That's something I have wondered about for years, and this latest scandal gives me one more reason to wonder.
The foster father arrested in Redmond on suspicion of child rape and molestation was investigated dozens of times by Child Protective Services for possible sexual or physical abuse or neglect of children in his care.
All of the 26 investigations were closed as unfounded, unsubstantiated or inconclusive due to lack of evidence. The information on Enrique Escayloa Fabregas comes from court filings made available Friday.
What happened, again and again, is that a foster daughter would make an accusation — and then retract it, saying she didn't want to hurt the man. And then CPS would close the complaint. This finally ended when one of the girls went to the local police, rather than to CPS.
It is somewhat surprising that he was ever allowed to become a foster father given his history.
Despite a long history of drug and weapons charges in the 1970s and '80s, Fabregas was allowed to become a foster father for the three children — and adopt the youngest — in 1998 after a King County judge issued him a certificate of rehabilitation, according to [spokeswoman Kathy] Spears and court documents.
The newspaper articles are not as clear on the point one would like, but Fabregas appears to have been involved with their mother — which should be a giant red flag, since child predators often target single women with daughters (or sometimes, sons).
In the roughly ten years since I moved back to Washington state, I seen similar stories of blunders by CPS again and again. And I have seen the same kind of stories wherever I have lived; again and again state agencies charged with protecting children fail to do that. (And sometimes persecute perfectly decent families who are doing nothing wrong.)
And there is one more troubling point: The elected officials in charge of these bureaucracies rarely seem to suffer for these blunders. I doubt that it will even occur to the reporters in this area to ask our current governor, Christine Gregoire, or her predecessor, Gary Locke, how something like this could have occurred on their watch.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Here's the CPS web site, if you are curious about the organization.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 12, 2006 11:04 AM | Email ThisFor just the public accusation is often enough to ruin a person for life, even if it is later shown that they were actually innocent.
It becomes especially hard, if the perpetrator is very skilled or astute in the ways to manipulate the system to his or her advantage.
Another part of this equation is that many of the victims are often still under that person's sway. And the victims will often recant their stories because of the pressure and control the perpetrator has over them.
I rarely defended those people who worked for CPS until I saw, first hand, just how hard it is to get to the point that you can proceed towards a trial. Let alone get a conviction.
In many ways CPS is a very thankless job.
Posted by: Mike P on June 12, 2006 12:13 PMI hope you are happily married, because it is hard to find a women over 25, let alone 30; who does not have kids. If you are a man who is still single or divorced over 25.
I hope you did not mean to paint all non-married men with the same brush.
The other part of this case Jim did not put out was how many of each type of complaints.
As a foster parent, you can be accused of abuse at any time. Even for enforcing a bed time curfew, having them clean themselves or their room or even making them do their homework.
I am, in now way, defending this cretian. But as I said earlier a smart prepetrator can manipulate the system.
Posted by: Mike P on June 12, 2006 12:38 PMOn a related note, has anyone proposed giving up on the foster parent idea and going back to orphanages? I'm not saying that doesn't have its own disadvantages, but I wonder what the data are showing how outcomes compare to foster care systems.
Posted by: David Wright on June 12, 2006 01:10 PMI do think that in the broad scope of social services, the institutional focus is upon "administering social goods," as opposed to providing what the individual really needs on a case-by-case basis. Lengthy rules are written for the adminstration of such benefits, and the sheer magnitude of cases causes a forced or artificial characterization of the recipients in order to plug them into available holes.
There is very little effort to monitor the efficacy of such determinations. Nor to provide sanctions for misdeeds.
It's like a hamburger chain claiming "over one million served," with no box score regarding how many antacids were consumed in wake of the meals.
Yes, "No big surprise there." How many "clients served" does not indicate "How many clients actually helped in their time of need."
The fact that it's an ongoing problem does not address the reasons why it keeps happening. It's not a matter of money. It's how the system is set up, how the money is spent, and the issue of accountability...tough areas to address for social engineers that feel rather than think but are deluded into thinking that they do both.
