Here is the federal settlement agreement with Michigan to advocate relative placements. In this case, it was not done.
It seems all eyes are on this pending decision. As soon as the opinion is issued, I will post.
For more background details of the case, click here.
The paternal grandmother of siblings who were placed in foster care petitioned the family court to become the children’s guardian. Although the grandmother had moved to Florida from Michigan in 2005, she asserted that she had maintained “very close and loving” relationships with all four children before and after their removal from their mother’s home in October 2008 by the Department of Human Services. (Three of the four siblings were fathered by the petitioner’s son; although the fourth child was fathered by another man, the petitioner maintained that she had known the boy since his birth and had always treated him as her grandson.) According to the grandmother, she frequently watched the children before moving to Florida; after her move, she talked to them on the phone about once a week, sent them birthday and Christmas presents, and visited them during the summers.
While the grandmother’s guardianship petition was pending, the children’s mother agreed to give up her parental rights, pleading no contest to child neglect and allowing her children to become wards of the court. (The fathers’ parental rights were also terminated.)
The family court accepted the mother’s plea and, after an evidentiary hearing, denied the grandmother’s guardianship petition, instead ruling that it was in the children’s best interests to remain with their foster parents, who had already filed a petition to adopt the children. In making this ruling, the trial court used the “best interest” factors in the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq. The trial court noted that neither the children’s mother nor the petitioner’s son had suggested the petitioner as a guardian; in fact, the mother supported the children remaining with their foster parents because they were doing well there.
The petitioner applied to the Michigan Children’s Institute, seeking to adopt the children. The MCI superintendent denied her request, concluding that adoption by the foster parents was in the children’s best interests; the family court refused to overturn the MCI decision.
The petitioner appealed, and, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the family court, ordering the court to appoint the petitioner as the children’s guardian.
“There is a strong preference that children who have been removed from their parent’s care be placed with relatives,” the appellate panel stated. “For example, under MCL 722.954a(2), when a child is removed from his or her home, the supervising agency must identify, locate, notify, and consult with relatives to determine placement with a fit and appropriate relative who is able to meet the child’s developmental, emotional, and physical needs. A supervising agency’s placement decision must be made in the child’s best interests, and, in making the decision, the supervising agency shall give special consideration and preference to a child’s relatives who are willing and fit to care for the child and are able to meet the child’s needs. MCL 722.954a(5).”
The petitioner claimed that the trial court erred in comparing her to the children’s foster parents, using the “best interest of the child” factors set out in the Child Custody Act. The Court of Appeals agreed: “[T]he trial court erred in making this comparison. Notably, the present case does not present a dispute between parties who have a legal or substantive right to the custody of the minor children. Because a juvenile guardianship is intended to be a permanent and self-sustaining relationship, MCL 722.875b, it is similar to adoption. When a person seeks the adoption of a child, a trial court generally does not compare the prospective adoptive parent with alternate placements for the child.... Here, where appellant is the grandmother of the children and where appellant has an established and continuing relationship with the minor children, the trial court should have considered whether appellant was an appropriate juvenile guardian for the children without regard to the foster care parents.”
The “undisputed facts” in the record support appointing the petitioner as the children’s guardian, the Court of Appeals stated. The petitioner had no health problems, had raised five sons, was employed as a registered nurse, had become a licensed foster care provider, and bought a five-bedroom home in anticipation of becoming the children’s guardian, the panel noted. The petitioner was not married, but had relatives in Florida, and had visited the school that her grandchildren would attend. “In sum, appellant not only quickly fulfilled every DHS requirement, she went significantly above and beyond any legal requirements to ensure she would be well prepared to care for her grandchildren.”
Neither the prosecutor nor the children’s guardian ad litem disputed that the petitioner would be an appropriate guardian, the Court of Appeals observed. “Nonetheless, they inexplicably both requested that appellant’s guardianship petition be denied because the children had found stability with the foster care parents.” But, while the children had enjoyed a stable home with their foster parents, DHS had helped create that situation by failing to consider the grandmother as a placement, the Court of Appeals said. “This type of ‘bootstrapping’ is clearly an inappropriate basis upon which to decide this type of matter, i.e., to justify the ‘best interests’ of the children.”
DHS argued that the any issues about the guardianship were moot because the children had already been committed to MCI and so already had a guardian, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. “[W]e find nothing in [previous Court of Appeals decisions] that prevents this Court from revoking the commitment of a child to the MCI when it reverses an erroneously entered order from the trial court that led to the child’s commitment.”
The Court of Appeals declined to review MCI’s denial of the petitioner’s request to adopt, saying the issue was moot: “[S]ince the minor children are no longer wards of the MCI following this court’s decision, appellant need not procure the consent of the MCI superintendant [sic] to adopt the children.” Moreover, the petitioner had already stated that she would dismiss her adoption petition if her guardianship petition was granted, the appellate panel noted.
DHS appealed, noting in part that even the petitioner’s son did not recommend her as a placement and that the children’s mother supported them remaining with their foster parents, rather than moving out of state. DHS also disputed some of the petitioner’s claims about her involvement with the children.
In an order dated October 2, 2013, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and also granted the Michigan Children’s Institute’s motion to intervene. The Court directed the parties to address “(1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there is a preference for relatives under MCL 712A.19c(2) when a circuit court decides whether to create a juvenile guardianship after parental rights have been terminated; (2) if such a preference exists, whether the paternal grandmother was entitled to that preference where her son’s parental rights to the children had been terminated; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred by not applying a clear error standard of review to the Muskegon Circuit Court Family Division’s determination of the children’s best interests pursuant to MCL 712A.19c; (4) whether the circuit court erred by using the best interests factors enumerated in MCL 722.23 of the Child Custody Act in deciding whether to grant the petition for a juvenile guardianship; and (5) whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the circuit court on the ground that it was improper to compare the foster parents with the proposed guardian, or erred on any other basis.”
Showing posts with label Maura Corrigan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maura Corrigan. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Michigan Children's Institute Sued For Fraud?
The individual responsible for adoption fraud in Michigan is none other than the Superintendent of the Michigan Children's Institute, Bill Johnson.
Michigan Children's Institute need to be dismantled. I am hoping someone will send me the complaint so I can post it. I sincerely hope Bill Johnson was named as a defendant.
What really has alluded me in logic of Children's Rights settlement with Michigan is there is no where to be found in any of the court proceedings, mention of MCI or Bill Johnson. Situations of children under state care are absolutely horrific and no one is really telling it like it is.
As an original source, I can attest that what is in this complaint is completely true, not having read it. Why, one may ask? Because I live with the irreparable harm every single day.
Even though the case highlights the lack of mental health assistance of these children, more needs to be done to expose and end the fraud schemes created to maximize revenue at the expense of all children of Bill Johnson.
If DHS falsified records for adoption, then you can bet your bottom dollar DHS lied about removals, placements, cost reimbursements and its federal audits.
8 families in Ingham, Clinton counties expected to sue DHS for adoption fraud
Child welfare offices in Ingham and Clinton counties are among several public and private agencies named in a lawsuit expected to be filed Thursday alleging social workers lied to adoptive parents of special needs children about their kids’ disabilities and denied them funding available for parents of disabled children.
Eight families with 17 adopted children and two biological children said Wednesday they are planning to sue the Department of Human Services, alleging deceit and violation of federal law going back 20 years. They are seeking more than $13 million in back Social Security assistance and other damages, said David Kallman, the Lansing attorney representing the families.
“The parents in this case were assured that the children they were adopting were physically and mentally healthy,” