Showing posts with label JESSIC LYNN HEPNER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JESSIC LYNN HEPNER. Show all posts

Saturday, December 11, 2021

2019 Arizona Revised Statutes Title 8 - Child Safety

 

Chapter 1 ADOPTION
Article 1 General Provisions Article 2 Adoption Subsidies Article 3 Nonrecurring Adoption Expenses Article 4 Interstate Adoption Assistance Compacts Chapter 2 JUVENILE COURT
Article 1 General Provisions Article 2 General Procedure Article 3 Juvenile Hearings Article 4 Disposition and Commitment Article 5 Family Counseling Programs Article 6 Children's Mental Health Services Article 8 Juvenile Competency Chapter 3 JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Article 1 General Procedures for Delinquency and Incorrigibility Proceedings Article 2 Delinquency and Alcohol Offense Complaints and Hearings Article 3 Disposition and Committment Article 4 Juvenile Intensive Probation Article 5 Interstate Compact for Juveniles Article 6 Educational Rehabilitation Article 7 Victims' Rights for Juvenile Offenses Chapter 4 DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY
Article 1 General Provisions Article 2 Criminal Conduct Allegation Investigations Article 3 Healthy Families Program Article 4 Child Welfare and Placement Article 5 Termination of Parent-Child Relationship Article 6 Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children Article 7 Funding of Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Programs Article 8 Dependent Children Article 9 Removal of Child Article 10 Dependency Determination and Disposition Article 11 Permanency Determination Article 12 Permanent Guardianship Article 13 Substance Abuse Treatment Assistance Article 14 In-Home Intervention Chapter 13 EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH PROGRAMS
Article 1 General Provisions Article 2 Regional Partnerships Article 3 Programs to Increase the Quality of and Access to Early Childhood Development and Health Services Article 4 Funding Sources and Administration Article 5 Early Childhood Development and Health Board

Source 

By - No comments:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 16, 2020

Child Protection and Development Child Trafficking

A boy covers his face after going through a trafficking ordeal. He waits to be reunited with his family at a safe place.
Haiti
UNICEF/NYHQ2011-2241/MARCO DORMINO
Child victims of trafficking are recruited, transported, transferred, harbored or received for the purpose of exploitation. They may be forced to work in sweatshops, on construction sites or in houses as domestic servants; on the streets as child beggars, in wars as child soldiers, on farms, in traveling sales crews or in restaurants and hotels. Some are forced to work in brothels and strip clubs or for escort and massage services.
Putting a stop to all forms of child trafficking is critical to UNICEF's work.

Child trafficking in the U.S.

Trafficking is not just an issue that happens to people in other countries. The United States is a source and transit country, and is also considered one of the top destination points for victims of child trafficking and exploitation. Cases of human trafficking have been reported in all 50 U.S. States; anyone can be trafficked regardless of race, class, education, gender, age, or citizenship when forcefully coerced or enticed by false promises.

UNICEF's work in child protection

To protect children from exploitation, risk factors such as poverty and discrimination need to be addressed. UNICEF's efforts in countries around the world include:
  • Helping to provide a living wage for parents so that their children do not have to work to support the family and can attend school instead
  • Lobbying governments and other partners to develop laws and strengthen child protection systems to prevent and respond to violence and abuse
  • Advocating for the legal birth registration of all newborns
  • Working with communities and faith-based organizations to change harmful societal norms that make children more vulnerable to exploitation
  • Supporting the training of professionals working with children including social workers, health workers and police and border officials to help stop trafficking

How you can help prevent human trafficking

Speak Out: Study up on the root causes of trafficking and spread the word using the hashtag #EndTrafficking and tagging @UNICEFUSA. Share this page or create your own messaging using the UNICEF USA Social Press Kit.
Advocate: Let your mayor or member of congress know that trafficking is an issue that matters. Join UNICEF USA in sending an email to your local elected officials urging them to keep trafficking and its victims top of mind.

