There is a METHOD to get foster children away from foster parents (& kin) who want to adopt them. An agency is required to advocate for the foster parents, yet attacks on foster parents wishing to adopt their foster children are becoming very common. These attacks are also common among kin wishing to adopt their own relatives. The methods used by child welfare agencies to separate children from kin and foster parents are frighteningly similar to the methods used to remove children from the homes of biologic parents. This story is also highly abbreviated, and pertains primarily to our relationship with our foster care agency and our fight to adopt our former foster son, Brandon, now known as Ben. We want to express that God intervened on our behalf each step along the way and HE deserves the glory. We have largely left out our experience with protective services, which is too long and detailed to discuss here. We have ample evidence to believe the corrupt child welfare system only wants foster parents that are not able to advocate for themselves and their foster children. Foster parents also risk loss of their own minor children when something goes "wrong". For this reason we strongly recommend that anyone with minor children who are considering becoming foster parents, should think again. The events and issues we experienced overlap, and we have tried to separate them to assist the reader with understanding. To begin, agencies have lots of rules and regulations, which can be interpreted in whatever way they choose, and are held in high esteem above the laws of the state and the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America. These are the rules used in our story.
The child may be replaced from the home. The child could be moved for the following reasons.
1) I have requested the child be moved.
2) The court has ordered that the child be moved.
3) The child is being moved and has been in my home for less than thirty days from the initial date of removal from home. (Did not apply to our family and could not be used.)
4) The child is being placed in a relative’s home and he has been placed in my home for less than 90 days from the initial date of removal from home. (Did not apply to our family and could not be used.)
5) FIA has reason to believe that the child has suffered sexual abuse, or non-accidental physical injury or there is a substantial risk of harm to the child’s emotional well being.
6) FIA believes it is in the child’s best interest to be moved.
On April 14, 2005 our foster son gave our biologic son a black eye. The following morning we requested the school interview the boys and make an official record. This minor event was also reported to our foster care agency as required. That afternoon two social workers came and took our foster son to the local hospital for a "psychiatric evaluation". We later learned via the medical records that the caseworker claimed to be the foster mother and gave false medical history. The foster child was admitted to another psychiatric hospital for ten days and discharged to us, the foster parents, on 4/25/05. This is when our nightmare truly began. Our Agency, Catholic Social Services of Wayne County (CSSWC) attempted repeatedly to remove the child from our home. Each attempt failed. To our knowledge, CSSWC filed at least three Protective Services complaints against us in April, May and June 2005.
The April 2005 CPS complaint was immediately rejected, but later covered up by DHS.
Failed Attempt Number ONE.
The May 2005 Burrell CPS complaint was identical to the School April 15, 2005 CPS complaint and identical to the ?Sigarto? April 2005 CPS complaint. Timely April 2005 complaints did not meet the criteria for Child Abuse/Neglect, and were rejected. However, May 2005 was nearly a month outside the Mandated Reporter timeframe, was "investigated", and ended July 29, 2005 as unsubstantiated no preponderance, dated 6/29/05.
Failed Attempt Number TWO.
Despite a PS unsubstantiated no preponderance determination and laws against libel, CSSWC wrote SUBSTANTIATED in both the licensing home study and the special investigation report, and eventually had to do an addendum for each. Grievance meetings were held from 8/12/05 through 10/3/05, however CSSWC refused to correct the inaccurate statements about protective services still contained in each addendum, and did not admit to wrongdoing.
http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/brs_cwl/dt_cwl.asp?CWL_NBR=CB820201024&cnty_name=WAYNE
On 5/18/05 we met with CSSWC to discuss a "Safety Plan" we were told was required by MCI in order to reinstate consent. We asked for the written requirement from MCI, we were told the requirement was verbal, not written. We were not given any help writing the plan, none of the documents we requested, no template, however the entire meeting was recorded and transcribed by ourselves. Julie Arnold and Fred Rini made guised threats, that if we continued to pursue Brandon’s adoption we could lose all of our children. Such as, if Brandon hurt someone that would be seen as parents who are guilty of "failure to protect". The Safety Plan was completed without assistance from CSSWC, although according to MCI CSSWC stated they were helping us write it. We submitted the Safety Plan on 6/23/05, but consent remained on hold. William Johnson approved the safety plan on 7/27/05, yet CSSWC rewrote it on 8/22/05 with MCI's superintendent William Johnson's new approval. No one discussed the changes with us.
