Monday, December 3, 2012

Newborn Drug Testing Guidelines

 


Guidelines for Testing and Reporting Drug
Exposed Newborns in Washington State
June 2012
Division of Prevention and Community Health
Office of Healthy Communities
DOH 950-151 June 2012
For more information or additional copies of this report contact:
Office of Healthy Communities
Access, Care and Coordination
310 Israel Road SE
PO Box 47833
Olympia, Washington 98504-7833
Phone: 360-236-3563
FAX: 360-586-7868
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Indicators for Testing ................................................................................................................................ 3
Hospital Policy .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Table 1: Newborn Risk Indicators ............................................................................................................ 4
Table 2: Maternal Risk Indicators ............................................................................................................ 4
Consent Issues for Testing ........................................................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Newborn Drug Testing ............................................................................................................... 6
Table 4: Management of a Newborn with Positive Drug Toxicology ...................................................... 6
Reporting to Children’s Administration ................................................................................................... 7
Appendix A: References and Resources .................................................................................................. 8
Appendix B: Guidelines of Obtaining Consent from Parents for Infant Drug Testing ......................... 10
Appendix C: Sample Parent Letter: Information for Parents Whose Newborn
Has Been Placed on Administrative Hold ......................................................................... 12
Appendix D: Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Scoring System ............................................................ 13
Appendix E: DSHS Children's Admistration Prenatal Substance Abuse .............................................. 14
Page 1 of 16 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document provides guidance to health care providers and affiliated professionals about maternal
drug screening, laboratory testing and reporting of drug-exposed newborns delivered in Washington
State. We created this document in response to an increasing number of requests from hospital staff
and attorneys seeking information on this complex topic. We want to promote consistent practice
among health care providers. This work is a collaborative effort between the Washington State
Department of Health and the Department of Social and Health Services.
In 2003, Congress enacted the Keeping Children and Family Safe Act which requires each state, as a
condition of receiving federal funds under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, to develop
policies and procedures “to address the needs of infants born and identified as being affected by
illegal substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure.” This law
requires health care providers who deliver or care for such infants, to notify Child Protective
Services. This differs from the existing legal duty to report suspected child abuse or neglect. The
federal law specifies that such reports of prenatal substance exposure shall not be construed to be
child abuse or neglect and shall not require prosecution of the mother.
Department of Health and Department of Social and Health Services cannot provide legal counsel on
this topic, but the following key points are included in this guidelines document:
• Each hospital with perinatal/neonatal services should develop a defined policy for identifying
intrapartum women and newborns for substance use/abuse. Hospital risk management, nursing
and social service, medical staff, and local Department of Social and Health Services Children’s
Services should be involved. The hospital policy should be written in collaboration with
local/regional Child Protective Services guidelines and include consent and reporting issues.
• Newborn testing should be performed only with evidence of newborn and/or maternal risk
indicators.
• Newborn drug testing is done for the purpose of determining appropriate medical treatment.
• No uniform policy or state law exists regarding consent for newborn drug testing.
• Hospitals are encouraged to report all positive toxicology screens (mother or infant) to Child
Protective Services. Reporting of this information, in and of itself, is not an allegation of abuse or
neglect. The healthcare team acts as advocate for mother and newborn.
• Health care providers remain mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect under state law and
are required to notify Child Protective Services when there is reasonable cause to believe a child
has been abused or neglected. The presence of other risk factors or information combined with a
positive toxicology screen may require that a report of child abuse or neglect be made to Child
Protective Services in any given case.
• All women should be informed about planned medical testing, the nature and purpose of the test,
and how results will guide care, including possible benefits and/or consequences of the test. Drug
testing is based on specific criteria and medical indicators, not open-ended criteria such as
“clinical suspicion” that invite discriminatory testing.
Page 2 of 16 2012
• If the woman refuses testing, maternal testing should not be performed. However, testing of the
newborn may still occur if medically necessary or if newborn and/or maternal risk indicators are
present. Department of Health strongly recommends that each institution develop, in
collaboration with its attorneys, justification and process for newborn testing. The justification
and process for newborn testing will be specific to the written policy of each institution.
• If there exists reasonable cause to believe leaving a newborn in the custody of the child’s parent
or parents would place the child in danger of imminent harm, a hospital may choose to place an
administrative hold on the newborn and notify Child Protective Services per Revised Code of
Washington (RCW).26.44.056. Department of Health recommends that each institution develop
in collaboration with its attorneys the justification and process for placing administrative hold on
a newborn. Child Protective Services may obtain custody of the newborn by court order or a law
enforcement transfer of protective custody and may then give permission to test the newborn in
order to safeguard the newborn’s health.
Page 3 of 16 2012
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide consistent guidance to health care professionals and
hospitals about to maternal screening* and testing** and reporting drug-exposed newborns born in
Washington State hospitals.
This document is a collaborative effort between the Department of Health and Department of Social
and Health Services, two separate agencies. The Washington State Department of Health is
responsible for preserving public health, monitoring health care costs, maintaining minimal standards
for quality health care delivery, and planning activities related to the health of Washington citizens.
The Washington State Department of Social and Health Service is the state umbrella social service
agency. Its mission is to improve the quality of life for individuals and families in need by helping
people achieve safe and self-sufficient, healthy and secure lives.
Indicators for Testing
Maternal drug testing is based on specific criteria and medical indicators, not open-ended criteria
such as “clinical suspicion” that invite discriminatory testing. Evidence-based risk indicators should
also be used as a guide for performing drug toxicologies on newborns. Due to the limited time
window for detection of drugs, difficulties in collecting specimens, as well as costs incurred for
testing, all newborns with evidence of newborn risk indicators (Table 1) and/or maternal risk
indicators (Table 2) should be tested for drug exposure, unless a different medical cause is identified.
Laboratory testing of newborns should be done for the purpose of determining appropriate medical
treatment. It is unnecessary to test a newborn whose mother has positive drug toxicology; her
newborn is presumed to be drug exposed.
Hospital Policy
Each hospital should work with risk management attorneys, nursing, social service, and medical staff
to develop a defined policy for identifying intrapartum women and newborns for substance
use/abuse. This policy should address specific evidence-based criteria for testing the woman and her
newborn, timing of tests, test types, and consent issues. The justification and process for newborn
testing will be specific to the written policy of each institution. All healthcare providers should be
informed of the policy and educated in its use. Health care professionals may need additional
education regarding how to approach and motivate women to make an informed choice regarding
testing.
For in-depth guidance for screening, identifying, and referring women for treatment please refer to
the Substance Abuse During Pregnancy: Guidelines for Screening best practice booklet located
online at: http://here.doh.wa.gov/materials/guidelines-substance-abuse-pregnancy
Another referral resource is the Pregnant Women Chemical Dependency/Abuse Resource
Guide/Matrix.
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/dbhr/PPW%20Services%20Guide%20February%202012.pdf
*Screening: methods used to identify risk of substance abuse during pregnancy and postpartum,
including self-report, interview and observation.
Page 4 of 16 2012
**Testing: process of laboratory testing to determine the presence of a substance in a specimen.
Table 1
Newborn Risk Indicators
It is not necessary to test a newborn with signs of drug withdrawal whose mother has a positive drug
test. This newborn may be presumed drug-exposed. This does not preclude doing a separate test of
the child if medically indicated.
Newborn characteristics that may be associated with maternal drug use include: (American College
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2008)
• Positive maternal toxicology screen
• Jittery with normal glucose level
• Marked irritability
• Preterm birth
• Unexplained seizures or apneic spells
• Unexplained intrauterine growth restriction
• Neurobehavioral abnormalities
• Congenital abnormalities
• Atypical vascular incidents
• Myocardial infarction
• Necrotizing enterocolitis in otherwise healthy term infants
• Signs of neonatal narcotic abstinence syndrome include: marked irritability, tremors, increased
wakefulness, hyperactive deep tendon reflexes, exaggerated Moro reflex, seizures, high pitched
cry, feeding disorders, excessive sucking, vomiting, diarrhea, rhinorrhea, diaphoresis (Hudak
2012; see Appendix A):
Note: Neonatal signs of fetal dependence may be delayed as long as 10-14 days, depending upon
the half-life of the substance in question.
Preterm infants are less likely to overtly exhibit at-risk behaviors in spite of substance exposure. In a
recent study, lower gestational age was associated with lower risk of withdrawal. The decrease in
severity of signs in the preterm infant may relate to developmental immaturity of the CNS,
differences in total drug exposure or lower fat deposits of the drug. (Hudak 2012). Immature organ
systems may also modify test results. In addition, scoring tools for withdrawal were developed in
term or late preterm infants.
Table 2
Maternal Risk Indicators
Maternal characteristics that suggest a need for biochemical testing of the newborn include:
(American College Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2008)
• No prenatal care
• Previous unexplained fetal demise
• Precipitous labor
• Abruptio placentae
• Hypertensive episodes
• Severe mood swings
• Cerebrovascular accidents
• Myocardial infarction
Page 5 of 16 2012
• Repeated spontaneous abortions
Additional characteristics that suggest methamphetamine use:
(American College Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2011)
• Gum or periodontal disease including broken teeth, severe decay, infections
• Significant weight loss, low BMI, malnutrition
• Psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety, panic, hallucinations and psychosis
• Skin conditions: abscesses, dry or itchy, acne type sores.
Consent Issues for Testing
Controversies still exist regarding the extent to which maternal consent is required prior to toxicology
testing of either the mother or the newborn. No uniform policy or state law exists regarding consent
for newborn drug testing. This is a complex issue and hospitals, with advice from their risk
management staff and legal counsel, should determine when it is necessary to obtain specific consent
to test newborns and their mothers. A positive drug test is not in itself a diagnosis, nor does
substance abuse by itself prove child neglect or inadequate parenting capacity (American College
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2005).
Refer to Substance Abuse During Pregnancy: Guidelines for Screening, for a more detailed
discussion of consent issues: http://here.doh.wa.gov/materials/guidelines-substance-abuse-pregnancy
The importance of clear and honest communication with the woman regarding drug testing cannot be
