|
|
| Author |
Message |
sj2
|
|
Why did they adopt them?
| 
Oct 28 05:56 UTC 2003 |
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/nyregion/28JERS.html?hp
(Registration required)
Child Agency Tries to Grasp How One Case Got Away
By LESLIE KAUFMAN and RICHARD LEZIN JONES
Published: October 28, 2003
In the eight months before the police found Bruce Jackson looking for
food in his neighbor's garbage, three different state workers had
visited his adoptive parents' home a total of 10 times.
Yet none reported that there was a lock on the refrigerator, or that
Bruce, 19, and three other adopted boys, ages 9 to 14 and all under 50
pounds, were so malnourished that their bellies bulged and their teeth
and gums had turned black.
|
| 19 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 1 of 19:
|
Oct 28 06:44 UTC 2003 |
If I had to guess, I'd say they adopted them because of state and federal
aid and tax credits/reductions for which they'd qualify. I.e. money.
Of course, the fact that they were allowed to adopt four kids without
this motivation becoming clear in the process only shows that the system
which administers these things is deeply flawed. I'd think that's mainly
because it is a low-visibility and low-priority investment area for
government funding, and is therefore administered by lowest-common-
denominator type government employees. But that's just my uninformed
guess.
|
sj2
|
|
response 2 of 19:
|
Oct 28 07:32 UTC 2003 |
Shouldn't there be a cap on the number of children you are allowed to
adopt?
|
gull
|
|
response 3 of 19:
|
Oct 28 14:14 UTC 2003 |
Why? If someone can afford to support 8 kids I see no reason they shouldn't
be allowed to adopt that many.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 4 of 19:
|
Oct 28 14:17 UTC 2003 |
In this particular case, the boys had been fostered by the adopting parents.
I don't understand how they were kept away from the visiting case workers,
who _had_ to know the boys were part of the household.
|
bru
|
|
response 5 of 19:
|
Oct 28 14:29 UTC 2003 |
Apparently 9 people have already resigned over this. They are expecting more.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 6 of 19:
|
Oct 28 14:31 UTC 2003 |
(I'd heard they'd been fired.)
|
sj2
|
|
response 7 of 19:
|
Oct 28 14:52 UTC 2003 |
Yep, the news story says they were fired.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 8 of 19:
|
Oct 28 15:25 UTC 2003 |
How do you go on adopting out kids to a family without checking them
out? I thought that the adoption process was pretty rigid, where you
had to prove that you had the means both emotionally and economically
to raise children.
Also one of them was 19. That's old enough to raise the alarm. Unless
of course they weren't allowed outside the house. But then again, why
were there no case-workers checking up on the kids.
(I haven't read the article yet, just posting from what I heard.)
|
glenda
|
|
response 9 of 19:
|
Oct 28 18:48 UTC 2003 |
Where was the school system? They should have been in school and their
teachers should have noticed what was going on. If they were being home
schooled, there should have been even more inspections from social workers.
|
bru
|
|
response 10 of 19:
|
Oct 28 18:57 UTC 2003 |
I heard they had checked the house. Or at least the paperwork says they had
checked the house. I think this is because people are more fearfull of the
agency they work for than of being bad at their job.
I am one person.
i have 400 cases I am in charge of.
each case needs 4 visits a year.
each visit requires 6 forms filled out per visit, per child.
thats 9600 forms per year.
thats 21 minutes per form. that does not include drive time and interview
time.
Failure to fill out the forms is cause for disciplinary action up to and
including dismissal.
Supervisor has 6 people working for her. Each with the same number of cases
and the same problem of paperwork. All she has time to do is scan the papers
and see that they were filled out correctly. 99% of these formsinvolve honest
people. Can she successfully find the 24 bad cases? Does she have time to
go intot he field and make sure the case worker has checked each one of these
cases personally?
So the case worker cuts corners. She checks the houses only once a year and
fakes thther three visits because she needs the time to fill out the forms
so she doesn't get fired. When she checks the house in question, the kids
are "out". each of the last 3 times.
|
sj2
|
|
response 11 of 19:
|
Oct 28 19:38 UTC 2003 |
And equilibrium is achieved when the worker spends the whole time doing
nothing but filling out forms for the visits they are supposed to be
making?? ;)
But seriously, what is the solution to such problems where critical
functions are handled by low-paid, low-morale and low-resource civil
servants??
|
happyboy
|
|
response 12 of 19:
|
Oct 28 20:26 UTC 2003 |
re11: that's about the size of it.
|
tod
|
|
response 13 of 19:
|
Oct 28 20:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 14 of 19:
|
Oct 29 15:00 UTC 2003 |
Piglet!
|
tod
|
|
response 15 of 19:
|
Oct 29 16:59 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 16 of 19:
|
Oct 29 19:42 UTC 2003 |
hahaha!!
|
tsty
|
|
response 17 of 19:
|
Nov 2 09:45 UTC 2003 |
... and taht ? new jersey ? couple with fed females and starved males?
|
willcome
|
|
response 18 of 19:
|
Nov 27 08:25 UTC 2003 |
.... .. .. . . .. whore
|
goose
|
|
response 19 of 19:
|
Dec 2 19:19 UTC 2003 |
h i i e e i ?
|