On Friday afternoon 6/10/05, per item 5 (substantial risk of harm to the child’s emotional well being), another CPS complaint was filed by Sigarto alleging Emotional Neglect. That protective services complaint was rejected on Monday morning, 6/13/05.
Failed Attempt Number THREE.
On 6/13/05 we requested Brandon's mental health records from Lifespan in writing. Michigan law provides for foster parents and pre adoptive parents to obtain these records. On 6/16/05 FIA changed our 2004 authorizations to block most records from release to us. A year later, on 6/14/06 we got most Lifespan Records, although many portions remained blacked out despite providing adoption documents! We filed a civil rights complaint, which was ultimately rejected for investigation on January 24, 2007, we were never interviewed.
On 6/14/05 CSSWC Licensing investigator, Deborah Mobley sent a letter to us to stall the complaint investigation with three items.
First, Ms. Mobley stated another CPS complaint. This would have been the only valid licensing issue for extending the special investigation, that is if it had not been rejected two days before Ms. Mobley's letter was mailed (postmark 6/15/05).
Second, she falsely stated a report of Marital Instability, which if true, is actually an adoption issue, not licensing.
Third, she stated that we refused to sign a Safety Plan, which was also an adoption issue because foster parents don’t have parent agency agreements.
Despite using additional charges to delay the investigation, CSSWC chose not to investigate any of the additional charges for the Special Evaluation Report, including NONE of these three "reasons for extension" in the final 8/8/05 written report OR the later 9/1/05 addendum. CSSWC was stalling in an attempt to have our license expire in order to remove Brandon. We agreed to 20 hours of training each and our license was renewed on July 31, 2005. By the grace of God we completed 18 of those hours in three weeks and found the final two hours in a class an entire month earlier than the one CSSWC informed us about. We kept proof of our training, which proved invaluable when CSSWC later tried not to credit our corrective action plan accurately.
Failed Attempt Number FOUR.
CSSWC filed for removal using item 6 (child’s best interest) on the same day, 6/14/05. They also claimed item 1 applied by misquoting our April 15, 2005 letter. This is a letter they had solicited from us and did not request the child to be removed. We blocked the removal of the foster child by calling the Foster Care Review Board and the subsequent hearing on 6/28/05 agreed with the foster parents and sided against the agency.
Failed Attempt Number FIVE.
MCI was required to write a report within two weeks of the Foster Care Review Board Hearing. Bruce Hoffman was assigned to investigate. The report took one month, we were NEVER interviewed, it was completed on 7/27/05, it contained many inaccuracies, and consent remained on hold. We responded to Mr. Johnson’s report in a letter to correct the inaccuracies. Mr. Hoffman met with CSSWC on August 1, 2005, and then for 4 ½ hours with our family in our home on the same day. Hoffman announced that the Parent Agency Agreement would be required to reinstate consent to adopt (Two of the four versions were created on 8/22/05 and 8/25/05, but we did NOT sign either). After the failed Clinic for Child Study, (see below) the August versions of the Parent Agency Agreement became obsolete, and DHS did not require or solicit our signatures. In addition, a 10/3/05 Parent Agency Agreement version number 3 was produced by CSSWC (although DHS now had the case) and Mr. William J. Johnson's name and signature were removed, CSSWC also failed to provide us with a copy. Version 4 of the Parent Agency Agreement was created by DHS in January 2006. This version was also done without our participation, however, our signatures were not requested.