overstated. The health care team should act as advocate for mother and newborn. This relationship is
more difficult to establish if a woman is notified of testing after the fact. Therefore, all women
should be informed about planned medical testing. Explain and document the nature and purpose of
the test and how results will guide management, including possible benefits and/or consequences of
the test.
The rationale for testing and the parental discussion should be documented in the medical record. If
the woman refuses testing, this should be documented and maternal testing should not be performed.
In Ferguson v Charleston, SC, 532 US 67 (2001) the Supreme Court ruled that testing without
maternal consent for the purposes of criminal investigation violated the mother’s Fourth
Amendment rights. (Lester, 2004)
However, testing of the newborn may still occur if newborn and/or maternal risk indicators are
present. Department of Health strongly recommends that each institution develop, in collaboration
with its attorneys, justification and process for newborn testing. If there exists reasonable cause to
believe leaving a newborn in the custody of the child’s parent or parents would place the child in
danger of imminent harm, a hospital may choose to place an administrative hold on the newborn and
notify Child Protective Services per RCW.26.44.056. Department of Health recommends that each
institution develop in collaboration with its attorneys the justification and process for placing
administrative hold on a newborn. Child Protective Services may obtain custody of the newborn by
court order or a law enforcement transfer of protective custody and may then give permission to test
the newborn in order to safeguard the newborn’s health.
See Table 3 for information about newborn drug testing. The procedure for obtaining samples for
testing is institution-specific. See attached policy samples for guidance.
Page 6 of 16 2012
Comprehensive guidelines for hospital care of the drug-exposed newborn are beyond the scope of
this document. See Table 4 for basic information about newborn management.
Table 3
Newborn Drug Testing
About Newborn Urine Toxicologies:
• Correlation between maternal and newborn test results is poor, depending upon the time interval
between maternal use and birth, properties of placental transfer, and time elapsed between birth
and neonatal urine collection.
• The earliest urine of the newborn will contain the highest concentration of substances.
• Failure to catch the first urine decreases the likelihood of a positive test.
• Threshold values (the point at which a drug is reported to be present) have not been established
for the newborn.
• Fetal effects cannot be prevented by newborn testing.
• Newborn urine reflects exposure during the preceding one to three days.
• Cocaine metabolites may be present for four to five days.
• Marijuana may be detected in newborn urine for weeks, depending on maternal usage.
• Alcohol is nearly impossible to detect in newborn urine.
Other Methods of Newborn Drug Testing:
• Meconium: Meconium in term infants reflects substance exposure during the second half of
gestation; preterm infants may not be good candidates for meconium testing. The high sensitivity
of meconium analysis for opiate and cocaine and the ease of collection make this test ideal for
perinatal drug testing. Meconium analysis is most useful when the history and clinical
presentation strongly suggest neonatal withdrawal but the material urine screening is negative.
(Hudak 2012). Meconium analysis is available for mass screening with an enzyme immunoassay
kit or by radioimmunoassay. Cost of analysis per specimen approximates the cost of urine
toxicology. (J Pediatrics 2001; 138:344-8)
• Breast milk: Breast milk is not a viable alternative for drug testing.
• Hair: Hair testing has high sensitivity for detecting perinatal use of cocaine and opiate but not
for marijuana. Hair testing is restricted to a few commercial laboratories and the cost of testing is
higher than for meconium. (J Pediatrics 2001; 138:344-8) Hair has a high false positive rate
because of passive exposure to minute quantities of illicit substances in the environment.
(ACOG, 2008)
• Umbilical cord segments may be a viable testing medium in the future, but is evolving
technology at present. Recent testing of umbilical cord tissue by using drug class-specific
immunoassays was shown to be in concordance with testing of paired meconium specimens for
detection of amphetamines, opiates, cocaine and cannabinoids (Hudak, 2012). More information
is available at www.usdtl.com.
Table 4
Management of a Newborn with a Positive Drug Toxicology
• Confirm any positive test with gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy particularly if opiates are
found.
Page 7 of 16 2012
• Consider the fact that intrapartum drugs prescribed to control labor pain can be detected in
meconium.
• Notify newborn’s provider for diagnostic work-up.
• Use the Neonatal Abstinence Scoring tool to document symptoms of narcotic withdrawal. See
Appendix D for sample.
• Newborn assessment should include newborn health status, maternal drug use history and current
family situation. Document assessment of family interaction (or lack of interaction). Include
positive observations as well as areas of concern.
• Notify social worker or other designated staff member to coordinate comprehensive drug/alcohol
assessment and outside referrals, including Child Protective Services. If designated staff member
is not available, reporting to Child Protective Services is the responsibility of all health care
providers. Child Protective Services after hours, weekends and holidays intake telephone number
is: 1-800-562-5624.
Note: Child Protective Services may use a patient’s chart as documentation in court. A release
of information is not required.
Reporting to Children’s Administration
Hospitals should contact their local Department of Social and Health Services Children’s
Administration office and request an in-service on mandatory reporting and other Children’s
Protective Services processes. The hospital's risk management staff should attend the in-service.
After the in-service, parties may have a better idea of points needing clarification. Starting at the
local level is important for developing key relationships and ensuring smooth and consistent
procedures. See Page 14 for Department of Social and Health Services Children’s Administration
Prenatal Substance Abuse Policy.
The DSHS guide for reporting allegations of child abuse and neglect can be found online at
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/publications/22-163.pdf or by following this link, Mandatory Reporting.
You can find your local Children’s Administration office by entering your zip code at the following
website, http://www.dshs.wa.gov/ca/general/index.asp or by following this link, Local Children's
Administration Office locator.
Page 8 of 16 2012
Appendix A
References and Resources:
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs. 1998. Neonatal Drug Withdrawal. Pediatrics;
101:1079-1088.
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Substance Abuse. 1998. Tobacco, Alcohol and Other
Drugs: The Role of the Pediatrician in Prevention and Management of Substance Abuse. Pediatrics;
101:125-128.
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Substance Abuse. 2001. Alcohol Use and Abuse: A
Pediatric Concern. Pediatrics; 108: 185-189.
American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2002.
Guidelines for Perinatal Care, Fifth Edition. Elk Grove Village IL.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2008. At-Risk Drinking and Illicit Drug Use:
Ethical Issues in Obstetric and Gynecologic Practice, ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 422.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2011. Methamphetamine Abuse in Women of
Reproductive Age, ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 479.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion. (2012) Opioid Abuse,
Dependence, and Addiction. Number 524.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2005. Substance Use: Obstetric and
Gynecologic Implications. In Special Issues in Women’s Health. ACOG Committee on Health Care
for Underserved Women.
Creanga, AA, et. (2011). Maternal Drug Use and its Impact on Neonates: population-based study in
Washington State. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 119(5), 924-933.
Weiners and Finnegan LP (2002). Drug Withdrawal in the Neonate in Handbook of Neonatal
Intensive Care, 5th Edition. Merenstein and Gardner, eds. CV Mosby: 163-178.
Finnegan LP. 1986. Neonatal abstinence syndrome: assessment and pharmacotherapy. In: Rubaltelli
FF, Granati B, eds. Neonatal therapy: an update. New York: Excerpta Medica: 122-46.
Hudak L, Tan RC and the Committee on Drugs and the Committee on Fetus and Newborn. (2012).
Neonatal Drug Withdrawal. Pediatrics,129(2), e540-e560.
Jansson L and Velez M. (2012). Neonatal abstinence syndrome. Current Opinion Pediatrics,
24(00),1-7.
Lester BM, et al. 2004. Substance use during pregnancy: time for policy to catch up with research.
Harm Reduction Journal; http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/1/1/5.
Patrick SW, Schumacher RE, Benneyworth BD, Krans EE, Mcallister JM, Davis MM. (2012).
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome and Associated health Care Expenditures United States, 2000-2009.
Journal of American Medical Association, published online April 30, 2012.
Page 9 of 16 2012
Ostrea EM, et al., 2001. Estimates of illicit drug use during pregnancy by maternal interview, hair
analysis, and meconium analysis. Journal of Pediatrics; 138:344-8.
Washington State Department of Health. 2009. Substance Abuse During Pregnancy: Guidelines for
Screening;
Additional Resources
To order or download “The Parent’s Guide to CPS” (mentioned in letter on Page 11):
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/ca/pubs/pubcats.asp?cat=Child_Abuse_and_Neglect
Swedish Medical Center, Seattle: Center for Perinatal and Pediatric Excellence (Phone: 206-215-
2073)
Washington State Department of Health, Maternal and Infant Health Program (Phone: 360-236-
3563)
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Children’s Administration website –
video and materials for mandatory reporters: http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/ca/general/index.asp
Child Protective Services after hours, weekends and holidays intake phone number: 1-800-562-5624.
Washington State Hospital Association (Phone: 206-216-2531)
Page 10 of 16 2012
Appendix B
Guidelines for Obtaining Consent from Parents
For Infant Drug Testing
Set the Scene
The healthcare provider’s attitudes and feelings about maternal substance use, as well as the
environment in which this discussion takes place, often influences the success or failure of obtaining
parental consent for infant drug testing. Often, the way the subject is approached will be the major
determinant in obtaining consent.
• Be aware of your own beliefs and values that may interfere with your ability to remain neutral
and non-judgmental.
• Assess the environment for privacy and when possible, discuss the issue in a non-emergent
setting.
• Attend to your non-verbal behavior including body stance, facial expression, eye contact, muscle
tension, and arm and hand positioning.
Introduce the Topic
• Begin with open ended questions. Ask the mother how she is doing and what she needs.
• Reflect back to the mother what she has just stated and respond to any questions.
• Inform the mother that there is another topic you need to discuss.
• Give reasons / describe in a non-judgmental manner why you want to test her infant for evidence
of maternal drug use during pregnancy (see script below).
• If the testing is requested by Child Protective Services, inform the mother of this and bring the
focus back to the health of the mother and infant.
• Ask if she has any questions; if yes, answer them to the best of your ability.
• Ask permission for consent: “Do we have your permission to test the baby?” If yes, thank the
mother for her cooperation and reinforce that she is working in the best interest of her child.
• Review what the testing process involves for the baby.
If the Parent is Angry, Resistant, Agitated and/or Defensive:
• Determine if the parent is intoxicated or has mental health issues that will interfere with her
ability to comprehend.
• Stay calm.
• Do all of the steps described above: bring the focus back to the health of the infant; re-explain
that her cooperation with this step shows that she is interested in the health of her baby.
• Allow more time for the parent to talk about what is happening and her concerns. Reassure as
appropriate.
• Be matter of fact about the issue while remaining supportive and non-judgmental.
• Refer to your agency’s policies regarding drug testing and Child Protective Services protocols.
Page 11 of 16 2012
Sample Scenario:
Hello Mary, how are you doing today? Do you have any questions or concerns you’d like to talk
about?
(Patient responds and her questions concerns are addressed).
Those are good questions, Mary. Now, I have something else to discuss with you that will help us
provide the best care for your baby. This may be uncomfortable to discuss but it is very important.
(Give patient time to respond).
There is some concern about your drug use during this pregnancy and the impact it has had or may