Posted by: scott158 on June 12, 2006 01:13 PMWhen my wife suggested we consider foster to adopt through the State I was hesitant due the history over at DSHS. The only reason I ended up agreeing was that they started a new program to place high risk children in foster homes that are pre-screened and selected as the adoptive home. My military security clearances took less time. So far the front line case workers have been very good.
The problems are multitudinous and complex.
The first layer is the bureaucracy, paperbound, complex and dis-insentivizes those on the front-lines from making common sense case by case decision. That is because of the occasional bad apple.
The second layer is the middle management are those with lots of education and little experience. Their management direction is based on the latest fad methodology. For them process is far more important than the children.
Third case loads are on the street level case worker are too high.
In my memory there has never been a comprehensive outside review of the agency.
For a start we could break DSHS into independent agencies along the lines of the organizational structure. We should definitely flatten the organization, remove several layer of middle management. Use the savings to hiring more street level case workers.
Many are daunted by the process of becoming a foster parent, the amount of paperwork, interviews, inspections etc. The is giving up a certain amount of privacy. When you are a foster parent you allow for notice inspection in you home. Compensation is low, though the good foster parents are not in it for the money.
False accusation are common, parents are mad that kids are taken and place in foster care, foster kids use make accusation for the simplest slights. Weeding out the valid complaints is difficult.
We have two toddlers, and anyone who has had toddlers know how many bruises they collect on a daily basis. One of our guys was running into living room trips on a toy and smacks his head on another toy. Nice big bump on his forehead turning nice colors, 5 minutes after he recovers he does the same thing with a new bump on the other side of his forehead. This guys have weekly visits with the biological mother. She makes sure to tell the case worker about all the bruises.
We spend a lot of time on the bruise log, and email the case worker weekly reports. We also document behavior changes, illnesses, call and email the case worker for every trip to hospital. In short we try to report every little thing preemptively. That way it is on the record before someone else reports it. It is whole other level of stress that normal parents don't have to deal with. It also drive a lot of foster parents out of system.
With more case workers home visits could be more often. We see our case workers every 90 days.
Big problem with no easy solutions. Fixing DSHS must be done, and soon.
Posted by: JCM on June 12, 2006 01:19 PMBut there are also many, many shining stars who genuinely want to do good for these kids, and who consistently and fiercely advocate for them.
But you are all forgetting another very important player in the child welfare system: the Court-Appointed Special Advocate, or CASA worker. Like CPS, there are stars and there are duds. The duds are the ones who allow kids to go back to dangerous or unhealthy homes- for some kids, that means a death sentence. For others, a second descent into sexual abuse and exposure to illegal drugs, alcoholism, violence, and crime.
I suggest that if you want to blow a real story wide open, do some digging into the CASA agency.
Posted by: ERNurse on June 12, 2006 01:29 PMOur guys CASA is a gem. With cases like this it takes so many falling down on the job, I find it a real head scratcher. I'd not thought of the CASA program.
With us there is the boys case worker, the CASA, our case worker, our licensor, and the program manager. That's six people we have regular contact with.
That's a lot of people asleep at the switch. Which indicates it is systemic, and the number of times we see cases like this indicates the depth and magnitude of the problem.
Posted by: JCM on June 12, 2006 01:59 PMIt's the fundamnetal nature of child rearing that does not lend itself to a government / centralized / bureaucratic solution. In every place where government tries to substitute for what ultimately amounts to individual responsibility, it fails. Why? Because the government could never be big enough to protect every single person from themselves or from others.
This is also one of the best defenses of the second amendment. There will never be enough police to protect us at all times. There is always a level or personal resonsibility in avoiding and preventing harm to oneself, and when that fails acting in vigorous self defense.
CPS will continue to be a spectable of incompetence, because its flaws are inherent.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 12, 2006 02:01 PMThat said, unless you are willing to throw up your arms and declare "children are chattel; it is not the responsibility of the state to regulate how their parents treat them" (and even I, radical small-government libertarian that I am, am not willing to go that far) then we still have to worry about how to design a system that regulates that relationship in the least bad way.
