ChildLaw Blog

Lessons from Penn State: Training Mandated Reporters

2012-05-08T19:29:32Z

From a special edition of Centerpiece, the official newsletter of the National Child Protection Training Center:

The recent child sexual abuse scandal at Penn State University, in which multiple, well-educated professionals declined to report clear evidence of maltreatment, is not an isolated instance. Twenty years of research documents what every child protection professional in America already knows—that most people most of the time won’t report even clear evidence of maltreatment or otherwise intervene to save a child.

Although less clear, the Penn State scandal also draws attention to an equally disturbing problem—that even when reports of abuse are made, these reports are often handled ineffectually if not incompetently. According to media reports of the Penn State scandal, investigators and prosecutors did review a 1998 report of inappropriate intimate contact with a boy.

The alleged perpetrator, Jerry Sandusky, even admitted to two university detectives that he hugged the boy while both were naked and stated, “I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get if from you. I wish I were dead.”

Although this recorded admission of Sandusky’s is an incriminating if not out-right confession of indecent contact with a boy, no charges or additional actions were taken.

The inability, even failure of criminal justice authorities to take meaningful action to protect a child is also not an isolated anecdote. Indeed, a large body of research and the universal experience of the nation’s child protection professionals confirm inadequate training at the undergraduate and graduate level—a woeful lack of preparation that increases the chances children will fail to be protected or that false accusations will be made.

In the past eight years, the United States Department of Justice has begun to address both of these issues through the rapid development and dissemination of model undergraduate and graduate curricula that will better prepare mandated reporters to fulfill their responsibilities to children and that will also better prepare criminal justice, social work, mental and medical health professionals to respond appropriately to instances of maltreatment.

These related reforms will reduce, if not rid the country of “on the job training” as the primary means of educating both mandated reporters and the child protection professionals who investigate or otherwise respond to reports.

This paper details these reforms and calls for an expansion of these initiatives.

Standard of Care in Screening Adoptive, Foster and Kinship Parents

2012-04-26T14:00:00Z

The lack of a clear legal “standard of care” for the evaluation and screening of prospective adoptive, foster, and kinship applicants directly undermines the child placement process, the physical and emotional development of children placed in adoptive and foster homes, and the adjudication of legal issues arising when children are harmed.

Often, it is only when a lawsuit is filed that society is forced to take a hard look at its legal expectations, and it is then compelled to acknowledge that there may be a very real distinction between child welfare’s “best practice” standard and the legal standard of care.

So begins an article by Professor Dan Pollack writing in the Capital University Law Review.

Anyone wishing a copy of this thought-provoking and engaging law review article can contact Professor Pollack directly at dpollack@yu.edu.

Landmark Children's Rights Case Now Before the Fifth Circuit

2012-04-25T16:28:06Z

During the past two years, victims of child pornography (represented by the Marsh Law Firm and pioneering attorneys Paul G. Cassell and Carol L. Hepburn) have been seeking restitution in federal courts throughout the country.

Almost twenty years ago Congress, led by then-Senator Joe Biden, passed a law as part of the Violence Against Women Act which requires federal district courts to award mandatory restitution to child pornography victims for the "full amount of the victim's losses." 18 U.S.C. § 2259(B)(3). Among the losses covered by the statute are psychiatric care, lost income, and occupational therapy.

Recently this issue has come to a head in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in two cases, In re Amy Unknown, No. 09-41238, and United States v. Wright, No. 09-3125.

The Fifth Circuit has scheduled a rare rehearing en banc before 16 judges in these two cases on Thursday, May 3, 2012 in New Orleans.

Amy will argue that the Fifth Circuit should not read a general proximate cause requirement into the statute. At least four judges on the Court agree with her.

Both the Government and the defendants in these two consolidated cases believe that proximate cause is required and limits the availability and amount of restitution.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of the year.

For more information on this issue, visit http://www.childlaw.us/restitution/

Here are the briefs filed in the case:

Masha Allen Redux - Pedophile Adoption in Ohio

2012-04-03T14:18:19Z

Apparently the adoption industry learned nothing from the international uproar surrounding Masha Allen's adoption by a child molester six years ago. Masha's tragic adoption still reverberates as Russia continues to grapple with US-Russia adoptions.

Now, in Ohio, a disturbing new case involving the alleged rape of three boys by their adoptive father, who also allegedly prostituted one of the boys to two other men, recently was exposed and occurred “despite safeguards designed for adoption agencies and prospective parents.”

Thanks to Marley at The Daily Bastardette for bringing this story to light.

Here are the highlights:

Kenneth Brandt, the children's adoptive father, is the former president of the local Foster Parent Association.
Brandt has a history of bringing children from Texas to Ohio as foster children.
Brandt had three boys ages 12, 10, and 9, and a girl, 9, under his care.
Brandt is charged with raping his three adopted sons and prostituting one of them to two men.
All four children were from Texas and one adoption was not yet finalized.
The children—who are not all birth siblings—were adopted in 2011 from Texas via Adopting Children Today Information Option Network (ACTION).
Brandt was home-schooling some of the children.
Authorities were able to track down Brandt and fellow suspects Patrick Rieder and Jason M. Zwick as a result of an Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force investigation involving criminal activity on Craigslist. An undercover detective responded to an ad and made contact with Zwick, who eventually introduced the detective to Rieder and Brandt.
One of the boys in Brandt’s home said Brandt allowed two men, Rieder and Zwick, to have sex with him.
During police questioning, Brandt admitted having sex with the 10-year-old about 10 times. He also told police that Zwick had sex with the boy, but denied Rieder’s involvement.
Brandt was on the board of the local basketball league.
One boy said Brandt had sex with him two to three times a week since he arrived at the home. The two other boys also told police that Brandt had sex with them.
The 9-year-old boy said the sex abuse started about two weeks after he arrived from Texas.
All the men are described as “average everyday Joe.”
Zwick is from an upper-middle class family with strong ties to the community, local politicians and office-holders.