have on your baby. I know you want the best for your baby and wouldn’t purposefully do anything
to hurt her. When a woman uses drugs when she is pregnant or breastfeeding, there is a risk to the
baby’s health. We would like to get your permission to test your baby for drugs so we can give her
the best medical care. Will you sign a consent form to test your baby?
If parent responds “Yes”: I know this is scary but it’s the best decision for your baby. Here is the
consent form. Is there anything you’d like me to know or do you have any questions?
(Patient Response)
Okay, do you want to hear how this done and what you may be asked to do?
If parent responds “No”: (Use the same steps as above until the patient refuses.)
I can’t imagine how scary this sounds to you and I hope we can come to an agreement about you
consenting but if we can’t I am still required to do what I think is needed to make sure your baby is
given appropriate medical care. Can we talk about this more?
(Client nonresponsive or says “No.”)
This facility and I are required to notify Child Protective Services when there is concern about the
effect a parent’s drug use has on the health of an infant. What happens now is staff here will contact
Child Protective Services to let them know the situation. Your baby may then be placed on an
administrative hold. When Child Protective Services gains custody, Child Protective Services can
then give permission to test the baby. It would be great if we get consent and test now and begin any
treatment your baby may need. What do you think?
(If the patient still refuses, follow the agency protocols and do what is necessary to keep the baby in
the hospital and complete the testing after Child Protective Services has approved).
“OK, I hear you saying no to drug testing for your baby. I’ll let the staff here know of that decision
and we’ll take it from here. It’s important for you to know that your baby may still get tested for
drugs. We would do that to protect your baby’s health. We’ll keep you informed about what will
happen next.”
Page 12 of 16 2012
Appendix C
Sample Parent Letter:
Information for parents of newborn placed on administrative hold
Hospital Letterhead
Dear Parent:
This letter tells about what is happening to you and your newborn. People who care for you and your
baby have concerns about your drug and/or alcohol use and the impact it has on your baby. For this
reason, your newborn has been placed on an administrative hold at the hospital. This means that you
may not leave the hospital with your baby at this time.
The enclosed purple booklet “Parent’s Guide to Child Protective Services (CPS)” provides some
important information that will help you through this time. Please take a few minutes to read it. You
may ask your questions to the person from CPS who will come and speak with you at the hospital, or
at your house if you have already left the hospital.
Each person’s situation is different, and the social worker from CPS will explain what will happen
next. This social worker will talk with you and develop a plan for keeping your newborn safe. This
person will give you information about services for you and your new baby. This may include dates
and times of appointments or meetings that you need to attend.
We know this is a difficult time. Your nurses and hospital social worker want to help you in your
efforts to ensure the health and safety of your baby. Please ask questions and let your nurses and
social worker know your thoughts and feelings.
We believe the best place for a new baby is with the family. We hope you will work with CPS to
make a safe and healthy home for your new baby.
Sincerely,
XXXXX
Enclosure
Page 13 of 16 2012
Appendix D
Neonatal Abstinence Scoring System
Morphine Sulfate Dose
System Signs and Symptoms
Date/Time
Score
Central
Nervous
System
Disturbance
Crying: Excessive high pitched
Crying: continuous high pitched
2
3
Sleeps < 1 hour
Sleeps < 2 hours after feeding
Sleeps < 3 hours after feeding
3
2
1
Hyperactive Moro reflex
Markedly hyperactive Moro reflex
2
3
Mild tremors: Undisturbed
Moderate-severe tremors:
Undisturbed
3
4
Mild tremors: Disturbed
Moderate-severe tremors:
Disturbed
1
2
Increased muscle tone 2
Excoriation (specify area) 1
Myoclonic Jerks 3
Generalized convulsions 5
Metabolic,
Vasomotor,
and
Respiratory
Disturbances
Sweating 1
Fever 37.2-38.3OC ( 99-101 F)
Fever > 101 F (>38.4OC)
1
2
Frequent yawning (>3)* 1
Mottling 1
Nasal Stuffiness 1
Sneezing (>3) * 1
Nasal flaring 2
Respiratory rate (>60/min.)
Respiratory rate (>60/min. with
retractions)
1
2
Gastro-
Intestinal
Disturbances
Excessive sucking 1
Poor feeding 2
Regurgitation+
Projectile vomiting+
2
3
Loose stools
Watery stools
2
3
Total Score
Initials of Scorer
*As they have occurred in the entire scoring period (i.e., within the previous 2 or 4 hours, whatever the scoring interval).
+ More than or equal to 2 times during or after feeding.
Adapted from Finnegan, L.P. 1986. Neonatal abstinence syndrome: assessment and pharmacotherapy. In F.F.,
Rubatelli and B. Granadi (ed.) Neonatal therapy: an update. Exerpta Medica, NY.
Page 14 of 16 2012
Appendix E
Children’s Administration
Prenatal Substance Abuse Policy
The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) as amended by the Keeping
Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 requires health care providers to notify Child Protection
Services (CPS) of cases of newborns identified as being AFFECTED by illegal substance abuse or
withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure.
Washington State statute does not authorize Children's Administration (CA) to accept referrals for
CPS investigation or initiate court action on an unborn child.
In Washington State, health care providers are mandated reporters and required to notify CPS when
there is reasonable cause to believe a child has been abused or neglected. If a newborn has been
identified as substance exposed or affected, this may indicate child abuse/neglect and should be
reported. It is critical that mandated reporters provide as much information regarding concerning
issues/behaviors, risk factors or positive supports that were observed during the interaction with the
family.
HOW DO I MAKE A REPORT?
Children’s Administration offices within local communities are responsible for receiving and
investigating reports of suspected child abuse and neglect. Reports are received by CPS Intake
staff either by phone, mail or in person and are assessed to determine if the report meets the legal
definition of abuse or neglect and how dangerous the situation is.
Children’s Administration offers several ways to report abuse:
Daytime: Contact local Children’s Administration CPS office. A local CPS office can be located
on the following link:
https://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/f2ws03apps/caofficespub/offices/general/OfficePick.asp
Nights and Weekends: Call the Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline at 1-866-ENDHARM
(1-866-363-4276), which is Washington State’s toll-free, 24 hour, 7 day-a-week hotline where you
can report suspected child abuse or neglect.
Additional information about reporting abuse and neglect of children can be located at:
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/ca/safety/abuseReport.asp?2
AS A MANDATED REPORTER WHAT INFORMATION WILL I BE ASKED TO PROVIDE?
Mandated reporters will be asked to provide as much of the following information as they are able:
1. The name, address and age of the child and parent(s) stepparents, guardians, or other persons
having custody of the child.
2. The nature and extent of alleged
• Injury or injuries
• Neglect
• Sexual Abuse
3. Any evidence of previous injuries.
Page 15 of 16 2012
4. Any other information that may be helpful in establishing the cause of the child’s death, injury, or
injuries and the identity of the alleged perpetrator(s).
It is important to provide as much information about why you have reasonable cause to believe there
is child abuse or neglect. This information will assist DSHS at intake or during the course of a CPS
investigation if the case screens in. Examples include:
• Issues, i.e., substance use, mental health that may impact a child’s safety.
• Parents’ resources and strengths that can help the parents’ care for and protect the children.
• Parents’ response to interventions, etc.
• Names of family members.
• Whether the child may be of Indian ancestry for Indian Child Welfare planning, if applicable.
• Parent(s) attitude about their newborn.
• Did the mother participate in prenatal care.
• Extended family and family strengths which can help the parent(s) to care for and protect
children and their family.
• Parent(s) resources and family strengths.
• Rational for toxicology testing.
If you are in doubt about what should be reported, it is better to make your concerns known and
discuss the situation with your local CPS office or Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline.
If a crime has been committed law enforcement must be notified. The name of the person making
the report is not a requirement of the law, however, mandated reporters must provide their name in
order to satisfy their mandatory reporting requirement.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER A REPORT IS MADE?
When a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is made, CA intake staff determines whether the
situation described meets the legal definition of child abuse or neglect. In order for CPS to intervene
in a family the report must meet the legal definition of child abuse or neglect or there is a safety
threat(s) to the child.
Referrals which are determined to contain sufficient information may be assigned for investigation or
other community response.
CPS investigations include the following:
• Determining the nature and extent of abuse and neglect.
• Evaluating the child’s condition, including danger to the child, the need for medical attention,
etc.
• Identifying the problems leading to or contributing to abuse or neglect.
• Evaluating parental or caretaker responses to the identified problems and the condition of the
child and willingness to cooperate to protect the child.
• Taking appropriate action to protect the child.
• Assessing factors which greatly increase the likelihood of future abuse or neglect and the
family strengths which serve to protect the child.
If a child is of Indian ancestry social services staff must follow requirements of the Federal Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA), state laws, and the RCW.
Page 16 of 16 2012
WHAT SERVICES MAY BE PROVIDED?
Protective services are provided to abused/neglected children and their families without cost. Other
rehabilitative services for prevention and treatment of child abuse are provided by the Department of
Social and Health Services and other community resources (there may be a charge for these
services) to children and the families, such as:
• Home support specialist services
• Day care
• Foster family care
• Financial and employment assistance
• Parent aides
• Mental health services such as counseling of parents, children and families
• Psychological and psychiatric services
• Parenting and child management classes
• Self-help groups
• Family preservation services
WHAT HAPPENS IF A REPORT DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF CHILD ABUSE OR
NEGLECT?
When CA receives information that does not meet the definition of child abuse or neglect and CA
does not have the authority to investigate, intake staff documents this information in the systems
database as an “Information Only” referral.
When CA receives information about a pregnant woman who is not parenting other children and is
allegedly abusing substances, intake staff documents this information and available information
about risk and protective factors in an “Information Only” referral. This referral is then forwarded to
First Steps Services.
When CA receives information about a substance exposed but not substance-affected newborn,
intake will ask about available information, including information about safety threats and protective
factors to determine if there is an allegation of child abuse or neglect or safety threat(s). If there are
no allegations of child abuse or neglect or safety threats, CA does not have the authority to conduct
a CPS investigation and the referral is documented as “Information Only.” If a decision is made not
to respond, and you disagree, you may discuss your concerns with the Intake Supervisor. When a
case is not appropriate for CPS, you may consult with the local Children’s Administration office for
suggestions or guidance in dealing with the family.
____________________________________________
CA Practices and Procedures – Prenatal Substance Abuse Policy -- Definitions
A Substance-Exposed Newborn is one who tests positive for substance(s) at birth, or the mother tests positive for
substance(s) at the time of delivery or the newborn is identified by a medical practitioner as having been prenatally
exposed to substance(s).
A Substance-Affected Newborn is one who has withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal substance exposure and/or
demonstrates physical or behavioral signs that CAN BE attributed to prenatal exposure to substances and is identified by a
medical practitioner as affected.
DOH 950-151 June 2012
For people with disabilities, this document is available on request in other formats.
To submit a request, please call 1-800-525-0127 (TDD/TTY call 711).

