wants your children
is our child. - UNICEF
Did you know that 4500 children are seized from their parents
EVERY DAY in this country by our government ? Only 500 are for
substantiated acts of abuse or neglect.
Why are 4000 children a day taken away from non-abusive homes?
Irony: This mural greets parents as they enter or leave the
Northampton Massachusetts Juvenile Court, where their children
are taken by Social Services.
Did you know that the Child
Protective Services industry in America is worth $12 BILLION A
What is the Problem?
All across the
USA the system mandated to protect children from abuse/neglect is
snatching thousands of children a day from decent, loving homes and
parents innocent of maltreating their children. (Child "Protective"
Services is known by different initials in different states, e.g.,
DSS=Dept. of Social Services, DCFS=Dept. of Child & Family Services,
etc.). Both state and federal laws have clear guidelines that
children are only to be taken out of their homes as a last resort,
and after repeated substantiated ACTUAL acts of abuse/neglect, when
the child is at "imminent risk of serious harm" and when "reasonable
efforts" have been made to ameliorate conditions that led to
However, what is actually happening is that this agency is
arbitrarily, and illegally, seizing children from their homes based
on the most tenuous and frivolous of reasons: e.g., poverty issues,
head lice, spanking, poor housekeeping, "parents argue in front of
child," normal/common injuries incurred in the normal course of
childhood play. If a normal, concerned parent takes their child to
the E.R. too often, or appears "overly 'involved/interested' " in
the child's treatment (and who wouldn't be?!) they are now being
reported for "Munchausens-by-proxy Syndrome." Almost all cases of
Brittlebone disease (OI) are reported as child abuse, as are SIDS. A
little girl with yeast, urinary tract infections, or bedwetting,
will most likely result in a sexual abuse allegation—as do those
cute "nudie" pictures that EVERY parent takes of the kids in the tub
or playing in the sprinkler. (Nev's note: They show them on
America's Funniest Home Videos for crying out loud!)
Did you know that Children's
Hospital in Boston turns in an average of 400 parents a year for
verification, marks, injuries or bruises are needed. Children are
not examined by independent medical personnel to document evidence
of abuse or neglect. Children are isolated and questioned alone by
caseworkers who employ the tactics of leading questioning, pressure
and manipulation. Caseworkers may strip children and examine them in
a state of nudity.
OUR CHILDREN DON'T NEED THIS KIND OF PROTECTION.
warning, children are whisked away from their homes and schools,
their parents, families, friends, toys, pets,
neighborhoods—everything that is safe, comforting and familiar to
the child. Uniformed police officers (who must submit to the whims
of CPS) may accompany caseworkers and children may be physically
dragged, hysterical, out of their homes, and babies are literally
pulled screaming from their mothers' arms. (We do not make this up.
Scenarios represented are from actual cases. We have numerous cases
where mothers hid in closets holding their babies protectively, only
to have the above scenario ensue.)
THIS IS AN ACT OF
TERRORISM AGAINST OUR CHILDREN!
This type of behavior
by government agents is intolerable and unconscionable. The abrupt
and brutal severance of parental bonds in this manner is extremely
terrorizing and traumatizing to children. It is cruel and inhumane
and leaves lifelong scars. Every vestige of security and comfort
within the child is shattered forever. The child's belief in their
parents' ability to protect them is broken forever. Small children
believe their parents to be all-powerful, so when parents are not
able to stop the strangers from abducting the child, a fundamental
belief system within the child is broken forever. As parents stand
by placidly—under threat of arrest and never seeing their children
again—small children may believe their parents "gave them away"
because they were "bad." This is hideous psychological abuse.
WHERE IS THE
of parents are never alleged to have committed, nor are they charged
with any ACTUAL specific acts of child abuse or neglect; rather,
case files are built upon vague, obscure insinuations, innuendo;
bizarre pseudo-psychological babble; and fabrications, distortions
and inaccuracies. Court proceedings deteriorate into an exercise in
character assassination of the parents, perjury, gross violation of
law and due process, and obstruction of justice. Judges should be
taking control of their own courtrooms; objecting and striking
testimony based on relevance, and upholding their judicial canons by
ensuring that the laws and Constitution are upheld, and procedural
error is not occurring. But CPS rules the courtroom and the entire
process is a sham.
Did you know that by law in
Massachusetts, judges CANNOT overrule DSS?