University of Dayton political science professor Tony Talbott, whose research interests include human rights, said the Troy case is one example of a widespread problem. His quote sums it up best:

“I’m looking at the news coverage, and the residents of Troy are shocked and appalled, which they should be, but they really shouldn’t be surprised,” he said. “This is something occurring throughout the state of Ohio, throughout the United States and internationally.”

No word on what became of the children in this case. Hopefully they will not face Masha Allen's tragic fate, but given their age and vulnerability, anything is possible.

The Dayton Daily News has provided extensive coverage of the case:

Man accused of child rape

FBI to pursue charges against 3 men in child sex case

Accused rapist in process of adopting 4th child in alleged rape, prostitution case

Man used private Dayton adoption agency in alleged child rape, prostitution case

Child-rape case shows safeguards failed

3 child rape suspects  'blended' into society

Two of three child-rape suspects indicted

Trial dates set in Troy child rape case

USA Today: Sexual predators rarely committed under DOJ program

2012-03-20T15:16:34Z

USA Today has an excellent investigative article on the DOJ's federal civil commitment program for sexually dangerous sex offenders. Not surprisingly, many of those requiring indeterminate incarceration were convicted of child pornography crimes.

According to the article:

Six years ago, the federal government set out to indefinitely detain some of the nation's most dangerous sex offenders, keeping them locked up even after their prison sentences had ended.

But despite years of effort, the government has so far won court approval for detaining just 15 men.

The Justice Department has either lost or dropped its cases against 61 of the 136 men it sought to detain.

Dozens of others are still waiting for their day in court. They remain in a prison unit where authorities and former detainees said explicit drawings of children are commonplace, but where few of the men have received any treatment for the disorders that put them there.

Despite that, neither the Justice Department nor other watchdog agencies have offered any public assessment of how well the federal civil commitment law works.

We have repeatedly pointed out that individuals incarcerated for possession, receipt and distribution of child pornography are significantly more likely than not to have sexually abused a child via a hands-on act.

In fact, a study at the federal prison in Butner, NC, which is the focus of the USA Today article, found that online criminal investigations, while targeting so-called “Internet sex offenders,” likely have resulted in the apprehension of concomitant child molesters. According to the research:

Upon being discovered these offenders tend to minimize their behavior. They may attribute their search for child pornography to “curiosity” or a similar benign motivation. They may “accept responsibility” only for those behaviors that are already known to law enforcement, but hide any contact sexual crimes to avoid prosecution for these offenses, or to avoid the shame and humiliation that would result from revealing their deviance to family, friends, and community. Only later do the majority of sex offenders who enter treatment acknowledge that they were not, as they initially claimed, merely interested in sexual images involving children; they were, and are, sexually aroused by children.

Further, as prior research and the current findings suggest, it appears that the manifestations of their deviant sexual arousal was not limited to fantasy. Rather, when an opportunity arose either incidentally or as a result of planned predatory efforts many offenders molested or raped children and engaged in a variety of other sexually deviant behaviors.

Michael L. Bourke & Andres E. Hernandez, The ‘Butner Study’ Redux: A Report of the Incidence of Hands-on Child Victimization by Child Pornography Offenders, Journal of Family Violence (2009) 24:183-191.

The USA Today article highlights the problems with the government's civil commitment program and the inconsistent application of a law designed to ensure that the most dangerous sex offenders are kept away from children. Unfortunately, the government's efforts seem to be in disarray since at least nine of the men who were let go without being committed have been convicted of new crimes or have violated probation.

Like most sex crimes against children, judges and the public have a hard time believing that these crimes even occur let alone considering the impact on the victims from such exploitation and abuse. One judge refused to believe a prisoner's confession to over a hundred sex crimes declaring that he "would be the Charles Manson of child molesters if even a small portion of the 149 incidents had actually happened."

Seriously underestimating the difficulty in locating victims and prosecuting sex crimes against children, the judge found that "he government offered no evidence to independently verify that any of these incidents occurred or that any of them—even one—ever resulted in investigation or prosecution." I guess the admissions of the one person who knew what happened—a convicted child molester—wasn't good enough for this judge. Like many other child sex abuse skeptics, the judge needed "proof."

In another case involving a clinically diagnosed pedophile who was somehow released from prison only to become involved with young children again, the parent of one of his potential victims told USA Today, "There was no harm, no foul…I honestly don't think he's dangerous."

This defendant was not only diagnosed as a pedophile, he collected child pornography and molested at least three young girls. Despite this, his latest victim's parents plan on asking his probation officer whether they can resume visiting him.

