom the children were seeing
after the molestations, denied making a statement quoted in a court document
about who molested the children.
·
During
the guardianship process which included 5 court hearings, the maternal
grandmother and mother only objected to the guardianship via letters and in
those letters neither mentions a concern of possible molestation by Chuck. Neither the grandmother or mother retained
an attorney and the children’s mother never attended a court hearing The maternal grandmother attended four of
the hearings, confident that placement of Chuck on the Child Abuse Central
Index by her friends at Yuba County CPS would prevent us from getting guardianship.
·
We
were granted guardianship of the children on October 16, 1998 and picked up the
children in Anchorage from CPS on October 27, 1998. The mother and her boyfriend had shaved their heads to get rid of
the lice and they were living in a homeless shelter when Anchorage CPS detained
them for us.
·
The
return of the children to their drug-addicted mother in September of 1996 and
her neglect of the children for 2 years has caused them great harm
psychologically and educationally. The
children started counseling on February 24, 1999 which is on-going. The children were all behind in school. The middle child started fourth grade
reading at the second grade, second month level. We hired tutors to help get them up to where they need to be and
we spent 2 to 4 hours a day working with the girls on homework for the first
three years after they returned.
·
In
late February 1999, the maternal grandmother submitted petitions to the court
to replace us as guardians. She later
retained an attorney and was joined by the mother in asking the court to set
aside our guardianship and appoint her as guardian if one was deemed
necessary. They again raised the molest
allegations. The mother and maternal
grandmother continue to work behind the scenes with Yuba County CPS to gain
control of the children to control what the children say. Yuba County CPS knows that as long as we
have the children, the potential for a lawsuit exists on behalf of the
children. If the truth ever comes out,
CPS workers, the maternal grandmother and the mother could be prosecuted and go
to prison.
·
The
connection between the maternal grandmother and Yuba County CPS is
documented. In the maternal
grandmother’s deposition in May 1999, she admitted to being “friends” with Yuba
County CPS Supervisor Phyllis Bullard (we have the documentation). Bullard denied she was friends with the
maternal grandmother in a court deposition (we have the document).
·
The
mother, Dawn May, moved back to the area in mid July 1999 (nine months after
the children returned to Yuba City with us).
Ms. May lived with her mother for several months and then lived with her
boyfriend for 1-1/2 years who has been abusive to the children in the past
. On July 22, 1999, the court refused
to terminate our guardianship, but did give the mother every other weekend visitation. We returned to court on December 3, 1999 and
the judge granted the mother visitation 2 weekends out of three. We returned to court in July 2000 and the
judge gave the mother 4 days visitation every other week from 3:30 p.m.
Wednesday to 5 p.m. on Sunday. In
December 2000, the judge continued the case until July 12, 2001 after the court
investigator pointed out that the mother’s boyfriend had resumed drug use, was
fired from his job and arrested for burglary.
·
The
judge continues to say we have done a wonderful job with the children, but we
“are not the parents.” He is looking
for a way to return the children to their mother to cut off the lawsuit he
knows is coming (we have filed claims with both Yuba and Sutter counties on
behalf of the children). To facilitate
that action, he is ignoring case precedent.
The judge will not let us bring the mother’s history into the case which
is relevant and necessary. We have drug
notes in the mother’s handwriting showing she and her boyfriend were selling
drugs in Anchorage in July of 1998. The
judge will not order a psychological evaluation of the mother (we have
documents indicating she has a “mood disorder” and has Attention Deficit
Disorder). The judge is doing
everything he can to prevent evidence from getting into the record so that he
will not be overturned on appeal. The
challenge to our guardianship has been going on for 4-1/2 years. It should have been dismissed 3-1/2 years
ago, but both Yuba and Sutter Counties know that as long as we have legal
custody of the children, a lawsuit on behalf of the children against both
counties is a very real threat. The
judge appears to be part of the conspiracy to get the children away from us to
prevent that lawsuit. Jessica told us
in fall of 1999 (she was 7 years old) that “mommy and grandma had ‘hooked’ up a
deal with the judge” to return them to their mother.
·
Further
evidence of the on-going conspiracy is the fact that the mother has a declared
monthly income (in child support court) of around $800 a month and certainly
cannot even pay her own monthly bills (rent of $500; PG&E, food, gas, car
insurance, school supplies, etc.) let alone attorney bills. The maternal grandmother who initially hired
the attorney filed for and was granted a bankruptcy judgement in January of
2002 wiping out a $33,000 debt to the attorney (we have the bankruptcy papers),
yet he is still representing the mother.
