Only Now They Notice?

Almost a month ago, Christopher L. Thomas, Jr., a baby boy in the Milwaukee County foster care system, was tortured and murdered by his aunt, who was supposed to be his caretaker. His sister was also severely tortured. I've been covering the whole thing since the story came to light at my home site, Cognitive Dissidence, including who was responsible and why it was allowed to happen.

Christopher, who was African American, and his death, went unnoticed by the right wing media. Not a peep from any of them.

Yesterday, when a story broke that the white couple who had wanted to adopt Christopher, but was denied, was being harassed by the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare, the right wing media finally noticed the story...somewhat.

Sykes did something on his show about it, but I was working and missed it. On his blog, he does his usual copy and paste job on a story of how the BMCW was stonewalling Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Crocker Stephenson. Most of the commenters on the site should their usual lack of insight by stating this would never have happened if the BMCW was privatized.

I got some news for them. The agency that employs the worker who moved Christopher into the home where he was to die, and the workers who have been harassing the former foster parents IS a private agency. This is what happens when you privatize critical services like foster care. The agency is a subsidiary of Children's Hospital.

This illustrates the cluelessness of some of Sykes' most avid listeners.

We also have PaddyMac that finally noticed the issue. Well, actually, he finally noticed that James Widgerson finally noticed. Their Paddy's point, I think, is that it was terrible that BMCW is harassing this white couple, and that is why there are so few foster homes in Milwaukee County.

I've got news for them as well. Foster homes have dropped by 78% since 2001. This has been an ongoing problem:

Fueling the problems is a grave shortage of foster homes.

"The bureau's main challenge is its continuing lack of safe placements for abused and neglected children," said Eric Thompson, senior staff attorney with Children's Rights, the New York-based advocacy group that brought the lawsuit. "That leads to poor placement choices. It leads to poor licensing decisions. It leads to abuse and neglect in foster-care placements and the inevitable shuffling of children from one inadequate, inappropriate placement to another."

Over the last six years, the number of licensed foster homes in the county has dropped from 2,800 to about 620.

Denise Revels Robinson, director of the bureau, noted that foster placement stability "has really not been acceptable to any of us in terms of the number of times a child is having to move." As to the rise over the last year in confirmed cases of maltreatment, she said: "Clearly we need to do better to protect the children in our care."

So what happened in 2001 that would have precipitated such a drastic fall in numbers? That is when the State of Wisconsin booted Milwaukee County Workers out of the foster care field and privatized it all.

I wonder how Charlie and Paddy are enjoying their supposed tax savings now. I wonder if these two are even capable of connecting the dots. I also wonder why they didn't say anything about a black baby being killed, but find it worth talking about a white couple being harassed.

Fischer: Insensitive, Pompous And Ignorant

We already know that the self-important Kevin Fischer is nothing more than a bloviating, ignorant, pompous ass, but he has gone beyond the pale this time.

Fischer has a post blasting a state representative who issued a press release about the tragic death of Christopher L. Thomas, Jr., a baby boy that was place into the care of his aunt by the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare. The aunt tortured the baby and his two year old sister until the boy died from the abuse he suffered.

Fischer comes to the defense of fellow incompetent Republican, Alberta Darling, who not only helped create the BMCW, but was supposed to be on the committee that was overseeing it so that this type of thing wouldn't keep happening.

Then Fischer's own incompetence and ignorance really kicks in with this:

Not in Darling's backyard? Zepnick represents the south side of MIlwaukee, nowhere near where this murder took place. What's he shooting his mouth off about?

For Fischer's information, the murder took place in the 3000 block of South 12th Street. If 12th and Oklahoma isn't on the south side of Milwaukee, I don't know what is. And that neighborhood is nowhere near Germantown, northern Milwaukee County and southern Ozaukee County, which is the bulk of Darling's district.

Fischer wasn't done with that bit of trivia though. His true racist nature comes out with this:

And then maybe Zepnick should think about the risk of stripping babies away from solid, white foster families only to put them in the dangerous custody of blood relatives on the sole basis of color.

And as if the racism isn't bad enough, he gets it wrong, showing that the entirety of his argument is racist. The real reason they put these children with their murderous aunt was because the BMCW wanted to save a few bucks. They pay relatives about half of what they pay foster parents, even though the needs of the children are the same in either setting.