Posted by: David Wright on June 12, 2006 03:11 PMThey atleast can provide some stability with their peers.
Posted by: Fred on June 12, 2006 03:22 PMThat was not the point of my statement. Sorry if I did not make that more clear. The point is that we must continue to encourage the average person to be as responsible as possible through whatever means we can. A consitutional republic depends, to a large extent, on the ability of its people to police and regulate themselves. It's when they fail to do so, that the door to statism is opened.
I'd like to see people treat their children (adopted or natural) in the most loving, responsible way. Obviously, there are going to be criminal situations, especially like this one with foster care where an individual does the exact opposite. It's appropriate to bring in the police and prosecute this person, and it's appropriate to have some level of responsibility of the state for discharging minors under its care to adopted families. But there is simply no way that CPS could ever hope to monitor and regulate every single child and adopted family, even if it did a better job of being less politically correct and more cynical towards obvious abuses like this case.
My point is that CPS is a failure from the get-go in the way that they approach children and families. There's a lot of political correctness that prevents good people from adopting children and causes CPS agents to look the other way on bad people. What we have is yet another entrenched bureaucracy with no hope of ever really fulfilling its promised level of service. Not that it should be abandonded, but placing all of our trust in CPS in the first place, has created an opportunity for this kind of neglect.
I think that the old school system of parochial or secular orphanages had a greater emphasis on the children and a far more watchful eye. It's probably not possible to go back to such a system in this day and age, but it's no surprise that CPS has routinely been party to such disasters.
Statism has failed us again.
First, in order to be a foster parent you have to complete the state approved foster parent courses. Some of the Foster parents are short term (> 3 months), others are prefer to be long term, some take only younger children, some only teenagers and still others are available for special needs children.
Then State sets guidelines for what they will pay "in support of the foster child". This requires the foster parents to provide records of what the money was spent for and when. You also have to be available to have your house evaluated at any time while you are giving care to a foster child.
But at no point are you paid to care for the child. The support money is based on what the State thinks it costs to support the child.
Posted by: Mike P on June 12, 2006 05:06 PMThe reason Washington does such a horrible job is because no matter what happens, the state will indemnify state employees from personal civil liability for their actions or inactions.
If the state were to refuse to indemnify any particular individual, it is likely that person wouild have personal knowledge of similar incidents where another state employee was 'protected'. Once that would be exposed, the state would have even greater liability.
Posted by: Don on June 12, 2006 05:11 PMIn the case several years ago in which Gregoire failed to file an appeal on a $17.8 million judgment, I was told by a WSP investigator he had personal knowledge that Gregoire knew two of the DSHS investigators committed perjury during the trial.
Posted by: Don on June 12, 2006 05:16 PMIn a case like this the downside it must be shown that the worker knew that the abuse was occurring. That's tough to prove without documentation. What case worker is going to write down suspicions of abuse and do nothing?
I would remind everyone of the Wenatchee Witch Hunt. The foul ups in that case overshadow every case in state.
Part of the solution is well written guidelines, highly trained and professional workers, latitude given to the workers. Then everyone in a case held responsible.
Posted by: Jcm on June 12, 2006 05:26 PM _ BEL BI0624171 BEP IT CL DEF 01 03/04/2003
_ ISQ C00000997 ISP CN CL DEF 01 07/19/1996
_ KCD IR0093313 RED IT DEF 01 03/08/2006
_ KCD 206023090 KNJ PC DEF 01 06/08/2006
_ KCD 67-000104 CV RSP 01 02/16/2006
_ KIM 18115 KIR CT DEF 01 07/01/2002
_ KIM 19326 KIR CT DEF 01 10/29/2002
_ KIM 20736 KIR CT DEF 01 08/17/2003
_ KIM 227531 KIR IT CL DEF 01 01/09/2001
_ NED CQ17650KC KCP CN CL DEF 01 06/10/1998
_ NED CR0018689 RED CN CL DEF 01 07/05/2000
_ NED CR0025122 RED CT DEF 01 10/06/2004
_ NED Y4-034849 CV PET 01 04/29/2004
_ NED Y4-034850 CV PET 01 04/29/2004
_ SMC 331590 SPD CN DEF 01 03/08/1998
_ SMC 398000 SPD CN DEF 01 02/12/2001
_ SWD IR00918KC KCP IT DEF 01 08/25/2000
DSHS is primarily focused on getting federal matching funds for collecting child support. DSHS actually has a financial incentive to see divorces, broken families, and children living in homes without biological fathers. Without divorce and subsequent child support, DSHS would not receive millions of dollars of federal matching funds, which is basically just profit and helps pay the paychecks of the bureaucracy.