How to Help Stop Child Trafficking

 

Protect children from exploitation

Now more than ever, children need protection from predatory criminals who turn the vulnerability and desperation of their victims into big business. Human trafficking — the buying and selling of people for exploitative purposes — thrives in times of conflict and crisis, according to a study of 142 countries released by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
"Human trafficking has taken on horrific dimensions as armed groups and terrorists use it to spread fear and gain victims to offer as incentives to recruit new fighters," says Yury Fedotov, Executive Director of UNODC,  citing child soldiers, forced labor and sexual slavery as examples.

 

Though it’s not clear how improvements in detection, recording and reporting methods have contributed to the rise, the conditions that put children at risk are clear. Turning war, political corruption, poverty and natural disasters to their advantage, traffickers are now generating approximately $39 billion annually on the exploitation of children alone.
According to the latest global estimates, 152 million children are in child labor and 25 million adults and children are in forced labor, including in global supply chains. One in four victims of modern slavery are children.
Whether it is the trafficking of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, the exploitation of Central American migrants bound for the United States, the sexual enslavement of women and girls in Europe, or the forced labor of sub-Saharan Africans or refugees from the Middle East, desperate families and individuals often feel they have little choice but to risk exploitation in an effort to survive.

How can we stop child and human trafficking?

Build Community: In the U.S., January is National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month; however, you can get active to raise awareness of violence and exploitation year-round.  Below are some ideas for how you can get started today:
Speak Out: Study up on the root causes of trafficking and spread the word using the hashtag #EndTrafficking and tagging @UNICEFUSA
Advocate: Send a letter to your elected officials to let them know that trafficking is an issue that matters to you
Join UNICEF UNITE: UNICEF UNITE is UNICEF USA's grassroots movement, composed of volunteer-led and staff-supported local teams across the country advocating or taking action day in and day out to put children first. Become a UNITER today by visiting unicefunite.org

What should you do if you suspect human trafficking?

If you suspect someone is a victim of trafficking, the National Human Trafficking Hotline is your best resource. Call the National Human Trafficking Hotline toll-free at 1-888-373-7888: Anti-Trafficking Hotline Advocates are available 24/7 to take reports of potential human trafficking.
Text the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 233733.
Contact the National Human Trafficking Hotline via www.humantraffickinghotline.org/chat
Report missing children or child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) at 1-800-THE-LOST (843-5678) or through Cybertipline.

 Sources
By - No comments:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, May 19, 2019

13-1302. Custodial interference; child born out of wedlock; defenses; classification

13-1302. Custodial interference; child born out of wedlock; defenses; classification
A. A person commits custodial interference if, knowing or having reason to know that the person has no legal right to do so, the person does one of the following:
1. Takes, entices or keeps from lawful custody any child, or any person who is incompetent, and who is entrusted by authority of law to the custody of another person or institution.
2. Before the entry of a court order determining custodial rights, takes, entices or withholds any child from the other parent denying that parent access to any child.
3. If the person is one of two persons who have joint legal custody of a child, takes, entices or withholds from physical custody the child from the other custodian.
4. At the expiration of access rights outside this state, intentionally fails or refuses to return or impedes the return of a child to the lawful custodian.
B. If a child is born out of wedlock, the mother is the legal custodian of the child for the purposes of this section until paternity is established and custody or access is determined by a court.
C. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 if both of the following apply:
1. The defendant has begun the process to obtain an order of protection or files a petition for custody within a reasonable period of time and the order of protection or petition states the defendant's belief that the child was at risk if left with the other parent.
2. The defendant is the child's parent and has the right of custody and the defendant either:
(a) Has a good faith and reasonable belief that the taking, enticing or withholding is necessary to protect the child from immediate danger.
(b) Is a victim of domestic violence by the other parent and has a good faith and reasonable belief that the child will be in immediate danger if the child is left with the other parent.
D. Subsection A, paragraphs 2 and 3 do not apply to a person who is the child's parent if both of the following apply:
1. The person has filed an emergency petition regarding custodial rights with the superior court and has received a hearing date from the court.
2. The person has a good faith and reasonable belief that the child will be in immediate danger if the child is left with the other parent.
E. A violation of this section is:
1. A class 3 felony if committed by a person other than the parent or agent of the parent or custodian or agent of the custodian.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 3 of this subsection, a class 4 felony if the child or incompetent person is taken, enticed or kept from lawful custody out of this state by the parent or agent of the parent or custodian or the agent of the custodian.
3. A class 6 felony if committed by a parent or agent of the parent or custodian or agent of the custodian.
4. A class 1 misdemeanor if the child or incompetent person is voluntarily returned without physical injury by the parent or defendant or the agent of the parent or defendant no later than forty-eight hours after the parent or defendant takes, entices or keeps from lawful custody the child or incompetent person.
 https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01302.htm
By - No comments:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Justice For All Victims


