Search This Blog

Monday, March 21, 2011

SACWIS Update: is it possible to crumble the system?

By C. Patience Summers
(760) 317-8854

Following several interviews with state Departments of Human and Social Services spokespeople, it was leaked that there was a flaw in the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS): duplicate records on single individuals.

SACWIS is a file, or system of files, that contain record of an individual's foster care record, their food stamp and public medical care history and any welfare or Child Protection Services allegations (false, unfounded, sustained and anonymous complaints alike).

A representative of the Department of Social Services in Utah said, "It's not like there's just one file," and went on to explain that any allegation or social services record gets put into this SACWIS system and intake social workers, or whomever is researching the parent of a child, have to match these complaints against actual people.

For example: in area "B", there are numerous complaints against the "Smith" family. Some of these complaints could be in this SACWIS system under the name "Smithe" and there could even be numerous families with the "Smith" name.

Then, the social worker must match the other identifying aspects of the family to the SACWIS system to form a case against the family for removal of the children in family court.

At it's genesis, the plan for this system was to have this system up and running, connecting all states and run every family through this system prior to releasing their newborns from the hospital to ensure the infant would be going home to an "appropriate" home and family.

Currently, only children in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), who coincidentally qualify for SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) funding for being premature or sick in some way, are automatically being checked through this system in most hospitals because the funding simply isn't there to run every child as of yet.

If one wants to see the paperwork a social worker must fax a hospital to put a hold on a newborn, visit and search "Washington Social Services Exposed" and view the documents and records leaked there. There is a generic, fill-in-the-blank form social workers fill in to place an unconstitutional hold on a wanted newborn.

At this point, some states, like Utah, have declined integration into this national system, but still copy the form of record keeping into their own SACWIS.

How easy would it be to crumble this system if there were millions of complaints made against similar families than the existent ones? Could it be made like sifting through any local phone book? The investigation continues.

North Dakota CPS filing system aptly named "FRAME"

By C. Patience Summers
(760) 317-8854

Amongst many other issues with the Department of Human and Social Services in North Dakota, special mention must be made of their Child Protection Services record keeping program (Like the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System). It's aptly named "FRAME" and does not seem to even come from any sort of an acronym.

The complimentary kicker in this situation is that their mental health record keeping system is called "ROPE," although ROPE is an acronym.

North Dakota still records everything about everyone and their spokesperson for the department of Human Services tries to "dance around" the way public monies are spent at the officials' discretion in the following video:

Oddly enough, they still retain the same amount of information about everybody as they used to under the "Legacy" system, but it's separated and more categorized now in a sort of umbrella system called "Oracle". To follow, is their PDF defining the different names of systems they have for keeping records/files on civillians:

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Bad Judge

Bad Judge of the day (03-11-11): DISHONORABLE K. Mark Lloyd of Johnson County, In. He has an undisclosed conflict of interest because he sits on the board of directors to the Regional Services Council Committee (RSCC), an agency that decides what DCS contracted agencies will be used in his area. BAD JUDGE!

Occasionally, this reporter will hear about a judge who may not appear to be getting financial incentives for swaying their decisions, but their decisions still appear to be swayed for other reasons, even if it’s just a proverbial pat on the back from their peers or to feel in control of something.

One mother, Sherri Lynne Dungan, claims he allowed her parental rights to be terminated without just cause because the reporting individual who called Child Protective Services, Jodi Checkeye, is the daughter of the influential Warren Beville. Beville was a city councilman for the City of Greenwood, Indiana during the 60′s and 70′s.

Reportedly, Checkeye has custody of Dungan’s son as the result of poverty issues and no actual abuse allegations have been charged against Dungan.

“It’s a nightmare. It’s like she just ordered my son like you order an item from a restaurant,” Dungan cried.

In a brief, telephonic interview, Lloyd said that the RSCC is a statutory committee that decides what contracts the county will use for the foster care system and there are many officials involved besides himself.

He said that there is a process in In. for a judge to go through if they want to sit on the board of directors to a DCS directly contracted agency so that it can be certain to all that there is no conflict of interest involved, but he does not believe this process is needed for his involvement with any of the agencies he is a participant of.

Lloyd also claimed to be on another committee that provided monies to the foster care system.

He also claimed that he was attending college and high school while Beville was in office and did not know him.

Lloyd would not comment on Dungan’s case or why her child was removed without any substantiated allegations of actual abuse in his courtroom.

As of this date, Dungan’s parental rights to her son have been terminated and she hopes to overturn her case.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Human Trafficking

There is a way to sell and buy children within the United States of America. Just get a foster care license and decide to adopt the child left in your care. It’s taboo to discuss it, but it happens every day in juvenile dependency court. Regardless of frills placed upon it, it is the business of human trafficking.

Our immediate trained response to questioning the child dependency court system, or child protective services, is to feel shame because the children who are supposed to be in this system are supposed to have been taken from abusive or neglectful parents. I submit to my readers that this assumption is not only false, but a suppression strategy of those profiting from this system.

Countless parents with varied cultural and educational backgrounds who are dealing with The System have come forward with one singular complaint: due process was not afforded them in the termination of their parental rights.

In layman’s terms, these parents were accused of abuse and or neglect of their children by the Department of Children and Family Services (CPS) and their parental rights were terminated in juvenile dependency court without due process. In some way, these parents were not permitted fair trials to clear their good names.

