Fern5827
01-03-2004, 09:05 AM
FWD from the Internet
Regarding the adoption bonuses, here is a cut and paste from an ex foster care
worker --Suzanne LeBoeuf, M.A., Fairfield, CA, in solano county california and
a copy of the act passed by congress:
When I worked as a foster family agency social worker, the "incentive" for
adoptions was $4,000; now it appears to have been raised to $6,000.
I'm all for protecting kids who are being abused and neglected, but with this
kind of "incentive" for kids to be adopted (by whatever agency does the
adoption, either Child Protective Services [CPS] or foster family agencies)
doesn't this cause adoption decisions to be very lucrative for the "players"
who get to decide these cases?
As Terri Cook of Parents Against Corrupt Systems (PACS, San Jose) has pointed
out, even when the parents complete their required program set by CPS social
workers, the parents have no voice. The cases are decided by the reports of the
social workers. Cook also points out that it is very lucrative to have
"reunifications" fail so that the child can be re-placed into foster care, and
then put into the "reunification" program again. The second "reunification
attempt" starts the cash register going again from the beginning so that CPS
gets to start collecting money for the new attempt at reunification from the
beginning. This sounds like another corporate scam right under our noses.
The natural parents are virtually left out of the picture and must be on their
best behavior, or the natural parents anger can easily be used against them in
decisions about whether to return their children. Why is personality of the
parents held against them in custody decisions when it would be natural for any
parents to become angry once their children are taken? I believe I have seen
the personal bias of the social worker get in the way of "reunifications".
The most troubling thing of all is that there is a price placed on the heads of
these children, and children under the age of ten are seen as more "adoptable",
and so therefore they are "worth" more in terms of profit in the adoptions
industry.
That this bill (below) is all about monetary "incentives" rather than about the
lives of girls and boys is disturbing. Isn't this bill really about "selling"
children? To legally make a profit off of children is a step in the direction
of lowering the value of children and our humanity.
Are the judges, congresspersons and social workers the people who really love
these children? Isn't it really about shuttling kids around to various foster
homes, group homes and "adopting them out" rather than about working toward
successful reunifications? And when the incentive is so great to adopt
children, the motives behind such a business must be viewed with suspicion. Is
there validity of all claims of abuse and neglect or are dollar signs placed on
the children's heads too hard for some to ignore?
I propose that the natural parents should be a large part in deciding what is
best for their kids. Too many times the natural parents are shut out in the
decision-making concerning their children. Without the natural parents
involvement, the children are handed off to other people to give them food and
shelter, and they lose the attachment with their parents. What better way for
children to feel loved and cared about than to have their own, natural parents
be a major player in what happens to these children.
Judges don't know what is best for the kids and hardly see the children to even
know them but they have the power to decide the final verdict. And the courts
are not without profit motive either.
Natural parents are given supervised visits and are at the mercy of whatever
the social worker wants them to do. Parents then become "robots on good
behavior" for fear their children will never be returned to them. This is much
like how we treat children, to be on good behavior. The state controls our
families and calls it "in the best interests of the children".
The assembly line goes 'round and 'round as more children are taken into foster
care, and nobody in government seems to question this. Rather, as this bill
demonstrates, government is fully behind the profit motive imposed upon
children being removed from their families.
I suggest that for those who don't believe, the bill talks about children being
"under the supervision of the state". If you read the bill, you will see it is
about money only, and mentions nothing about the child's well being, or the
rights of the natural parents, nor anything about human relationships. The
children have become lucrative commodities. I hope you will find this wrong
that adoptions of children and separating parents from their children has been
reduced merely to dollars and cents.
--Suzanne LeBoeuf, M.A., Fairfield, CA icsn2202@yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------
Adoption Incentive Program Reauthorization Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)
S 1439 IS
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1439
To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to reauthorize adoption
incentives payments under section 473A of that Act and to provide incentives
for the adoption of older children.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 22 (legislative day, JULY 21), 2003
Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to
the Committee on Finance
http://us.yimg.com/i/pim/vbar.gif"
src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/MATTMC~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif">
A BILL
To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to reauthorize adoption
incentives payments under section 473A of that Act and to provide incentives
for the adoption of older children.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Adoption Incentive
Program Reauthorization Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS. (a) REAUTHORIZATION-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 473A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(5), by striking `1998 through 2002' and inserting `2004
through 2008'; and
(B) in subsection (h)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `Secretary' and all that follows through the
period and inserting `Secretary, $43,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2008.'; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking `2003' and inserting `2008'.