CSSWC wrote a report to court (signed 6/29/05) for the 7/13/05 Post Termination Review Hearing. We wrote a letter to Referee Wilson refuting the CSSWC report and attached two documents that proved CSSWC claims were inaccurate. Per item 2, CSSWC tried to have court side with their NOT recommending that he remain with us, but the court ruled that he was to remain in current placement.
Failed Attempt Number SIX.
On 7/13/05 CSSWC argued to the court at the Post Termination Review Hearing that the therapist Sarah Elizabeth Danahy (not a licensed MSW until 9/20/05, who violated our HIPPA rights) should not be removed from Brandon’s case. L-GAL Nita Murray Grier argued for our side, that the newly assigned Lifespan therapist, Christina Grim, should remain. Referee Wilson agreed with the GAL and ordered a brief transition between therapists, which occurred on 7/14/05. (Both the L-GAL and the Referee were removed from Brandon's case shortly after this hearing).
Failed Attempt Number SEVEN.
On 7/13/05 the court ordered a Clinic for Child Study for Brandon (after Brandon's case was concluded and we had left the courtroom). Anna Mier Sigarto found us in the hallway and Laura Hudson Burrell took us to schedule what we believed was to be Brandon’s appointment. CSSWC managed to get the Clinic for Child Study to believe we were on the BUCK/JONES case. Due to this twisting of the case, the foster parents were inadvertently scheduled for an appointment, NOT BRANDON.
On 8/22/05 CSSWC gave us version 1 of the Parent Agency Agreement, created without our participation, which was signed by MCI Superintendent William Johnson, and stated that our entire family was ordered by the court to attend the CLINIC FOR CHILD STUDY.
(See Michigan Court Rules MCR 2.311)
Three days later an updated Parent Agency Agreement added that our adult son was also ordered by the court to attend the Clinic for Child Study. No such order ever existed for anyone but Brandon. William Johnson signed both August 2005 Parent Agency Agreements that claimed our entire family was ordered to attend the Clinic for Child Study. On September 26, 2005 Mr. Johnson could NOT produce the requested court order, even when the hospital required it to give our daughter a medical exception. This is because there was never a court order for us. In September, Referee Wilson withdrew his court order for Brandon and the foster parents’ appointment was canceled, because as it turned out, Brandon never had an appointment. That attempt to find "something" against us via the psychological assessment at the Clinic for Child Study was foiled.
Failed Attempt Number EIGHT.
With the assistance of our legislator, on 9/6/05 MCI ordered the foster and adoption cases transferred to Wayne County DHS. A stall tactic began. On 9/28/05 the case was officially transferred out of Wayne County DHS to South Central DHS for foster care, and to Central DHS for adoption. The month of September was lost due to this transferring process. We predicted this stall was an attempt to drag out the adoption past January 20, 2006. Our adoption home study had been updated on 1/20/05. We predicted that after January 20, 2006 and before the adoption the attacks against us would resume. As predicted, this attack occurred on April 18, 2006, exactly ten days before our scheduled adoption hearing before Chief Judge Mary Beth Kelly. The attack was in the form of a Licensing Complaint that we had violated the confidentiality of a foster child by using his "name", "medical information", and "etc." on our web site.
On 9/20/05 CSSWC case worker Laura Hudson Burrell and adoption worker Anna Sigarto attended Brandon's Therapy Goals meeting at Lifespan, despite no longer having Brandon's foster care or adoption cases. We informed therapist Grim in advance that they would stop her at the medication section. At that point in the meeting Burrell and Sigarto insisted that the psychiatrist had to order all of the psychotropic medications, not the pediatrician. On 10/31/05 at Brandon's medication review, his psychiatrist discharged his medication to the care of the pediatrician.
Failed Attempt Number NINE.