It's hard to say who is dumber in this case, the parents who are offering up their daughter to a convicted pedophile or the federal judge who let him go.

Read the entire article here on the USAToday website.

Child Rape Handbooks coming soon to an e-book seller near you!

2012-03-19T17:51:45Z

The mantra of unfettered internet freedom has forced PayPal to abandon plans to prohibit the use of its payment network for child sex abuse material like The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct which was jettisoned by Amazon.com in 2010.

On March 8, 2012, in an act of conscientious corporate responsibility, PayPal revealed a longstanding policy which limited the use of its payments service "to purchase material focused on rape, incest or bestiality." Based perhaps on Amazon.com's experience with pedophile grooming manuals, PayPal recognized that "this type of content also sometimes intentionally blurs the line between fiction and non-fiction. Both these factors are problematic from a legal and risk perspective."

PayPal's policy, which was in place for many years, recognized the "business risk associated with this content" and that "PayPal is a payments company. The right to use PayPal’s service is not the same as the right to speak."

The backlash was swift and fierce. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) rallied in defense of the "right" to profit off child sex abuse manuals, how-to grooming guides and child rape manifestos.

Leading the charge was the Electronic Frontier Foundation whose tag line is Defending Your Right$ in a Digital World. Declaring that "financial services providers should be neutral when it comes to lawful online speech," EFF warned that "PayPal’s policy underscores how vulnerable such speech can be and how important it is to stand up and protect it."

Echoing the gospel of the new millennium, EFF proclaimed:

The Internet has become an international public commons, like an enormous town square, where ideas can be freely aired, exchanged, and criticized. That will change if private companies, which are under no legal obligation to respect free speech rights, are able to use their economic clout to dictate what people should read, write, and think.

PayPal, and the myriad other payment processors that support essential links in the free speech chain between authors and audiences, should not operate as morality police.

Thanks to EFF and their cohorts, the right of child molesters and pedophiles to PROFIT off child sex abuse will continue unabated. PayPal quickly caved and announced last week that "we are going to focus this policy only on e-books that contain potentially illegal images, not e-books that are limited to just text."

Child molesters and pedophiles can continue to sell not only works like "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct," but Peter Sotos' Show Adult which celebrates Masha Allen as the world's first child porn star.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been underwritten by numerous big law firms such as Durie Tangri, LLP (which represents powerful and profitable I$Ps in privacy litigation brought by the "plaintiff's bar" i.e, you and me), Howrey LLC (bankrupt DC powerhouse law firm), Kecker & Van Nest, LLP (who represents P2P networking companies and white collar criminals), Pilsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP ("Our people have the ability to imagine, plan for and help our clients and one another realize a better future."), and Winston & Strawn LLP ("Our attorneys have extensive experience in persuading prosecutors not to return criminal charges against individuals and corporations.").

Once again, "internet freedom" has triumphed over "corporate responsibility." As big money continues to drive the relentless expansion of powerful multinational ISPs into every facet of society, losers like sexually abused children continue to suffer in the reinvigorated "profits not people" mentality.

Psychotropic Medications and Children in Foster Care

2012-03-01T21:36:18Z

Psychopharmacology is one way to manage mental health disorders in children and youth. Yet for children in foster care, medication combined with a lack of understanding about their mental health backgrounds and trauma histories has the potential to cause more harm than good. A new policy brief produced by the American Bar Association (ABA) makes recommendations for practice that can support healthy psychopharmacology plans for children and youth in care.

The brief outlines the benefits and drawbacks of psychotropic medications and common diagnoses in infants, children, and youth. The brief also lists the American Academy of Child and Psychiatry's recommendations for the use of such medications, including:

Complete a psychiatric evaluation prior to beginning pharmacotherapy.
Obtain a medical history and conduct a medical evaluation prior to beginning pharmacotherapy.
Develop a plan to monitor the development of side effects, the need to increase or lower dosages, or the need to change medications entirely.
Devise a specific plan for tapering off medications to avoid abrupt termination.

The brief also provides a three-page factsheet on medication types and possible side effects.

Psychotropic Medication and Children in Foster Care: Tips for Advocates and Judges, by JoAnne Solchany, is available here on the ABA website.

You can also view the Use of Psychotropics among Children in Foster Care Webinar Series here.

Reinstating Parental Rights

2012-03-01T21:34:40Z

Not all children whose parents' parental rights have been terminated by a court end up with a new family. In fact, many youth never achieve permanency, but instead remain in some kind of out-of-home care until they age out of the foster care system.

In a new journal article, "Reinstating Parental Rights: Another Path to Permanency?", authors Susan Getman and Steve Christian explore the option of reuniting these youth with their birth parents. In a handful of States, State law permits the parents' parental rights to be restored; in other States, the path to legal reunification is less well defined. In most cases, the courts will approve reinstatement of parental rights only when the child wishes to be reunited, the circumstances of the parents have improved to the point that they are able to safely parent the child, and the reunification is in the child's best interests.

The article also discusses the policy implications of this permanency option, such as a need to make youth aware of their right to seek connections with their birth families. Other considerations include whether reinstatement affects the youth's eligibility for Independent Living services, education and training vouchers, tuition waivers, and Medicaid. The authors note that the potential for loss of these benefits may act as a disincentive to taking advantage of the reinstatement option, and they suggest that State policymakers review and perhaps amend the relevant State eligibility criteria, to the extent that is consistent with Federal law.

