Health Impact News and MedicalKidnap.com has previously reported how the FBI saying that Kentucky is “the most corrupt state in the country,” and urged families to share their stories involving alleged corruption in their dealings with Child Protective Services (CPS), or the Department for Community Based Services (DCBS), as it is known in Kentucky.
It appears that corruption in Kentucky continues to run deep and wide.
Is DCBS Really Just a Government-Funded Adoption Agency That Steals Children for Profit?
Many believe that the corruption of CPS is rooted in a for-profit adoption system created by the Title IV bonus funds from the Federal Government given to States when they successfully adopt children.
There is great financial incentives for the States to remove children from families and place these children for adoption, for what many would call questionable allegations, false accusations, or even downright egregious violations of parental rights, basically using children as a transferable commodity to increase the State’s budget.
One Kentucky mother, who wishes to remain anonymous, explains how the corruption is motivated by money, by using children as commodities in a for-profit business:
“Truly abused children are considered ‘damaged goods’ and are not ‘sellable,’ whereas those from good homes are much more adoptable and profitable to the State.”
On its website, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and its “family services” agency, DCBS, claims to work toward family reunification:
“While children are in temporary foster care, the main goal of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) is to reunify the child(ren) with their birth parents as soon as the parents have received services to provide a safe and stable home. While working toward the goal of reunification, the child’s worker will complete a relative search and possibly place the child with relatives. The main focus is for children to have a permanent home, where they can be healthy in mind, body and spirit.
“In some cases children may not be able to be reunified with their parents or placed with relatives. The courts may terminate the parents rights and legally free the child for adoption.”
And yet DCBS boasts on its website that it is also the primary adoption agency in the state:
“The Department for Community Based Services (DCBS) is the primary adoption agency in Kentucky. DCBS places hundreds of children and youth for adoption each year. DCBS is involved in nearly every adoption that occurs in the state.”
Why would an agency whose stated goal is family reunification or placement with relatives, purportedly do neither? Could it be that family reunification and kinship care are not profitable?
The anonymous Kentucky mother shared that when her children were initially removed, she was given a case plan for reunification, but how after 6 months has passed, her case plan changed from “reunification” to “adoption” for her daughter, because the foster family filed paperwork wanting to adopt her daughter.
She explained that a child must be in foster care for 6 months before the foster family can apply for adoption, but that once they do apply for adoption, case plans are quickly changed to “Terminate Parental Rights (TPR) and proceed to adoption,” even when the birth family is working their original case plan and doing everything they can to get their children back.
According to this anonymous Kentucky mother, her case plan was dragged on for 3 years so that her daughter would fully bond with the foster family and not with her, the birth mother.
This “bonding” with the foster family would then be used as the reason to allow the adoption to proceed, not because the birth mother was unfit or negligent, but because her daughter, who was removed as a baby, had now bonded to another family! Her older son was eventually returned after 3 years of being in the foster system, and the mother was told that the reason she was being given her son back was because he was “un-adoptable.”
So one one hand, the reason the birth mother didn’t get one child returned was simply because her baby girl was”adoptable” and another family wanted her daughter, and on the other hand, the reason the son was returned to his mother’s custody was because he was deemed “un-adoptable.”
The decision was not based on whether or not this mother was working her case plan (which she allegedly was), or whether or not this mother was a good mother (which she allegedly was), or whether or not this birth mother wanted both of her children (which she does) – but it was based solely on the fact that another family wanted to adopt her daughter, and the State would make money from this adoption.
Even more disturbing is the fact that this mother says she was given a “choice” at her final TPR hearing:
“Willingly (under coercion) sign over custody of your daughter to the foster family and we’ll let you keep your son, or lose both of your children.”
Based on stories like this, where a mother is granted custody of an “un-adoptable” child, but not the “adoptable” infant, it would appear that adoption (profitable) is really the end-game for DCBS and not family reunification (not profitable), because if a mother is truly negligent or abusive or a harm to her children, why would DCBS return any of the children to her care?
Could this also explain why we hear comments that some social workers will allegedly leave truly abused children with families – simply because they’re “un-adoptable”, but remove the ones who are apparently in loving homes with caring parents – simply because they are “adoptable? Could this be why Kentucky DCBS appears to not be really interested in family reunification, but boasts itself as an adoption agency? Is this a conflict of interest?
In another report covered by Health Impact News, Attorney Julie Ketterman describes the problem like this:
“The role of CPS has changed over the years,” Ketterman said. “They have become too powerful and have shifted their focus from offering guidance and support to acting as a punitive force.”
Historically, CPS would provide in-home services to help stabilize families in need of assistance and maintain children in their home. Preventing child abuse and ensuring a safe home environment was the ultimate goal.
In 1974, Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which provided federal funds to the states for the prevention of physical abuse, neglect and sexual abuse. Then, in 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which established strict timelines for returning children in foster care to their parents or for terminating parental rights, thus freeing the children for adoption.
In some cases, states are authorized to dispense with efforts to reunify the family and move directly to termination of parental rights.
“This legislation started with good intentions,” Ketterman said, “but it was the seed for corruption.” Ketterman alleges that CPS frequently oversteps their boundaries, opting to remove children from their homes, placing them outside the home and in to foster-to-adopt homes for monetary advantage. “CPS profits every time they place a child outside the home for adoption,” Ketterman said. “It has stopped being a resource for families in need and has instead turned into an adoption mill.”
Medical Kidnapping is real and a threat to every family in America, as this book explains it.