Reports are written, and
life-altering judgments are made based on case files and service
plans that read like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic and
have all the credibility of an Elvis sighting, often written by
social workers whose qualifications and sound judgment is
questionable; who are not objective, not factual, not professional;
who often have serious personal issues of their own, and whose
credibility should be seriously examined.
Did you know
that in Massachusetts, 20-25 CHILDREN ARE SEIZED EVERY DAY to uphold
the $500 million annual budget?
are baffled by the bizarre allegations by
CPS, particularly when they involve “psychological” allegations.
In other words, rather than claiming specific, actual acts of
child abuse or neglect, CPS will claim that the behaviors of the
child are indications that there is some sort of obscure, hidden
abuse in the home, and the child’s behavior is a result of some
kind of trauma from the environment within the home.
Welcome to Junk Psychology for Dollars
are “acting out their inability to verbalize their trauma”. This
is called the ”Clinical Model”. CPS workers consider themselves
“clinicians”. This is a marvelous concept for them because they
can conveniently stretch the boundaries of definition to include
ANY human behavior. (I call it an ingenious marketing scheme).
Using the clinical model they can claim that any or all behaviors
have some obscure meaning. If your child is outgoing, active,
placid, obedient, disobedient, neat, messy, loud, temperamental, or
easy-going...EVERYTHING has some deep, dark, bizarre “meaning”,
nothing can just be normal, predictable human behavior as it has
been for the past six thousand years that the human race has,
somehow, managed to birth & raise children without socialist
workers in our homes telling us how to do it. However, the clinical
model is necessary
to support the CPS theory that ALL parents are inadequate and
abusive, therefore children must be raised by the State.
with the clinical model are many:
Human behavior may have many different causes, i.e.: genetic,
bio-chemical, neurological, emotional/psychological. Other than
physiological damage to the brain as a result of physical trauma
(which does not necessarily mean it was inflicted), there is no
expert in the world who can determine cause.
Human behaviors encompass a wide spectrum - both positive and
negative. Conflict is part of the human condition. Everything
doesn’t have to have a “reason” or “meaning”, most is, well...just
Psychology is a SOFT SCIENCE, meaning it is comprised of theory
and interpretation, as opposed to a HARD SCIENCE, like medicine or
forensics, which can be proven by concrete means (like an x-ray),
cat scan, or DNA. With a soft science we are using subjective
opinions, rather than material facts that can be proven with
concrete evidence. Interpretation can be whatever the interpreter
wants it do be, which could be influenced by their motives. In CPS
cases the “experts” usually are from agencies which hold multi-
million dollar contracts with CPS, and are raping Medicaid by
enforcing unnecessary, inappropriate, and excessive services which
they fraudulently triple bill Medicaid for. Many of these places
exist SOLELY on their CPS referrals. So, their motive is PROFIT.
CPS dictates to their contracted vendors what they want their
reports/testimony to say.
workers are not trained, licensed psychologists. However,
even if they were, see above.
soft science, being subjective opinion and interpretation,
cannot be either proven or disproven, and therefore cannot be used
as a basis for the removal of children from their homes
Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind
DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families
By Nev Moore
Child "protection" is one of the
biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on
The money goes to tens of
thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such
as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and
guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors,
therapists, more "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential
facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big
Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to
list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a
paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody.
In this article I explain the
financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to
take people’s children – and not give them back.
In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted
the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive
amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat
child abuse and neglect. From that came Child "Protective" Services,
as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself
expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it
could lead states to create a "business" in dealing with children.
Then in 1997 President Clinton
passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act." The public relations
campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children
who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among
dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a
press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton’s
initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care
who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed."
It all sounded so heartwarming.
We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy
stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my
mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to
"consider the source." In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about
kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin
and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked
face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of
children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and
children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members.
We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly
walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and
June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their
lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as
big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of
toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about
Now it’s time to wake up to the
reality of the adoption business.
Very few children who are being
used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from
Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you
thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When
you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product
that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with
reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is
that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of
processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More
than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton,
Lynn, etc. Interesting…
With the implementation of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make
himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the
abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to
offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out
of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002,
and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call
them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption of
Where to Find the Children
A whole new industry was put into
motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy.
Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you
$100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an
unlimited supply of apples, right?
The United States Department of
Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To
accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive
memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented
and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only
gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash
adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn
Everybody makes money. If anyone
really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness
of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that
this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why
the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their
legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares
about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS, and
no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes.
They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators
I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity.
