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.
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.
Shouldn't there be a cap on the number of children you are allowed to adopt?
Why? If someone can afford to support 8 kids I see no reason they shouldn't be allowed to adopt that many.
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.
Apparently 9 people have already resigned over this. They are expecting more.
(I'd heard they'd been fired.)
Yep, the news story says they were fired.
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.)
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.
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.
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??
re11: that's about the size of it.
This response has been erased.
Piglet!
This response has been erased.
hahaha!!
... and taht ? new jersey ? couple with fed females and starved males?
.... .. .. . . .. whore
h i i e e i ?
You have several choices: