Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Dr Ian Hyslop: New child protection laws a regressive move

Dr Ian Hyslop is a lecturer in counselling, human services and social work at the University of Auckland

The Government's proposed reforms to our child protection laws are regressive, myopic and likely to have unfortunate outcomes for children who have been ill-treated in stressed families.

They have been narrowly conceived and signal a return to rescue-based fostercare. This, in my opinion, is a huge step backwards for child protection in New Zealand, particularly for Maori.

Cabinet papers released by Social Development Minister Anne Tolley set out these law changes to support a new "operating model" for statutory social work services within the new Ministry of Vulnerable Children.

But these reforms have involved minimal real consultation with the sector. They are the result of an expert panel review which began in April 2015. I was involved in a practice reference group which provided advice to this panel, nominally.

The outcome, I believe, was largely predetermined.

I worked in state social work for 20 years and witnessed the genesis of the ground-breaking Children, Young Persons and their Families' Act, 1989. This legislation addressed institutional racism (identified in the Puao Te Ata Tu Ministerial Advisory Committee Report of 1988) by making an understanding of Maori values and social structures central to working with Maori children.

The 1989 Act responded to the cultural alienation of Maori children in the care of the state by bringing Maori concepts of whakapapa and whanaungatanga into mainstream statutory social work legislation.

It required that placement of children outside of immediate family be with a member of their whanau, hapu, iwi, or at the very least with someone from the same cultural background. This vision has never been adequately supported or resourced and now, under these proposed reforms, it is abandoned.

http://nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11727000

Sunday, October 16, 2016

State leaders order Child Protective Services overhaul

Fort Worth Star-Telegram2016-10-12 18:25

Gov. Greg Abbott and other state leaders ordered the Department of Family and Protective Services Wednesday to ramp up efforts to protect endangered foster children and curb the backlog of ones waiting for homes.

Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus released a joint letter to department Commissioner Hank Whitman directing him to immediately develop a plan to hire and train more special investigators to take up the backlog of at-risk kids who have not had a face-to-face interaction with Child Protective Services. The lawmakers are also calling on the agency to create a hiring and training schedule to get more caseworkers out into the field and to continue working closely with community organizations. The lawmakers also called recent news of children sleeping in hotels and CPS offices “unacceptable."

The letter comes just eight days after DFPS publicly released numbers showing nearly a thousand at-risk children under CPS care were not checked on once over the course of six months. That report also found that caseworkers did not see 1,800 children within 24-hours of hearing reports of alleged abuse or mistreatment.

“The state’s residential providers must be held to the highest standards while caring for our most vulnerable or no longer operate in our system.” The state leaders wrote in a letter

“We also will not tolerate inferior residential foster care operations,” the state leaders wrote in the letter. “The state’s residential providers must be held to the highest standards while caring for our most vulnerable or no longer operate in our system.”

While Abbott and other state leaders are calling on the agency to move forward on a plan regardless of budget concerns, it's unclear how soon the department will step up its efforts with a looming $40 million budget shortfall and already overworked caseworkers.

State leaders also directed Whitman to “reinforce the culture of accountability” by making sure staffers “rise to the challenge” ahead. The lawmakers gave a nod to the department's financial constraints but stressed "we have a responsibility to find and protect these vulnerable Texans as soon as possible."

Whitman said in an emailed statement that he appreciates lawmakers' "acknowledgement of the many difficult issues we face" but added that "protecting children is our highest priority."

"We have to do better," Whitman said. "All of our energies are focused on making this right and putting the safety and welfare of children first, no matter what."

Hours after the letter was released, Patrick called on the Senate Finance Committee Chair Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, to receive the department's plans. Nelson quickly scheduled an Oct. 26 hearing of her committee to take up the issue.

"We need to better understand what investments are working and what improvements are needed," Nelson said in a statement. "We need an action plan that will keep children safe."

"We need to better understand what investments are working and what improvements are needed. We need an action plan that will keep children safe." Senate Finance Committee Chair Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound

State Rep. Four Price, R-Amarillo, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee for health and human services, said lawmakers will be watching for the agency to make improvements related to caseworker working conditions and retention alongside easing case load burdens. He said "it's premature to speculate" but providing the department with supplemental funding during next year's legislative session is "not out of the realm of possibility."

"I fully believe that the House and the Senate will prioritize the protection of children this upcoming session and if additional funds are absolutely necessary that will be considered by both groups," Price said. "I don't believe for a second either chamber will jeopardize the safety of children at the expense of the budget."

State Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, thinks the situation at CPS is too dire to wait until next session. He wrote a letter to Abbott on October 5 asking the governor call a special session as "the scope of the problem has eclipsed the agency's ability to adequately remedy the situation without legislative assistance."

Kate Murphy, senior policy associate for child protection for Texans Care for Children, said in an emailed statement that "caseworker turnover and kids bouncing from one placement to another are challenges the state can overcome." She said while it was good to see state leaders alarmed about the department's challenges, it's also important to look at increasing caseworker pay and foster children access to health services.

"We're glad to see a bipartisan consensus that CPS needs additional funding starting in September of next year," Murphy said. "The Commissioner and state leaders should evaluate whether CPS needs more funding in the next 11 months to boost salaries and hire more caseworkers to start addressing the crisis right away."

Some advocates say workforce education is also going to be critical to fixing the department's problems.

Miriam Nisenbaum, executive director for the Texas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, said CPS needs a strong workforce with a variety of backgrounds in areas like behavioral health and social work. Yet a recent decision to scale back the agency's caseworker education requirements has undermined that goal.

The letter from state leaders released Wednesday ordered the department to hire more investigators with law enforcement backgrounds.

“I’m not sure a law enforcement background will give you the too

ls you need to work with the families a lot of the CPS workers end up dealing with,” Nisenbaum said.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/article107876942.html

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Landlord Lien Rights in Arizona

.
Subject: Fwd:
Landlord Lien Rights on Tenant’s Personal Property


Landlord Lien Rights on Tenant’s Personal Property

There are three primary forms of security used for tenant’s payment of rent: a security deposit (in the form of cash or a letter of credit), a personal or corporate guaranty, and landlord lien rights on the tenant’s personal property located within the leased premises.  Most tenants incorrectly negotiate the landlord lien rights provisions in commercial leases.

Standard landlord form leases typically include some or all the following concepts: (1) representations and warranties from the tenant that it owns its personal property free and clear of all liens, (2) the tenant’s personal property is subject to a first position landlord lien that secures the tenant’s lease obligations, (3) the landlord shall have the right to deem any personal property left in the leased premises following termination of the lease as abandoned, (4) the landlord may retain possession of all abandoned personal property and dispose of such property at tenant’s expense, store such property at tenant’s expense, or retain such property without payment to tenant, and (5) the tenant may not remove certain personal property from the leased premises during the term of the lease without the consent of landlord.

If the parties negotiate that the tenant’s personal property will not be used as security, the most common mistake is that the tenant simply requests the deletion of the related provisions.  However, this only makes the lease silent regarding landlord lien rights and the use of personal property as security.  Under A.R.S. 33-362, the landlord has statutory lien rights.  So, if the lease is silent, the landlord still has the rights available under Arizona law.

If it is the intent of the parties that the security not include tenant’s personal property, the lease must include a waiver of the statutory lien rights.  Following is an  example provision: “Landlord waives any and all lien rights with respect to Tenant’s personal property, including statutory landlord lien rights under A.R.S. Section 33-362.”

If the landlord will not give a blanket waiver of its lien rights, the tenant may elect to negotiate that the landlord’s lien will not apply to certain property (for example, computers with confidential or business information).  Most often, the only items valuable to the landlord are items that can be used for future tenants or resold, such as office furniture, appliances and phone systems.

Alternatively, the tenant’s personal property may be subject to an equipment or other lease, or tenant may have obtained financing to purchase the personal property.  In those cases, the terms of the financing agreements or personal property leases may require the landlord to subordinate its landlord lien.  Following is a sample subordination provision: “Landlord agrees to subordinate its landlord lien rights with respect to personal property that is subject to financing and/ or a lease.”