(2) OLDER CHILD BASELINE-
(A) DETERMINATIONS OF NUMBER OF ADOPTIONS- Section 473A(c)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
`(2) DETERMINATION OF NUMBERS OF ADOPTIONS BASED ON AFCARS DATA- The Secretary
shall determine the numbers of foster child adoptions and of older child
adoptions in a State during each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, for
purposes of this section, on the basis of data meeting the requirements of the
system established pursuant to section 479, as reported by the State and
approved by the Secretary by August 1 of the succeeding fiscal year.'.
(B) ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENT- Section 473A(d)(1)(B) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(d)(1)(B)) is amended--
(i) by striking `$2,000' and inserting `$6,000'; and
(ii) by striking `special needs' each place it appears and inserting `older
child'.
(C) DEFINITIONS- Section 473A(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(g))
is amended--
(i) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
`(2) OLDER CHILD ADOPTION- The term `older child adoption' means the final
adoption of a child who has attained age 9 and--
`(A) at the time of adoptive placement, was in foster care under the
supervision of the State; or
`(B) for whom an adoption assistance agreement is in effect under section
473.'; and
(ii) by striking paragraph (4), and inserting the following:
`(4) BASE NUMBER OF OLDER CHILD ADOPTIONS- The term `base number of older child
adoptions for a State' means--
`(A) with respect to fiscal year 2004, the number of older child adoptions in
the State in fiscal year 2003; and
`(B) with respect to any subsequent fiscal year, the number of older child
adoptions in the State in the fiscal year for which the number is the greatest
in the period that begins with fiscal year 2003 and ends with the fiscal year
preceding such fiscal year.'.
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-
(A) HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS- Section
473A(b)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(b)(4)) is amended by
striking `fiscal years 2001 and 2002' and inserting `each of fiscal years 2004
through 2008'.
(B) DATA REQUIREMENTS- Section 473A(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
673b(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
`(1) IN GENERAL- A State is in compliance with this subsection for a fiscal
year if the State has provided to the Secretary the data described in paragraph
(2) for the fiscal year that precedes the fiscal year for which the State seeks
a grant under this section.'.
(C) DEFINITION OF BASE NUMBER OF FOSTER CHILD ADOPTIONS- Section 473A(g)(3) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(g)(3)) is amended--
(i) by striking `means' and all that follows through `any subsequent fiscal
year,' and inserting `means, with respect to a fiscal year,'; and
(ii) by striking `such subsequent fiscal year' and inserting `such fiscal
year'.
(D) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE- Section 473A(i)(4) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 673b(i)(4)) is amended by striking `1998 through 2000' and inserting
`2004 through 2008'.
(b) DISCRETIONARY CAP ADJUSTMENT-
(1) SECTION 251- Section 251(b)(2)(G) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(G)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking `1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or
2003' and inserting `2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008'; and
(B) in clause (i), by striking `$20,000,000' and inserting `$43,000,000'.
(2) SECTION 314- Section 314(b)(6) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 645(b)(6)) is amended--
(A) by striking `1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003' and inserting `2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, or 2008'; and
(B) by striking `$20,000,000' and inserting `$43,000,000'.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section take effect on October
1, 2003.
I THINK THIS SAYS MORE THAN ENOUGH.
MICHELLE TIDMORE, LEGAL EAGLES LAW RESEARCH AND RESOURCE
descriptors; CPS, FOSTER CARE, PARENTAL RIGHTS, FAMILY LAW, IMMUNITY, SOCIAL
WORK, CASEWORK, CHILD PROTECTIVE, DHS, DHHS,CHILD ABUSE, CHILD NEGLECT,
ADOPTION, KINSHIP CARE, CAPTA, ASFA.
ng ALT SUPPORT CHILD-PROTECTIVE-SERVICES
Regarding the adoption bonuses, here is a cut and paste from an ex foster care
worker --Suzanne LeBoeuf, M.A., Fairfield, CA, in solano county california and
a copy of the act passed by congress:
When I worked as a foster family agency social worker, the "incentive" for
adoptions was $4,000; now it appears to have been raised to $6,000.