Texas Administrative Code

Texas Administrative Code

Next Rule>>

TITLE 40
SOCIAL SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE

PART 19
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

CHAPTER 745
LICENSING

SUBCHAPTER H
RESIDENTIAL CHILD-CARE: DRUG TESTING AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMISSIONS

DIVISION 1
DRUG TESTING

RULE §745.4151
What drug testing policy must my residential child-care operation have?


(a) The Department of Family and Protective Services is required to adopt a model drug testing policy for residential child-care operations under the Human Resources Code, 42.057. Your residential child-care operation must either adopt the model drug testing policy or have a written drug testing policy that meets or exceeds the criteria in the model policy. Although this policy only covers drugs, coverage of alcohol may be included. The department recommends that an operation obtain legal advice before adopting and implementing any drug testing policy.

(b) Residential child-care operations must pay for any required drug tests, except as provided in subsection (c)(7) of this section.

(c) The mandatory criteria for the Model Drug Testing Policy For Residential Child-Care Operations include:

(1) Purpose. (Name of residential child-care operation) has a vital interest in ensuring the safety of resident children through the appropriate drug testing of employees, while also protecting the rights of the employees.

(2) Scope. This policy applies to all employees of residential child-care operations, including child-placing agencies, that directly care for or has access to a child in care, and applicants for such employment. With respect to allegations of drug abuse (See paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection), this policy applies to any person who works under the auspices of a residential child-care operation and directly cares for or has access to a child in care.

(3) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section.

(A) Abusing drugs--The use of any:

(i) Drug or substance defined by the Texas Controlled Substances Act, Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 481; or

(ii) Prescription or non-prescription drug that is not being used for the purpose for which it was prescribed or manufactured.

(B) Drug testing--The scientific analysis of urine, blood, breath, saliva, hair, tissue, and other specimens for detecting a drug.

(C) Employee--A person is an employee of your operation if you pay the person a wage or salary and direct or have the right to direct his work. For the purposes of this definition:

(i) Directing a person's work includes having control over when, where, and how the person conducts his work and providing the person with training that is necessary for the person to conduct his work;

(ii) Controlling when a person works includes setting the person's work hours;

(iii) Controlling how a person works includes assigning the person the task(s) that he must accomplish and exercising responsibility for the means and details by which the person accomplishes the task(s); and

(iv) A person is not an "employee" of a child-placing agency merely because the agency verifies him as a foster parent.

(D) Random drug testing--A testing cycle that varies the frequency and intervals that specimens are collected for testing and selects employees in a random manner that does not eliminate already tested employees from future testing. The testing should ensure all employees are subject to random testing on a continuing basis.

(E) Good cause to believe the person may be abusing drugs--A reasonable belief based on facts sufficient to lead a prudent person to conclude that the person who works under the auspices of the residential child-care operation may be abusing drugs. Sufficient facts may include direct observations of the person using or possessing drugs, or exhibiting physical symptoms, including but not limited to slurred speech or difficulty in maintaining balance; erratic or marked changes in behavior, including a decrease in the quality or quantity of the person's productivity, judgment, reasoning, and concentration and psychomotor control, accidents, and deviations from safe working practices; or any other reliable information.

(F) Person who works under the auspices of the residential child-care operation--A person who meets the definition in §745.8553 of this title (relating to Who works "under the auspices of an operation"?).

(4) Mandatory drug testing.

(A) All applicants that are intended to be hired for employment are subject to pre-employment testing, and may not provide direct care or have access to a child in care until the drug test results are available;

(B) All employees are subject to random, unannounced drug testing;

(C) Any employee that is the subject of a child abuse or neglect investigation, when DFPS determines there is "good cause to believe the employee may be abusing drugs", must be drug tested within 24 hours of notification by DFPS to the residential child-care operation; and

(D) Any person alleged to be abusing drugs may be tested within 24 hours, if the person:

(i) Works under the auspices of the residential child-care operation;

(ii) Directly cares for or has access to a child in care; and

(iii) There is "good cause to believe the person may be abusing drugs."

(5) Drug testing procedures. All drug testing will:

(A) At a minimum screen for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine (PCP);

(B) Use one of the following drug-testing methods:

(i) A drug test performed by a certified laboratory;

(ii) A testing kit with proven rates of false positives below 2% and false negatives below 8% on all drugs screened; or

(iii) Another testing method for which there is scientific proof of accuracy comparable to either of the first two choices, such as saliva, hair, or spray drug testing;

(C) Ensure the integrity and identity of the specimen collected from the time of collection to the time of disposal to minimize the opportunity for an employee to adulterate or substitute a specimen; and

(D) Preserve the privacy and rights of the person tested. This includes safeguarding the results of any test and maintaining them, so they remain confidential and free from unauthorized access.

(6) Discipline.

(A) An applicant or employee's consent to submit to drug testing is required as a condition of employment, and the refusal to consent may result in refusal to hire the applicant and disciplinary action, including discharge, against the employee for a refusal;

(B) An employee who is tested because there is "good cause to believe the employee may be abusing drugs," may be suspended pending receipt of written test results and further inquiries that may be required;

(C) An employee determined through drug testing to have abused drugs is subject to discipline, up to and including discharge;

(D) An applicant for employment or an employee determined through drug testing to have abused drugs may not be employed in a position with direct contact with children in care if the employee presents a risk of harm to children; and

(E) An employee determined through drug testing to have abused drugs may be offered the opportunity to complete a rehabilitation program at the employee's expense.

(7) Appeal. An applicant or employee whose drug test is positive may, at the applicant or employee's expense:

(A) Have an opportunity to explain and offer written documentation why there is another cause for the positive drug test;

(B) Request that the remaining portion of the sample that yielded the positive results, if available, be submitted for an additional independent test, including second tests to rule out false positive results; and/or

(C) Submit the written test result for an independent medical review.

(8) Documentation.

(A) All applicants that you intend to hire for employment and employees must be provided a copy of your drug testing policy and must sign a document consenting to these terms and conditions of employment.

(B) All drug test results of employees will be kept for one year after an employee's last work day with the residential child-care operation, or until any investigation involving the person is resolved, whichever is later. All other drug test results required by this rule will be kept for one year from the date the drug test was administered. The results must be available for review by Licensing Division within 24 hours of the request.


Source Note: The provisions of this §745.4151 adopted to be effective December 1, 2005, 30 TexReg 7493; amended to be effective January 1, 2007, 31 TexReg 9342

Program helps CPS Parents Struggling With Drugs

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/07/10/20120710arizona-cps-parents-drugs.html

Sunday, December 2, 2012

CPS Procedure For Misc. States

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zdWRXNWFlY3BnWlU

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zOTRJUzVqZ2RMZ2c

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zcUdBVkZha1VCcEU

 

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zYVpxbDMxSGliSFU

 

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B37v-WQcjS2zUldodzl2Q2ZRSWs/edit

Child Protection Services Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protective_Services

 

Child Protective Services (CPS) is the name of a governmental agency in many states of the United States that responds to reports of child abuse or neglect. Some states use other names, often attempting to reflect more family-centered (as opposed to child-centered) practices, such as "Department of Children & Family Services" (DCFS). CPS is also known by the name of "Department of Social Services" (DSS) or simply "Social Services."