Finally, a landlord willing to grant a waiver of its landlord lien rights should consider how the waiver will impact the treatment of abandoned personal property at the end of the lease.  At worst, the landlord could have asserted its statutory lien and disposed of the property according to the statutory process.  With a waiver, it is uncertain how long the landlord must store the property at tenant’s expense, with a slim chance of recovering the storage costs.  A landlord should consider a lien rights waiver period of ten (10) days following termination of the lease to allow the tenant to remove its personal property from the leased premises.  After the expiration of the waiver period, the statutory lien rights would be reinstated.

Prior to using any language or concepts from this blog entry, consult with an attorney.

Ryan Rosensteel is a real estate and construction attorney licensed in Arizona.  You can contact him at ryan.rosensteel@azbar.org.


https://azleaselaw.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/landlord-lien-rights-on-tenants-personal-property/

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

What Are Squatters Rights in Arizona

Squatter's rights in Arizona are some of the most comprehensive that exist in the United States right now. They are invoked whenever squatters inhabit land or a structure that has been left unused. When enough time goes by, squatters are then allowed to claim that land or structure as their own, against the interests of those who hold the title to the property.

In Arizona, Squatters Can Take Adverse Possession Of An Abandoned Property In As Little As Two Years.

There is a color of title statute that is included with Arizona's adverse possession laws. This means they must have some reason to believe that they have a right to possess the property in some way. There must also be a claim that shows that the squatters have as much or a better claim to sovereignty over the property that is up in question. This means there is a notoriety stipulation within Arizona's adverse possession laws. The community at large must know that the squatter's are living in the residence and be able to assume that they have a legal right to be there. It must also have a hostile intent to it as well. This means that squatters cannot have a property owner's permission to be using the property. This means in general terms that the easiest way to stop an adverse possession claim is to simply give permission for the squatters to be there. Every situation, however, is unique and there are several factors that must be passed on both sides for a claim to become resolved.

Squatters.

Land owners have up to 3 years after they receive a cause of action to challenge the adverse possession claim. This limitation includes the ability to take any peaceable actions to recover real property using the color of title that exists. This means that the land owner believes that their right to claim the property is greater than that of the squatter's claims that have been made. If the property is a city lot, then there is a 5 year deadline for action to be taken instead. The total amount of time may equal 7-10 years for the full adverse possession claim to be resolved.

Certain Improvements May Be Recoverable Costs To Squatters, Including Property Taxes That Were Paid.

Squatters can enhance their claim to sovereignty by paying the property taxes and making cultivation improvements to the land in question. They must also openly occupy the land in order for them to be able to file for an adverse possession claim. What makes Arizona law interesting is that squatting is based on consecutive time spent and can involve multiple parties. Once the adverse possession deadline has passed, the squatter in possession at that time can file a claim no matter how many other squatters occupied the land before they did.

Arizona Law Does Have a Size Requirement In Place.

Squatter's rights in Arizona are limited in the size of the claim. Adverse possession prevents the possession of more than 160 acres of land in all circumstances. Even if squatters have been openly cultivating the land, have lived on it consecutively, or used the land for other reasons, only 160 acres can be filed for at most. Because squatter's cannot openly occupy two different land parcels simultaneously, this limits the ability to claim large portions of land. Squatters could win an adverse possession title on 160 acres that they have cultivated, get the title into their possession, and then adversely occupy an adjoining parcel of land to start the process of squatter's rights over from the very beginning.

Have Quiet Title Rights That They May Present Before The Court.

Property owners who are concerned about adverse possession laws may be able to file what is known as a “quiet title lawsuit” in the state of Arizona. This can be done when there are other parties that may feel they have a legitimate ownership claim to specific property. This lawsuit asks the court to confirm that they are the owners of a specific title over a portion of land. The difference in squatter's rights in Arizona is that the process of claiming adverse possession can begin quite rapidly. The amount of time it takes to resolve a claim may take up to 10 years, putting Arizona in line with most other states in how squatter's rights are treated. Take action when necessary and most adverse possession claims can be nullified before they can become valid.

RELATED

Most Important Landlord Tenant Laws in Texas

When it comes to having a tenant for the first time, it can be pretty daunting because you are going to be the corresponding landlord and a new relationship will emerge, which will need time to grow... More 

The Landlord Tenant Board: What it is and When it is Needed

Many times, there are issues between a landlord and a tenant that need to be resolved but are failed to do so, because both parties have gone too far with their actions, and have retaliated in the... More 

The Landlord Tenant Laws in California

The landlord and tenant laws in California are literally the same as they are in any other state. These laws, rules and regulations are put into practice because they uphold an order, a discipline,... More 

How to Write an Eviction Notice

When it comes to a landlord wanting to evict their tenant, there are specific steps that need to be followed before the process of eviction can start. It is not anymore that the landlord can simply... More 

Understanding the Landlord Tenant Laws in Illinois

People are aware that there are different rulings in each state with reference to the landlord/tenant laws. The state of Illinois also has a set of laws. These rules and regulations are basically... More 

How to Create a Residential Lease Agreement

Where there is a landlord, there will also be a tenant, and it is no surprise that these two parties can only work together once there is some sort of agreement, contract or a binding deal in place.... More 

The Best Sites for Rental and Lease Agreement Templates

Many landlords find it difficult to write and draft a lease agreement. Since every State has its own general template, it can also be difficult to make sure your lease agreement meets all the criteria... More 

The Landlord Tenant Act: What Landlords Need to Know

All landlords know that before they can formally become a landlord there are a lot of things they need to understand. Landlords and tenants cannot act as such without any legal bodies involved. That...More 

What is the Eviction Process for a Landlord

When it comes to evicting a rowdy tenant from your apartment, it can be a little overwhelming, because you know that there is legal recourse and you cannot just boot out your tenant. There is a... More 

5 Landlord Forms that Every Landlord Should Have

When it comes to being a landlord, one should know that it is not for the unprepared individual. This should be clear that being a landlord does not simply mean that you will be taking the rent and... More 

MOST POPULAR



5 Steps To Successfully Owning Your First Rental Property

Investment Property Checklist: What to Look for Before Buying

What Should You Have Put Together Before Applying for a Loan for Your Rental?

Your Guide to Landlord Insurance

Guide to Screening Tenants

FEATURED



Top 7 New Technology Solutions for Realtors

How to Make Money as a Realtor

4 Management Tools You Might Need To Update

Where to Start: The First Steps You Should Take as a New Landlord

Curated Property Management Tips and Advice Straight To Your Inbox.

Tenant Screening

Comprehensive credit & criminal screening.
Get access to bankruptcies, employment history, medical records, past addresses, evictions and more.

View Pricing & Get Started 

Legal Forms

State-specific legal forms.
Lease agreements, rental applications, lease termination, eviction forms and much more.

Browse Our Legal Forms 

Membership Pricing

Our paid membership plans now include free tenant screenings! Greater access to all of our features and the membership pays for itself!

View Pricing & Get Started 

Financing for Rental Property Investors

Want to Buy another property for your portfolio?

Let us show you how

Services

About

Support

LANDLORD BLOG

© Copyright 2016 LandlordStation LLC

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

The state’s highest court just made a major ruling on parental rights

In a groundbreaking equal rights decision Tuesday, the state’s highest court extended parental rights to people in same-sex relationships who never married, and have no biological connection to a child, but can show that they acted as a parent and welcomed the child into a shared home.

The Supreme Judicial Court decision was in the case of a Burlington woman who sought parental rights of two children that were born to her former partner by artificial insemination. She had been there when the children were born – she participated in the insemination procedure for the youngest – and shared parental responsibilities with her former partner until their relationship ended, after 12 years. The children called her mommy.