To boot, it would seem that the social workers who represent CPS have unlimited seizure power when it comes to removing children from their natural parents. Social workers have been known to break into people’s homes while they are not there to take photographs of a family’s home in effort to prove the home is not fit for children. They simply fill out a fill-in-the-blank piece of paper with legal terminology and file court documentation later that claims just cause for removing the child or children.

A study done on 87 juvenile dependency court judges throughout the United States of America bore unusual motivation for judges to render custody to foster-adoptive agencies, rather than allow biological parents to submit evidence and call witnesses to clear their good names: 85 out of 87 judges had clear financial affiliation with CPS contracted agencies, like adoption agencies.

Since juvenile dependency court is closed to the public and nobody but the accused and those accusing them are allowed into the courtroom, there are no witnesses when the judge shows bias by sustaining all objections by CPS to the parent’s request to call witnesses and or present relevant evidence to prove their case.

Often, juvenile dependency court judges sit on the boards of directors to these foster-adoptive agencies and turn a blind eye to the agency’s faults when the agency holds soirĂ©es every so often, presenting the judge with trophies, awards or even items of intrinsic value to thank the judge for making the judgments they have been making.

I found this information too late. I intend upon stopping this practice of human trafficking through knowledge. I believe it was Alex Jones who said sunlight is the best disinfectant. I agree.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Next Step program may do more harm than good

Reports of Siskiyou County's Next Step drug rehabilitation (perinatal) program running amok have led The Corruption Report to investigate it.

When most parents are in the throes of court proceedings with the Department of Children and Family Services, they tend to make the mistake of jumping through whatever proverbial hoops are presented to them by the Department of Children and Family Services.

Next Step is of the most common proverbial hoops in Siskiyou County.

Complaints of the two women running the program not having enough proper education to run such a program leaked to The Corruption Report several months ago. Video footage of one of the women in charge terrorizing a mother in the program for asking what coloring in coloring books had to do with drug rehabilitation was soon to follow.

There has been no reasoning given as to why Juvenile Dependency Court judges are requiring such a high percentage of the mothers accused of child abuse or neglect to go through this program, but one thing is for sure: the sheer volume of mothers forced to attend the program who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not drug addicts has gained The Corruption Report's attention.

Two years ago, when Serenah's Angels did a study on 87 random judges dealing with DCFS cases, the results shocked the country. Only two judges did not have clear and convincing ties to DCFS contracted agencies, such as Next Step.

The results of judges ordering innocent parents to be tied up in the system when they should have their children at home with them is merely one aspect of what is haunting The System today.

Sources claim these programs do irreparable damage to the parents and families due to not having the proper education to run such a program is far more reaching in the lives of the children and families caught in The System than simply being separated from one another.

Reportedly, in addition to breaking the parent-child bonds of family in deciding to unnecessarily separate children from their natural parents, judges' orders sending parents to abusive and inefficient programs like Next Step may be placing families at further risk, sources say.

Serenah's Angels has made two distinctions in who to report DCFS judges who are tied to DCFS contracted agencies to in one way or another:

If the program is getting Federal monies, gather up all evidence against the judge, what damage the judge has caused by making the biased decision and turn them into your local Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office. Physically visit them with the evidence, don't just call it in.

If the program is only getting County/State monies, gather up all evidence against the judge, what damage the judge has caused by making the biased decision and turn them into your state's Attorney General's office. Be sure not to alert your local District Attorney. Go straight to your state A.G.'s office, unless you are certain the District Attorney will be inclined to prosecute a local judge they have to face in court on a regular basis.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Is Child Protection targeting specific families?

Many families involved in "The System" are claiming to have been targeted.

What is worse, many parents who are claiming to be innocent of allegations of child abuse and/or neglect are claiming they, too, were in the foster care system and that the very fact that they were foster children at one point in their lives, as minors, is being considered as a reason against their ability to parent their own children.

Besides the obvious gesture of the fact that the system is openly admitting they cannot properly raise a child by using the fact that a parent is a "product of The System," as if they were now some sort of Frankenstein monster incapable of rearing children of their own years past their stint in The System, it begs one to wonder if this is true, how the Department of Children and Family Services is obtaining records of this kind and why these records would matter so much as to keep them.

After all, it does cost money to store these names and histories.

Rumor of a mysterious list led The Corruption Report to investigate the C.A.C.I.

The C.A.C.I. is the Child Abuse Central Index. Admission of it's existence and information on how to remove one's name from it can be found at the following website:

Subjects' information remains on the C.A.C.I. until they request to be removed from it if they are victims (or alleged victims) of child abuse. If someone is accused of being the abuser (not even convicted), they need the appropriate agency to recind the accusation in writing to the C.A.C.I. to be removed from it.

Don't forget to stop by our youtube:

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Welcome to The Corruption Report

America used to be beautiful. People had rights. People had purpose. People used to be in charge. Now, We The People face off with Them: what seem to be demon possessed politicians.

We can't own certain books, say certain words or even send certain language via Email to crack our buddies up over the Internet. If we do, they hit us with the great unknown: legal repercussions.

What are these legal repercussions and are they even legal? Who is behind them and what motivates them? This will all be discussed in The Corruption Report.