"Reinstating Parental Rights: Another Path to Permanency?" was published in the November 2011 issue of American Humane Association's Protecting Children 26(1). The issue is available on American Humane's website:

http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/children/protecting-children-journal/pc-26-1.pdf (1 MB)

Related item

The National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections has developed a webpage on Reinstatement of Parental Rights.

Zero Tolerance is Not the Answer to Sexting

2012-02-17T15:57:27Z

From the University of New Hampshire: Rigid, zero-tolerance policies to prevent sexting that do not allow for discretion and the ability to address sexting in the context of the situation are ineffective strategies for dealing with this troubling trend, according to a University of New Hampshire professor who studies legal issues in education.

“Zero tolerance for sexting, without an understanding of context, replaces common sense with a rigid response that may be equally administered but is not fair. Turning over alleged sexters to the police for criminal prosecution may meet the dictates of the law, but school officials should have some leeway in turning over the matter to the police,” says Todd DeMitchell, professor of education and justice studies at UNH.

DeMitchell outlines his recommendations in the “Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal” in the article Student Victims or Student Criminals? The Bookends of Sexting in a Cyber World. Martha Parker-Magagna, a doctoral candidate of education at UNH, is a co-author.

“School officials walk the tightrope of responding to sexting in an appropriate way with little guidance as to how to differentiate between a heinous crime better handled by the police and clearly inappropriate adolescent behavior best handled by the school and the parents,” he says.

When sexting is discovered by school officials, DeMitchell recommends that school officials first notify a student’s parents. “Often resolving sexting can be as simple as bringing the behavior to the attention of the parents in order to curb or stop it. Schools must be unequivocal in considering sexting inappropriate and meeting the sharing of photos and texts with a swift and sure response,” he says.

In addition, schools must be acutely aware that sexting may trigger bullying and peer sexual harassment. Such behavior must be dealt with firmly and immediately by school administrators through existing policies allowing for disciplinary action in response to bullying or harassment.

“The taunting of students at school should never be met with indifference and silence. No student should have to run a gauntlet of abuse in order to attend school,” DeMitchell says.

At the same time, district attorneys must weigh whether prosecution is the best approach to dealing with a sexting incident or whether education is a better approach. DeMitchell stresses that society’s fundamental interest in protecting children cannot be lost in a zero-tolerance type of response to sexting.

Finally, lawmakers must fashion a reasonable response to sexting that acknowledges the harm created while not condemning students found sexting to a marginalized life through prosecution for child pornography, he says.

“Sexting is a new challenge. How schools and society respond to sexting will speak to the type of society we construct for ourselves and our children,” DeMitchell says.

Professor DeMitchell welcomes comments on his article. For further information contact him here.

DOJ Interpretation Guts VAWA Protections

2012-02-09T22:15:29Z

Okay, so maybe sexually exploited children don't get you activated. I'll admit it's an unpleasant niche most people would rather not think about. And the child pornography restitution statute which is being considered by federal district courts across the country and in several courts of appeal will arguably affect a relatively small number of victims.

A closer look, however, reveals that the child pornography restitution statute, 18 U.S.C. 2259, is exactly the same as two other restitution statutes which were enacted at the same time. The first is the sex abuse restitution act, 18 U.S.C. 2248, which applies to sex crimes committed on federal land, Indian reservations and the interstate trafficking of minors.

The second, however, involves provisions which are at the heart of the federal Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) and includes stalking, interstate domestic violence, and interstate violation of a protection order.

The VAWA restitution statute, 18 U.S.C. 2264, allows any victim who was harmed from stalking, interestste domestic violence or interstate violation of a protection order to receive restitution for the “full amount” their losses including any costs incurred by the victim for—

(A) medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care;
(B) physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation;
(C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses;
(D) lost income;
(E) attorneys' fees, plus any costs incurred in obtaining a civil protection order; and
(F) any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense.

Congress passed this remedial landmark legislation to fully compensate victims of stalking, domestic violence and interstate violation of a protection order for the losses they suffer. To address these serious harms, Section 2264 makes restitution “mandatory.” To underscore the mandatory nature of restitution, Congress repeated later in the statute that issuance of a restitution order is mandatory.

Section 2264’s provisions are also broader than other federal restitution statutes. The VAWA restitution statute extends its protections to any “victim” who is simply “harmed” by stalking, interstate domestic violence, or the interstate violation of a protection order, requiring neither “proximate harm” nor “direct harm.”

By purposely omitting the narrowing qualifiers “directly” and “proximately” found in other general restitution statutes, Congress decided not to burden victims with any obligation to demonstrate a “direct” or “proximate” harm as prerequisite to receiving restitution.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice doesn't agree with this plain statutory language.

Although Congress placed the “proximate result” language only in subsection (F) of the restitution statute, the Department of Justice continues to argue in courts of appeal throughout the country that Congress implicitly intended that phrase be read backwards through the other five preceding sections.

Simply put, DOJ's position contradicts not only the plain language of the child pornography restitution statute, but the plain language of exact same VAWA restitution statute as well.