In a unanimous decision, the court found that state law granting parental rights to fathers of children born out of wedlock should extend to same-sex parents, under gender neutral standards. The court found that a biological connection should not be the only claim to parentage, that a parent

“Nothing in the language of [the state law] expressly limits its applicability to parentage claims based on asserted biological ties,” Justice Barbara Lenk wrote for the court in the 22-page decision. She added, “The plain language of the provisions, then, may be construed to apply to children born to same-sex couples, even though at least one member of the couple may well lack biological ties to the children.”

sdafA woman can seek parental rights to the child her former same-sex partner conceived through artificial insemination, even though the two women had never married, the state’s highest court ruled Tuesday in a groundbreaking decision.

The unanimous Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the case of a couple who had been in a long-term relationship. One of them had two children through artificial insemination. The other woman sought parental rights after they broke up, even though the couple had not been married.

The court concluded that a state law that gives an unmarried biological father the right to prove he is the “presumed parent” after a couple breaks up must now be viewed in gender-neutral terms.

“The plain language of the provisions, then, may be construed to apply to children born to same-sex couples, even though at least one member of the couple may well lack biological ties to the children,’’ Justice Barbara Lenk wrote for the court. “Nothing in the language of [the state law] expressly limits its applicability to parentage claims based on asserted biological ties.’’

Karen Partanen, of Burlington, who had sought the declaration that she is a parent, welcomed the decision.

“My children have two parents...and they should have the right to both of us,” she said in a press briefing Tuesday.

Mary Bonauto of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), which assisted Parenten in the case, said the court appropriately looked at state law with a gender neutral view.

“Her children are going to know she is their parent, she is not there by the grace of someone else, she’s not someone who visits in a while,” Bonauto said. “The real beneficiaries here are the children.”

The children are now 4 and 8 years old.

The decision also addressed a gap in state laws that determine parental rights where artificial insemination is used. Current laws treat a child born through artificial insemination to a married couple as automatically the child of both parents.

The law also give same-sex couples the right to adopt a child born through artificial insemination or to legally acknowledge parentage.

But no law directly addressed the issue of whether a person formerly in a same-sex relationship who had not been married had legal standing to claim parentage to their partner’s child, the court said.

“Had Jo and Ja [the couple’s children] been born to a married couple using artificial reproductive technology, they would have had two legal parents to provide them with ‘financial and emotional support,’ ’’ Lenk wrote. “We decline to ‘read into the statute a provision’...that leaves children born to unmarried couples, using the same technology, with only one such parent.’’

The court said in a footnote that its ruling can also apply to two men who use a surrogate to bear the child who is fathered by one of the men. “Properly read as gender-neutral...these provisions may apply not only to a child born to two women, but also to a child born to two men through a surrogacy arrangement,’’ Lenk wrote.

The case involved Partanen and Julie Gallagher who were a couple for 13 years, during which Gallagher gave birth to two children conceived through artificial insemination. After the unmarried couple broke up, Partanen sought to be declared a parent, a role Gallagher argued in court papers should be hers alone.

The SJC ruled that Partanen can return to Probate and Family Court and convince a judge that she is a “presumed parent’’ by demonstrating that “the children were born to her and to Gallagher, were received jointly into their home, and were openly held out as the couple’s children’’ even though Partanen had no biological relationship to the children.

Lenk was appointed to the SJC by former Governor Deval Patrick. She was the first openly gay member of the state’s highest court. She wed her partner following the SJC’s landmark 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the Globe has reported. They have two daughters.

Milton J. Valencia can be reached at milton.valencia@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @miltonvalencia. John R. Ellement can be reached at ellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/04/mass-high-court-grants-parental-rights-mother-former-same-sex-partner/rrSnSEv5KTp9PyzIvUjJVN/story.html

Mom’s Drug Use During Pregnancy is Not a Crime Against Her Unborn Baby, Court Rules




n a case with implications on the abortion debate, a Michigan court ruled that a pregnant woman who used drugs just days before giving birth to her son did not abuse her child.

The Associated Press reports a Michigan appeals court threw out a conviction against mother Melissa Lee Jones on Thursday, ruling that the state child abuse law does not apply to babies in the womb.

Jones told a court that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, the last time being five days before giving birth to her son, the Courthouse News Service reports. Jones’s son weighed less than 4 pounds when he was born full-term in Sturgis, St. Joseph County, Michigan in 2015; and he tested positive for the drug, according to the report.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals said the state law against child abuse only applies to children who are born. According to the AP:

The appeals court wrote in its decision: “Defendant argues that the first-degree child abuse statute was improperly applied to her because a fetus is not included within the statutory definition of ‘child,’ and she therefore could not have caused harm to a ‘child’ as required by the statute simply by using methamphetamine during her pregnancy. We agree.”

The judges continued, “Because a fetus is not a ‘child’ for purposes of the first-degree child abuse statute, defendant cannot be guilty of first-degree child abuse based solely on the fact that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, and the trial court erred by accepting her guilty plea.”

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ

Jones reportedly abandoned her son at the hospital after he tested positive for the drug and hospital staff called child protective services; however, that incident was not part of the case against her, according to the report.

The implications of the case are interesting. State and federal laws conflict in regard to rights and protections for babies in the womb, especially in cases of abuse and violence.

Legally, unborn babies up to 20 weeks of pregnancy or later are not protected from the violence of abortion in all 50 states because of Roe v. Wade.

However, many states do protect unborn babies in other circumstances. Currently, 37 states have laws that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances, according to the National Right to Life Committee. A federal law also protects babies in the womb who are victims of federal and military crimes. All of these laws include exceptions for abortion.

In regard to drug abuse during pregnancy, the Courthouse News Service reports: “Tennessee is the only state with a law specifically criminalizing the use of drugs while pregnant. State high courts in Alabama and South Carolina have interpreted existing child-abuse laws to allow prosecution of drug-using pregnant mothers.”

Abortion activists fight against laws recognizing unborn babies as victims of violence and abuse because such laws affirm that unborn babies are valuable human beings who deserve to be protected. Abortion activists recently succeeded in defeating a Colorado bill that would have protected unborn babies in certain circumstances after the state witnessed a horrific case when a 7-months pregnant woman was attacked and her unborn baby girl was cut out of her womb. As a result, authorities could not charge the attacker with the baby’s death. At seven months of pregnancy, the baby girl was viable outside the womb and may have survived if she had received medical care.



View the original article

In a case with implications on the abortion debate, a Michigan court ruled that a pregnant woman who used drugs just days before giving birth to her son did not abuse her child.

The Associated Press reports a Michigan appeals court threw out a conviction against mother Melissa Lee Jones on Thursday, ruling that the state child abuse law does not apply to babies in the womb.

Jones told a court that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, the last time being five days before giving birth to her son, the Courthouse News Service reports. Jones’s son weighed less than 4 pounds when he was born full-term in Sturgis, St. Joseph County, Michigan in 2015; and he tested positive for the drug, according to the report.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals said the state law against child abuse only applies to children who are born. According to the AP:

The appeals court wrote in its decision: “Defendant argues that the first-degree child abuse statute was improperly applied to her because a fetus is not included within the statutory definition of ‘child,’ and she therefore could not have caused harm to a ‘child’ as required by the statute simply by using methamphetamine during her pregnancy. We agree.”

The judges continued, “Because a fetus is not a ‘child’ for purposes of the first-degree child abuse statute, defendant cannot be guilty of first-degree child abuse based solely on the fact that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, and the trial court erred by accepting her guilty plea.”

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ

Jones reportedly abandoned her son at the hospital after he tested positive for the drug and hospital staff called child protective services; however, that incident was not part of the case against her, according to the report.

The implications of the case are interesting. State and federal laws conflict in regard to rights and protections for babies in the womb, especially in cases of abuse and violence.

Legally, unborn babies up to 20 weeks of pregnancy or later are not protected from the violence of abortion in all 50 states because of Roe v. Wade.

However, many states do protect unborn babies in other circumstances. Currently, 37 states have laws that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances, according to the National Right to Life Committee. A federal law also protects babies in the womb who are victims of federal and military crimes. All of these laws include exceptions for abortion.