I'm all for protecting kids who are being abused and neglected, but with this
kind of "incentive" for kids to be adopted (by whatever agency does the
adoption, either Child Protective Services [CPS] or foster family agencies)
doesn't this cause adoption decisions to be very lucrative for the "players"
who get to decide these cases?
As Terri Cook of Parents Against Corrupt Systems (PACS, San Jose) has pointed
out, even when the parents complete their required program set by CPS social
workers, the parents have no voice. The cases are decided by the reports of the
social workers. Cook also points out that it is very lucrative to have
"reunifications" fail so that the child can be re-placed into foster care, and
then put into the "reunification" program again. The second "reunification
attempt" starts the cash register going again from the beginning so that CPS
gets to start collecting money for the new attempt at reunification from the
beginning. This sounds like another corporate scam right under our noses.
The natural parents are virtually left out of the picture and must be on their
best behavior, or the natural parents anger can easily be used against them in
decisions about whether to return their children. Why is personality of the
parents held against them in custody decisions when it would be natural for any
parents to become angry once their children are taken? I believe I have seen
the personal bias of the social worker get in the way of "reunifications".
The most troubling thing of all is that there is a price placed on the heads of
these children, and children under the age of ten are seen as more "adoptable",
and so therefore they are "worth" more in terms of profit in the adoptions
industry.
That this bill (below) is all about monetary "incentives" rather than about the
lives of girls and boys is disturbing. Isn't this bill really about "selling"
children? To legally make a profit off of children is a step in the direction
of lowering the value of children and our humanity.
Are the judges, congresspersons and social workers the people who really love
these children? Isn't it really about shuttling kids around to various foster
homes, group homes and "adopting them out" rather than about working toward
successful reunifications? And when the incentive is so great to adopt
children, the motives behind such a business must be viewed with suspicion. Is
there validity of all claims of abuse and neglect or are dollar signs placed on
the children's heads too hard for some to ignore?
I propose that the natural parents should be a large part in deciding what is
best for their kids. Too many times the natural parents are shut out in the
decision-making concerning their children. Without the natural parents
involvement, the children are handed off to other people to give them food and
shelter, and they lose the attachment with their parents. What better way for
children to feel loved and cared about than to have their own, natural parents
be a major player in what happens to these children.
Judges don't know what is best for the kids and hardly see the children to even
know them but they have the power to decide the final verdict. And the courts
are not without profit motive either.
Natural parents are given supervised visits and are at the mercy of whatever
the social worker wants them to do. Parents then become "robots on good
behavior" for fear their children will never be returned to them. This is much
like how we treat children, to be on good behavior. The state controls our
families and calls it "in the best interests of the children".
The assembly line goes 'round and 'round as more children are taken into foster
care, and nobody in government seems to question this. Rather, as this bill
demonstrates, government is fully behind the profit motive imposed upon
children being removed from their families.
I suggest that for those who don't believe, the bill talks about children being
"under the supervision of the state". If you read the bill, you will see it is
about money only, and mentions nothing about the child's well being, or the
rights of the natural parents, nor anything about human relationships. The
children have become lucrative commodities. I hope you will find this wrong
that adoptions of children and separating parents from their children has been
reduced merely to dollars and cents.
--Suzanne LeBoeuf, M.A., Fairfield, CA icsn2202@yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------
Adoption Incentive Program Reauthorization Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)
S 1439 IS
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1439
To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to reauthorize adoption
incentives payments under section 473A of that Act and to provide incentives
for the adoption of older children.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 22 (legislative day, JULY 21), 2003
Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to
the Committee on Finance
http://us.yimg.com/i/pim/vbar.gif"
src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/MATTMC~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif">
A BILL
To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to reauthorize adoption
incentives payments under section 473A of that Act and to provide incentives
for the adoption of older children.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Adoption Incentive
Program Reauthorization Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS. (a) REAUTHORIZATION-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 473A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(5), by striking `1998 through 2002' and inserting `2004
through 2008'; and
(B) in subsection (h)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `Secretary' and all that follows through the
period and inserting `Secretary, $43,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2008.'; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking `2003' and inserting `2008'.