But even past the ignorance, and past the glaring racism, the most disgusting thing about Fischer's post is the fact that he tries to score political hit points by using the death of a baby:

And then maybe Zepnick should think long and hard before putting out another stupid press release. Earth to Josh: The election is over. Sheldon Wasserman lost to Darling.

To sum it up, Fischer makes several ignorant, racist comments in order to use the completely unnecessary and avoidable death of a baby, just in an attempt to score a political point. And then he fails at that anyway.

Fischer truly is a pompous dumb ass.

It's Not OK, Even If Done In The Name Of God

I'm going to go off on a slight tangent here, but this ticks me off to no end.

Dad29 had put up a post the other day regarding the stuff going on in Texas with the polygamist cult in Texas. His general gist is that what was going on in that complex was just OK, because they were Christians. He also laments about what he figures thus:

Yes. This is, without a doubt, the most egregious example of Statism since Waco, and although less deadly (so far), it's just as portentous.

Even more disturbing are the comments put up by readers "Amy" and "Dan". They actually defend the cultists, because, you know, they are religious. They complain that the cultists' rights are being violated, that they are not given the benefit of presumed innocence, and that the kids weren't really being abused in any way.

I'm sorry but that is the biggest pile of cow manure this side of any twenty dairy farms.

I will not pretend to be familiar with the specifics of the Children's Code in Texas, but I cannot imagine it all that different from Wisconsin's laws, which I am rather familiar with, from working in the child welfare system for seven years.

First of all, cases of this sort are not criminal cases. There is no guilt or innocence. There is just cause. These cases had to be investigated by social workers, and the allegations had to be found to be substantiated that the children have been maltreated, or at great risk of being maltreated. I am sure that a case of this magnitude was closely supervised by supervisors, department heads and all the way up the chain before action was taken. Then it had to be reviewed by the District Attorney's office and found to be up to snuff before they would file the petitions for the children's removal. Finally, the judge would have to determine that the facts presented were sufficient before any orders would have been issued.

All of this apparently has occurred, or events wouldn't have unfolded in the way that they have. This is not the final step, but just the first. Each case will be reviewed by the court individually, to determine if further action would be needed, like a full order keeping the children out of the parents' home until certain conditions are met, or in home services would suffice, or that the children can be returned without any further action.

Given the fact that it is abnormal for a teenage girl to feel romantic attraction to someone old enough to be their father or grandfather, one could logically conclude that there was grooming going on, such as a sexual predator would use. And much like a local case, it would not be surprising to find out excessive use of corporal punishment was used on the children as well.

Dad29 and company also argue that the original source of the allegation is unreliable. So what? The fact is, referrals can even be made anonymously. If social services and investigates and finds a reasonable cause for concern, the referral source is irrelevant. Remember, criminal court standards don't apply to these sorts of cases.

And it really doesn't matter if these people worship God, Allah, the Great Spirit, Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Child abuse is child abuse, and there is never justification for it, no matter what religion, if any, the people might practice.

It is equally disgusting to use said religion to not only justify this horrendous and inexcusable behavior, but to rationalize one's own conspiracy theories and paranoia of black helicopters.

Living And Dying Off A Prayer, Part II

Writing about the tragic case of Madeline Kara Neuman reminded me of other atrocities that have occurred, and may still be occurring, in the name of religion over the rights of a child.

As I mentioned earlier, Tim Schilke, writing at GMToday, reminds of other children that have died via religion:

Some comparisons have been made between Madeline’s situation and a 2003 Milwaukee case, during which a 2-year-old autistic child was crushed to death by a family pastor during an "attempted exorcism." But that case does not appear to be a direct test of the faith healing exception, due to the additional physical harm added by the pastor during the exorcism. In that case, the pastor was convicted of a lesser form of child abuse, a charge that is hard to imagine for the Neumann parents, considering the sad state of Wisconsin statutes.

Another local case that didn't get nearly as much publicity occurred ten years ago. The case involved an allegation of child abuse that was committed at the Greendale Baptist Academy.
The allegations involved the principal striking students with an instrument. I saw pictures obtained during the investigation that showed welts on the child's back. As the case was being investigated, the child told the social workers that several other children were being likewise maltreated.

At the time, the GBA was also affiliated with Bob Jones University, who was a supporter of then Governor Tommy Thompson. Before the investigation could start, the Thompson administration intervened and delayed the investigation. This prevented the social workers assigned to the case from following protocol. This, in turn, led to a lawsuit that ended up in the State Appellate Court, which ruled in favor of the GBA. The right wing American Family Association crowed about the successful fight against "Big Brother." What they did do, in reality, is advocated for and perpetuated child abuse.