In regard to drug abuse during pregnancy, the Courthouse News Service reports: “Tennessee is the only state with a law specifically criminalizing the use of drugs while pregnant. State high courts in Alabama and South Carolina have interpreted existing child-abuse laws to allow prosecution of drug-using pregnant mothers.”

Abortion activists fight against laws recognizing unborn babies as victims of violence and abuse because such laws affirm that unborn babies are valuable human beings who deserve to be protected. Abortion activists recently succeeded in defeating a Colorado bill that would have protected unborn babies in certain circumstances after the state witnessed a horrific case when a 7-months pregnant woman was attacked and her unborn baby girl was cut out of her womb. As a result, authorities could not charge the attacker with the baby’s death. At seven months of pregnancy, the baby girl was viable outside the womb and may have survived if she had received medical care.



View the original article
In a case with implications on the abortion debate, a Michigan court ruled that a pregnant woman who used drugs just days before giving birth to her son did not abuse her child.

The Associated Press reports a Michigan appeals court threw out a conviction against mother Melissa Lee Jones on Thursday, ruling that the state child abuse law does not apply to babies in the womb.

Jones told a court that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, the last time being five days before giving birth to her son, the Courthouse News Service reports. Jones’s son weighed less than 4 pounds when he was born full-term in Sturgis, St. Joseph County, Michigan in 2015; and he tested positive for the drug, according to the report.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals said the state law against child abuse only applies to children who are born. According to the AP:

The appeals court wrote in its decision: “Defendant argues that the first-degree child abuse statute was improperly applied to her because a fetus is not included within the statutory definition of ‘child,’ and she therefore could not have caused harm to a ‘child’ as required by the statute simply by using methamphetamine during her pregnancy. We agree.”

The judges continued, “Because a fetus is not a ‘child’ for purposes of the first-degree child abuse statute, defendant cannot be guilty of first-degree child abuse based solely on the fact that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, and the trial court erred by accepting her guilty plea.”

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ

Jones reportedly abandoned her son at the hospital after he tested positive for the drug and hospital staff called child protective services; however, that incident was not part of the case against her, according to the report.

The implications of the case are interesting. State and federal laws conflict in regard to rights and protections for babies in the womb, especially in cases of abuse and violence.

Legally, unborn babies up to 20 weeks of pregnancy or later are not protected from the violence of abortion in all 50 states because of Roe v. Wade.

However, many states do protect unborn babies in other circumstances. Currently, 37 states have laws that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances, according to the National Right to Life Committee. A federal law also protects babies in the womb who are victims of federal and military crimes. All of these laws include exceptions for abortion.

In regard to drug abuse during pregnancy, the Courthouse News Service reports: “Tennessee is the only state with a law specifically criminalizing the use of drugs while pregnant. State high courts in Alabama and South Carolina have interpreted existing child-abuse laws to allow prosecution of drug-using pregnant mothers.”

Abortion activists fight against laws recognizing unborn babies as victims of violence and abuse because such laws affirm that unborn babies are valuable human beings who deserve to be protected. Abortion activists recently succeeded in defeating a Colorado bill that would have protected unborn babies in certain circumstances after the state witnessed a horrific case when a 7-months pregnant woman was attacked and her unborn baby girl was cut out of her womb. As a result, authorities could not charge the attacker with the baby’s death. At seven months of pregnancy, the baby girl was viable outside the womb and may have survived if she had received medical care.



View the original article


http://www.lifenews.com/2016/10/03/moms-drug-use-during-pregnancy-is-not-a-crime-against-her-unborn-baby-court-rules/

Monday, October 3, 2016

Involuntary Commitment for Addiction

Involuntary Commitment for Addiction

Helplessness and Addiction

Watching a loved one self destruct is one of the hardest things that any human has to face. This is what happens when one individual falls into the hell of addiction – they will usually take their family with them. Those people around the addict may feel completely powerless to resolve the situation. The addict denies they have a problem and refuse to consider any suggestions that they get help. The family then have to choice of watching this person slowly kill themselves or they can try to disengage. They may even consider the possibility of having this loved one committed to treatment against their will. This drastic step will appear appealing when there appears to be no other option to save the addict.

Involuntary Commitment Defined

To say that an individual has been subject to involuntary commitment means that they have been court ordered into treatment for a mental health problem. Before the individual is committed they may be first put into a psychiatric institution for assessment – this can last for as long as 72 hours. Involuntary commitment is usually only used as a last resort for addicts when they appear to be putting their own life in imminent danger or they are a risk to other people.

Autonomy and Involuntary Commitment

Autonomy is an ethical principle that most humans feel strongly about – particularly in western countries. It can be defined as a state of being self governed. In practice it means that the individual is given the right to manage their own affairs according to their own motives and affairs. Autonomy is particularly important in regards to any type of medical procedure. It is now expected that the individual needs to give their informed consent before commencing any type of medical treatment. Even taking a person’s blood pressure measurement could be considered assault if the person has not given their permission – in practice consent is often implied.

The importance of the individual’s autonomy runs counter to the idea of involuntary commitment. In previous centuries there was far less concern about the individual’s personal autonomy and anyone could be committed to an asylum on the say so o their family or a medical professional. In modern times interfering with a person’s autonomy is a step that is not taken lightly. This is why taking away a person’s autonomy only occurs if it is felt that the individual is incapable of making rational decisions, and they are a real danger to themselves or other people. The goal of involuntary commitment is to protect the individual and society. As soon as they are well enough to make rational choices their personal autonomy will be restored.

Involuntary Commitment for Addiction

It was once quite common for those trapped in addiction to be committed involuntarily for treatment. Relatives could alert the family physician about what was happening, and this professional would arrange for the commitment to hospital. This happens far less these days because of a number of factors. Since the 1960s there has been a growing concern for civil liberties. It became obvious that people were being committed to psychiatric units far too easily – sometimes just on the say so of a relative. The fear of infringing on civil liberties means that that the professionals these days are far less willing to get involved with this type of action. A legal case involving Addington v. Texas led to changes in the interpretation of the law. The burden of proof now needs to be far higher before it is reasonable to interfere with the individual’s autonomy. Another reason for why enforced addiction treatment is rare is a lack of funding. There are just not enough financial resources available to manage all the requests for involuntary commitment.

Reasons for Committing an Individual for Addiction Treatment

There are a number of reasons for why involuntary commitment might seem like a good idea:

* Family members have tried every other option, and they feel powerless to help their loved one who is in decline. They may seek involuntary commitment because they feel there is no other option.
* The extent of the substance abuse means that the individual is putting their own life in danger.
* The addict is a danger to themselves or other people when they are intoxicated. Some people can get completely out of control when they are under the influence.
* The substance abuse is exacerbating another mental health problem, and this is putting that person (or those around them) in danger.

US Laws for Involuntary Commitment

The laws for involuntary commitment vary between states in the US. In 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization or treatment violates the individual’s civil liberties. This violation can only be justified in extreme conditions – usually because a person has become a danger to themselves or other people. It is considered unconstitutional to keep a person in hospital against their will if they are not an imminent threat to themselves or others. Different states will interrupt laws concerning involuntary commitment differently, but the individual will usually continue to have certain rights even after they have been hospitalized against their will. For example, in Florida the person who has been committed will have the right to contact people outside and to have their case reviewed every six months.