(2) OLDER CHILD BASELINE-
(A) DETERMINATIONS OF NUMBER OF ADOPTIONS- Section 473A(c)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
`(2) DETERMINATION OF NUMBERS OF ADOPTIONS BASED ON AFCARS DATA- The Secretary
shall determine the numbers of foster child adoptions and of older child
adoptions in a State during each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, for
purposes of this section, on the basis of data meeting the requirements of the
system established pursuant to section 479, as reported by the State and
approved by the Secretary by August 1 of the succeeding fiscal year.'.
(B) ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENT- Section 473A(d)(1)(B) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(d)(1)(B)) is amended--
(i) by striking `$2,000' and inserting `$6,000'; and
(ii) by striking `special needs' each place it appears and inserting `older
child'.
(C) DEFINITIONS- Section 473A(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(g))
is amended--
(i) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
`(2) OLDER CHILD ADOPTION- The term `older child adoption' means the final
adoption of a child who has attained age 9 and--
`(A) at the time of adoptive placement, was in foster care under the
supervision of the State; or
`(B) for whom an adoption assistance agreement is in effect under section
473.'; and
(ii) by striking paragraph (4), and inserting the following:
`(4) BASE NUMBER OF OLDER CHILD ADOPTIONS- The term `base number of older child
adoptions for a State' means--
`(A) with respect to fiscal year 2004, the number of older child adoptions in
the State in fiscal year 2003; and
`(B) with respect to any subsequent fiscal year, the number of older child
adoptions in the State in the fiscal year for which the number is the greatest
in the period that begins with fiscal year 2003 and ends with the fiscal year
preceding such fiscal year.'.
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-
(A) HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS- Section
473A(b)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(b)(4)) is amended by
striking `fiscal years 2001 and 2002' and inserting `each of fiscal years 2004
through 2008'.
(B) DATA REQUIREMENTS- Section 473A(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
673b(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
`(1) IN GENERAL- A State is in compliance with this subsection for a fiscal
year if the State has provided to the Secretary the data described in paragraph
(2) for the fiscal year that precedes the fiscal year for which the State seeks
a grant under this section.'.
(C) DEFINITION OF BASE NUMBER OF FOSTER CHILD ADOPTIONS- Section 473A(g)(3) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(g)(3)) is amended--
(i) by striking `means' and all that follows through `any subsequent fiscal
year,' and inserting `means, with respect to a fiscal year,'; and
(ii) by striking `such subsequent fiscal year' and inserting `such fiscal
year'.
(D) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE- Section 473A(i)(4) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 673b(i)(4)) is amended by striking `1998 through 2000' and inserting
`2004 through 2008'.
(b) DISCRETIONARY CAP ADJUSTMENT-
(1) SECTION 251- Section 251(b)(2)(G) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(G)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking `1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or
2003' and inserting `2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008'; and
(B) in clause (i), by striking `$20,000,000' and inserting `$43,000,000'.
(2) SECTION 314- Section 314(b)(6) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 645(b)(6)) is amended--
(A) by striking `1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003' and inserting `2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, or 2008'; and
(B) by striking `$20,000,000' and inserting `$43,000,000'.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section take effect on October
1, 2003.
I THINK THIS SAYS MORE THAN ENOUGH.
MICHELLE TIDMORE, LEGAL EAGLES LAW RESEARCH AND RESOURCE
descriptors; CPS, FOSTER CARE, PARENTAL RIGHTS, FAMILY LAW, IMMUNITY, SOCIAL
WORK, CASEWORK, CHILD PROTECTIVE, DHS, DHHS,CHILD ABUSE, CHILD NEGLECT,
ADOPTION, KINSHIP CARE, CAPTA, ASFA.
ng ALT SUPPORT CHILD-PROTECTIVE-SERVICES