Because I’m preaching to the already damned.
The legislators have forgotten who
funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the
Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us.
How DSS Is Helped
The way that the adoption bonuses
work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected
adoptions based on population.
For every child that DSS can get
adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000.
But that is just the starting
figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is
multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed
its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase
in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads:
"$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which
the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base
number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year."
In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that,
"the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or
contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local
communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of
adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is
to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster
care system; the development of best practice guidelines for
expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of
special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a
permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children
who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements;
and the development of programs that place children into
pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental
In the November press release from
HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to
States for increases in the adoption of children from the public
foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are
"innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents],
more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable
for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits.
A report from a private think
tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis, reads: "The way the
federal government reimburses States rewards a growth in the size of
the program instead of the effective care of children." Another
incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption
easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to "link
children in foster care with adoptive families." So we will be able
to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don’t
find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "Adopt
If you prefer to actually be able
to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend
one of DSS’s quaint "Adoption Fairs," where live children are put on
display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to
sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always
say, "Sorry. Just looking." The incentives for government child
snatching are so good that I’m surprised we don’t have government
agents breaking down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in
the heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples
you don’t chop down your apple trees.
Benefits for Foster Parents
That covers the goodies the State
gets. Now let’s have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially
after the adoption is finalized.
After the adoption is finalized,
the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may
collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in
school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded
subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of
the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same
as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month
per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which
of course, they all can.
According to the NAATRIN State
Subsidy profile from DSS, "special needs" may be defined as:
"Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a
significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child
has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and
separation would adversely affect the child’s development if not
adopted by them." [But their significant emotional ties with their
parents, since birth, never enter the equation.]
Additional "special needs"
designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or
ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings. In their
report on the State of the Children, Boston’s Institute for Children
says: "In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for
special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as
to become meaningless." "Special needs" children may also get an
additional Social Security check.
The adoptive parents also receive
Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance and reimbursement for
adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost
of adoption home study, and "reasonable costs of food and lodging
for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the
adoption process." Under Title XX of the Social Security Act
adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services "that
may be helpful in keeping the family intact," including "daycare,
specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as
housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare
services". [Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!]
The subsidy profile actually
states that it does not include money to remodel the home to
accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated,
remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative
incentives to remove barriers to adoption" section. The subsidy
regulations read that "adoption assistance is based solely on the
needs of the child without regard to the income of the family." What
an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare
program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing
her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that
she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or
bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over
$1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and
two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820
plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding
the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are
bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The
adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological
evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or
urine screens as the parents are.
Adoption subsidies may be
negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to
"negotiate" with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail
lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate
to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list:
"We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another
$500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more
teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out
with the bills."
I can’t help but wonder why we
don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in
the first place? According to Cornell University, about 68% of all
child protective cases "do not involve child maltreatment." The
largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for "deprivation of
necessities" due to poverty. So, if the natural parents were given
the incredible incentives and services listed above that are
provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that
the causes for removing children in the first place would be
eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the
first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12
billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social
workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel,
therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we
would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation
of any society.
That’s just a fantasy, of course.
The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowley’s children on
the government home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out
there can buy them.
May is national adoption month. To
support "Adoption 2002," the U.S. Postal Service is issuing special
adoption stamps. Let us hope they don’t feature pictures of kids who
are for sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register
complaints with the post office.
I know that I’m feeling pretty
smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and
compassionate society. How about you?
The Money Behind the
DSS: Social Engineers of the
Brave New World
The questioning mind might wonder
why the federal government continues to enable this terribly
dysfunctional and destructive system that harms and kills more
children than it “saves.” This leads us to the next phase: the
madness behind the federal money.
It’s no surprise
to any of us (is it?) that there are many people who will sell their
souls for a little bit of dirty money. Under the label of “liberal”,
these brave new socialists are control freaks who are working out
their own inner feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy by
dominating others. These are the soldiers, passive-aggressive drones
who tell you: “We’re here to ‘help’ you - whether you like it or
not.” It’s easy to seduce small-minded, bitter people by offering a
little money and unlimited power. The power to harm - without
consequences - is irresistible to many.
Behind the money
is a faction of people who are intent on bringing to fruition Aldous
Huxley’s nightmare vision of a brave new world: a homogenized
population of compliant, controllable, government-raised citizens.
