From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Child Abuse Industry
Date: 12 Jan 1993 00:26:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Message #1 (14 is last):
Date: Fri Jan  8 21:35:36 1993
From: karen@mainstream.com (Karen Peterson)
Subject: child abuse industry...
To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com (Multiple recipients of list)
Reply-To: home-ed-politics@mainstream.com



This article was reprinted from the Freeman-Ideas on Liberty January 1993

                THE GOVERNMENT BABY BROKERING BUSINESS

                        BY: K.L. Billingsley


Slavery officially ended over 100 years ago, but traffic in human beings
still exists.  Thanks to federal funds, the business is thriving.  The
trade is part of what one author calls the "child-abuse industry."

No one denies that child abuse is a serious problem.  But there is much
room for doubt as to its extent.  Richard Wexler, author of WOUNDED
INNOCENTS, estimates that up to sixty percent of child-abuse reports are
bogus.  An extensive grand jury investigation in San Diego found similar
problems and revealed a system that is driven by money and power.

Those accused of child abuse are held to be guilty until proven innocent.
Informers need never face those they accuse.  Worse, if those accused of
child abuse deny doing anything wrong, social workers take that as further
evidence of guilt.  Whatever the facts, the parents are held to be "in
denial" and children then may be seized.  This creates, in effect, a 
hostage situation.  The desparate parents will do almost anything to get
their children back.

In these cases there are two certainties: 1) It will cost the family a 
great deal of money, whether or not they get their children back. 2) Other
people stand to make a great deal of money from the family's ordeal.

Juvenille Courts farm out the kids to private therapists, who have good
reason to be selective.  They prefer military children with the
fathomless vaults of CHAMPUS (Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services) funds behind them.  San Diego's Department of Social
Services pays therapists $ 40 an hour.  Under CHAMPUS, however, a 
psychiatrist gets $ 78.60 for 45 minutes and a psychologist brings in
$ 70.

A similar situation exists for the parents.  If they want their children
back, they must attend numerous counseling sessions.  Those who conduct
these sessions prefer subjects with government backed insurance programs.
Those whose insurers have deep pockets find themselves put on expensive
"maintenance" programs.

Meanwhile, social workers place children in foster homes.  The San Diego
grand jury acknowledged a widespread perception that social services were
in the "baby-brokering business."  Foster care had become a "cottage
industry witha strong political voice."  Again, money drives the system.

Federal funds for foster care are practically unlimited.  A foster parent
receives $ 354 per month for each child up to age four and $ 484 for those
aged five to eighteen.  These amounts are nearly  double the rate a
welfare mother gets.  There is also a clothing allowance for foster parents,
special care rates up to $ 1000 a month.  All foster-care payments are
tax-free.  According to the grand jury, "this open-ended funding stream
may have been partially responsible for excessive placement of children in
foster care."

Foster care, said the jury, had become a "business" and many "foster parents
are motivated by money."  In some cases, the jury found, foster care funds
were the families' sole income.  It thus seems clear why some foster
parents readily sabotage reunification plans.  It is in their financial
interest to retain someone else's children.

After several years of careful investigation, the San Diego grand jury
blasted "bias and zelatry" in a system "characterized by confidential
files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity."  The jury
found evidence that social workers "disobey court orders" and "lie
routinely, even when under oath."  This situation was "intolerable," but
the department was "incapable of policing its own."

The local Juvenile Justice Commission even raised the possibility of
"criminial conspiracy" on the part of child protectors.  But in spite
of numerous recommendations for change, few reforms are in evidence.

One infamous case involved the Wades, a Navy family.  A therapist
relentlessly badgered eight-year-old Alicia Wade for thirteen months
until she accused her father of raping her.  Physical evidence
finally exonerated James Wade, but the girl narrowly escaped being
adopted away forever.  The family is currently in financial ruin, having
spent some $ 150,00 defending themselves.  The foster system returned
the girl to the Wades without her glasses.  She was also taking a
medication to which she was allergic.

Such horror stories are far from unusual, both in California and
nationwide.  These stories prove a truth that government officials
are slow to grasp; you get what you subsidize.  Our government exists
to preserve liberty and individual rights, not to subsidize official
corruption, broken families, and a loss of freedom.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Author and screenwriter K.L. Billingsley writes about
        California for the Spectator.





Enter Command: 

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3364 alt.amateur-comp:569 soc.culture.usa:9700 alt.activism:20360