Alternatives to Involuntary Commitment

It can be terribly frustrating to watch a loved one slowly kill themselves with alcohol or drugs. It may not be possible to have that person committed, but there are still things that can be done including:

* An addiction therapist is trained to help addicts develop the motivation to quit. This professional can help the individual see beyond their denial into the reality of their situation.
* The substance abuser is likely to have times when they are more open to the idea of addiction help. This can be at times after they have behaved particularly badly or when they are feeling ill because of the substance abuse.
* The most common reason for why people are able to walk away from addiction is that they have hit rock bottom. It is not necessary for the individual to lose everything before they reach this point.
* It is common for relatives to try to protect the individual from the worst consequences of their behavior. This might not be such a good idea because it may be enabling the addict and preventing them from hitting rock bottom.
* The addict may resist any direct suggestions that they get help for their addiction. It can be a better idea to leave recovery literature lying around the home.
* Groups such as Al-anon and Alateen can help family members cope with the behavior of the addict. They will also be able to get advice and support in dealing with the situation.

http://alcoholrehab.com/addiction-articles/involuntary-commitment-for-addiction/

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Five Years Since Family Lost Contact With Missing Teen


Copyright 2016 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - It's not the kind of anniversary any family wants to celebrate.

"It's just another day that we don't know anything," said mom Monica Button, "every day I wake up and I think about my son."

Her son Nieko Lisi was 18 when he went on a road trip from their home in New York to Franklin, Tennessee, where he went to 11th grade.

Police say his cell phone last pinged off a tower near Flintlock Drive and he hasn't been seen since. Friday it had been five years to the day since his family lost contact.

"I wonder where he is," Button said from New York over FaceTime, "whether he's okay, if he's not. If it's raining, is he cold, is he wet, is he eating and then I jump to the other conclusion that what if he's gone?"

His mom has been in agony, comforted only by the fact that New York State police renewed their search efforts this summer. Investigators traveled to Franklin and partnered with local police.

Their time in Middle Tennessee brought a major breakthrough. Just a day after they held a press asking the public for help, tips led to the truck Nieko was driving five years ago. It was stripped down and locked in someone's garage.

The truck and other items are in a lab getting tested for DNA evidence. And now all eyes are on the neighborhood he was last seen.

"I do believe that those people know something on that street," Button said.

Desperate for answers, she's preparing herself for the worst.

"I have friends who have lost their child and I've always said 'I want to be there, I don't want to be in their shoes,' but the agony of not knowing may be worse than that," Button said.

She's just hoping that a year from now, there won't be another
anniversary like this one.




http://www.newschannel5.com/news/five-years-since-family-lost-contact-with-missing-teen

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Diaper change as molestation? Experts doubt Arizona charges

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS | September 23, 2016 @1:56 am

[image_1
FILE - In this May 19, 2016 file photo, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery speaks during a news conference in Phoenix. Statements from the Arizona Supreme Court in equating diaper-changing to child molestation have left parents nervous that one day they will need an attorney more than a nanny. In Sept. 2016, Montgomery said prosecutors can distinguish between a possible molestation case and an adult providing care. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)


PHOENIX (AP) — Statements from the Arizona Supreme Court equating diaper-changing to child molestation and the provocative social media headlines that followed have left parents nervous that one day they will need an attorney more than a nanny.

A recent court opinion on a Tucson man’s appeal of child molestation and child sex abuse convictions criticized the law as too vague. Two dissenting justices wrote that the criminal statute says any kind of deliberate sexual contact is considered child molestation and does not require proof of sexual intent.

That means parents literally commit a felony every time they bathe a toddler or change a diaper, the dissenting justices said.

Law experts, however, say it’s doubtful any prosecutor would go after a parent, baby-sitter or doctor for a standard child-caring task. But that hasn’t stopped anxiety-breeding headlines that bath time could lead to jail time.

Here are key things to know about Arizona’s child molestation law and the reaction to it:

_

PARENTS CRITICIZE LAW

For many parents, the law as written would criminalize the assistance they count on from baby-sitters and day care providers.

Arizona criminal statute defines child molestation, a felony, as an act by an individual who “intentionally or knowingly” engages in or causes someone to engage in any sexual contact with a child under 15. It does not mention whether the contact is sexually motivated.

Tabitha Schmaltz, an accountant and mother of four from the Phoenix suburb of Gilbert, sends her youngest child to day care and considers the staff an extension of herself. They are expected to be the parent, feeding and diapering her 1-year-old son.

“If I have to choose between my sitter abiding by the legislation and neglecting my child out of fear, or ignoring legislation and caring for my child in a way I know he’s not being neglected, I would happily let my sitter violate this legislation,” Schmaltz said Thursday.

Nikole Fletcher, a Phoenix mother pregnant with her second child, said that when she first put her 4½-year-old son in day care, she chose a facility that would assist with things like potty training.

“This law, the way that it’s worded, is calling those day-to-day situations that you kind of chuckle about as a parent, they’re calling them into a very serious light,” Fletcher said.

_

PROSECUTION FOR CAREGIVING?

The Arizona Supreme Court acknowledged that in crafting the law, the Legislature likely was not setting out to criminalize bathing or diaper-changing. But that did not stop an outcry across social media about parents or baby-sitters possibly facing arrest in an innocent situation.

That led Phoenix’s top prosecutor, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, to try to ease people’s concerns in a statement earlier this week.

“It is incredibly insulting to believe any prosecutor reviewing a case for charging would not be able to tell the difference between an adult taking proper care of a child and the molestation of a child victim,” Montgomery said.

___

WHAT EXPERTS SAY

Paul Bender, a longtime professor at Arizona State University’s College of Law, said the law’s wording should be clearer.

“I doubt very much whether there are going to be many unjust prosecutions under that interpretation, but it could happen,” Bender said. “Because people are nervous about it, it’s a problem.”

He said the law is also problematic because it puts the burden of proving any sexual contact was innocent on the defendant.

“If you’re going to accuse someone of a bad thing — of a criminal act — you should have to prove all the things that are necessary to make it a criminal act,” Bender said.

Fletcher, the parent, said protecting children should always take precedence, but the law opens up the possibility of an erroneous judgment that could ruin someone’s livelihood.

“Who is making the decision of who gets labeled or pulled in or decided against? We all think it should be sexual predators who are actually committing sexual molestation,” Fletcher said.

http://ktar.com/story/1286457/diaper-change-as-molestation-experts-doubt-arizona-charges/

Thursday, September 29, 2016

California Police Take Baby From Parents

Athletic teen needs loving home



Getting to know Dalton takes time. He’s somewhat shy at first. This 16-year-old has had lots of ups and downs and he’s spent almost his entire life in foster care.

“Since I was 4,” said Dalton solemnly. “I was real little and they couldn’t take care of me and so they gave me to my grandma, but she couldn’t take care of me because she was getting older so she gave me to CPS.”

Years of trauma and uncertainty have taken a toll on Dalton.

“He feels unwanted,” explained Linda Sessions, Program Manager for Youth & Family.

As a result, he’s had to work through some anger issues but is making great progress in foster care.

Sessions said, “He’s a well-mannered kid. He has his problems just like any other normal kid would have, but he’s easy to be redirected.”

Dalton enjoys attending church, video games and sports.

“I like to play basketball. I like to play football. I’m not really good at it, but I try,” he said with a smile.

He also tries his best in school. He’s now in the 10th grade.

“He’s good in biology, so I think that’s his favorite class,” Sessions said.

Dalton needs a family who will understand his past and accept him for who he is – a teen working to reach his full potential.

Dalton said, “I want to be the only kid. I want a mom and a dad. The reason I want to be the only kid is so I get all the attention.”

This young man is looking forward to a second chance at a bright future, and a first chance at experiencing unconditional love from a family who believes Children are a Gift.

To learn more about Dalton, join Gillian Sheridan for her Children are a Gift report, next Tuesday night on CBS 19 News at 6. To inquire about an East Texas child waiting to be adopted, call 903-533-4242 or email gsheridan@cbs19.tv.

View the original article



http://www.tylerpaper.com/TP-Life/241561/athletic-teen-needs-loving-home

New York City’s history of failure to prevent fatal child abuse



Lisa Steinberg was beaten to death in 1987. (KEITH TORRIE

a series of broken promises between the city and many of its abused kids.

*In 1874, a missionary named Etta Wheeler heard that a 9-year-old girl, Mary Ellen Wilson, had been routinely beaten by her guardians in their Hell’s Kitchen apartment — and no one could stop them.