 

Laws and standards

Federal

U.S. federal laws that govern CPS agencies include:

History

In 1655, in what is now the United States, there were criminal court cases involving child abuse.[1] In 1692, states and municipalities identified care for abused and neglected children as the responsibility of local government and private institutions.[2] In 1696, The Kingdom of England first used the legal principle of parens patriae, which gave the royal crown care of "charities, infants, idiots, and lunatics returned to the chancery." This principal of parens patriae has been identified as the statutory basis for U.S. governmental intervention in families' child rearing practices.[3]

In 1825, states enacted laws giving social-welfare agencies the right to remove neglected children from their parents and from the streets. These children were placed in almshouses, in orphanages and with other families. In 1835, the Humane Society founded the National Federation of Child Rescue agencies to investigate child maltreatment. In the late-19th century, private child protection agencies – modeled after existing animal protection organizations – developed to investigate reports of child maltreatment, present cases in court and advocate for child welfare legislation.[4]

In 1912, the federal Children's Bureau was established to manage federal child welfare efforts, including services related to child maltreatment. In 1958, amendments to the Social Security Act mandated that states fund child protection efforts.[5] In 1962, professional and media interest in child maltreatment was sparked by the publication of C. Henry Kempe and associates' "The battered child syndrome" in JAMA. By the mid-1960s, in response to public concern that resulted from this article, 49 U.S. states passed child-abuse reporting laws.[6] In 1974, these efforts by the states culminated in the passage of the federal "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act" (CAPTA; Public Law 93-247) providing federal funding for wide-ranging federal and state child-maltreatment research and services.[7] In 1980, Congress passed the first comprehensive federal child protective services act, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-272), which focused on state economic incentives to substantially decrease the length and number of foster care placements.[8]

Partly funded by the federal government, Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies were first established in response to the 1974 CAPTA which mandated that all states establish procedures to investigate suspected incidents of child maltreatment.[9]

Standards for Reporting

Generally speaking, a report must be made when an individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe or suspect that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect. These standards guide mandatory reporters in deciding whether to make a report to child protective services.[10]

Persons Responsible for the Child

In addition to defining acts or omissions that constitute child abuse or neglect, several states' statutes provide specific definitions of persons who can get reported to child protective services as perpetrators of abuse or neglect. These are persons who have some relationship or regular responsibility for the child. This generally includes parents, guardians, foster parents, relatives, or legal guardians. Once taken away from home, the stated goal of CPS is to reunite the child with their family. In some cases, due to the nature of abuse children are not able to see or converse with the abusers. If parents fail to complete Court Ordered terms and conditions, the children in care may never return home.[10]

Child Protective Services Statistics

On September 30, 2010, there were approximately 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S. of which 36% percent were ages 5 and under. During that same period, almost 120,000 birth to five year-olds entered foster care and a little under 100,000 exited foster care.[11] U.S. Child Protective Services (CPS) received a little over 2.5 million reports of child maltreatment in 2009 of which 61.9% were assigned to an investigation.[12] Research using national data on recidivism indicates that 22% of children were rereported within a 2-year period and that 7% of these rereports were substantiated.[13]

Child Protective Services Recidivism in the United States

In order to understand CPS recidivism in the U.S., there are several terms that readers must familiarize themselves with. Two often-used terms in CPS recidivism are rereport (also known as rereferral) and recurrence. Either of the two can occur after an initial report of child abuse or neglect called an index report. Although the definition of rereport and recurrence is not consistent, the general difference is that a rereport is a subsequent report of child abuse or neglect after an initial report (also known as an index report) whereas recurrence refers to a confirmed (also known as substantiated) rereport after an initial report of child abuse and neglect. Borrowing from the definition used by Pecora et al. (2000),[14] recidivism is defined as, “Recurring child abuse and neglect, the subsequent or repeated maltreatment of a child after identification to public authorities.” It is important to highlight that this definition is not all-inclusive because it does not include abused children who are not reported to authorities.[14]

Recidivism Statistics

There are three main sources of recidivism data in the U.S.—the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), and the National Incidence Study (NIS)—and they all have their own respective strengths and weaknesses. NCANDS was established in 1974, and it consists of administrative data of all reports of suspected child abuse and neglect investigated by CPS. NSCAW was established in 1996 and is similar to NCANDS in that it only includes reports of child abuse and neglect investigated by CPS, but it adds clinical measures related to child and family well-being that NCANDS is lacking. NIS was established in 1974, and it consists of data collected from CPS as well. However, it attempts to gather a more comprehensive picture of the incidence of child abuse and neglect by collecting data from other reporting sources called community sentinels.[15]

Criticism

Brenda Scott, in her 1994 book Out of Control: Who's Watching Our Child Protection Agencies, criticizes CPS, stating, "Child Protective Services is out of control. The system, as it operates today, should be scrapped. If children are to be protected in their homes and in the system, radical new guidelines must be adopted. At the core of the problem is the antifamily mindset of CPS. Removal is the first resort, not the last. With insufficient checks and balances, the system that was designed to protect children has become the greatest perpetrator of harm."[16]

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had itself been an object of reports of unusual numbers of poisonings, death, rapes and pregnancies of children under its care since 2004. The Texas Family and Protective Services Crisis Management Team was created by executive order after the critical report Forgotten Children of 2004.

Texas Child Protective Services was hit with a rare if not unprecedented legal sanction for a "groundless cause of action" and ordered to pay $32,000 of the Spring family's attorney fees. Judge Schneider wrote in a 13-page order, "The offensive conduct by (CPS) has significantly interfered with the legitimate exercise of the traditional core functions of this court."[17]

Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer published a report "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services" making many claims against CPS including:[18]

  • Unfair judgement of families, especially those most unable to defend themselves. Without compassion, unreasonable and impossible demands that separate families and cause stress are made of parents.
  • Local governments accustomed to resulting flow of taxpayer dollars to balance growing budgets routinely ignore charges against Child Protective Services. Funding continues as long as children are out of their home, adoption bonuses are also available, but no incentive remains to return children home.
  • On top of $4000–$6000 per child is a multiplying factor based on the percentage that a state exceeds its baseline adoption goal.
  • Bonuses and incentives cause employees to work diligently to exploit children for government money while parents are charged for the cost of their care. Fraud, fabrication, withholding, and destroying of evidence, unnecessary termination of parental rights, and double dipping are common while confidentiality clause is used to protect the beneficiaries.
  • Beneficiaries include state employees, lawyers, court investigators, guardian ad litems, court personnel, judges, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and others. Incentives to put children on more drugs per day involve additional funds and Medicaid.
  • Parents are sometimes pressured by CPS agents to divorce their spouse in order to see their children again. Parental cooperation is often interpreted as guilt, and parents separated from their children are treated as criminals often without access to visit or even see their children.
  • Child protective services is a wasteful bureaucracy with no clear leader and unclear policies. State legislators are generally powerless to correct the federally mandated system.
  • Tragedies happen where children die in CPS custody due to neglect or abuse while parents are trying hard to regain custody of their children. Such tragedies should never happen.
  • While CPS claims relatives are contacted, there are very many cases that proves false, where grandparents and other relatives attempt to get custody and are denied. Parents and grandparents lose all connections to their heirs while children lose their heritage.
  • The California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003 reported that 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes neither belong there nor should have been removed from their own homes.
  • Children are in far greater danger in CPS custody today than in imperfect homes. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect reported in 1998 that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public. Children removed to official “safety” are far more likely to suffer sexual molestation and other abuse than in the general population.
Constitutional issues

In May 2007, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, No. 05-16071[19] that a CPS social worker who removed children from their natural parents into foster care without obtaining judicial authorization was acting without due process and without exigency (emergency conditions) violated the 14th Amendment and Title 42 United State Code Section 1983. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that a state may not make a law that abridges "... the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Title 42 United States Code Section 1983[20] states that citizens can sue in federal courts any person who acting under a color of law to deprive the citizens of their civil rights under the pretext of a regulation of a state, See.[21]

In case of Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745, Supreme Court reviewed a case when Department of Social Services removed two younger children from their natural parents only because the parents had been previously found negligent toward their oldest daughter.[22] When the third child was only three days old, DSS transferred him to a foster home on the ground that immediate removal was necessary to avoid imminent danger to his life or health. The Supreme Court vacated previous judgment and stated: "Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. But until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship".[22]

A District of Columbia Court of Appeals concluded that the lower trial court erred in rejecting the relative custodial arrangement selected by the natural mother who tried to preserve her relationship with the child.[23] The previous judgment granting the foster mother's adoption petition was reversed, the case remanded to the trial court to vacate the orders granting adoption and denying custody, and to enter an order granting custody to the child's relative.[23]

Notable lawsuits

In 2010 an ex-foster child was awarded $30 million by jury trial in California (Santa Clara County) for sexual abuse damages that happened to him in foster home from 1995 to 1999.[24][25] The foster parent, John Jackson, was licensed by state despite the fact that he abused his own wife and son, overdosed on drugs and was arrested for drunken driving. In 2006, Jackson was convicted in Santa Clara County of nine counts of lewd or lascivious acts on a child by force, violence, duress, menace and fear and seven counts of lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14, according to the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office.[24] The sex acts he forced the children in his foster care to perform sent him to prison for 220 years. Later in 2010, Giarretto Institute, the private foster family agency responsible for licensing and monitoring Jackson's foster home and others, also was found to be negligent and liable for 75 percent of the abuse that was inflicted on the victim, and Jackson was liable for the rest.[24]

In 2009 Oregon Department of Human Services has agreed to pay $2 million into a fund for the future care of twins who were allegedly abused by their foster parents; it was the largest such settlement in the agency's history.[26] According to the civil rights suit filed on request of twins' adoptive mother in December 2007 in U.S. Federal Court, kids were kept in makeshift cages—cribs covered with chicken wire secured by duct tape—in a darkened bedroom known as "the dungeon." The brother and sister often went without food, water or human touch. The boy, who had a shunt put into his head at birth to drain fluid, didn't receive medical attention, so when police rescued the twins he was nearly comatose. The same foster family previously took in their care hundreds of other children over nearly four decades.[27] DHS said the foster parents deceived child welfare workers during the checkup visits.[26]