The AFA claimed that the parents' rights were violated by not being notified before the investigation. The fact that they didn't need to be under state law was undermined due to the length of time before the workers were allowed to do their job. Totally ignored in this case were the rights of the children.

I have no problem with people practising the religion of their choice. That is a constitutionally protected right, after all. But, as with all other rights, there are limits, and that limit is when it infringes on the rights of others. Under State Statutes, spanking is legal, but is shouldn't be done with an instrument, or so hard, that it leaves a mark. Then it crosses into child abuse. In the case of GBA, and with Madeline, the children's' rights are being violated. Not only that, these children are vulnerable, whereas the parents are not. This alone should give priority to the well being of the children overall.

Living And Dying Off A Prayer, Part I

By now, most, if not all, of you should have heard of the tragic case of Madeline Kara Neumann. She was the 11 year old girl that was allowed to die from untreated diabetes. There is currently a number of viewpoints being put out there, regarding whether or not the parents should be charged.

The problem comes up with the current State Laws. When I worked in foster care, the rules was plainly laid out in Wisconsin State Statute 48.13 (10):

Whose parent, guardian or legal custodian neglects, refuses or is unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to seriously endanger the physical health of the child.

The following causes also cover times when there is reasonable cause to believe that such neglect could occur, and if the parent, guardian or legal custodian fails to get psychiatric and/or alcohol and drug rehab for the child.

However, in the years since I've worked in that field, a new law has been added. This law allows parents to eschew common sense and medical practice and to allow prayer to be the only option. This would be fine for a consenting adult. It is an entirely other matter when it involves a dependent, like a child. This is not acting in the best interest of the child, which is the sole basis for Chapter 48.

People are all over the map with this one.

3rd way, over at folkbum's, comes down that the parents should be charged, and shows us how scary people can get with their beliefs.

Tim Schilke, writing at GMToday, goes along with charging the parents for neglect. He also explores how this relates to recent cases of child abuse stemming from religious beliefs.

Owen Robinson contradicts himself by saying that the parents should be charged, but then defends the law that would prevent them from being charged.

Our own PaddyMac waffles on the whole thing, then tries to distract us by saying, "Yeah, but, what about those unmarried people?". He fails to recognize how his own argument is weakened by the fact that Madeline's parents were married. (For the record, Paddy is correct that there is a higher correlation between unmarried parents and child abuse. However, being unmarried cannot be used as an exemption to the law, as he advocates regarding prayer.)

Matt Jividen, writing for the Daily Cardinal, brings in other thorny issues, related to the matter, but says it very well with this:

This prayer stipulation is a sticking point for many in the religious right, but I don’t understand how that jives with some of the religious right’s other stated platforms. In many cases, these are the same groups sparing no expense in their fight to protect the rights of an undeveloped bunch of cells in a woman’s womb, but will do nothing to protect that child from immense physical pain associated with untreated terminal illness once the fetus is born.

Pro-life and quality of life, apparently, are two separate issues. In many cases, these same groups will attempt to block the removal of a feeding tube from a terminally ill brain-dead woman, but will simultaneously stand behind legislation which blocks the medical treatment of otherwise healthy children doomed by nothing more than being born to parents holding fundamentalist beliefs?

This is indeed a complex and delicate issue but one that demands action. First of all, we need to amend the law in a manner which typifies prayer-only therapy in children with serious medical problems as a matter of criminal neglect. Simultaneously, we must be careful not to undermine the rights of the vast majority of parents who are choosing what’s best for their own children. The decision to deny a child medical attention for religious reasons should be handled just as child abuse is in this country, and though that may be a dangerous door to open, I think it’s necessary. A nanny state? I don’t know, but at the very least we should start protecting the rights of the powerless who are suffering needlessly by no choice of their own. On the other hand, what consenting adults choose to do to or for themselves is a whole different matter.

As I personally see it, having worked in the system for a number of years, I agree whole-heartedly that the parents should be charged. I also strongly support that this law needs to repealed. But in all likelihood, the parents will have any criminal charges dropped, as long as they agree to a CHIPS (CHildren In need of Protection and Services) Order. If they would be charged, expect this to go all the way to the now activist-judge filled State Supreme Court.