Bottom Line: what the courts decide in the coming months about restitution for victims of child pornography will also effect restitution for victims of domestic violence all over the country.

Unfortunately, the Justice Department has abandoned these victims on appeal by advancing a legal standard which the courts consider unworkable.

In October, the Justice Department filed a Supreme Court brief opposing child victims. Last month, the Justice Department asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to nullify a court-ordered million dollar award to a child sex abuse victim, arguing that the legal standard which resulted in the award is too easy.

Why is the Justice Department arguing for something which the courts of appeal say is unworkable and un-provable, while victims of child exploitation, stalking, interstate domestic violence, and interstate violation of a protection order are left with nothing?

Now, just last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—at the Justice Department's urging—decided to reconsider a landmark decision in favor of these victims. The Justice Department has one more chance to do the right thing by supporting victims.

Please tell President Obama's political appointee to the Department of Justice Criminal Division, Lanny A. Breuer, to side with the victim in In re: Amy Unknown in the Fifth Circuit.

When Justice Department attorneys refused to even sit with Amy at last year's oral argument before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Chief Judge Edith Jones proclaimed:

"What I don't understand is why the government has switched sides. They were on Amy's side in the trial court, were they not? I'm not sure how they can switch sides now and say that the statute doesn't entitle her to relief. That seems very—if not duplicitous—very strange to me. And it's also in derogation of the obvious intent of that provision of the statute."

Amy and victims like her need your help. Right now these victims are effectively shut-out of the federal courts by the Justice Department's wrongheaded policy.

Almost 20 years ago, then-Senator Joe Biden promised victims that they would receive full restitution from criminals convicted of child exploitation, stalking, interstate domestic violence, and interstate violation of a protection order. Ironically, Vice President Biden's own Justice Department is failing to live up to his vision in the Violence Against Women's Act.

You can help awaken the Justice Department lawyers in Washington with just a few clicks. Amy thanks everyone for their continued support. You can make a difference in her fight for justice!

Change.org|Sign our Online Petition »

For more information on this issue, visit http://www.childlaw.us/restitution/

Homeschooling and Child Protection

2012-02-08T01:24:23Z

Homeschooling is parent-directed education that meets the requirements for regular school attendance. The U.S. Department of Education in its 2007 National Household Education Survey estimated that “1.5 million students (1,508,000) were homeschooled in the United States.”[1] In that same study, parents were asked why they homeschooled their children. “The three reasons selected by parents of more than two-thirds of students were concern about the school environment, to provide religious or moral instruction, and dissatisfaction with the academic instruction available at other schools.”[2]

Almost all states specifically list professional school officials as mandated reporters.[3] The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that “professionals submitted more than one-half (56.5 percent) of the cases referred to and assessed or investigated by child protective services (CPS), with education personnel the most frequent source of reports (16.2 percent).”[4] As the number of children being homeschooled increases, the number of reports of suspected child abuse and neglect by school officials regarding those children is obviously decreasing dramatically.

Whether or not there is hard evidence that abuse among homeschooled children is more frequent or severe than those who attend public or private schools, it is not surprising that there is concern by child welfare advocates that homeschooled children may be at risk for undetected abuse simply because these children do not have the benefit of oversight by school officials. Accordingly, some CPS officials would like enhanced authority to intervene, in particular the right to speak directly and privately to the child.

While there is no intrinsic antagonism between home schooling and child protection, it seems that there is an increase in the number of legal actions alleging that child protection services workers illegally search the residence of parents who are home schooling their children.

To what extent have the courts established that this Amendment regulates social workers' civil investigations? What is the balance between the need for CPS workers to challenge the parent’s Fourth Amendment rights versus the importance of the government’s interest to justify an intrusion into a person’s home? These and other questions are asked following the death or injury of children who were removed from a school setting.[5]

Homeschool advocates note, however, that without definitive evidence that there is an increased risk of abuse, there should be no cause for undue scrutiny and suspicion of homes in which children are homeschooled. Indeed, they ask poignantly, how safe are children in public and private schools? In both cases, we dare not underestimate the formidable task faced by CPS workers.

Daniel Pollack is a professor at Yeshiva University’s School of Social Work in New York City and a frequent expert witness in child welfare cases. He can be reached at dpollack@yu.edu.

An unabridged version of this article originally appeared in Policy & Practice, 70(1), 29, 35.

[1] http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf, page 1.

[2] http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf, page 2.

[3] E.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-304; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 350-1.1(a); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 4011-A(1); Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-201(2); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-711(1); Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1509.

[4] http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/educator/educatorb.cfm#backntwo, Identifying reasons why educators are concerned about child abuse and neglect (2003).

[5] See e.g., Gross, J. (January 12, 2008). Lack of Supervision Noted in Deaths of Home-Schooled. New York Times. Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/12bodies.html

Fallen Angel in Adoption

2012-02-07T15:39:38Z

As many of you know, The Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute’s (CCAI) Angels in Adoption™ Program provides Members of Congress the opportunity to honor an individual, couple, or organization from their district that have made an extraordinary contribution on behalf of children in need of homes. I have long supported this effort and any effort to raise awareness about the needs of foster and adopted children.