It's very easy for them to justify this as being all about the kids. But, look at the ideology driving people such as the head of DSHS, who has a hyphonated last name, and you start to see the picture of an underlying ambigious attitude about the benefit of fathers in the lives of their children.
When an agency makes the removal of biological fathers from the lives of their children a policy and only sees those fathers as paychecks (for the mother and for the DSHS bureaucracy), it leads to a confused mission.
Check out this article by Glen Sacks, that just came out today. Around the entire country, these agencies are so ideologically confused and anti-father seek to place kids removed from their mother's home for neglect or abuse with biological fathers in only 8% of the cases. Yes, some of these fathers are as screwed up as the mothers. But, a lot of them are not - a lot more than 8% are not. Amazingly, for DSHS and many other similar agencies in states across the country, placement with the father of a child removed from the mother's home is not even considered as a first option.
Now, who wants to argue with this statement: Since DSHS receives profit from federal matching funds for every dollar of child support they receive, they have an incentive to place children with foster parents (like the scum-bag Miller is talking about) instead of with their real fathers. After all, placement with the real father would result in child support payments ending, and a reduction in child support payments results in a reduction in federal matching funds. In other words, it's more profitable for DSHS to place kids with foster parents than with biological fathers.
My guess is that most people working in CPS are dedicated and trying their best. Some are bad, of course. But, they operate within an anti-father organization and climate. They are systematically inclined to make bad choices as a result.
Posted by: BananaLand on June 12, 2006 10:34 PMCall CPS workers anything you like. There are no doubt many types, but the system is as corrupt as any I have ever seen. ERNurse talks about CASA and he is right there as well. The whole fu@king system is completely corrupt. I know because I worked within it for a number of years. There are wise and decent people at CPS who are not corrupt, but none who would strongly disagree with my opinions about the system.
If I had the power to do so, I would disband CPS entirely and return the authority to investigate family problems to police departments. CPS is the radical feminist dream of enforced waiver of due process against fathers in an insane liberal gender war against families and decency. I attended hearings of cases where children have been murdered because of CPS and no one can do anything about it because they have complete unconditional immunity. Imagine placing your trust to make decisions about your life and your family to someone who hates you because of your gender and nothing else. Any moron who can get grants and loans and sit on their dumb a$$ long enough to get a Masters Degree in social work can be the judge, jury, and personal decision maker over people’s lives for 20 plus years. Worse yet they have the power to use children’s innocence and natural fledgling emotional instability to do it. If CPS or their very best intentioned and skilled workers ever do anything good for society -- without in the process also doing something much worse at the same time -- it is a coincidence at best.
Absolute power for women to profit from divorce, seize custody of children regardless of the best interests of the children, and financially ruin men, is the reason why CPS exists. Destruction of the traditional family unit. So long as the MOMMIES agree to cooperate with the state, CPS will fix things so that children will be deemed abused or molested by their fathers no matter what the truth is. They routinely go so far as to force fathers to pay "expert counselors" to coerce the children (for periods of years if necessary) into believing that their father is guilty of abuse when the children know better. CPS has in numerous cases shielded mothers from fathers attempts to intervene while her boyfriends rape and abuse the children. This is not rare, but a product of "good intentions" gone berzerk.