Several lawsuits were brought in 2008 against the Florida Department of Children & Families (DCF), accusing it of mishandling reports that Thomas Ferrara, 79, a foster parent, was molesting girls.[28][29] The suits claimed that though there were records of sexual misconduct allegations against Ferrara in 1992, 1996, and 1999, the DCF continued to place foster children with Ferrara and his then-wife until 2000.[28] Ferrara was arrested in 2001 after a 9-year-old girl told detectives he regularly molested her over two years and threatened to hurt her mother if she told anyone. Records show that Ferrara had as many as 400 children go through his home during his 16 years as a licensed foster parent from 1984 to 2000.[28] Officials stated that the lawsuits over Ferrara end up costing the DCF almost $2.26 million.[29] Similarly, in 2007 Florida's DCF paid $1.2 million to settle a lawsuit that alleged DCF ignored complaints that another mentally challenged Immokalee girl was being raped by her foster father, Bonifacio Velazquez, until the 15-year-old gave birth to a child.[30][31][32]

In a class action lawsuit Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey[33] was filed in federal court by "Children’s Rights" New York organization on behalf of children in the custody of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS).[34][35] The complaint alleged violations of the children's constitutional rights and their rights under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment, 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA).[36] In July 2002, the federal court granted plaintiffs’ experts access to 500 children’s case files, allowing plaintiffs to collect information concerning harm to children in foster care through a case record review.[34] These files revealed numerous cases in which foster children were abused, and DYFS failed to take proper action. On June 9, 2004, the child welfare panel appointed by the parties approved the NJ State’s Reform Plan. The court accepted the plan on June 17, 2004.[35] The same organization filed similar lawsuits against other states in recent years that caused some of the states to start child welfare reforms.[37]

In 2007 Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick obtained a jury verdict against Orange County (California) and two of its social workers for violating her Fourteenth Amendment rights to familial association.[38] The $4.9 million verdict grew to a $9.5 million judgment as the County lost each of its successive appeals.[38] The case finally ended in 2011 when the United States Supreme Court denied Orange County's request to overturn the verdict.[3

CPS Policy Information- Their actually procedures and guidelines

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zWnl0QmtQWkJ1bGM

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zSUh2YmRvYVloR28

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zb1JJeW9FbkFlaFE

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zSUh2YmRvYVloR28

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zRWl5NXJrNElSUUE

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zdXV6Z3Y5UWVxQXc

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zNjlha3NSd1BtcjA

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B37v-WQcjS2zWXFGcFJaTmZPNnc

Bath Salts Danger

Sheriff Warns of Bath Salts Danger

Sheriff Wendell Hall and local health officials would like the public to be aware of a growing danger in the area. The danger comes from chemicals being marketed as innocent sounding bath salts that are being used as a dangerous new drug. These bath salts are a legal product sold on the internet, on the street, and even in local gas stations. They are also being marketed as "plant food" and "insect" repellent and often labeled as "bath salt." (Please note that the Florida Legislatures have outlawed the drug for ninety days) The problem arises when people snort or even inject the chemical to get a high. This problem is hard hitting in Louisiana where the poison center is now getting four or five calls a day about the drug. Law enforcement has reported that they've already had a number of violent encounters with people who were high on the drug. Louisiana has more reported cases than any other state to date. Eighty-four people across the region have been treated in hospitals. According to "In the Know", Education Specialty Publishing, LLC (2010) of Metairie, LA this "synthetic cocaine is a growing problem throughout the western world. First identified in the U.K., retail marketed cocaine substitutes are creating problems for people looking to get high and escape detection. Sold as bath salts in psychedelic packets through online and real-world head shops, fake cocaine is a combination of chemicals that are, according to some researchers and many recreational drug abusers, actually more dangerous than the real thing. The active chemical in most of the American synthetic cocaine is MDPV, short for 1-(4-Methylphenyl)-2-pyrrolidin-1-yl-pentan-1-one. MDPV is illegal in a number of states, and that number is growing. Even in the states where it is not yet illegal, buying and selling a fake version of a real drug is against the law and carries the same penalties as buying and selling the real thing. As with many widely available substitute highs, MDPV is a research chemical. That means that scientists are still testing its effects. Because of the risks, these test are usually performed on pig or rats and other rodents. These animals often die. MDPV is a powerful stimulant, in slang an upper. It makes everything in your body work faster than it is supposed to. MDPV is just one of the ingredients in these so-called bath salts and it is considered many times more powerful than cocaine. The negative symptoms of MDPV use can be brief or long-lasting but they are always severe. Because they're sold as bath salts and labeled not for human consumption, cocaine substitutes aren't required to list their ingredients. An independent study discovered that 18 different brands were using a host of illegal substances and research chemicals as their active ingredients, some of which were known to cause heart attacks, severe paranoia and other dangerous effects. One brand in particular claimed to have switched its active chemical from one that had become illegal to a different, still uncontrolled substance, but had actually not done so. They had only changed the packaging. Anyone tested for the illegal substance would have failed and been facing jail time. The chemicals they use are so potently addictive that users have compared it to crack. When a user is coming down from a bath salt high, all they can think of is getting another packet. Fake coke vendors bet on your addiction and bank on your self-destruction. This will continue until the feelings become unbearable or the user can no longer maintain the use. This can take days, even weeks, during which the real world becomes a blur. The user is hurting their body, damaging their heart and often not sleeping at all. No one really knows the long-term effects If you get hooked on fake cocaine, expect terrible results. Severe weight loss will leave the body ravaged and looking like a skeleton. Long-term lack of sleep can lead to psychosis, fear or a feeling of unreality that never goes away. Some users even report serious paranoia and audio hallucinations. Social isolation becomes a concern as well. The real problem is that no one really knows the long-term effects of chronic MDPV use because it has not been reliably studied. Stories by users, however, are horrific. They mention feeling insane, unable to trust themselves, not sleeping for days, spending massive amounts of money and being unable to control their use of the drug until it becomes so unpleasant they have to force themselves to stop. This mimics the well known long-term effects of other powerful stimulants such as diet pills, cocaine, methamphetamine and Benzedrine. Just like with methamphetamine, the MDPV user encounters a terrible cycle of use. It begins with experimentation. They get a little stimulated and curiosity causes them to take more. It feels exciting, interesting, and gives them a lot of energy. Coming down makes them feel just the opposite, so they take more. It takes a bigger dose to maintain the high, and they want to get even higher, so doses continue to increase. Curious about the effects of fake coke or how it feels? If you try fake cocaine, here's what you encounter right away: Intense sweating, higher blood pressure, tightening blood-vessels, hyperawareness, an inability to stop paying attention, becoming easily startled, serious agitation and annoyance, anxiety and fear, loss of appetite, loss of ability to sleep, and possible long intensive panic attacks. After those go away you'll be hyper energetic and unable to sit still for 6-8 hours. Coming down from the effects is even worse. There's an intense craving for more. A feeling of dirtiness that seems to come from inside. The comedown is characterized as similar to methamphetamine: depression, absolute loss of energy, headache, more anxiety, severely bloodshot eyes, stomach or kidney pain, irregular heartbeat. These continue for another 4-8 hours." Readers may click here to review an article from the Florida Sun-Sentinental.

http://www.santarosasheriff.org/BathSalts.htm

Illegal Bath Salts Mimic Cocaine in the brain: Study says

http://news.yahoo.com/illegal-bath-salts-mimic-cocaine-brain-study-180410555.html

 

HealthDay – Fri, Jul 27, 2012

THURSDAY, July 26 (HealthDay News) -- Street drugs called "bath salts" have a similar effect in the brain as cocaine and carry the same risk for abuse and addiction, a new study in mice has found.

Bath salts are synthetic stimulants that have become increasingly popular among recreational drug users in recent years. (The substances have nothing to do with the crystals you might sprinkle in a bathtub.)

In the new study of adult mice, University of North Carolina researchers found evidence that the effects of the bath salt mephedrone on the brain's reward circuits are comparable to similar doses of cocaine.

The mice were implanted with brain-stimulating electrodes and trained to run on a wheel in order to give themselves a reward, which was direct stimulation of the brain pathways involved in reward perception.

The technique, called "intracranial self-stimulation" has been used in experiments since the 1950s, according to researchers. Prior intracranial self-stimulation studies have shown that one of the characteristics of addictive drugs is to make self-stimulation more pleasurable.

The researchers measured the rodents' wheel spinning efforts before, during and after they were given various doses of cocaine or mephedrone. Like cocaine, mephedrone made intracranial self-stimulation more rewarding for the mice.

The study was released online in advance of publication in an upcoming print issue of the journal Behavioural Brain Research.

The findings support the idea that mephedrone and other bath salts may have a significant addiction risk, said study leader Dr. C.J. Malanga, an associate professor of neurology, pediatrics and psychology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.

"The effects of mephedrone on the brain's reward circuits are comparable to similar doses of cocaine," Malanga said in a university news release. "As expected our research shows that mephedrone likely has significant abuse liability."

On July 9, President Barack Obama signed a law banning bath salts containing mephedrone or another stimulant, MDPV, in the United States.

Experts caution that while animal studies may be useful, they often don't reproduce the same results in humans.

Synthetic Cocaine, methamphetamines being sold as bath salts

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/Synthetic_cocaine_methamphetamine_being_sold_as_bath_salts_in_head_shops_112904124.htm

 

 

l

Bath Salts- A New Cocaine Substitute?

Prepare For Horror Stories in 5...4...3...2...