On 9/27/05 the regular Foster Care Review Board meeting was held with CSSWC in attendance, despite not having the case. They provided no information about Brandon's brother Dwayne. CSSWC adoption worker Anna Mier Sigarto told therapist Christina Grim that the hearing was the following day, and therefore Grim was not in attendance. We had informed her that the meeting was 9/27/05, but she believed the agency instead of us. We believe it was after this point that the new therapist began to believe us, as our predictions became facts with increasing accuracy.
On 10/10/05 Darlene Martin (not a licensed social worker) was assigned the adoption case, although she claims that she was not given Brandon’s case files. She visited our home on 10/26/05, but did not write the adoptive home study addendum after this visit. Mr. Johnson required her to visit Brandon in school every other month. He was asked leading questions about tiny scratches and scrapes (see 11/30/05 below). His caseworker, Gilda Baranda, also visited him in school and asked him the same leading questions about the tiniest of scrapes.
On 11/2/05 at the PTR Hearing, Susan requested Brandon's mental health records according to Law MCL 712A.13a (13). Referee Hildalgo ordered the records to be provided by DHS.
On 11/21/05 Mark went to the court file room but couldn't locate the court order. At the sibling visit that same day, caseworker Gilda Baranda told Susan that a court order is always required to obtain any medical records. Law MCL 712A.13a (14) states that the order should be there from the time a child goes into foster care.
On 11/30/05 DHS adoption worker Darlene Martin visited Brandon at school and interviewed him alone. She asked to see his scars, which is a leading question. Brandon showed her his neck where his necklace recently scratched him. Ms. Martin immediately assumed that his mother did that. Brandon actually corrected her about his scratches coming from his necklace, which he was wearing during the interview, God's providence. See item 5, we suspect that Ms. Martin was looking for "non-accidental physical injury" to attempt to remove Brandon from our home.
On 11/30/05 Darlene Martin visited with us after her school visit. She stated "if adopted" instead of "when". She stated the sooner that we can find some permanence for Brandon, the better, but not that he was already in his permanent home. She made statements that sounded like she was quoting MCI’s Bruce Hoffman. She told us Brandon showed her the scratches on his neck, that Brandon’s relationship with his mother (Susan) isn’t as close as the relationship with his father (Mark), and that he wants more "ALONE TIME" with his mother. We predicted that they were setting Susan up for false allegations of abuse in item 5. We complied with this Brandon and Mom alone time by being "alone" in PUBLIC. For example, our older son performed in a concert. Brandon and Susan went to the concert on a "date", our older son was transported with us to and from the concert, and Susan was never alone with Brandon. In this way we were able to protect ourselves from any false allegations.
On 12/2/05 Susan went to the court file room and the court order was missing from the file. The clerk confirmed that the court order exists. However, Referee Hidalgo was the only one who could reprint the order, and he was not in court that Friday.
On Monday, 12/5/05 Susan returned to court. Referee Hildalgo heard Susan between cases, reprinted the order and sent Susan to the Judge. Susan went to Judge Dingall's courtroom and the order was signed and given to Susan. Susan took the order to the file room where it was copied and put in Brandon's case file. We later discovered that the Attorney General's office in Lansing had obtained an UNSIGNED copy of the court order in November, yet the court didn't have it. We also later discovered via Brandon's case service plans that the attorney general's office, both local and in Lansing, got VERY involved in telling Ms. Baranda what medical records to WITHHOLD from the foster parents. We thought it was the AG's job to help uphold court orders, not thwart them.
In December 2005 Susan became an identity theft victim and filed a police report the week before Christmas.
On January 4, 2006 Lifespan provided EDITED and INCOMPLETE Medical Records, despite the court order. (Read PSALM 10) We continued to seek prayers for the adoption situation.