Massachusetts News reported all of this in detail in its August
2000 edition, including the work of Dr. C. Henry Kemp and his
protégé, Richard Krugman, who was chairman of the U.S. Advisory
Board on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1991. (See “home visitation” on
our library archives.)
The elite behind
this movement are narcissistic men and women who wish to see the
United States under a totalitarian regime which, of course, will not
apply to them, only to the general population. The architects and
engineers of this plan are, in reality, about as “liberal” as Pol
Pot or Idi Amin. The plan is being implemented through the bill
entitled “Goals 2000” which was enacted in 1994.
It’s the end
result of thirty years of work by others who work out of the public
eye. Goals 2000 was presented as “education reform.” Considering
that our kids graduate from high school not knowing how to read or
write, on the surface it sounds like a good thing. It sounds as if
the education system will be reformed to bring back higher
standards, which would be the logical inference. But, the real
intent of Goals 2000 is to “dumb down” our children, rather than to
raise their intellectual level.
Goals 2000 is
about much more than just education reform. It is the blueprint of a
plan to take control of our nation’s children - the next generation
of adults. A chilling clue to its true intent is that, among its
proponents it is sub-titled: “the Restructuring of American Society
- from Cradle to Grave.” The government will be the “parent” of
every citizen born in the United States. Each citizen will have an
electronic portfolio that begins at birth and will track the person
throughout his life. Their education and future place in the work
force will be determined by the government. The schools will subject
all children to psychological testing. Every parent will have a
social worker who will make home visits, conduct a family
assessment, and record “risk factors.” Risk factors include not
enough toys, too many toys, birth of a sibling, death or divorce in
the family, homeschooling, etc.
trinity that is enforcing Goals 2000 is: Child Protective Services
(CPS), known as DSS in Massachusetts, the Home Visitation Program
(see the August 2000 edition of MassNews), and Outcome Based
The public is
deliberately being kept in the dark as to how these elements are
connected because the original proponents of this plan stated that
it must be implemented quietly. Why is the intent of OBE to “dumb
down” our children? Because a “dumbed down” citizen will not have
the capability of independent thinking, will be less likely to
challenge, and is therefore more easily controlled. OBE is also
responsible for eroding values, boundaries, and morals. The schools,
while paying lip-service to the need for discipline and structure in
child rearing, in practice undermine parental authority and any form
of discipline, self-restraint, or values that parents try to instill
in their children. Children are being taught that they must accept
the state’s politically correct ideas rather than their families’
values and that their parents do not have the right to discipline
them or make any decisions for them.
OBE amounts to
thought reform - and thought reform is mind control. The December
1999 edition of WorldNetDaily contained an excellent review by
Samuel L. Blumenfeld, a scholar who lives in Waltham, on The
Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, a book written by Charlotte
Thomson Iserbyt. Blumenfeld wrote: “Anyone who has any lingering
hope that what educators have been doing is a result of error,
accident, or stupidity will be shocked by the way American social
engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of
millions of American children for the purpose of leading the
American people into a socialist world government controlled by
behavioral and social scientists.”
An example of deliberate dumbing down occurred close to home
recently when my assistant, Stacie Hevener, noticed that her
9-year-old daughter’s graded homework contained misspelled words
that the teacher hadn’t corrected. When Stacie called the teacher to
ask her why the spelling errors weren’t corrected, the teacher said
it wasn’t important.
While OBE and
DSS stories initially sound nonsensical and far-fetched – all logic
and reason turned upside down – they fall into place when considered
in the context of implementing a socialist agenda. To gain control
of the populace the government must break down the existing systems
that give people strength, character, and community cohesion:
family, marriage, faith, and intellect. This explains the puzzling
fact that DSS is not targeting the drug-ridden ghettos where many
families do live in filth and chaos and many children are truly
neglected and abused. Those families are already broken down, and
that is what DSS’ role is - to act as the jackboots who will enforce
compliance by the citizens and, ultimately, break down the
institution of family until it is eliminated completely leaving
individuals isolated, vulnerable and dependent on the government.