I know a prominent lawyer in the Seattle area who temporarily lost his daughter because a bitch liberal radical feminist doctor treated the girl after she fell off her bicycle. The nazi doctor decided with her favorite CPS bitch friend that the girl was abused and the lawyer was forced to go through legal channels to get her daughter back. The only cause for the decision was her arbitrary power to make it. The young girl is now an adult and agrees with my opinions.
Radical femisim as a key part of modern liberalism is committed to dividing people through gender, race and ethnicity. They have succeeded in conquering our families with the use of CPS and the so-called "Family Courts." Next is government sanctioned homosexual marriage. Does anyone imagine that homosexual parents will be treated like heterosexual fathers by CPS? Those who would say yes are part of the problem.
Ever imagine a reason to take up arms against your government?
This is one at the top of the list.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 13, 2006 12:38 AMOne point that I didn't see mentioned is the federal adoption program, which provides cash incentives for adopting out children (which requires that the father be removed first). It also provides incentive payments for so-called hard-to-adopt children in which the state gets extra funds for each child in that category on top of the "normal" funding.
Another point that I didn't see is the treatment programs. My favorite (which victimized my son during divorce) is the one where child victims of pedophiles are "treated" using DSHS funds and programs. Every name on the treatment list is a source of extra funds so DSHS also treats the offenders (that's pedophile for those of you from Rio Linda). Of course, providing treatment triggers privacy protections so the cops never get notified despite state law commanding such reporting.
And of course a child is always a victim so when the child starts acting out and victimizing other children, that never gets reported to the cops or the neighbors, which is how my son was victimized.
One of my friends has a daughter who was raped almost daily for five years by her mother's boyfriend. After the child was rescued and returned to her father, he discovered that this pervert had a record of similar offenses and that DSHS knew all about him.
Reports were made to several police agencies but as of today, he was never charged. He is still free and likely unknown to be a predator to all around him.
Somewhere inside DSGS must be a list of protected pedophiles. And the federal government likely is paying for them to be protected.
It's all about supply and demand.
Posted by: platypus on June 13, 2006 02:51 AMThe greater issue is the societal change pushed by liberals, exemplified by the "Great Society" and the "Sexual Revolution." The vast majority in the system come from out of wedlock birth, parents with drug use issues.
The family with parents of the opposite sex, with at least one parent working full time are vastly and disproportionately under represented in the system. Something libs don't what to even discuss, and completely ignore.
Pushing societal norms back to the two parent family ideal would decrease the work load.
Make the fathers of these kids responsible, make it hurt both financially and social to father bastard babies.
Re-introduce the idea of shame for pregnancy out of wedlock.
Structure the tax code to befit married couples with children, (better yet separate issue flat or consumption tax).
Structure the welfare system to penalize not support drug use and out of wedlock birth.
I'd much prefer give a single mother a one shot deal, finish high school get her through college and cut her loose. Than life time welfare support with no expectation on behavior with increased benefits for the behavior of having more children.
Make drug use a serious issue. One strike type of stuff, hard time. Make the penalties for drug use far outweigh the benefits. That will have the added effect of drying up demand and decreasing the problem with drug dealing.
Pushing these ideas would decrease the individuals entering the system to begin with.
Posted by: JCM on June 13, 2006 07:44 AMDoes this mean that I advocate keeping a child in a dysfunctional home? Hell no! But there needs to be a cleanout of the DSHS system because of this. There should have been one after that lady allowed her kids to die while she drank herself blind. There should have been one long before that.
We have CPS and CASA workers who are intimidated by attorneys to return children to abusive, parasitic, noncompliant parents. This is flat-out wrong, people, and it needs to stop.
Now we have more victims of this SOB who was allowed to continue his sick predilection. These girls will be forever scarred. This guy will get a slap on the wrist. And the CPS workers who looked the other way will keep their jobs. This is disgusting beyond measure.
Posted by: ERNurse on June 13, 2006 10:20 AMYou mistake the most important point here.
You say, "We have CPS and CASA workers who are intimidated by attorneys"
How exactly do they do that?
CPS workers are ONLY accountable to the State Department of Social and Health Services -- as employees, and CASA, the applicable court (and commissioner or judge) in question.