Wheeler turned to the only organization able to help at the time — the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

An ASPCA lawyer found a legal mechanism that allowed Wheeler to free Mary Ellen — and for the first time politicians began focusing on child protective services.

Eventually the city formed the Bureau of Child Welfare. In 1969, it was renamed Special Services for Children — the first of many reincarnations for the agency now known as ACS.

*On Oct. 6, 1987, cops responded to an anonymous call that said a child needed help inside a Greenwich Village apartment. Upon arrival, police found a 6-year-old girl, Lisa Steinberg, beaten to a bloody pulp and unconscious. A 16-month-old boy, Mitchell Steinberg, was tethered to a chair and covered in his own filth.



Front page of the Daily News covering the death of Lisa Steinberg.

Police arrested lawyer Joel Steinberg, 46, who had illegally adopted both kids, and his partner Hedda Nussbaum, 45. Lisa died a month later and Mitchell was reunited with his biological mom. Steinberg was convicted of manslaughter in Lisa’s death. He served 16 years in prison and released on parole in 2004. Nussbaum testified against Steinberg and was not charged.

Soon after, Mayor Ed Koch renamed the agency to the Child Welfare Administration.



In 1995, city officals called Elisa Izquierdo's death the "worst case of child abuse they had ever seen." (Murray, Ken)

*On Nov. 22, 1995, horrified city officials reported the “worst case of child abuse they had ever seen” — and admitted they had been warned five times but failed to act. Elisa Izquierdo, 6, born to a crack addict, died after enduring years of physical, sexual and mental abuse at the hands of mother Awilda Lopez, who was convinced the girl was possessed by the devil.

Lopez made Elisa eat her own feces, mopped the floors with the girl’s hair and let her husband, Carlos Lopez, physically abuse the girl.

Elisa died after her mom threw her into a concrete wall. Lopez left the girl overnight while brain fluid slowly leaked from her nose. Lopez was convicted of second-degree murder. She is up for parole in 2018.

The city passed Elisa’s Law, which restructured city protection rules, after the girl’s death. Mayor Rudy Giuliani also renamed the agency yet again. The Administration for Children’s Services was formed and given its own commissioner. Just two years later, tragedy struck again — and repeated with frightening regularity.



Daytwon Bennett was found starved and beaten to death in 1997. (xxxxx)

* On March 29, 1997, 5-year-old Daytwon Bennett was found starved and beaten to death — under the nose of a city caseworker who visited his home 13 times but failed to notice his suffering.

His mother, Jocelyn Bennett, 27, had an eight-year history of child abuse. Daytwon’s emaciated body was covered in welts, including rope burns on his wrists. He was pronounced dead when his mother, using a fake name, took him to a hospital claiming he had a virus.

*On Nov. 8, 1997, Sabrina Green, 9, was beaten and burned to death by her older sister Yvette Green and Yvette’s boyfriend, Daryl Stephens. Sabrina was placed in her 32-year-old sister’s care in March and never showed up for school in September.

Attendance teachers, required to make a home visit after 10 absences, made only phone calls and never attempted to verify Yvette Green’s story that the girl was sick. Green had 10 kids of her own and ACS did a background check — even though Green was already under ACS investigation for abuse of one of her own children.

* On Dec. 3, 2000, a 15-month-old boy, Kyron Hamilton, died after he was beaten and whipped with a belt by his mother, Nicole Hamilton, 25. She said she beat him because he was annoying her while she tried to watch TV. ACS had investigated Hamilton in 1999 after an anonymous caller said she left her infant twins and Kyron’s older brother Tyon alone while she got high.

ACS closed the case after she attended parenting class and was referred to a drug treatment center. Hamilton pleaded guilty to manslaughter in Kyron’s death.

*On June 28, 2001, a 2-year-old Queens girl, Sydney Achan, died six days after she was found unconscious in her mother’s apartment. Sydney died of multiple skull fractures and brain injuries, the result of whiplash and blunt impact trauma.

Her mother, Deborah Achan, 29, hired a lawyer and refused to speak to cops, as did her boyfriend Israel Lopez.

Sydney’s father eventually sued ACS, claiming the agency overlooked his reports of suspected abuse. He noticed bruises on his daughter’s neck during a visit and took her to a hospital, then filed a report that he said the ACS caseworker, a new hire, had ignored.

* On Nov. 5, 2001, 3-year-old Sylena Herrnkind was beaten to death by her mother in the Staten Island home she shared with four siblings.

On the day she died, Sylena had soiled her diaper. Parents Julie and Matthew Herrnkind scrubbed her with steel wool, rinsed her with peroxide, made her eat soap and then dunked her head in ice-cold water. A report after Sylena’s death showed a parade of city caseworkers and therapists missed blatant signs of abuse committed against the girl and the Herrnkinds’ four other children.

*On Nov. 13, 2001, a 4-year-old girl, Signifagance Oliver, was drowned by her mother, who claimed she was exorcising the child of demons. Her mother, Sabrina Wright, 29, had lost custody of Signifagance and her twin sister, Ellagance, as well as two older children in 1997 after ACS found evidence of abuse.

ACS said it didn’t know how Wright came back into contact with the twins or how long they’d been with their mother. ACS had given custody of the twins to an out-of-state aunt in February 1999. In April and December of that year, ACS followed up and found the twins doing well. The case was closed.

* On Nov. 21, 2001, 7-year-old Inez Bennett was found dead inside a roach-infested Bronx apartment. Her jaw was smashed along with both arms. She died of multiple blows to the head. Mom Natasha Anderson, 24, called 911. She and her boyfriend Jason Lewis, 24, also had a 3-year-old son. ACS had gotten a complaint of neglect against the family in 1999 but said it was unfounded. Anderson pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and avoided a prison sentence. Lewis pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 years.



Jovannie Florestal was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of her son, Colesvintong Florestal, who was starved and beaten to death in 2004. (HERMANN, Marc A.)

* On May 20, 2004, officials got a 911 call to a Harlem shelter, where they found 3-month-old Colesvintong Florestal, starved and beaten to death. He weighed less when he died then he had at birth, and all his ribs were broken, officials said. He had a broken leg and suffered brain trauma from being violently shaken.

His mother, Jovannie Florestal, then 23, was convicted of second-degree murder. His father, Colesvintong Florestal Sr., had pleaded guilty to his son’s murder and got 20 years as well. In 2001, ACS got a “substantial allegation of inadequate guardianship” against the couple for their older son. The boy was placed with a relative.



Sierra Roberts was beaten to death in 2005.

* On October 25, 2005, 7-year-old Sierra Roberts was beaten to death. Her father pleaded guilty to manslaughter in connection with her death. ACS had investigated the family, but failed to remove Sierra.



Nixzmary Brown was found dead in her Brooklyn apartment in 2006. She died as a result of a blow to the head. (Robert Mecea/Newsday Staff)

* On Nov. 6, 2005, 16-month-old Dahquay Gillians drowned in the bathtub of his apartment. His mother pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide and reckless endangerment. ACS had also investigated the family.



Quachaun Brown died in 2006. His mother and her boyfriend were charged with manslaughter and murder.

* On Jan. 11, 2006, police found 7-year-old Nixzmary Brown beaten to death in her Brooklyn apartment. She died as a result of a blow to the head. Her mother and stepfather were charged with her death. Nixzmary’s stepfather was also charged with sexually abusing her and unlawfully imprisoning her. In the year before Nixzmary’s death, ACS received repeated reports Nixzmary and her siblings were being abused and neglected — but the kids were never removed.

* On Jan. 30, 2006, 4-year-old Quachaun Browne was found beaten to death in his apartment. His mother, Aleshia Smith, 26, and her boyfriend were charged with manslaughter and murder. Smith pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 21/2 years in prison. Boyfriend Jose Calderon, 19, was charged with murder. ACS had received six complaints about Aleshia Smith since 2004, and caseworkers visited the house four times in the three months before Quachaun’s death, but failed to save him.