By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, June 29, 2018

Parents Sue CPS

Hagar Cohen for Background Briefing
Posted
There are concerns some babies are taken too hastily  
Photo: There are concerns some babies are taken too hastily (Cosmin Serban, file photo: www.sxc.hu)
Figures released by the New South Wales Government show the number of babies taken from mothers by the Department of Community Services (DoCS) is on the rise.
In NSW, there has been a staggering 70 per cent rise in baby removals from maternity wards.
In 2007, 215 babies were taken by DoCS. In 2009, 363 babies were taken.
Sometimes it is justified, but there are concerns some babies are taken too hastily.
One NSW couple, Liz and Richard, had two babies removed - one aged two and one newborn. They are now suing the Department of Community Services (DoCS) for $18 million in compensation.
Back in 2008, when the babies were removed, DoCS claimed that there was an immediate risk to the safety of the babies.
The parents fought back in the courts and successfully disproved allegations about drug dependency, domestic violence and mental illness.
"Their spiel was that I had a history of mental health issues," Liz said.
"I had three psychiatric assessments done through DoCS and they all came back with a plain bill of mental health.
"That did not stop [DoCS caseworkers] from proclaiming that I had a history of mental health issues."
Justice George Palmer of the NSW Supreme Court said DoCS caseworkers had seriously abused their power. The children were returned to their parents immediately.
But the family is now suing the department for $18 million in compensation for their emotional loss and trauma.
"We never got an apology or any sort of restitution," the children's father, Richard, said.
"All they did was just return the kids and dumped a couple of suitcases of clothes on the back of my ute."
A date has been set for the first hearing.

Act amended

In 2006 the NSW Government introduced an amendment to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act.
It meant babies who have an older sibling living in out-of-home care could be taken more easily at birth.
After these changes to the legislation came about, social workers in the John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle noticed a sharp increase in the numbers of babies removed at birth.
In 2000, one baby was removed every two months. So far, in 2010, it is up to one baby a week.
"In cases where Community Services had previously removed another child in the family, under the changes to the legislation, they (DoCS) can use that evidence as prima facie in the Children's Court," said Michelle Wickham, the team leader of social workers at John Hunter Hospital.
"So instead of having to build a case with a new baby, they can rely on existing evidence from another child within the family."
Ms Wickham says this is concerning because families can change over time.
She says parents should have the opportunity to prove that their circumstances have changed and that they are able to look after their newborn.

Parents Sue CPS 
By - No comments:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, June 17, 2018

Arizona courts craft rule on when DCS can remove children from homes

A new requirement that state workers get a judge's permission before taking children away from their parents could be a landmark shift in Arizona's child-welfare system — or not, depending on how a new system is set up.
Arizona's courts, which have until next year to put that system in place, have drafted a new rule for those warrants. The draft rule spells out for the first time what a child-welfare worker would have to prove before taking away a child.
Proponents of the new requirement believe it will reduce the number of cases in which the Department of Child Safety takes a child away from his or her parents.
Others in the child-welfare field believe a new rule will have minimal impact.
That's because the legislation requiring a warrant provides an out for so-called exigent circumstances: instances where the caseworker believes the child could be harmed in the time it would take to get a court order.

The idea of requiring a warrant before removing a child became a hot topic as the number of Arizona children in state custody peaked at nearly 19,000 early last year.  Critics repeatedly noted the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bans warrantless removals, although there is an exception for emergency situations.
DCS removed 5,236 children in the six-month period that ended March 31, according to the agency's most recent report.
Now, the court system is weighing public comment on the new rule that might — or might not — throw the brakes on those removals.