Who is paying him? We do not
know, but we strongly suspect he is either doing a favor for the “good ol’ boys”
(it is a fairly small community and the attorney has been in the area for many,
many years and may have even grown up here) or he is being paid under the table
by someone.
·
Additional
evidence of conspiracy is the fact that the mother attended the local community
college, majoring in social services.
She interned with Yuba County CPS -- the same people who falsely accused
us and tried to adopt our granddaughters out and who have much to lose if we
are successful in a lawsuit on behalf of the children. The youngest granddaughter told us in
December of 2002 that her mother worked with “Penny.”
·
In
February of 2002, the judge continued the case until June of 2003 (when the mother
was suppose to complete her two-year college program), leaving the children
with us and continuing the current visitation order. It is obvious he is trying to find a way to return the children
to their mother despite the fact that she has major mental problems (mood
disorder and ADHD - is on a number of medications) and is incapable of raising
these 3 girls who themselves have mental issues -- ADHD, dyslexia, juvenile
bipolar and Central Auditory Processing Disorder.
·
On
May 21, 2003, Judge Damron appointed Sabine Davis to represent the
children. Sabine Davis talked with the
girls for 20 minutes on May 29, 2003 and gave us positive feedback.
·
Court
Investigator Jemy Mathews’ Report to the Court
for the June 2003 hearing (continued to July 16) came out heavily in our
favor with two of the children indicating they wanted to remain with us. The third child has major mental problems
(recently diagnosed with juvenile bipolar and Central Auditory Processing
Disorder) and stated she wants to live with her mother, we believe to escape
from rules and school frustrations. The
children’s therapist recommended leaving the children where they are and to cut
back on visitation. The children’s
psychiatrist indicated the children needed “industrial strength” parenting
which we are providing, that they need structure and stability. This is a single mother with her own mental
problems who has never supported herself in her life, who had her children
removed twice, put a fourth child up for adoption and now wants to parent three
children with mental problems. The
court investigator’s report included information that the mother had her
driver’s license suspended for a year and a half and drove with the children in
the car until May of 2003.
·
We
were in court on Thursday 8/21/03 -- a continuation from July 16. Despite an
extremely strong recommendation from the children's therapist (she has been
seeing them for 5+ years), to leave the
children with us and reduce mom's visitation to every third weekend plus time
in the summer and for holidays, the judge gave mom every weekend except the
first weekend of each month which they will stay with us. This was a change
from the previous visitation in which mom had them from 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday
to 5 p.m. on Sunday every other week. We will have them during
the week Mon. through Friday. We believe this is a result of mom's failure
during the previous visitation schedule when she had them 2 school days out of
10 and failed miserably -- they were late to school 17% of the time, homework
didn't get done, etc. The children's psychiatrist also
recommended leaving the children with us where they have stability and strong
parenting. The court investigator's report was heavily in our favor. The children's attorney said she supported
the children's therapist's recommendation.
The judge continued the case until next June, leaving the
guardianship in place.
·
It
is obvious the judge is part of the conspiracy to get the kids away from us, to
spend our money and to cause us major emotional stress. In the process he is
destroying the children. He never once
said on 8/21/03 that he was doing what was in the “best interests of the
children.”
·
The
court is using its power to provide a reunification to the mother against court
precedent. See Guardianship of Kaylee
J. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1425. The
appellate court ruled that the trial court had no authority to incorporate a
reunification plan as part of a guardianship order. The appellate court stated, “In probate guardianship proceedings,
like custody proceedings under the Family Code, the courts must determine which
custody placement is in the best interest of the child but may not order
reunification services.” Judge Damron
has been using his court to provide de facto reunification services to the
children’s mother for the past 4-1/2 years without officially ordering it.
·
Because
of the illegal and corrupt actions of Yuba County CPS, Sutter County CPS, local
officials and the California Department of Social Services, our granddaughters
have suffered tremendous psychological, physical and educational harm. They continue to suffer psychological
harm. We, too, have suffered emotional
harm and financial damage of more than $125,000, with those costs expected to
rise as we continue to fight to retain custody of the children.