CPS workers CANNOT be sued in court or brought up on charges of any legal nature concerning a case they work on in their official capacity. They have complete unconditional immunity. DSHS can fire them if they choose but it involves an extremely expensive and difficult administrative legal procedure with no guarantee they will be fired. DSHS is a leviathan whose power can only be challenged politically, and lawyers have NO PRACTICAL RECOURSE against DSHS. There is a huge block of case law on this subject . . . look it up . . . you will find that I am correct.
CASA or court appointed special advocates are beholden to judges and have quasi-police power where a specific child is concerned. They also have complete immunity. As a lawyer, mess with a CASA worker and your case will be compromised.
A lawyer who tries to intimidate a CASA or CPS case worker can find him or herself arrested, up on ethics charges and removed from the instant case so fast their heads would spin. At the very least, both the CASA AND CPS worker is empowered to simply tell the lawyer to fu@k off and threaten them back with court sanctions and punitive measures against their client(s).
This is the largest part of the whole problem . . . unlimited power in the hands of so-called experts (MSW'S) . . . supplanting procedural due process of law. No habeus corpus, no hearing, no nothing but peremptory official action.
THIS is why Platypus’s friend’s daughter was raped almost daily for five years by her mother's boyfriend. After the child was rescued and returned to her father, he discovered that this pervert had a record of similar offenses and that DSHS knew all about him. This case is not isolated. CPS (DSHS) workers are not accountable to ANYONE (outside DSHS) ESPECIALLY NOT LAWYERS. CPS worker can do as they friggin well please and there is nothing legal you can do to change that.
Any CASA AND CPS workers intimidated by anyone are certainly guilty, simply because they don’t need to be intimidated by anyone. Lawyers don’t intimidate CASA AND CPS workers; it is the other way around.
I know, I’ve been there way too many times.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 13, 2006 11:15 AMYou say "I doubt that it will even occur to the reporters in this area to ask our current governor, Christine Gregoire, or her predecessor, Gary Locke, how something like this could have occurred on their watch." And Lowry before them.
ALL OF THIS IS A PURELY POLITICAL QUESTION.
Liberal Democrat -- liberal socialist corruption (CPS). They fail and nothing happens.
Conservative Republican -- police handle criminal complaints. They fail and the Sheriff loses elections.
No system will ever solve this problem. Either way, there will always be victimizers and innocent victims. The difference is that liberal Democrats eradicate the rule of law, give power to petty bureaucrats over others, and hide behind a huge bureau. They don't solve anything let alone child abuse, but merely spread the misery and injustice around in an attempt to victimize others.
This is institutionalized criminalism and the direct consequence of radical feminism and liberalism. It foreshadows the way of life liberal democrats intend to create for all of us in every phase of our lives where so-called "experts" or petty bureaucrats regulate all areas of our lives. Go to a fu@king liberal college for morons like Evergreen State -- get an MSW and you suddenly know better about families than everyone else.
The saving grace here is that many CPS workers are too lazy and lacking in fascist initiative to ruin all of our lives more than they already do.
Under the American Constitution, government was never empowered to protect citizens from eachother, only to enforce the laws.
Liberals hate this FACT, and they will do anything to punish those of us who accept reality on its own terms.
I just got a letter from the leadership at FPAWS (Foster Parents Association of Washington State) stating that they have decided to join the Washington Federation of State Employees!
This is a very, very bad thing for these kids. We will see the foster care system completely gutted financially before these parasitic SOBs are done with it.
Foster parents are not state employees! We receive no wages or benefits from the state, but are compensated for our services. The union can take money from foster parents without providing benefits, because our status as non-employees will provide a loophole for them to get away with it.
Not on my watch! If we are not employed by the state, how can the union represent us? They can't, and they WON'T. FPAWS and WFSA will rob us and our kids blind if somebody does not stop them!
I have emailed Stefan, Kirby Wilber, John Carlson, and Brian Suits about the details, and I can produce copies of the letter if anyone with some legal expertise can see about the feasibility of filing an injuction, since the unoin wants to force itslef on non-employees.