How the system would work

 

Under the proposed rule, child-welfare workers who want to remove a child from a home must submit a written application to court, or make a recorded statement, under oath, seeking removal.
The application must include specific details, including:
  • The particular reason why they believe each child is "presently or imminently in danger of abuse or neglect."
  • Facts that detail the circumstances in the home that would require a removal.
  • The availability (or lack of) services that "would remove or control the danger."
  • The name and description of each child.
The rule comes at the direction of the state Legislature. A bill passed in the final hours of this year's legislative session requires the juvenile court by next year to sign off on any request from the state Department of Child Safety to take a child out of the home for alleged neglect or abuse. Those decisions have always been left to state workers.
But the law doesn't specify how the court handles that process. That's why the court has drafted the rule and put it up for public comment.
Comments are open until Oct. 27. The ultimate rule, whatever form it takes, will take effect July 1.

A good start?

DeeAn Gillespie Strub, an attorney who works with families, said she was heartened after a quick glance at the proposal.
"This is an important first step," she said.
As she reads it, Gillespie said she believes the new rule will reduce the number of child removals because it will require caseworkers to think twice about their decision and articulate it to a judge.
"If they (DCS) have to go to court, this is a speed bump that gives them a cooling-off period," she said.
REPORT: Real progress at Arizona DCS, but 'a long way to go'
Rep. Kelly Townsend pushed for the warrant language and got it added to a bill as the Legislature was drawing to a close in May. The Mesa Republican said the proposed court rule is a good start, but added it's important to have a clear definition of "exigency" and when it would be invoked.
The court noted in a background memo accompanying the proposed rule that it does not believe it has the responsibility of deciding when exigent circumstances exist. 
Which means the rule, however sweeping, might have little effect. If child-welfare workers say a case is exigent, they won't file for a warrant at all. Ultimately, a ruling on how they make that decision may have to come from the Legislature itself. 

DUI warrants as a model

The warrant process is being modeled after Maricopa County's Initial Appearance Court, where police officers can file an electronic request and a commissioner can respond quickly. It is widely used for warrants to allow DUI tests. Currently, police are getting warrants within 15 minutes, said David Byers, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
He predicted a similar process for child removals will reduce the number of times DCS decides on its own to take a child, since access won't be slowed by a drive across town or, in the case of rural Arizona, a drive of several hours. With electronic filing and 24/7 access, caseworkers could get a court decision quickly, Byers said, reducing the circumstances when a caseworker might feel it imperative to take the child for fear the child would be in danger while waiting to get to court.
MORE: A horrifying journey through Arizona foster care
Starting July 1, all requests for temporary custody orders will be run through Maricopa County, where the court will have commissioners on staff to handle calls 24/7 from caseworkers in all 15 counties. DCS says all of its field workers are now equipped with tablets so the communication can be electronic.
The court got state funding to add 1½ commissioner positions and training will begin in the spring, Byers said. In all, the program will cost $315,800 a year.
The courts and DCS prefer to call the new process a "temporary custody order," saying warrants refer to property and it's insensitive to lump children into the same category.  

Removal process already under fire

An ongoing federal lawsuit is challenging the state's practice of removing children without a court order. Attorneys in the case Pellerin vs. Wagner in July filed a petition for a preliminary injunction to stop the practice.
Ken Pellerin, whose four grandchildren are at the heart of the dispute, questions why the state is not moving immediately on the policy shift. The Fourth Amendment bars warrantless seizures, the legal argument that is key to the Pellerin claim against the state.
"What they're doing is wrong, and they know it is not right," Pellerin said of DCS. "They're ruining families."
His grandchildren, he said, will never be the same after being removed from their parents in 2013. The family is intact now, but the paranoia of being seized again haunts them, he said.
The full rule, and instructions on how to comment, are on the court's website at www.azcourts.gov/Rules-Forum/aft/748.