/s/Charles
W. Miller /s/ Patricia A. Miller
Charles
W. Miller Patricia A. Miller
Charles &
Patricia Miller
1699 Sharon
Drive
Yuba City, Ca
95993
530-673-6562
chucknpat@jps.net
(Nov. 16, 2003)
States Failing Child Welfare System Test
By LAURA MECKLER
.c The
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Not a single state has passed a rigorous test of its ability
to protect children from child abuse and to find permanent homes for kids who
often languish in foster care.
The 32 states evaluated so far could lose millions of dollars from the federal
government if they fail to fix problems within a few years.
The problems of child welfare get periodic attention, usually following the
tragic death of a child. The Child and Family Service Reviews are the first
time federal officials have tried to measure how well children are faring
across state systems created to protect them - but that often fall short.
The reviews ask whether children are bouncing from one foster home to the next,
never able to put down roots; whether siblings taken from their parents are
kept together or pulled apart; whether it takes a state too long to finalize
adoptions or to send children back to their biological parents.
Affected are nearly 550,000 children in foster care and an estimated half
million others living at home but under state supervision.
``There is a lot of work to be done,'' said Joan Ohl, commissioner of the
Administration for Children, Youth and Families. ``It's a daunting task.''
In the past, states were evaluated on bureaucratic benchmarks. Now, the
questions are how many children are abused again after entering the system and
whether parents are getting promised help.
The reviews merge dozens of questions into seven ``outcomes'' measurements.
Fourteen states have failed all seven. An additional 14, plus the District of
Columbia, have failed six of the seven, and four states failed five. No state
has passed more than two.
``We set a very high bar and we don't apologize for that bar,'' Ohl said in an
interview.
Problems were found in every state:
In Tennessee, the agency did not respond to abuse reports in a timely manner
nearly 30 percent of the time.
In Michigan, more than one in four parents with children in foster care said
they had not received needed services such as parenting classes or drug
treatment.
In Ohio, 27 percent of the time the agency did not make a diligent effort to
help children in foster care maintain connections to family and community.
The reviews have spurred change.
Georgia began offering assistance to foster parents after it found more than
one child out of every 100 was abused in a foster home, almost twice the
national standard. Initiatives include a telephone help line, training on
dealing with behavior problems and respite care to give foster parents time
without the children.
After California was found to take too long to finalize adoptions, the state
began combining its screening programs for potential foster and adoptive
parents. That means the state will not have to conduct a second screening if
foster parents decide to adopt.
States acknowledge the problems and welcome a clear set of benchmarks for
improvement, said Robert Lindecamp, director of the National Association of
Public Child Welfare Administrators. ``States don't have a problem with having
a high standard,'' he said.
One problem common to all states is the huge load handled by child welfare
caseworkers. The reviews found that families do better when caseworkers make
more visits, but that requires additional money that budget-strapped states are
not inclined to spend.
After the first round of reviews, scheduled for completion next year, states
must write improvement plans. A second round of tests will determine if states
made promised changes. If not, they could lose some of their federal child
welfare money.
While the seven outcome measurements are the heart of the reviews, states are
evaluated on their overall systems - for instance, do computer systems work and
is training done properly. That brings the number of benchmarks to 14.
Maximum penalties proposed range from $130,000 in Delaware, which failed six of
seven measures, to more than $18 million for California, which failed all
seven.
Whether states will make significant changes is an open question. Ohl says the
examples of innovation by the states ``are still more of the exception than the
rule.''
``We are still receiving program improvement plans that merely scratch the
surface in terms of the real improvements that must be made,'' she said.
Critics, including state officials and outside advocates and experts, say the
reviews themselves are flawed.
The grades are based on statewide data submitted regularly to the federal
government plus in-depth reviews of 50 cases selected randomly from each state.
Much of the state data is widely considered unreliable. The critics also say 50
cases, a fraction of any state's caseload, do not accurately represent the
state.
The measurements are essentially snapshots of a moment in time, which can be
misleading, rather than a look at what happens to a child over years.
For example, the reviews count how many of the children were reunited with
their parents within a year and how many adoptions were finalized within two
years. But neither measure looks at the entire caseload to calculate the
likelihood of reunification or adoption.
Federal officials say the review paints an accurate picture and that the
process marks a turning point in child welfare.
But it will take even well-meaning states a long time to fix the problems
uncovered, said Richard Gelles, dean of the School of Social Work at the
University of Pennsylvania.
``Some state systems are truly horrible,'' he said, ``and no amount of
accountability is going to make them jump from horrible to good in one leap.''
On the Net:
Child and Family Service Reviews: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/
08/18/03 14:05 EDT