Back in November, I discovered that none other then Penn State child molester Jerry Sandusky was honored as an Angel in Adoption back in 2002. And quite appropriately, on November 10, 2011, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute rescinded the award with the following statement:

For 13 years, the Angels in Adoption™ award has honored more than 1,800 selfless individuals, couples and organizations who have made extraordinary contributions on behalf of children in need of loving families. In light of the serious allegations against him, and to preserve the integrity of the Angels in Adoption™ program, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute today announced it has rescinded the award given in 2002 to Jerry and Dottie Sandusky, who were among 142 awardees that year. As an organization that fights to stop child abuse, our thoughts and prayers are with the children harmed and the families affected by his alleged actions. This tragedy underscores how important it is to have a foster care system that ensures our most vulnerable children have a safe and stable environment in which to grow.

No reason a few bad apples should spoil the bin, and Sandusky was one rotten apple operating, as most pedophiles do, in plain sight but under the radar, ensconced in a false veneer of respectability and trust.

Imagine my surprise then, when I popped over to the Angels in Adoption website and found Masha Allen's adoptive parent, Faith Allen, proudly listed as an "Angel Alumni."

Back in 2006, Faith got her angel wings when Senator Johnny Isakson and Congressman Phil Gingrey, nominated her (at the same time Georgia child welfare officials were investigating Faith for abuse and the Cobb & Douglas Public Health Tuberculosis Clinic was searching for Masha in order to treat a nasty case of tuberculosis).

According to Isakson, “[a]fter a lifetime of unimaginable hardships, Masha now has a safe home filled with compassion and love thanks to her Angel in Adoption, Faith Allen.”

Gingrey crowed, “Faith Allen is a shining example of the selfless love adoptive parents give their children. Faith is more than just Masha’s adoptive mother; she is her pillar of support, providing encouragement as Masha bravely shares her story. Everyone who spends time with Faith and Masha feels the warmth and kindness that make Faith an Angel in Adoption.”

Both these tributes remain on Mssrs. Isakson and Gingrey's Congressional websites today.

Over two years ago, Maureen Flatley revealed on PoundPupLegacy.org the extent of the cover-up in this case. An excerpt:

As the point of contact between Masha's team and Mr. Gingery's office I want to further clarify Michael's comments, which are on point.

Mr. Gingery, who is was a licensed physician in Georgia when Masha's case began to play out, was held as a professional to an extremely high ethical standard on the issue of mandatory reporting of alleged child abuse or neglect.

…When I contacted Mr. Gingery's office to bring them into the loop on the developments of the previous 24 hours during which the allegations of abuse and neglect by Faith Allen were surfaced, I was angrily confronted by his staffer who had already been in touch with Faith and her erstwhile attorney who provided rather alarming safe harbor for Faith (despite her position as a nurse/attorney who should have recognized a child in danger rather than simple a parent whose rights were under siege.)

Rather than objectively sort out the issues, putting the best interests of the child in the forefront as the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act dictates, Gingery's staff immediately defaulted to the defense of Faith's parental rights and most especially the acceptability of her discretion to engage "faith based" interventions rather than conventional mental health treatments. …

…there had been on going discussion between Mr. Gingery's office and the outside experts for MONTHS that Faith had not been able, for whatever reasons most obviously financial, to meet Masha's needs and that the family was in crisis. Gingery's staffer, furthermore, knew a.) that Masha had been hospitalized at least once for a suicide attempt and that the clinicians involved had questioned Faith's parenting and b.) Faith had "paraded" Masha on the Oprah Winfrey show against advice of all outside counsel, again creating psychological stress for a vulnerable child.

…If anyone had been able to put this case into a "fair and balanced" position in which all the issues on both sides of the case could be sorted out in an objective and responsible fashion, it was Mr. Gingery. As doctor, Mr. Gingery was in fact uniquely positioned to both understand and sort out the desperate needs of this family and most especially a vulnerable child whose interests he had purported to defend. …

…to allow a vulnerable child whose needs were well know not just to the Member but to the entire world to go unmet in what was by then an obviously life threatening situation is not just curious, it's an outrage.

Like Sandusky, everyone knew something was wrong with Faith's care of Masha. Many, many people suspected something was just not right with the whole scenario. Some very powerful people knew much more, and yet, the situation persisted year after year after year just like Penn State's cover-up of Sandusky.

Former United States Attorney (and recent Congressional candidate) Mary Beth Buchanan started the spin early on when she declared on national television in 2005: “Masha has been adopted by a very loving family who has changed her name and moved her to another part of the country, where she can make a new start and have a very, very wonderful life ahead of her.”

The press had it's own unique role in perpetrating the fraud. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter Barbara White Stack, who later admitted that "everyone in Pittsburgh knew Faith was mentally ill," wrote in 2004 that "Faith believes God placed Mea with her because she could understand her pain and her needs. It is so awesome for her to be matched with a little girl of similar background who she is able to parent and minister to. I think it was by divine orchestration that it happened that way."

Post-Gazette reporter Torsten Ove intoned, "[Masha's] family is her other rock. All it took was love from someone who cared, Faith Allen."

Even United States District Judge Terrence McVerry declared that “I'm so happy, Masha, for you and I hope and pray for you to have a happy life with Faith, and I'm sure that that will come to pass.”