About this report

In 2016, when the number of children removed from their families peaked at over 18,000, the Arizona Community Foundation gave The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com a three-year grant to support in-depth research on the topic. As part of that effort, reporter Mary Jo Pitzl and our other staff experts investigate the reasons behind the surge in foster children and the systems meant to support and protect them.
Under the proposed rule, child-welfare workers who want to remove a child from a home must submit a written application to court, or make a recorded statement, under oath, seeking removal.
The application must include specific details, including:
  • The particular reason why they believe each child is "presently or imminently in danger of abuse or neglect."
  • Facts that detail the circumstances in the home that would require a removal.
  • The availability (or lack of) services that "would remove or control the danger."
  • The name and description of each child.
The rule comes at the direction of the state Legislature. A bill passed in the final hours of this year's legislative session requires the juvenile court by next year to sign off on any request from the state Department of Child Safety to take a child out of the home for alleged neglect or abuse. Those decisions have always been left to state workers.
But the law doesn't specify how the court handles that process. That's why the court has drafted the rule and put it up for public comment.
Comments are open until Oct. 27. The ultimate rule, whatever form it takes, will take effect July 1.

A good start?

DeeAn Gillespie Strub, an attorney who works with families, said she was heartened after a quick glance at the proposal.
"This is an important first step," she said.
As she reads it, Gillespie said she believes the new rule will reduce the number of child removals because it will require caseworkers to think twice about their decision and articulate it to a judge.
"If they (DCS) have to go to court, this is a speed bump that gives them a cooling-off period," she said.
REPORT: Real progress at Arizona DCS, but 'a long way to go'
Rep. Kelly Townsend pushed for the warrant language and got it added to a bill as the Legislature was drawing to a close in May. The Mesa Republican said the proposed court rule is a good start, but added it's important to have a clear definition of "exigency" and when it would be invoked.
The court noted in a background memo accompanying the proposed rule that it does not believe it has the responsibility of deciding when exigent circumstances exist. 
Which means the rule, however sweeping, might have little effect. If child-welfare workers say a case is exigent, they won't file for a warrant at all. Ultimately, a ruling on how they make that decision may have to come from the Legislature itself. 

DUI warrants as a model

The warrant process is being modeled after Maricopa County's Initial Appearance Court, where police officers can file an electronic request and a commissioner can respond quickly. It is widely used for warrants to allow DUI tests. Currently, police are getting warrants within 15 minutes, said David Byers, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
He predicted a similar process for child removals will reduce the number of times DCS decides on its own to take a child, since access won't be slowed by a drive across town or, in the case of rural Arizona, a drive of several hours. With electronic filing and 24/7 access, caseworkers could get a court decision quickly, Byers said, reducing the circumstances when a caseworker might feel it imperative to take the child for fear the child would be in danger while waiting to get to court.
MORE: A horrifying journey through Arizona foster care
Starting July 1, all requests for temporary custody orders will be run through Maricopa County, where the court will have commissioners on staff to handle calls 24/7 from caseworkers in all 15 counties. DCS says all of its field workers are now equipped with tablets so the communication can be electronic.
The court got state funding to add 1½ commissioner positions and training will begin in the spring, Byers said. In all, the program will cost $315,800 a year.
The courts and DCS prefer to call the new process a "temporary custody order," saying warrants refer to property and it's insensitive to lump children into the same category.  

Removal process already under fire

An ongoing federal lawsuit is challenging the state's practice of removing children without a court order. Attorneys in the case Pellerin vs. Wagner in July filed a petition for a preliminary injunction to stop the practice.
Ken Pellerin, whose four grandchildren are at the heart of the dispute, questions why the state is not moving immediately on the policy shift. The Fourth Amendment bars warrantless seizures, the legal argument that is key to the Pellerin claim against the state.
"What they're doing is wrong, and they know it is not right," Pellerin said of DCS. "They're ruining families."
His grandchildren, he said, will never be the same after being removed from their parents in 2013. The family is intact now, but the paranoia of being seized again haunts them, he said.
The full rule, and instructions on how to comment, are on the court's website at www.azcourts.gov/Rules-Forum/aft/748.

About this report

In 2016, when the number of children removed from their families peaked at over 18,000, the Arizona Community Foundation gave The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com a three-year grant to support in-depth research on the topic. As part of that effort, reporter Mary Jo Pitzl and our other staff experts investigate the reasons behind the surge in foster children and the systems meant to support and protect them.

 Resource

 

By - No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)