Outcome; Accountability; Divorce

 

Accountability being imposed

 

The regulations will hold states accountable for services to at-risk
children with a new, results-oriented approach in federal monitoring of
state child welfare programs.

 

This is compared and contrasted with;

 

The final regulation being issued today reflects a consensus between
Congress and the Clinton administration that the former review process
for states focused too narrowly on paperwork.

 

Also note;

 

The new review process will contain
accountability of quality services provided to children, the use of
quantitative and qualitative statewide data indicators to measure
outcomes for children. The measures include the length of time it takes
for children in foster care to move into a permanent home, instances of
maltreatment of children in foster care, and the quality of systems for
regularly reviewing cases of children in foster care and the recruitment
of prospective adoptive parents. Reviews will also include interviews
with children, parents, foster parents and service providers.

 

All of the above is the meat of the matter. It goes part way towards the objective I argued for, which is long term (five year) accountability. I shall define what I mean.

I realised that it would be quite easy and rapid to do statistical analysis on the outcome for children of divorce five, ten years after the divorce. By that time, the massive statistical difference in key outcomes for children of divorce resulting from their being cut off from their fathers or not, would be obvious. It would follow that a jurisdiction which cut more children off from their fathers would be punished fiscally and otherwise, for incompetence. (This is because all the statistics on key outcomes; teenage pregnancy, criminality, truancy, drug abuse, etc., are much worse if the father is excluded usually three times worse. Thus, radfem judges and poodle-men judges would be quickly (in five years) exposed by the dire statistics resulting from their misbehaviour. Some statistics are more extreme. For instance, all assassins and eight out of nine rapists were cut off from their fathers during childhood.)

 

True to form, excluded fathers were nearly all anxious to not understand my suggestion, or to confuse it. However, after a few years, this remained impossible to do. "Outcome" came to mean the state of the child five or ten years after the divorce, not whether the Court Official caused the child to cry or suchlike during the divorce process, which is what bureaucrats trying to avoid accountability (and many excluded fathers and their representatives) strove to reinterpret "outcome" as meaning, but finally conceded that they understood.

 

The next stage was that the LCD recently handed the consideration of "outcome" to a committee of vindictive women from notorious Leeds, a hotbed of anti-father radfem activity. Of the 12 members on the committee, only one is male, and four or five are from Leeds, linked with the recent scandal of false allegations against two nurses in Newcastle. Thus, the statistics on outcomes are bound to be twisted in some way into being useless as a vehicle for imposing accountability on courts and court officials. Much delay, and even more unnecessary deaths will result. These Leeds women are implacable. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2204.htm  http://www.ivorcatt.com/2305.htm 

 

A secondary factor in the above quotes, which Baskerville will have noticed, is the move to nationalise the family, which Baskerville and I oppose. It is clear that we are sailing in murky waters, with a number of forces anxious to damage children at work.

 

Ivor Catt         30jan03

----- Original Message -----

To: berkshire_fatherhood_coalition@hotmail.com ; ukmm@mono.org ; maleview@tesco.net ; mckenzie@fnf.org.uk ; penny.cross@virgin.net ; pbailey@match1979.co.uk ; Markharrisdadof3@aol.com ; Head.Office@mankind.co.uk ; mfreely@rosebud.u-net.com ; matthewmudge@classicfm.net ; membership@match1979.co.uk ; rwhiston@rwhiston.demon.co.uk ; stephen.fitzgerald@lineone.net ; Margaret.T.Mclaren@btinternet.com ; ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk ; philippe.troncin@wanadoo.fr ; Childandfather@aol.com ; Daniel Lee ; USA49@childsbestinterest.org ; R_DEL_GALLO@HOTMAIL.COM ; Brian Brown

Cc: ZALICK@aol.com ; LNJOY57@aol.com ; CUISINER2@aol.com ; raucher@iconn.net ; schapman@cttel.net ; mpaprocki@snet.net ; David Levy ; Ctcrc@aol.com ; CRCofRI@aol.com ; Putzangel@aol.com ; Clsmsw@aol.com ; pamelahoch@rachelfoundation.org ; Jkrist288@aol.com ; Juliabschpsy@aol.com ; MichaelOlak webmaster ctcrc.org and ricrc.org ; libby.graham@po.state.ct.us ; Tom Foley ; LIBROS3@aol.com ; AStarkley@aol.com ; AMeng@aol.com ; Macbeth719@aol.com ; CNation521@aol.com ; appletonp@snet.net ; Castagnojean@aol.com ; judasfather@snet.net ; kath4cats@hotmail.com ; barbarab@sba.uconn.edu ; Kenya@kjrconsulting.com ; RREENAN@NEURON.UCHC.EDU ; gareth.bye@po.state.ct.us ; HA1686@aol.com ; jmclapp@sharedparentinginc.org ; wesleywinterbottom@hotmail.com ; Kenya J Rutland

Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:52 AM

Subject: Federal regulation

 


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday Jan. 25, 2000
Contact: Michael Kharfen, (202) 401-9215
>
>
>
>
HHS Issues Final Child Welfare Regulations to Improve Services and
Outcomes for Children
>
HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala today announced important new regulations
that will improve outcomes for abused and neglected children, children in
foster care, and children awaiting adoption.
>
The regulations will hold states accountable for services to at-risk
children with a new, results-oriented approach in federal monitoring of
state child welfare programs. The final rule will also guide states in
the implementation of recent new laws including the Adoption and Safe
Families Act and the Interethnic Adoption provisions passed as part of
the Small Business Job Protection Act. Under a new federal review
process, states will be measured for the first time on the quality of
services provided to, and outcome results for, at-risk children. States
will also be subject to tough new penalties as well as being given the
opportunity to undertake corrective action plans.
>
"With this regulation, we are taking a real step toward ensuring that
vulnerable children will be able to live safely, in permanent and loving
homes," said Secretary Shalala. "This regulation demonstrates a critical
and significant shift in holding states accountable for children's safety
and permanency while promoting their well-being."
>
Under the regulation, states will be assessed for compliance with federal
requirements for child protective services, foster care, adoption and
family preservation and support services under titles IV-B and IV-E of
the Social Security Act. Those services cover the investigation of
families where children are at risk, placements and supervision of
children in foster care, development of child permanency plans for court
hearings, reunification with birth families when safe, and adoption. The
reviews will be in two areas: outcomes for children and families in terms
of safety, permanency and child and family well-being; and the
administration of state programs that directly affect the capacity to
deliver services leading to improved outcomes. Federal staff will work
with states to develop plans for making improvements in programs before
assessing penalties and withholding funds. However, if a state remains in
non-compliance, a financial penalty based on the extent of non-compliance
will be assessed.
>
The final regulation being issued today reflects a consensus between
Congress and the Clinton administration that the former review process
for states focused too narrowly on paperwork. HHS launched an extensive
consultation process with states and stakeholders to develop a new
process that will better assess how states are performing and pilot
tested reviews with states. The new review process will contain
accountability of quality services provided to children, the use of
quantitative and qualitative statewide data indicators to measure
outcomes for children. The measures include the length of time it takes
for children in foster care to move into a permanent home, instances of
maltreatment of children in foster care, and the quality of systems for
regularly reviewing cases of children in foster care and the recruitment
of prospective adoptive parents. Reviews will also include interviews
with children, parents, foster parents and service providers.
>
"We are confident that the new approach to monitoring in this regulation
will strengthen the timeliness and quality of decision-making for
children and families," said Olivia A. Golden, HHS assistant secretary
for children and families. "For the first time, hold the states
accountable for the results that we and they care so much about
accomplishing for children and families. This regulation definitely puts
the emphasis where it belongs: on safety and permanent homes for
children."
>
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, based on President Clinton's
Adoption 2002 proposal, made the most sweeping changes in the child
welfare program since it was established. The regulation implements
several of the law's requirements regarding states' efforts to achieve
safety and permanency for children. First, the rule clarifies that states
have broad flexibility to define circumstances in which "reasonable
efforts" are not required to preserve or reunify a child with the birth
family because of safety concerns. Second, for children in foster care,
states must obtain a court order at least every 12 months showing that
the state made reasonable efforts to develop a permanent plan for
reunification or legal guardianship or adoption. Third, the regulation
provides guidance for states on filing petitions for termination of
parental rights for certain children in foster care and makes clear that
no groups of children may be exempt from the requirement. Under the law,
states must begin termination of parental rights proceedings for a child
in foster care 15 months of the previous 22 months. Finally, the rule
requires states to conduct criminal record checks for prospective foster
or adoptive parents, or otherwise document the safety of a child's
placement.
>
The Interethnic Adoption provisions, passed as part of the Small Business
Job Protection Act in 1996, prohibit discrimination based on race, color
or national origin in the placement of children for foster care and
adoption. As clarified in the new regulation, states that are determined
to have discriminated against an individual will be assessed a penalty
immediately, consistent with the law. If an individual was not
discriminated against but HHS finds that a state policy or practice is in
violation of the law, the state has six months to correct it before the
penalty takes effect.
>
"The provisions of this regulation allow the federal government to hold
states accountable with the use of federal funds, while emphasizing
positive outcomes for children and families," said Patricia Montoya,
commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families. "A
strong state-federal partnership approach to implementing these laws is
the best way to achieve improved lives for our most vulnerable citizens."
>
The effective date of the final rule is March 25, 2000

 

x

x