So, instead of
saving children who are abused, neglected, and abandoned, DSS
targets Christians, homeschoolers, and families with strong
marriages where two parents are committed to raising their children
to be decent and self-sufficient, with a solid foundation of values
and the capability to think independently. Most of us still believe
that is the caring and responsible way to raise children, but this
is exactly what the government doesn’t want, as that takes the
control away from Big Brother. During the Communist takeovers in
Russia and China, the aristocracy and the intellectuals were
murdered en masse as they would be the people most likely to see the
larger picture and be capable of organizing to halt it. By the time
the average working citizen, distracted by the details of daily
survival, sees what’s happening and stands to defend his freedom,
it’s too late. It’s interesting to add the gun control issue into
the equation, as disarming citizens is a key factor for successful
government control. We have plenty of gun-control laws already, the
problem is that only law-abiding citizens follow the law, and those
aren’t the people we need to worry about. Obviously, a person who
has no compunction about shooting a stranger in the head is not
worried about violating other laws.
There is no
question that there is a powerful anti-father agenda in this country
today, but we need to recognize that the anti-father agenda is a
component of the anti-family agenda. The vicious feminist movement
not only attacks men, but also attacks women who desire to be in a
marriage and raise a family with their husbands. By removing
husbands, the government can create isolation and vulnerability in
women, as well as making them financially dependent on the state.
Children may be questioned about whether their parents ever argue or
yell. Any conflict or disagreement between spouses is documented as
“domestic violence” and opens up a whole new funding floodgate.
Our Case Files
Anyone who thinks I am exaggerating can see copies of service
plans from our case files which state “parents will not yell” and
“parents will not have loud or angry arguments.” All people disagree
at some time or another. Most people, at some time, become angry,
argue and even raise their voices. Conflict is part of the human
condition. Children have witnessed their parents argue for millions
of years. It is not always comfortable, but not necessarily damaging
either. Perhaps, by witnessing things we learn how to do things
differently. By grossly stretching the boundaries of definition for
domestic violence, DSS has managed to remove thousands of men from
their homes and from the lives of their children. There is plenty of
sound, scientific literature on the negative effects of fatherless
households on children, and the degree to which fatherlessness
contributes to the emotional and behavioral decline of children.
That is the goal of DSS, backed by the feminists.
This begins to
explain why the funding to “combat domestic violence” is channeled
through DSS. It is an anti-family, anti-Christian, pro-feminist,
pro-gay organization. This is far, far removed from the original
purpose of protecting children from abuse and serious neglect that
place a child at “imminent risk of serious harm.” Their function is
to act as social engineers enforcing a plan of “social
restructuring” through coercion, threats, and intimidation by
seizing or threatening to seize, our children. Remember, it is DSS
who the police, the schools, the day care centers and the doctors
call to turn parents in, not necessarily for acts of abuse or
neglect, but because the parents are resistant to enforced
government programs. Enforced programs such as home visitation,
parent “training,” drugging or unnecessary vaccinations, explicit
sexual instruction or participation in batterers “treatment” by
parents. The threat of having your children seized, or never seeing
them again, is a powerful weapon to force citizens to submit to
down the intellectual development and moral fiber of our children at
school, the schools are also subversively intruding into our homes.
Many shocked parents are reporting bizarre and invasive
questionnaires given to their children in school. Children may be
asked if their parents argue or “yell,” if the parents drink, if
daddy travels on business, or if there has been a death in the
family and if any of the above frighten or upset the child. These
are all considered “risk factors” in the Goals 2000 family
assessment and will red flag a family for DSS intervention. Home
visitation social workers will also note allergies, mother being
overweight, baby crying, and letting kids stay up too late as “risk
When our daughter was ten, her school called and told me that
the YMCA was offering an after school “adventure” course on the
grounds of their summer camp. It would involve the rope course and
other outdoor, physical activities. This was offered during the
winter so we thought it would be a great chance for her to beat the
winter indoor doldrums. The YMCA sent home paperwork for us to
complete. I was expecting the usual forms for contact information,
emergency contacts, medical information. Instead I received a
four-page interrogation. After name/address/child’s age, the third
question was: “Has there been a history of foster care placement?”
Some of the rest of the questions asked if any of the following
applied to our child:
√ Poor attitude
√ Listens to
first request (are there really children who do this?)
√ Family history
of drug, alcohol, or tobacco use
√ Poor choice of
√ Please include
any police involvement or arrests (of child’s)
√ Age at first
√ DSS contact
√ Fire setting
mental health issues
Bear in mind
that this questionnaire was for 9- and 10-year-old little girls.
When I said that I felt the form to be inappropriate and invasive
and that I would not fill out anything other than necessary
information, our daughter was denied participation.