White Bull is the latest new superdrug being cooked up in small labs around the world, and which will probably be outlawed like Spice, K2, "herbal incense," and bath salts formulations as soon as a single sad story comes out. Here's the formula: parents notice that their young adult child is acting strangely, starts hearing voices and seeing things that are not there, and steals to pay for his relatively cheap "White Bull" habit. Politicians get into action and ban the drug, which fuels more publicity and gets the seller to buy a slightly different form of the drug for 3 more months until that formulation is banned. Someone starts running around in public without clothes, chewing on strangers, and exhibits superhuman strength until the police have to intervene, and then more attention is given to the drug problem.

People who may have had other drug addiction and treatment issues chime in on how White Bull (or whatever you call it) is "even worse" than the heroin, cocaine, nitrus oxide, and chai tea that they also casually use. Dateline NBC mentions White Bull and tells you where it is legal, and how to get it, and then has a new horror story about a teenage girl that used it and did one of the many things that teenagers do when they use any substance including alcohol. Drug treatment center counselors are quoted as saying that the drug addiction requires special treatment, beyond their usual $40,000 a month stay, but luckily they have just added beds at their Malibu Drug Addiction clinic. At this point, another drug comes along and all the ravers start using it instead. In the meantime, the FBI reports a decline in "illegal" drug use without mentioning that people have switched to far more dangerous and cheaper substitutes. At the end of the day, society is a little worse off and we have too many laws, with more people in prison for possessing a powder that was perfectly legal the day before.

Notes and Special Information

Special note: So basically, people are willing to snort just about any white powder sold in small jars at smoke shops.

http://www.whitebull.org/

 

Is White Bull the next drug addiction problem?

Missing Girl May Be In California

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/20232319/police-missing-girl-may-be-in-california

 

 

Posted: Nov 30, 2012 4:20 PM PST Updated: Nov 30, 2012 5:16 PM PST

By Jason Barry - bio | email

 

PHOENIX (CBS) -

Phoenix police are hoping that new surveillance video will help find an 11-year-old leukemia patient.

The young girl, Emily, was last seen Wednesday night being escorted out of Phoenix Children's Hospital by her mother.

Sgt. Steve Martos told CBS5 that investigators have contacted family members in Arizona and California, but there's still no sign of Emily.

The big concern now is the child's health, Martos said.

The surveillance video shows the 11-year-old leukemia patient walking down the hall on the seventh floor of the hospital with her mother and younger brother.

They get into an elevator around 10:30 p.m., then come out on the first floor and walk through the lobby.

You can see in the video that Emily still has her IV attached.

A few minutes later, the family reappears on camera, only this time Emily's IV is gone and she's wearing different clothes.

The family walks through the lobby and out the front door.

There are two different camera angles of a van sitting outside waiting for them.

Emily, mother and brother walk to the van, get in, and someone drives them away.

"We're talking about 11-year old girl who can't take care of herself," said Martos.

Martos said Emily recently had her arm amputated because of infection.

Doctors also put a chest catheter in Emily's heart, which could be life-threatening if not taken out soon, said Martos.

"This catheter, if in fact she receives an infection, she could, potentially die," said Martos. "So there is some criminal aspect to this and we're looking into that."

It is still unclear why Emily's mother suddenly took the child out of the hospital or where they may be headed.

Authorities said that while it's not a crime for a parent to walk their daughter or son out of a hospital, it is against the law to not provide medical aid to a child facing a life-threatening situation.

"We are running out of time," said Martos. "We want to find Emily as soon as possible to get her the help she needs."

The full names of the family members have not been released.

The van Emily and her family were last seen in is a 1998 Ford mini-Van with an Arizona license plate AVY3157.

If you have any information about Emily or her parents, Norma and Luis, contact the Phoenix Police Department or 480-WITNESS.

[Related: PD: Mom flees AZ hospital with leukemia patient]

Copyright 2012 CBS 5 (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.

Not just 4 texting: 1 in 3 middle-schoolers uses smart phones for homework

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/20230427/not-just-4-texting-1-in-3-middle-schoolers-uses-smart-phones-for-homework

 

 

By Stacy Teicher Khadaroo

Move over, Angry Birds. It's time to tackle a math problem.

A new survey finds that about a third of middle-schoolers now use smart phones or tablets not just for entertainment and communication, but also for homework.

Paired with young people's interest in science, math, and technology, it's another sign of the potential for digital learning that educators are slowly beginning to tap.

"Most people talk about STEM subjects and technology at the high school level, [but] the critical intervention really should be happening in the middle school, because that's the age when kids either can get excited about science and technology and math … or they can get turned off," says Rose Stuckey Kirk, president of the Verizon Foundation, which commissioned the new survey.

The national survey of 1,000 students in Grades 6 through 8 found that:

39 percent use smartphones for homework.

26 percent use smartphones at least weekly for homework.

31 percent use tablets for homework.

29 percent of those with household incomes under $25,000 use smartphones for homework.

Hispanics and African-Americans are more likely than whites to use smartphones for homework, at 49 percent, 42 percent, and 36 percent, respectively.

Beyond accessing information over the Internet on such devices, students often turn to free apps to play games to help them master math concepts, to virtually "dissect" an animal or analyze clouds and condensation, and to collaborate with peers on projects, Ms. Kirk says.

Yet schools and teachers struggle to keep up with students' interest in the ever-changing technology landscape.

Some educators are hesitant to embrace more digital devices for fear it will open up a Pandora's box beyond their control, education experts say. For some, concerns may be based on reports of teens being distracted by games in class or using technology to bully other students, while others may simply not have the confidence that they can master the new technology and harvest it for productive purposes, especially given time and budget constraints.

But some schools and whole districts are jumping into digital technologies to try to engage both students and teachers in a new way, one they see as better adapted to the demands of 21st-century jobs.

Among the middle-schoolers surveyed, 88 percent said they are not allowed to use smartphones for learning purposes in school, and 68 percent said the same about tablets.

Such restrictions on technology use are even more common among low-income students, the survey found. Yet half of African-American and Hispanic middle-schoolers, who are more often concentrated in low-income schools, report an interest in science and computer science.

"We have an opportunity inside of those environments to be very deliberate in how we engage students," Kirk says. "Digital devices can have an impact. But we can also make it about the STEM subjects, and move these kids onto a pathway that could result in higher incomes."

The Verizon Foundation already offers training to educators on integrating mobile technology into lesson plans.

Now it is partnering with the Technology Student Association and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to sponsor the Innovative App Challenge. Hundreds of teams of students are conceptualizing mobile applications that incorporate STEM activities and contribute to solving a problem in their schools or communities.

Five teams from middle schools and five from high schools will be chosen as winners. In addition to winning Samsung Galaxy Tabs for themselves and $10,000 grants for their schools, they'll be given assistance to create their apps and bring them to the public.

How to help kids cope with PTSD

The sound of crashing limbs is still seared into Laura Whisenhunt's memory.

"I was actually asleep on the couch, and the tree that used to be there fell on this window," she recalls. "We didn't have time to even go in the basement."

On the morning of April 27, 2011, three trees toppled down onto her family's house near Birmingham, Alabama.

"I just thought, ‘This is it. One's going to fall in on top of us.' And there was a lot of pressure -- it was very, very scary," Laura says.

When it was over, the Whisenhunt family decided to seek shelter at a relative's home nearby.

Then came round two.

"We could hear everything coming down, and I know that they were scared," says Laura.

The home was spared, but what they saw around them the next morning left psychological scars -- scars that resurface with every new storm warning.

"It makes me nervous to sleep sometimes when there are severe thunderstorms," says Laura's young son.

Counselor Tiffany Alexander explains that post-traumatic stress symptoms like this usually start showing up three to six months after a traumatic event has occurred.

"They [start] feeling a little bit more nervous when they start talking about a storm coming. They'd want to get their children out of school; they just noticed some heightened anxiety, even if they hadn't sustained a direct hit," she describes, referring to many of those she has counseled.

"The sooner you can get back to some sense of normalcy, safety, and then some preparedness is the key to moving forward," she adds.

To do that, Laura and her family made a safety plan that starts with meeting in the hallway, grabbing their storm kits and heading to the cellar to wait for the storm to pass.

Their plan was put to the test during another tornado.

"I finally said, ‘Guys, it's ok. Here's what we're going to do,' and after that they went outside and rode their bikes and played with the kids in the neighborhood," says Laura. "Definitely a plan of safety helps tremendously."

Her daughter says she still gets scared, but that having a plan has helped her cope.

That kind of fear or trauma can also produce positives, however.         

"They actually see a lot of what they call post-traumatic growth, where people actually come out on the other side of something better than before," explains Alexander.

And even Laura agrees.

"I think it's made everybody's relationships better, because we've all had to stick together," she says.

Copyright 2012 America Now. All rights reserved.

http://www.americanownews.com/story/19421388/amNOW

Student charged with raping another student in high school bathroom

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/20233198/student-charged-with-raping-another-student-in-high-school-bathroom

 

 

MEMPHIS, TN - (WMC-TV) – The Action News 5 Investigators have uncovered new details about a student charged with raping another student in a Memphis high school bathroom.

"It's just sick to be in a school stuff like that they should be learning," said student Trey Lanfar.

Police charged 18-year-old Craigmont High student Antonio Gillis with rape.  Investigators say it happened in the boys' bathroom at the school during school hours. Gillis is accused of forcing a 15-year-old student to perform a sex act on him. Another student was also in the bathroom.

But the circumstances are not as they appear according to Gillis' mother and according to a teacher at the school with whom we talked.

"He is very low functioning. He's moderately intellectually disabled. Antonio is not responsible for himself. Neither is the other boy," she said.

The teacher who did not want to be identified said both boys are in a class at Craigmont for mentally disabled students. She says the two boys are not supposed to go anywhere without a teacher or an assistant.

"They both are moderate retarded," she said. "It's not the fault of either one of them because they are too low functioning."

The mother of the 15-year-old victim said she hired an attorney. 