In January 2006 we filed an Office of Children and Adult Licensing (OCAL) complaint against Catholic Social Services of Wayne County.
http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/brs_cwl/dt_cwl.asp?CWL_NBR=CB820201024&cnty_name=WAYNE
The investigation was NOT very good, however they were cited for violations of the special evaluation, the grievance policy, and failing to provide adoption paperwork. This evaluation ended in March 2006. We attempted to file another OCAL complaint in March, but OCAL refused to investigate our new charges. We complained that OCAL overlooked a finding that WAS made in the January complaint investigation regarding Burrell and Sigarto, who filed complaints against us nearly a month after knowledge of a possible violation of our home. They were required to report it and start the investigation within 7 days according to licensing rules. The local OCAL office refused to make this finding and actually told us there was no appeal. We appealed to OCAL in Lansing, who reviewed the findings, and DID cite CSSWC in an addendum in May 2006.
On January 25, 2006 adoption worker Ms. Martin did a home visit. We signed DHS paperwork for the adoption, and gave her proof of completion of our licensing corrective action. We gave her a copy of the 154 including two versions of page 2 to prove it was UNSUBSTANTIATED, and even gave her additional PS rejections to show the repeated attacks we sustained. Ms. Martin also indicated she had only spoken with two of our references, unable to apparently reach the third. We had discovered this was a common stall tactic to delay adoptions, as Ms. Sigarto had used this same stall method a year earlier. Susan picked up the phone, called the missing reference, and handed her the phone. Ms. Martin interviewed our third reference over the phone while in our home and this stall was thwarted.
At the same home visit Ms. Martin mentioned that in December 2005 Mark applied for a permit for a concealed firearm (he did not, we suspected Mark was also a victim of identity theft). She asked us to fill out a NEW adoption application, so we contacted Julie Arnold at CSSWC and requested that they give DHS the 3/4/04 application. On 1/26/06 we asked for a copy of our background check. Ms. Martin indicated that she did have a copy of our adoption application, and that it was against policy to provide us with our background check. We contacted our legislator and DHS also told our legislator's office that it was against policy to provide us with a copy of the background check. This policy, if true, would violate Federal Law Title 42. The State Police had no CCW permit for Mark.
In February Ms. Martin completed the adoption family assessment. On 2/18/06 we wrote corrections to the adoption family assessment, and signed the adoption assessment indicating our corrections on the same line UNDER our signatures. On February 22, 2006 William Johnson reinstated consent to adopt. (Original application to adopt was 3/4/04 with consent 3/17/05).
Failed Attempt Number TEN.
On March 10, 2006 we FINALLY filed our petition to adopt and paid court fees. However, the assigned clerk was out sick that day and the new clerk prevented us from seeing the adoption package. Representative John Pastor’s assistant, Valerie Knol attended the petition filing with us. The adoption hearing was scheduled for Friday, April 28, 2006 before the Honorable Chief Judge Mary Beth Kelly.
Failed Attempt Number ELEVEN.
On Good Friday 4/14/06, we filed our "response" to the "special evaluation" complaint investigation witch-hunt our agency did on us from May to August 2005. Also, the "special evaluation" was in the adoption package, and our reply needed to be attached. These documents are also available through the freedom of information act. As the children were on school vacation, we took a break. We stopped our mail, put on our phone answering machine, put up a "For Sale" sign in front of our house, and took day trips all around Michigan. We were determined to NOT be at home at all so close to the adoption.As predicted, the attacks resumed in the form of a new Special Evaluation on 4/17/06, but they failed to contact us. In May 2006 we learned that our agency claimed we used Brandon's name, medical information, and "etc" throughout our special evaluation reply and on the web site. They indicated that this is a violation of confidentiality. We posted no medical records, no private birth family information, and no "etc.", just his name had been used. We read the law and the rules policy. A person's NAME is commonly used, so it does NOT meet the definition for confidentiality. An attorney we consulted advised us we do have a right to post our Freedom of Information Act reports on the internet, but recommended leaving Brandon out of it. Coincidentally, we removed our reply to the special investigation from the internet on Monday 4/17/06.