Good, honest, diligent, quality foster parents need your help, and we need it FAST!
Posted by: ERNurse on June 13, 2006 03:18 PMCheryl Stephani
Assistant Secretary
Children’s Administration MAY 12,2006
Dear Cheryl,
We, the Board of the Foster Parents Association of Washington State, are writing to inform you that we are taking an important and historic step for our organization and for the Foster Parents and Children of Washington State. We are seeking to organize a collective voice in our relationship with the state. We will work toward a foster care system in which Foster Parents are supported and valued for the important work they do, and in which Foster Children have a future of positive outcomes and productive lives.
The Foster Parents Association of Washington State (FPAWS) has been the principal advocate and support group for foster care providers statewide since 1973. The Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) is the largest and strongest union representing state agency employees in our state, with a proud history of advocating effectively in government, organizing for positive change and representing its members’ interests as employees and citizens. In 2006, our two organizations are coming together – establishing joint membership, coordinating our efforts and combining our strengths.
Why do we feel this is necessary?
Like many Foster Care systems around the country, Washington State’s is in crisis. Children placed in the Foster Care system have increasingly serious behavioral issues and turnover among frontline Social Workers and Foster Parents is too high.
Recruitment and retention of Foster Parents has been a focus of state funded programs, but it has remained difficult, at best. Foster Parents leave the system in Washington every day because they feel unprepared and unsupported. A tremendous amount of funding has been put into finding new Foster Parents, and while the system has been able to function and keep its head above water, it is not sustainable. Each year, the state loses almost 50% of its Foster Parents.
The situation has become critical. Without a sufficiently large, stable base of Foster Parents, foster children continue to suffer multiple placements (leading to severe mental health issues), separation from their siblings, and inappropriate placements. If the system does not soon effect positive change, we are concerned that Washington State will suffer the fate of other failed Foster Care systems, including privatization, loss of accountability, and resultant decline of quality care for the state’s most vulnerable children.
We feel there is hope if we can change the basic relationship between the State and Foster Parents. There are many highly skilled and highly trained Foster Parents in Washington State who have dedicated their lives to raising the state’s most at-risk children. These Foster Parents have been able to improve outcomes for youth whose futures at one time looked bleak. As you likely know, our state’s current system of funding for foster children actually offers disincentives for children to learn positive and functional behavior. We feel the state needs to work with Foster Parents to establish a substantial core of highly trained, highly skilled Foster Parents to care for children with serious behavioral issues. Foster Parents must be compensated appropriately and rewarded, not punished, for the positive outcomes of the children in their care.
Furthermore, many important mandates of the Braam Lawsuit settlement which could improve the state system and life for Foster Parents and Foster Children, remain unfulfilled. While we have seen some progress in systemic changes, including current promised increases in staffing levels for frontline social workers, we also see the need to further integrate Foster Parents into the state system. The experience and wisdom Foster Parents could bring to the ongoing reforms would be sure to bring increased possibility for success.
The Foster Children of the State of Washington cannot wait. Foster children quickly grow up to be citizens of our state. Their lives are in all of our hands.
Foster Parents are choosing to work collectively and actively toward a new day for Foster Families in the State of Washington. We hope you will understand our choice and work with us toward a better future.
Sincerely,
The FPAWS Board of Directors
Steve Baxter
Daniele Baxter
Beth Canfield
Mike Canfield
Tess Thomas
Ginger Schutt
Mary McGauhey
Daryl Daugs
Susan Moore
Tim Znamenacek
Shelley Znamenacek
Read the first paragraph, it about money, and payback.
Posted by: JCM on June 13, 2006 03:49 PMIf FPAWS and WFSA get away with this, a very dangerous precedent will be set whereby unions can impose themselves upon other non-employee groups, including unemployed persons (a huge chunk of revenue to be tapped) and other persons receiving any kind of subsidy/compensation from the state.
Furthermore, FPAWS had not given us any notice about this. Their letter is dated May 18, but the envelope was not mailed until June 9 (a nearly 3-week lag), and did not reach us until today (6/13). These people are up to no good, and we cannot let them get away with pilfering vulnerable children and also vulnerable foster parents.