Memphis City Schools released a statement saying, "Administration immediately notified MPD when they became aware of the allegations. While MCS does not comment on the specifics of any pending litigation, it is clear that the school administration followed proper procedure in notifying the MPD of the alleged assault. We will continue to cooperate with MPD in this process."

Antonio Gillis's mother said he is behind bars. But she said he is on a special floor for people with mental disabilities.  

Copyright 2012 WMC-TV. All rights reserved.

Bid to move Arizona civil rights case under review

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/20237256/bid-to-move-arizona-civil-rights-case-under-review

 

Posted: Dec 01, 2012 7:02 PM PST Updated: Dec 01, 2012 7:02 PM PST
Posted by Paige Hansen - email

PHOENIX (AP) - A federal judge has taken under advisement a request to move a civil rights lawsuit against two polygamous towns out of Arizona.

U.S. District Court Judge H. Russel Holland heard arguments telephonically Friday from lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice and the twin towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City.

The government has alleged in the lawsuit that the towns have supported a campaign of intimidation against former members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and denied them services.

The defendants want the case moved to Utah, saying that would cut down on trave time and expenses for the parties and witnesses.

Government lawyers say the defense has failed to make a strong showing of inconvenience.

Copyright 2012Associated Press. All rights reserved.

U.S. marshals arrest woman, man in May death of teenager

Posted: Dec 01, 2012 12:19 PM PST Updated: Dec 01, 2012 12:19 PM PST
By James Bennett - email
TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) -

A 20-year-old Tucson woman and man were arrested Friday and charged with the murder of a teenager.

Ashley Marie Antone and Emannuel Rivera were charged with second-degree murder for the May 29 death of Kaitlin Chico.

Antone was arrested June 1 in the case, but charges were dropped by the Pima County Attorney's office, pending further investigation.

On Friday, the county attorney issued arrest warrants.

The U.S. Marshal's Office Arizona Wanted Task Force apprehended Antone in Pinal County and booked her into the Pinal County Jail.

Task Force Members located and arrested Rivera at an apartment complex in Tucson and booked him into Pima County Jail.

Copyright 2012 Tucson News Now. All rights reserved.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/20235591/us-marshals-arrest-woman-man-in-may-death-of-teenager

Saturday, December 1, 2012

SOME OF MY RESOURCE INFORMATION LINKS

Family Bill Of Rights

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37v-WQcjS2zRG00QkYxVmhIRUk/edit

 

Kinship Report

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37v-WQcjS2zaEJSN29fVXhSam8/edit

 

CPS Pdf

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37v-WQcjS2zOGF1OWZFR1NmYWc/edit

 

 

CPS Dependency Actions

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37v-WQcjS2zSVU0NEVaay1sMjg/edit

 

CPS Hotline Interview Questions

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37v-WQcjS2zY2l3Nl9LanBQdTQ/edit

 

 

Foster Care Rates

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37v-WQcjS2zSVFBN2dQTVgxb0U/edit

 

 

Policy

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37v-WQcjS2za2FtR3RTdUV3ck0/edit

 

 

Psychological Evaluations

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37v-WQcjS2zbFZoZFY1MmhMTXc/edit

FOSTER CARE RATES

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37v-WQcjS2zSVFBN2dQTVgxb0U/edit

 

 

Wait til you see this one…

ANNUAL EXPEDITED SUBSTANCE ABUSE REPORT

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37v-WQcjS2zQXJmeFFTZ2h1SlE/edit

CHILD SAFETY TASKFORCE

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C36-m2CenpNCWG5U-yGAa_7IyftsDiuOmsOIxA07Md8/edit

Foster Care for more information.

Exhibit 13 – Attachment II
See Children’s Services Manual, Chapter 6, Section 21 Facilitating Payment to Resource Families Providing
Foster Care for more information.
Revision effective March 1, 2009
State of Arizona
Administration for Children, Youth & Families
Family Foster Home Care Rates and Fees Schedule
Rates effective March 1, 2009
Licensed Foster Home Rates (Non-Relative and Kinship Foster Care) Service Group: Foster Care
Service Type
Category
Service Type
Description
Age Range Daily Rate Daily Clothing
Allowance
Daily Personal
Allowance
Daily Total
FAM FHM
DAY/Basic
Foster Care 0-12 mos. $19.68 $0.53 $2.10* $22.31
FAM FHM
DAY/Basic
Foster Care 1-2 years $19.68 $0.53 $0.95** $21.16
FAM FHM
DAY/Basic
Foster Care 3-5 years $19.68 $0.53 $0.10 $20.31
FAM FHM
DAY/Basic
Foster Care 6-11 years $19.68 $0.79 $0.33 $20.80
FAM FHM
DAY/Basic
Foster Care 12-18+ years $21.72 $1.02 $0.72 $23.46
Rates for children approved at higher levels of care.
SP2 Level Foster Care
Special 2
0-12 mos. $23.52 $0.53 $2.10* $26.15
SP2 Level Foster Care
Special 2
1-2 years $23.52 $0.53 $0.95** $25.00
SP2 Level Foster Care
Special 2
3-5 years $23.52 $0.53 $0.10 $24.15
SP2 Level Foster Care
Special 2
6-11 years $23.52 $0.79 $0.33 $24.64
SP2 Level Foster Care
Special 2
12-18+ years $23.52 $1.02 $0.72 $25.26
SP3 Level Foster Care
Special 3
0-12 mos. $29.94 $0.53 $2.10* $32.57
SP3 Level Foster Care
Special 3
1-2 years $29.94 $0.53 $0.95** $31.42
SP3 Level Foster Care
Special 3
3-5 years $29.94 $0.53 $0.10 $30.57
SP3 Level Foster Care
Special 3
6-11 years $29.94 $0.79 $0.33 $31.06
SP3 Level Foster Care
Special 3
12-18+ years $29.94 $1.02 $0.72 $31.68
FAM FHM
MED FRG
FFMF
Foster Care
Medically
Fragile
0-12 mos. $35.75 $0.53 $2.10* $38.38
FAM FHM
MED FRG
FFMF
Foster Care
Medically
Fragile
1-2 years $35.75 $0.53 $0.95** $37.23
FAM FHM
MED FRG
FFMF
Foster Care
Medically
Fragile
3-5 years $35.75 $0.53 $0.10 $36.38
FAM FHM
MED FRG
FFMF
Foster Care
Medically
Fragile
6-11 years $35.75 $0.79 $0.33 $36.87
FAM FHM
MED FRG
FFMF
Foster Care
Medically
Fragile
12-18+ years $35.75 $1.02 $0.72 $37.49
*For diapers and formula **For diapers
Daily rates are determined by the age of the child on the first day of the month.
Exhibit 13- Attachment II
See Children’s Services Manual, Chapter 21, Section 21 Facilitating Payment to Resource Families Providing
Foster Care for more information.
Revision effective March 1, 2009
Unlicensed Kinship Foster Care (Relative Providers) Service Group: Foster Care
Service Type Service Type
Description
Age Range Daily Clothing
Allowance
Daily Personal
Allowance
Daily Total
Kinship Foster Care URED 0-12 mos. $0.53 $2.10* $2.63
(Unlicensed Relative) 1-2 years $0.53 $0.95** $1.48
Or 3-5 years $0.53 $0.10 $0.63
Kinship Foster Care URAD 6-11 years $0.79 $0.33 $1.12
Licensed applied for 12-18+ years $1.02 $0.72 $1.74
*For diapers and formula **For diapers
Unlicensed Non-Relative Providers Service Group: Foster Care
Service Type Service Type
Description
Age Range Daily Clothing
Allowance
Daily Personal
Allowance
Daily Total
Unlicensed URN 0-12 mos. $0.53 $2.10* $2.63
Non-Relatives 1-2 years $0.53 $0.95** $1.48
3-5 years $0.53 $0.10 $0.63
6-11 years $0.79 $0.33 $1.12
12-18+ years $1.02 $0.72 $1.74
*For diapers and formula **For diapers
Auxiliary Payments and Special Allowances/Supplemental Financial Supports
Service Group: Allowances
Service Type Service Type
Description
Uses, Maximum Amounts and Qualifiers
Approval levels are designated in CHILDS.
EMRG CLTH ALLOW Emergency Clothing $150 maximum per state fiscal year. Independent Living Subsidy
program youth are not eligible for this allowance.
EMRG CLTH EXTRA Emergency Clothing -
Extra
$100 maximum per state fiscal year. (examples: Fire, Flood, Theft)
Independent Living Subsidy program youth are not eligible for this
allowance.
BOOKS/EDUCATION Books Education
Expenses
$82.50 maximum per school year for all dependent children. For
books, supplies, course fees, student services and physical education
fees/equipment. May be approved for special pre-school and college
level, technical and vocational classes.
SUPP SCH TUIT Supplemental Extra
School Tuition and Fees
$165 maximum per session. For use during summer sessions or
interim sessions at year round schools.
GRADUATION Graduation Expenses $220 maximum. Available for High School only for cap, gown, ring,
yearbook, and other graduation related fees.
SPECIAL NEEDS Special Needs
Allowance
$22.50 maximum per state fiscal year. Available to assist foster
parents with expenses such as holidays, birthdays, and special
occasions. Independent Living Subsidy program youth are not eligible
for this allowance.
CAMP AND
VACATION
Camp and Vacation
Allowance
Suspended.
PASSPORT Passport Allowance Reimbursement for the actual cost of obtaining a passport book or
card. Receipts are required. Effective 1/1/09 and is a one time
reimbursement per child.
DIAPERS-SPECIAL Diapers - Special $62.50 maximum per month. This allowance must be authorized
monthly. Available with medical documentation for children who
require additional funds for diapers.
Auxiliary Payments and Special Allowances/Supplemental Financial Supports are available to licensed
family foster care providers and unlicensed kinship and non-relative providers.