On 4/18/06 we attended Brandon's PTR hearing and requested a court order for him to remain in our home. The Referee made that court order, and on 4/19/06 the entire volume "disappeared" from the court before we could obtain a paper copy of the court order. On 5/9/06 the court determined that the volume of the case file was missing. In June we asked for them to run a trace. In July we asked for another trace. In August 2006 a Free Press reporter went to the file room on our behalf and asked for a trace. On 9/5/06 the clerk began a new search, located the file, and retrieved it for Susan. He made us a professional courtesy copy of the now useless court order of 4/18/06 for the foster child, Brandon, to remain in our home.
Also in April 2006 we were determined to close our foster license, so we checked with OCAL and discovered that we did not need our foster care license for Brandon to remain in our home before the adoption hearing. However, we were advised that our CASE was VERY HIGH PROFILE in Lansing. Surrendering our license made Brandon very vulnerable to removal, since the "powers that be" don't follow the laws, the rules, or their own policies. So, the court order was to be added protection for him (had we been able to obtain a paper copy), which is why we suspect the file disappeared from the court, obviously to prevent us from obtaining a hard copy. Since we couldn't get the paper copy of the court order, our foster license remained open until after the adoption.OCAL’s local office informed us that we need to close our license directly with our agency. Our AGENCY wouldn't transfer our license every time we tried to go to another agency, so that wasn't a good option. The Agency needs to hold supervision of a foster parent's license so that they can continue to harass "legitimately". Our legislator consulted with the Lansing DHS office contact and arranged for us to close our license directly with the Lansing OCAL office, especially since we have history with CSSWC not cooperating with our foster family.
http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/brs_cwl/dt_cwl.asp?CWL_NBR=CB820201024&cnty_name=WAYNE
http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/fhs/brs/reports/CB820201024_SIR_2006C0208017.pdf
We adopted our foster son on Thursday, April 27, 2006. We then promptly closed our foster care license via email to OCAL in Lansing. They replied that our license was closed voluntarily in regular status.
Failed Attempt Number TWELVE.
Ben's adoption was scheduled for Friday, April 28, but at the last minute, literally, with only 24 hours notice, the hearing was moved up to Thursday April 27th. This was truly by the grace of God. Our agency Catholic Social Services of Wayne County DID try to attack us, but as they didn't find out about the change in date until AFTER the adoption, they had to close the "complaint" they had launched on us on the same day we closed our license. It is important that our license was closed in good standing in "regular status". The former foster parents of Ben (who also tried to adopt this same child and were then attacked by CSSWC) let their license expire, but were later slandered. CSSWC began telling other agencies that they were closed in ADVERSE ACTION, which is completely untrue. We have uncovered so much corruption in the child welfare system our hearts are breaking. Slander and libel are common among many workers that, for whatever reason, seek to keep children out of relative placement so that they can adopt them to non-relatives (or non foster parents).We have poured through the court records of our adopted children, and we KNEW their biologic family for 1 1/2 years before termination of their parental rights. Our hearts break because of the LIES contained in the court records, and the evidence that proves the lies are also contained in the same court records. Michigan should be very sad, because we were good foster parents.
On May 5, 2006 we received a copy of our second special evaluation of licensing violations against our foster home, conducted completely without our participation or chance to defend ourselves. On July 12, 2006 we tried to file an OCAL Complaint against Catholic Social Services of Wayne County. The response from OCAL was that mentioning our closed license was appropriate, and there would not be any investigation of our other allegations. It was to be at the discretion of the Bloomfield office to include these concerns in CSSWC's annual review.
October 18, 2006 CSSWC was placed on a provisional 6 Month License! OCAL cited them for FIVE repeat violations.
UPDATE:
October 2007
Catholic Social Services of Wayne County was placed on their SECOND "First Provisional License" in October 2007. The report is available for viewing at:
http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/fhs/brs/reports/CB820201024_SIR_2007C0208050.pdf