* On Sept. 2, 2010, medics responded to call for a 4-year-old girl who stopped breathing and found Marchella Pierce lying on a bed, weighing 18 pounds, with pieces of twine around the bedposts and blood on the wall.



Myls Dobson died after being starved, beaten and tortured for a week in 2014. (Facebook)

The girl, starved and beaten, was often drugged and tied to the bed by her addict mother. Carlotta Brett-Pierce was found guilty of her murder in 2012. For the first time, the city also charged two ACS caseworkers, holding them criminally responsible for the death of a child.

* On Jan. 8, 2014, an adorable 4-year-old boy died after being starved, beaten and tortured for a week, allegedly at the hands of his father’s girlfriend.

Myls Dobson was removed his mother’s custody by ACS in 2012, and placed with his loving, jailbird dad who had a long rap sheet. Caseworkers visited the boy’s home nine times without realizing his father was behind bars.

Myls’ accused attacker, Kryzie King, who has yet to stand trial, was charged with his death.

View the original article





http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-city-history-failure-prevent-fatal-child-abuse-article-1.2810934

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Parents Beware: Arizona Court Says Changing Diapers Equals Sexual Molestation

(ANTIMEDIA) If you’ve never had a good reason to condemn a governmental body for its brash policies, both the Supreme Court of Arizona and the state’s legislature may have just come to the rescue.

In a decision that reaffirms a draconian sexual abuse law, the state’s Supreme Court just upheld a statute that defines sexual abuse and molestation of a child “in such a way that intentionally or knowingly touching the genitals or anus of a child or the breast of a female younger than fifteen is a felony,” Matt Brown of Mimesis Law writes.


(ANTIMEDIA) If you’ve never had a good reason to condemn a governmental body for its brash policies, both the Supreme Court of Arizona and the state’s legislature may have just come to the rescue.

In a decision that reaffirms a draconian sexual abuse law, the state’s Supreme Court just upheld a statute that defines sexual abuse and molestation of a child “in such a way that intentionally or knowingly touching the genitals or anus of a child or the breast of a female younger than fifteen is a felony,” Matt Brown of Mimesis Law writes.


Yet defendants “are afforded an ‘affirmative defense’ if they can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their touching ‘was not motivated by a sexual interest’. … [allowing the defendant to persuade] the factfinder that the ‘criminal conduct’ should be excused.” In other words, Arizona justices upheld the law’s literal meaning while also claiming defendants have a right to persuade them to the contrary, effectively ruling that their own interpretation of the law is unsound.

Chief Justice Bales and Justice Brutnel continued in their dissent, asking the question: “[M]ay the state, consistent with due process, sweepingly criminalize a broad range of conduct embracing both innocent and culpable behavior and assign to defendants the burden of proving their innocence?”

According to Brown, legislators who have worked to make this law a reality appear to believe they are immune to A.R.S §13-1404, or Arizona’s sexual abuse law, trusting that “prosecutors wouldn’t target anyone who matters to them.”

It’s hard to imagine none of the lawmakers involved in passing this law “have ever had children” or known someone who may have had a child, Brown continues. Whatever the case, Browncontests that it’s preposterous to consider these same lawmakers and justices “don’t believe the tremendous power they’ve given prosecutors could be abused.”

Sign up for the free Anti-Media newsletter the establishment doesn't want you to receive

In the decision, the majority of justices dismiss the dissent, arguing the fear that Arizona law enforcers will abuse the law is “unrealistic.” But Brown conteststhat Arizona prosecutors have a history of “pushing the envelope of the ethics rules … often with impunity.”

Referring to the recent case of the state’s most powerful prosecutor being disbarred for abusing his power, Brown defends his position and adds that the justices who wrote the ruling seem to be “unaware” of all the news stories covering the state’s addiction to abusing power.

He closes his argument by emphasizing the court’s lack of professionalism, saying “[t]he majority’s opinion can really be summed up as ‘just trust them.’”

To Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, the regretful ruling on State v. Holle turns Arizona residents “into unknowing criminals,” gutting constitutional rights of parents, nannies, grandparents, and other relatives within the boundaries of the state.

This article (Parents Beware: Arizona Court Says Changing Diapers Equals Sexual Molestation) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under aCreative Commons license with attribution to Alice Sallesand theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. Image credit:Sellers Patton. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.




http://theantimedia.org/arizona-court-diapers-molestation/

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Protection From Discrimination

More Topics In This Section

Print  Share   

Protection from Discrimination in Child Welfare Activities

The child welfare system is a group of services designed to promote the well-being of children by ensuring safety, achieving permanency, and strengthening families to care for their children successfully. While the primary responsibility for child welfare services rests with the states, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) supports the delivery of child welfare services through funding of programs and legislative initiatives.   

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for enforcing civil rights laws that apply to state, local and federally funded child welfare agencies and some courts.These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, sex, or age in the delivery of child welfare services:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VI prohibits federally-funded state and local child welfare agencies and courts from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the provision of benefits and services. This includes taking reasonable steps


to provide meaningful access to people with limited english proficiency (LEP).

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Title II and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504 prohibit state, local, and federally funded child welfare agencies and courts from discriminating against qualified individuals on the basis of disability in the provision of child welfare services.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

Title IX prohibits federally funded state and local child welfare agencies from discriminating on the basis of sex (gender) in federally assisted education programs.

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975

This act prohibits state and local federally funded child welfare agencies and courts from discriminating against individuals on the basis of age.

The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (MEPA)

Section 1808(c) of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 amended MEPA, and prohibits state and local federally funded child welfare agencies from using a child’s or adoptive or foster parent’s race, color, or national origin to deny or delay a child’s placement. State agencies must also recruit and retain foster, adoptive, and kinship homes that reflect the diversity of children and youth in the child welfare system.

Provider Resources

HHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Issue Disability Rights Technical Assistance on Child Welfare

http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/adoption/index.html

Circumstances that are grounds for Termination of parental rights in Arizona

Arizona
Circumstances That Are Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights Rev. Stat. § 8-533
Grounds to terminate the parent-child relationship shall include any of the following, with due consideration for the best interests of the child:
• The parent has abandoned the child.
• The parent has neglected or willfully abused a child.
• The parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of mental illness, mental deficiency, or a history of chronic abuse of dangerous drugs or alcohol, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the condition will continue for a prolonged period.
• The parent has been convicted of a felony of such nature as to prove the unfitness of that parent, including murder or manslaughter of another child of the parent, or if the sentence of that parent is of such length that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of years.
• The potential father failed to file a paternity action within 30 days of completion of service of notice as prescribed
in § 8-106(G).
• The putative father failed to file a notice of claim of paternity.
• The parents have relinquished their rights to a child to an agency or have consented to the adoption.
• The identity of the parent is unknown and continues to be unknown following 3 months of diligent efforts to
identify and locate the parent.
• The parent has had parental rights to another child terminated within the preceding 2 years for the same cause and is currently unable to discharge parental responsibilities due to the same cause. The following may also be grounds for termination of parental rights: • The child is being cared for in an out-of-home placement, the agency responsible for the child’s care has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services, and one of the following circumstances exists:
» The child has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period of 9 months or longer, and the parent has substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement.
» The child who is under age 3 has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period of 6 months or longer, and the parent has substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement, including refusal to participate in reunification services offered by the department.
» The child has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period of 15 months, the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement, and there is a substantial likelihood that the parent will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near future.
• All of the following are true:
» The child was cared for in an out-of-home placement pursuant to court order.
» The agency responsible for the care of the child made diligent efforts to provide appropriate reunification
services.
» The child was returned to the legal custody of the parent from whom the child had been removed.
» Within 18 months after the child was returned, the child was removed from that parent’s legal custody, the child is being cared for in an out-of-home placement, and the parent is currently unable to discharge parental responsibilities.
The failure of an alleged parent who is not the child’s legal parent to take a test requested by the department or ordered by the court to determine if the person is the child’s natural parent is prima facie evidence of abandonment unless good cause is shown by the alleged parent for that failure.