In addition to the Home Visitation program, which brings the
government in control of the child before school age, Goals 2000 is
being implemented through parent licensing, parent-teacher compacts,
and parental report cards issued by the schools. These programs,
under various names, are either in place or being proposed across
the nation. Parental Licensing is still a point of controversial
discussion, although legislation to pass it into law has been
submitted in other states.
will determine who may have children and who may not. Jack C.
Westman, a psychiatrist at the University of Wisconsin and author of
Licensing Parents: Can We Prevent Child Abuse?, explains. “A parent
license would place the responsibility on parents to be competent.
The burden of proof would be on the parents to demonstrate that they
are not abusing and neglecting their children rather than on the
state to prove through quasi-legal proceedings that parents are
unfit after they have damaged their children.” So, parents will be
in the position of having to disprove a negative, and having to
prove that they will not commit future acts.
As one of the
most prominent advocates for parental licensing, he adds, “We must
create a new paradigm in which parenthood is a privilege.” Most
parents feel that being a parent is a privilege, a gift from God
that gives our lives meaning and purpose. But, should it be an
entitlement given to us by the government? Does this mean that some
citizens will be deemed workers, and others breeders? If the
government will select who may propagate and who may not, how many
steps away are we from mandatory sterilization of those deemed unfit
by the government, or those who do not conform to a societal ideal
established by the government? Or will we allow “them” to breed to
provide children to others?
author of Antisocial Personalities, and a strong advocate of
parental licensing, calls for the immediate removal of newborns from
unlicensed mothers so that they may be placed directly into foster
homes and quickly adopted.
determine who gets the privilege of a license? Will it be used as a
perk for those who “go along” and do not resist the socialist
regime? Who will make the determination of who may have children and
who may not? Will it be done randomly by a computer? The Illinois
legislation established that not having a license would be grounds
for the social workers to remove the children. An interesting
sidebar is that although parental licensing advocates are adamant
about the issue, they do not feel that it is necessary for social
workers or foster parents to have licenses.
Paving the way towards
parent licensing is the “Parent Training” program, also enacted in
1994, which is already firmly entrenched. In the Reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994, local education
agencies are required to reserve a percentage of their Title I,
section 1118, “Parental Involvement” funds for programs that teach
“parenting skills,” not to teens in school, but to parents who have
children enrolled in the schools.
directed to “coordinate and integrate” their parental involvement
strategies with programs like the “Parents as Teachers” program that
was initiated in Missouri and became mandatory for all Missouri
school districts in 1984. The program, which is a “home/school
partnership that begins at birth” has spread to 44 states, including
Massachusetts. In this mandatory program, parents are “trained” by
“parent educator trainers” (PETs - can you stand it!). The program
is based on the offensive assumption that all parents are in need of
“training” and the majority are “at risk.” Which explains the
condescending, overbearing attitude that we see in DSS.
The PETs use a
Goals 2000 assessment tool called a “risk factor matrix” which
includes 12 categories of “at risk” parents. As there is no code to
indicate a normal, well-functioning family, any family can fit into
the “at risk” category. Some of the questions from the Parents as
Teachers workbook are:
√ Does mother
respond to child’s vocalizations with verbal response?
√ Is mother’s
speech distinct, clear, and audible?
occasionally allows child to engage in messy types of play.
√ Mother does
not scold child.
√ At least ten
books are present and visible during a PET visit.
comments verbally on child’s hunger cues.
√ Parent does
not offer food while child looks down or turns away.
√ Parent does
not compress lips, grimace, or frown when making eye contact with
verbalizes to child within five seconds after child has vocalized.
√ Parent does
not talk baby talk to child.
√ Child stops
displaying distress cues within fifteen seconds after parents
observations to be documented by PETs include:
√ Does child
express distress during grooming (hair brushing, face washing, nail
√ Does child
withdraw from splashing water?
√ Does child
have difficulty standing in line?
√ Does child
avoid certain tastes or smells?
√ Is child a
√ Child seeks
all kinds of movement.
√ Child doesn’t
seem to notice when face or hands are messy.
√ Does child
jump from one activity to another?
√ Does child
leave clothing twisted on body?
√ Child appears
not to hear what parent says.
√ Child watches
people move around room.
√ Does child
squint in bright light?
