Bringing fairness and justice to the child protection process

On February 7, 2012, several CPR board members and friends testified at the MI House of Representatives hearing on HCR 11, the resolution urging the Congress to move forward with the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many folks from around the state testified in favor of the amendment, with only two groups opposed- the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women. William Wagner, the primary author of the amendment, and former Federal judge, testified in support of the  resolution. Chairman Ken Kurtz was a gracious host for the hearing.  Thanks again to Rep Agema for sponsoring the resolution, and to those who distributed literature to 109 State Reps on this issue. Please call your MI State Rep soon and ask him to support this resolution.

On Feb 11, 2011, sixteen of our board members and friends attended the “Best Interest Of  The Child” in Caro, MI. Two of our group were presenters at the summit. Dennis Lawrence spoke on the poor treatment of next of kin, especially grandparents, by the CPS system, and the need for reform in the operation of the child abuse registry. Deanna Kloostra spoke on Parental Alienation Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Other presenters talked about the horrors of severe child abuse and presented examples of an ineffective CPS system. Some spoke of poor treatment of families by CPS. The event was hosted by MI State Representative Kurt Damrow and his wife Kim. The hospitality and organizational efforts are greatly appreciated.

So, if we have had 35 years of Child Protection managed by the U.S. Congress, and child abuse statistics are worse now than in the mid 70′s, is it time for more of the same, or time for serious structural reform?

Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

View the latest movie fromparentalrights.org OverruledMovie.com

Why We Need It

(Info from parentarights.org  Oct, 2011)

• In 2005, the U.S. Ninth Circuit “affirm[ed] that the Meyer-Pierce [fundamental parental] right does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door.” They also held that “[p]arents…have no constitutional right…to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.”1
• In 2007, the federal District Court for the district of Massachusetts held that “Parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children. They are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state. [They] may send their children to a private school…. They may also educate their children at home.”2 So, sending a child to public school is in this paragraph equated to “abandoning your parental rights to the state.”
• In 2008, the Maryland Board of Education announced, “While we recognize the right of parents to direct the education of their children, we must bend their will to the state’s obligation to educate its citizens.”
• In Roper v. Simmons (2005), and in Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida (2010), the Supreme Court overthrew the laws of Texas and of Florida, writing, “the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to the international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the [U.S. Constitution].”3 In both instances, they applied the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child to United States law, though we have not yet ratified this dangerous treaty.
• Last year, a judge in Philadelphia cited the concept of “Customary International Law” in applying an optional protocol to the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child to a federal court case. And the number of judges applying international standards in our courts seems to be increasing.
• California just passed a law allowing children as young as 12 to consent to the Gardasil vaccine without parental knowledge or consent. Minnesota already allows the same thing. In Virginia, the vaccine is even mandated by law, the state having made the decision in parents’ stead.

Fact: In Michigan, Senate Bill 435-440 would continue foster care through age 21. The Bill Analysis, Fiscal Impact statement says, “The most recent estimate for foster care payments is $24,500 per individual a year…”  (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2011-SFA-0435-F.pdf ,page 3, paragraph 3, last sentence, Sept 2011)

Fact: Social Security “…title IV-E funding, which primarily supports the placement of children in out-of-home care rather than supporting services for placement prevention or reunification…”    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2011). Synthesis of Findings: Title IV-E Flexible Funding Child Welfare Waiver Demonstrations. Washington, DC: Author. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/cwwaiver/2011/flexible.pdf page 4, paragraph 2, first sentence, Sept 2011)

Fact: Payments to foster parents in Michigan are typically $37 per child per day, and in agency care are in typically $150-250 per child per day, and go as high as $316.58 per child per day. ( http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/CFS-Rates/CFS-Rates.pdf ,10-4-11)