Circumstances That Are Exceptions to Termination of Parental Rights
This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.
Circumstances Allowing Reinstatement of Parental Rights.

Saturday, August 6, 2016

Polly Klaas Foundation

How to protect your child from sexual predators

Abuse can be inflicted by coaches, adult volunteers, staff members or teammates. Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security because a coach is nice. Individuals who sexually abuse children often know they need to create a sense of safety and trust with the people around them, so that concerns are dismissed.

9 warning signs

Commenting on athletes’ or employees’ bodies or appearance in a sexual manner.Giving gifts, money, trips or special favors.Playing body contact games, tickling, giving back rubs or wrestling.Videotaping or photographing athletes or employees in revealing or suggestive poses.Coaches who seem to prefer certain ages or genders of children and who tend to have a “special” relationship with one child.Making sexual jokes, sexual gestures and innuendoes or engaging in inappropriate, sexually oriented banter (e.g., discussion of dating behavior).Sharing sexual exploits or marital difficulties.Intentionally invading an athlete’s or employee’s privacy during nonworking hours or outside of regularly scheduled practice and competition.Excessive communication through email, text messaging, instant messaging or other social media.

What parents can do to help prevent abuse

Ask the sports club or program whether all coaches, volunteers and staff undergo criminal background checks before they are hired. Does the organization also check references, conduct personal interviews and require written applications?Ask whether the club has written policies. Those policies should clearly define coach misconduct, prohibit romantic or other nonprofessional relationships between coaches and athletes, define and prohibit emotional, verbal and physical abuse, bullying, hazing, initiation rituals, harassment and physical punishment by staff or athletes.Ask how the club monitors interactions between its staff and athletes. It should ensure that a coach is not left alone with a child.Ask what the process is for reporting inappropriate behaviors. There should be a formal written policy.Ask whether coaches, staff and volunteers undergo training in professional behavior and in identifying behaviors that they must stop if they observe them.Ask whether the club has an independent athlete welfare advocate or athlete protection officer to whom athletes know they can go in complete confidence to help them address concerns.Ask the coach about his or her coaching history. Does the individual have a child on the team? If not, how did he or she get involved? Does the individual coach other sports, genders or age groups? If you sense hesitancy in answering the questions or you think the coach is uncomfortable with your interest, you might want to pay more attention.As children get older, show up unexpectedly early on occasion and observe how practice is going. Be comfortable setting boundaries, such as limiting one-on-one time with your child.Talk to your children regarding all inappropriate or abusive behaviors and what they should do if they observe or are subjected to such behaviors.Does the club have a policy for traveling to competitions? Athletes should not travel alone with coaches, nor should they share a room or be alone in a room with a coach. There should be a detailed itinerary.

Report suspected abuse

If you have reason to believe a child is being abused or neglected, call local law enforcement or the child welfare agency. If you aren’t sure where to report, contact the National Child Abuse Hotline at (800) 422-4453.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/investigations/2016/08/04/how-protect-your-child-sexual-predators/87906268/

Monday, August 1, 2016

900 complaints about child protection made to Local Government Ombudsman in last year

Family Law Week2016-07-29 07:07

68% of complaints upheld

The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) has published its annual complaint statistics for local authorities for the 12 months to 31st March 2016. Overall there were 19,702 complaints and enquiries, and 4,464 detailed investigations of which 51% of complaints were upheld.

The review breaks down complaints according to individual service areas. For Education and Children's Services collectively complaints and enquiries were up by 13% to 3,438. 53% of those cases investigated were upheld.

In respect of children's services, in particular, the review comments on child protection, children's statutory complaints procedure and child sexual exploitation.

There were 903 registered complaints and enquiries concerning child protection. Where investigations were completed, 68% of cases resulted in complaints being upheld. This is considerably higher than the average for all complaints (51%).

Many complaints received were about or involved councils' application of the statutory children's social care complaints process. This is designed to ensure the rights and needs of the child are at the heart of the process and that young people's voices are heard. Once a complaint has been accepted via this procedure, complainants have a right to progress through each stage: local resolution; investigation; and independent review. LGO said that it regularly saw instances where councils fail to follow the process, or its guiding principles.

The LGO has received only a small number of complaints concerning child sexual exploitation. But, it has seen some instances where a council has taken a lack of consent from a young person to justify not investigating a complaint or for failing to take safeguarding action. This is of concern because young persons may not perceive themselves to be victims or vulnerable to potential exploitation and do not therefore recognise they may be in need of protection.

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed162015

Sunday, July 31, 2016

9 At-Home Methods To Detox Marijuana From The Body

Lifehack2016-07-31 10:26

While we here at Lifehack do not encourage marijuana usage, we understand that if you have indulged, you may want to cleanse yourself after the fact. The process of cleansing the body of drugs (like marijuana) is called detoxing. There are several reasons for doing this, but the outcome is the same and will lead to an overall healthier body. It can take anywhere from several days to several weeks to successfully detox, so plan accordingly if you have a deadline.

1. Alcohol

Consuming alcohol will speed up the detox process because it will encourage more fluid to leave the body. One or two beers or glasses of wine per day leading up to a drug test will be sufficient. The alcohol will likely show up in your test, so make sure that will be okay. This will get rid of the THC that is in the bloodstream and not the THC that has made its way into your fat cells.

2. Creatine

This product is available over the counter at many supplement stores, and it works to speed up the flushing process. It may also mask the fact that urine is diluted from drinking water in so much excess. The individual’s size depends on how much they will take in, but in many cases, people take about 100 mg per day for two to three days leading up to the deadline for a detox.

3. Vinegar

Vinegar is an acid, which helps to break down the digestive system and rid the body of toxins such as THC. Many people combine the vinegar with a smaller amount of cayenne pepper or lemon juice in order to mask the taste. A few servings of vinegar should be consumed in the days leading up to the deadline for the detox—but know that consuming vinegar like this will change the pH levels in the body, and can be harmful to the body when consumed in large amounts.

4. Drinking Water

Increasing your daily intake of water will accelerate your urination, and help to remove toxins in the body much quicker. To rid the body of marijuana, it is recommended to drink at least one gallon of pure water a day for seven days in portions of three cups through the day. Other liquids can work, but plain pure water works the best.

5. Aspirin

It is recommended to take two to four aspirin four to six hours before a drug test. The aspirin absorbs chemicals as they are exiting your body, allowing it to take in much of the metabolites prior to them getting into the urine sample. Larger doses can make you lightheaded, but it will sway the results of a drug test in the right direction so THC will not be detected.

6. Cranberry Juice

There are natural ingredients in cranberries that will naturally flush the body of toxins like sodium and excess water. It is a natural diuretic but is not the most effective when used as the only method for a detox. It is recommended to drink at minimum two large glasses of cranberry juice per day, two to three days leading up to the deadline for the detox, and it will not be detectable in a test.

7. Green Tea

One of the best herbal detoxifiers, green tea compounds are supportive of the liver when the body is detoxifying itself from chemical substances or for just regular elimination. Green tea is great for your overall health and detox process, but may not help with the actual time that it takes the body to detox from THC.

8. Sauna

Sweat out the marijuana leftovers along with other toxins in a sauna. Though this gets rid of them in a lesser extent than feces or urine does. Anything that makes you sweat, especially a sauna, will help you to achieve the detox.

9. Intensive Workout

THC is stored in fat cells, and it is believed that burning fat can rid the body of the THC that is stored in fat cells. Try rigorous aerobic exercise like speed walking or jogging, swimming laps, or cycling. This is one of the most effective ways to naturally detox the body, and it will also improve your overall health.

Set a Goal For Yourself

Get tailor-made posts to achieve goal for free every morning.

http://www.lifehack.org/432815/9-at-home-methods-to-detox-marijuana-from-the-body?ref=tp&n=1