Anyone who holds
the same Ph.D. that I do, a Ph.D. in common sense, will immediately
recognize these symptoms as the “pathology” of any child. However,
the government agents who are using this workbook to assess your
adequacy as a parent claim that these behaviors indicate child abuse
and neglect. Perpetrated by you - the parents. They also include
“passive abuse” which includes “neglecting to fill out school
School Has Parental Report Cards
To justify the need for parent training programs, the schools
have initiated “Parent-Teacher Compacts” and parental “report
cards.” Some compacts are simple, others can consist of dozens of
pages of invasive questioning. Douglas Elementary School in
Worcester, MA sends out a compact for parents to sign that states
that they will “ensure their children get to school on time,
well-rested and well-nourished in addition to monitoring their
homework and leisure time.” Who is going to judge if you have
adequately performed these duties? If the schools do not sent out
the questionnaires they will lose their federal aid.
The irony is
that the federal aid is only channeled to districts that need it
because they are considered “disadvantaged.” So, parents in
wealthier districts will be exempt from this governmental intrusion
and judgment and will not face admonishment if their children ate
candy bars for breakfast, or are not “well-rested” or the parents
forgot to sign the orange homework folder each night.
In some school
districts the wording has already changed from “compact” to
contract, and mandates that all parents contribute a specified
number of “volunteer” hours to the school. This may include
baby-sitting for school employees.
cards document their compliance with the parent/school compact. One
parent report card that we have obtained includes the following
areas and questions: (on the report card, a check mark indicates
that the parent is “successfully nurturing the home/school
Children should be absent only for the following reasons: illness,
death of an immediate family member, observance of a religious
holiday, or extreme family emergency.
the parent has the child to school on time each day.
√ Student health
& safety: Has the child eaten healthy meals and snacks; dresses
child appropriately for the weather; registers child for school
communications: parent supports school policies; parent attends
school functions; completes and returns school documents; has child
return completed homework each day.
involvement: signs and returns the daily parent homework checklist;
attends parent-teacher conferences; volunteers in classroom; praises
child often; follows through on school’s suggested plans for child’s
success; spends quality time with child.
extremely interpretive nature of the questions, who could we trust
enough to make these assessments? Why should we be “assessed” when
we haven’t done anything wrong? Do we really want to give government
agents the right to assess us as human beings and as moms and dads
for interpretive social reasons and in the absence of acts of
maltreatment towards our children? Who is to judge if the time you
spend with your child is “quality time,” or if you have dressed them
“appropriately?” Is this before or after they lost their hats and
mittens between your home and the school? Is that sugary fruit juice
and chemically sprayed celery a “healthy snack?” I know that I, for
one, can never remember to sign the orange homework folder, but then
I failed all the other questions, too. My child definitely cannot
stand still in a line, and, I confess, she absolutely squints in
bright light, so I might as well just turn myself in to a “parental
training camp,” which is where parents who fail their report cards
in Illinois have to go. I’d better start packing right away.
The recent case
in Massachusetts about the boy who wanted to wear girls clothes to
school and use the girls’ bathroom illustrates the hypocrisy of this
system. When we teach children about homosexual sex in school, we
cannot pretend to be surprised when they assert their “right” to act
it out. At the same time, the national media has been giving
exposure to another story about a boy who was taken away from his
parents by social services because they allowed him to wear girls
clothes to school. In the Massachusetts case the lesbian Judge Linda
Giles wrote: “This court trusts that exposing children to diversity
at an early age serves the important social goals of increasing
their ability to tolerate differences and teaching them respect for
everyone’s experience,” in the ‘Brave New World’ out there.
How does DSS fit
in? They are the enforcers who will remove your children if you
don’t “go along.” A state police sergeant recently told me that DSS
is the ultimate authority over all issues regarding children in
Massachusetts. Experience and statistics tell us that DSS is neither
a caring nor safe caretaker of our children. When DSS clients call
the legislators for help they are told: “We can’t help you, we have
no power over DSS.” Yet, I have a letter from U.S. Health & Human
Services in Washington that says it is indeed the state legislators’
responsibility to hold DSS accountable. The buck is passing faster
here than a three-card Monty game in Times Square.
not-so-brave New World of Goals 2000, which already has much of it
in effect, the government will dictate how we think and behave, how
we interact in our marriages and relationships, even what tone of
voice we use. Literature on battered women’s syndrome teaches us
that batterers are motivated by the need to control. This is
accomplished over time by tearing down the victim’s individuality,
self-esteem and free will until the person no longer resists or
attempts to assert any independence. This includes their thinking
process. The victim becomes apathetic, submissive, and compliant -
robot-like. This insidious tearing down process is also the
foundation of brainwashing and hostage taking techniques and is
clearly seen in the coercive government intrusion and control that
we are seeing in this country today: the insidious removal of our