Posted by: ERNurse on June 13, 2006 04:20 PMWe have a child right now whose CASA worker is pushing- and pushing VERY hard- for this kid to go back home to her neglectful parents. The parents' attorney has filed scads of petitions on niggling things to try to get the parents out from under the state's requirements that they attend parenting classes, counseling, etc. And he has been successful thus far. Their attorney has influenced the choice of the psychologist who screened the parents- and of course the attorney-selected psychologist gave them both clean bills of health. Yet I have observed both parents, and I can identify classic signs of psychiatric disorders in both parents within the first minute.
The CASA worker recommended that this girl be returned to her parents without ever having contacted us, and has consistently been dismissive and rude. We finally sat down with our CPS social worker for this kid and wrote out our formal complaint against this CASA worker. As of now, this child has two CASA workers- the original one, and a second one to check the first one's work. Why they did not simply remove the former completely from the case is beyond me.
The actions of the parents' attorney are preventing this child from getting the advocacy and protection that she deserves from the state, and may even be exposing this child to further neglect and abuse. I'd call that intimidation.
We have had to fight tooth and nail to get the CASA worker to advocate for this kid, and at present the CASA worker is extremely resentful and rude toward us. What else would you suggest?
Posted by: ERNurse on June 13, 2006 04:56 PMWhat the dues gonna' be? Given what foster parents "make" it's going to a be major chunk of what we do get.
Posted by: JCM on June 13, 2006 04:56 PMSomething else to look at in the system, how to get consistent care, rulings, etc...
In our case foster to adopt is a playing the odds. Our first foster kid went back to mom, for her it was a first problem and she seemed to get it together. Our current branch mom is completely in denial over a year into the process.
Posted by: JCM on June 13, 2006 05:09 PMI honestly wish with all of my heart and soul that I had a better answer for you. Maybe someone else does. I have been out of it for awhile -- maybe something has changed.
Most likely, there is "inside" political influence of some sort involved that doesn't meet the eye. You will have to go up the chain of command. Don't take no for an answer but be prepared to be stonewalled and eventually have your life put under a microscope. The people at the top of DSHS are serious and they are seriously corrupt. They are protecting a mini-socialist empire and they will let children be raped and murdered before they will let go of the power they possess. You never know though, if you get lucky, something might nudge loose.
I know of at least one Judge whose wife was involved as a CASA worker on several cases where her husband presided, another where the Psychologist already concluded guilt before meeting the principals or having any information about the case, another where I caught the prosecutor lying in open court and they dismissed the case. Conflict of interest to these people is a joke in the same way as election officials looking straight at me while breaking their own rules and smiling (as if to say, fu@k you what are you going to do?) -- law means nothing to them. Its about power.
I am at once quietly enraged and prayerful that things will change in this regard but not optimistic. I know of CPS workers who are honorable decent people that want to do the right things but they are not able to change the system any more than the rest of us; "it" just goes deaf and dumb and quietly threatens their job for some small nothing. I know of CPS workers who have quit over this very problem. It takes a lot of courage to "rage against that machine" in any meaningful way, and unless you have a lot of pull in high places, you will only destroy yourself in the process. Even with Dino Rossi in the Governor's office, I doubt that he could overcome the system they have created.
ITS A POLITICAL PROBLEM. Most people believe that DSHS and CPS are doing the job they feeeeel should be done, THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THESE THORNY - UGLY PROBLEMS, and you can never convince them otherwise until it happens to them. Then, they are all ears.
I am sorry for the plight of the victims of this abuse, and I sincerely pray for their safety and goodwill. If you decide to fight this vigorously, beware. This complex of injustice has imprisoned people in Wenatchee over laughable evidence for longer than the captured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. They are shameless liberal bastards.
Or you could do like liberals do -- put a happy face on it saying that they are doing a great job and pretend that it is so.
Maybe five years or so from now, we will hear about this issue again.
Thanks and good luck
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 14, 2006 01:06 AM