Masha's pastor, Winnie Pollard, was probably the most prescient when she declared, “Faith is a blessing. There is, without any question, that the two of them are going to be a story worth watching to see how their lives are going to effect so many others. They are a sign of hope in the City for everyone that has struggled liken unto Faith and every child that is in need of help liken unto Masha.”

Perhaps the biggest spin, however, was perpetrated by Masha's own legal team, the very lawyers who were charged with ensuring her best interest. According to Masha's First Lawyer, Linell Lee, “I only see a bright future for [Masha] with Faith. Kid's Voice is happy to see this day!”

Masha's Third Lawyer, Diane Sternlieb, declared “I have spent many, many months with Faith and Masha and have witnessed a bond of love between these two. Masha is lucky to have Faith in her life!”

Masha's most recent lawyer, David S. Bills, defending Faith's questionable care of Masha, trumpeted: "Faith received a major award as an Angel in Adoption™ for her outstanding contributions toward the welfare of children in the United States foster care system and orphans around the globe. U.S. Senator Isakson proclaimed: “Faith Allen, who adopted her daughter, Masha, last year, is a truly amazing woman who embodies the spirit of the Angels in Adoptions program. Masha now has a safe home filled with compassion and love thanks to Faith Allen.” Representative Gingrey added: “Faith is her pillar of support, providing encouragement as Masha bravely shares her story. Everyone who spends time with Faith and Masha feels the warmth and kindness that make Faith an Angel in Adoption."

Which naturally brings us back to the Angel in Adoption program. When I read about Sandusky's fall from grace, and saw that Faith was still an Angel in Good Standing with CCAI, I decided to perform a public service and let everyone know that Faith's parental rights to Masha were involuntarily terminated years ago.

I sent the following email to Senator Isakson (on December 13, 2011):

I read with interest this article from last month.

I noticed that Faith Allen is still listed as a 2006 Angel in Adoption sponsored by the Senator and this press release remains on your website:

http://isakson.senate.gov/press/2006/092006allen.htm

In 2008, just two years after she was named an Angel in Adoption, Faith Allen…parental rights were involuntarily terminated by the State of Pennsylvania. …

I worked closely with Sen. Isakson on Masha’s Law. The situation with Faith Allen was almost as bad as Sandusky. You might want to consider taking appropriate action.

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Adoption group rescinds award given to Sandusky

and Congressman Gingrey (on December 13, 2011):

I read with interest this article from last month.

I noticed that Faith Allen is still listed as a 2006 Angel in Adoption and her picture remains on your website:

http://gingrey.house.gov/Photos/?PhotoID=50407

In 2008, just two years after she was named an Angel in Adoption, Faith Allen…parental rights were involuntarily terminated by the State of Pennsylvania. …

I worked closely with Rep. Gingrey on Masha’s Law. The situation with Faith Allen was almost as bad as Sandusky. You might want to consider taking appropriate action.

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Adoption group rescinds award given to Sandusky

and CCAI (on November 15, 2011):

I read with interest this article from Saturday.

I noticed that Faith Allen is still listed as a 2006 Angel in Adoption. In 2008, just two years after she was named an Angel in Adoption, Faith Allen…parental rights were involuntarily terminated by the State of Pennsylvania.

Saturday, November 12, 2011
Adoption group rescinds award given to Sandusky

Not surprisingly, no one has responded, although CCAI did remove the list of Alumni Angels from its website.

Complex Data Gathering Results in State Adoption Totals

2012-02-01T21:10:26Z

A publication from Child Welfare Information Gateway now available online provides estimates of total adoption numbers for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

How Many Children Were Adopted in 2007-2008? was developed with assistance from Gene Flango, Ph.D., of the National Center for State Courts and offers key findings on the numbers of public, intercountry, and other adoptions as well as data sources and cautionary notes. This publication, which will be updated periodically, provides a single source of recent statistical information on the numbers and types of adoptions in the United States, as well as the numbers of adoptions by State, by data source, and by other classifications. Highlights of the data include the following:

In 2007 and 2008, approximately 136,000 children were adopted annually in the United States.
The number of adoptions has risen since 2000, but the adoption rate per 100,000 adults has decreased.
About two-fifths of adoptions occur through public child welfare agencies.
Fourteen percent of adoptions in 2007 and 13 percent in 2008 were adoptions of children from foreign countries.
Nearly half of all adoptions were from sources other than public agencies and foreign countries, such as private agencies and Tribes.

The years 2007 and 2008 were chosen because of the length of time it takes to process the data and make them available. There is no one government agency responsible for collecting adoption data, which complicates the process of collecting and aggregating adoption numbers. Data were collected from State courts, State bureaus of vital records, the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), State departments of social services, and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. Additionally, each source has its own method for compiling and defining the data. For example, court data are based on the number of adoption petitions filed in the State, whereas bureaus of vital records report adoptions of children born in their States.

Sources also are not consistent in the use of Federal fiscal year or State fiscal years in establishing totals. Even though adoption totals are approximate for the reasons stated above, differences caused by gaps or overlaps are unlikely to affect the conclusions.

Because of the complexity of adoption and child welfare research, it is difficult to attribute changes in national or State data to any specific policy, practice, or other factor. Further research will provide child welfare professionals with more information to help find permanent families for waiting children.

To read the full report, visit the Child Welfare Information Gateway website:

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/adopted0708.cfm

Fifth Circuit Decides to Reconsider Restitution Victory

2012-01-31T00:43:16Z

If you're awake and you've been following this blog for any length of time, your probably know that during the past two years, victims of child pornography (represented by the Marsh Law Firm and pioneering attorneys Paul G. Cassell and Carol L. Hepburn ) have been seeking restitution in federal courts throughout the country.

Using a long forgotten passage in the Violence Against Women Act championed by then-Senator Joe Biden in 1994, child sex abuse victims are asking federal judges to award the mandatory restitution guaranteed by this law.

Change.org|Sign our Online Petition »

Unfortunately, the Justice Department has abandoned victims of child pornography on appeal by advancing a legal standard which the courts consider unworkable. The Justice Department's position is effectively preventing hundreds of child victims from receiving any money from the tens of thousands of child molesters and pedophiles who collect and trade child sex abuse images.

In October, the Justice Department filed a Supreme Court brief opposing child exploitation victims. Last month, the Justice Department asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to nullify a court-ordered million dollar award to a child sex abuse victim, arguing that the legal standard which resulted in the award is too easy.

Why is the Justice Department arguing for something which the courts of appeal say is unworkable and un-provable, while victims of child exploitation are left with nothing?

Now, just last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—at the Justice Department's urging—decided to reconsider a landmark decision in favor of victims of child pornography. The Justice Department has one more chance to do the right thing and support victims of child exploitation.

Please tell President Obama's political appointee to the Department of Justice Criminal Division, Lanny A. Breuer, to side with the victim in In re: Amy Unknown in the Fifth Circuit.

When Justice Department attorneys refused to even sit with Amy at last year's oral argument before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Chief Judge Edith Jones proclaimed:

"What I don't understand is why the government has switched sides. They were on Amy's side in the trial court, were they not? I'm not sure how they can switch sides now and say that the statute doesn't entitle her to relief. That seems very—if not duplicitous—very strange to me. And it's also in derogation of the obvious intent of that provision of the statute."

Amy and child victims like her need your help. Hundreds of victims are effectively shut-out of the federal courts by the Justice Department's wrongheaded policy.

Almost 20 years ago, then-Senator Joe Biden promised child victims that they would receive full restitution from criminals convicted of child exploitation. Ironically, Vice President Biden's own Justice Department is failing to live up to his vision in the Violence Against Women's Act.

You can help awaken the Justice Department lawyers in Washington with just a few clicks. Amy thanks everyone for their continued support. You can make a difference in her fight for justice!

For more information on this issue, visit http://www.childlaw.us/restitution/

Sexting Norms Uncovered in Two Studies

2012-01-18T19:29:21Z

In the January edition of Pediatrics researchers explored two issues: The Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting and How Often Are Teens Arrested for Sexting?

Prior to the research estimates of the prevalence of sexting varied considerably depending on the nature of the images or videos and the role of the youth involved.

A cross-sectional national telephone survey of 1560 youth Internet users, ages 10 through 17, discovered that only 2.5% of youth appeared in or created nude or nearly nude pictures or videos.

However, this percentage was reduced to 1.0% when the definition was restricted to only include images that were sexually explicit (ie, showed naked breasts, genitals, or bottoms). Of the youth who participated in the survey, 7.1% said they had received nude or nearly nude images of others; 5.9% of youth reported receiving sexually explicit images. Few youth distributed these images.

The researchers concluded that since policy debates on youth sexting behavior focus on concerns about the production and possession of illegal child pornography, it is important to have research that collects details about the nature of the sexual images rather than using ambiguous screening questions without follow-ups.

The rate of youth exposure to sexting highlights a need to provide them with information about legal consequences of sexting and advice about what to do if they receive a sexting image. However, the data suggest that appearing in, creating, or receiving sexual images is far from being a normative behavior for youth.

The second study examined the characteristics of youth sexting cases handled by police and their outcomes in response to clinical and other concerns about the risks of sexting behavior.

Mail surveys were sent to a stratified national sample of 2712 law enforcement agencies followed by detailed telephone interviews with investigators about a nationally representative sample of sexting cases handled by police during 2008 and 2009 (n = 675). The cases involved “youth-produced sexual images” that constituted child pornography under relevant statutes according to respondents.

The researchers discovered that US law enforcement agencies handled an estimated 3477 cases of youth-produced sexual images during 2008 and 2009 (95% confidence interval: 3282-3672). Two-thirds of the cases involved an “aggravating” circumstance beyond the creation and/or dissemination of a sexual image.

In these aggravated cases, either an adult was involved (36% of cases) or a minor engaged in malicious, non-consensual, or abusive behavior (31% of cases). An arrest occurred in 62% of cases with an adult involved, in 36% of the aggravated youth-only cases, and in 18% of the “experimental” cases (youth-only and no aggravating elements).

Most of the images (63%) were distributed by cell phone only and did not reach the Internet. Sex offender registration applied in only a few unusual cases.

The conclusion of this study is that many of the youth sexting cases that come to the attention of police include aggravating circumstances that raise concerns about health and risky sexual behavior, although some cases were relatively benign. Overall, arrest is not typical in cases with no adults involved.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study

How Often Are Teens Arrested for Sexting? Data From a National Sample of Police Cases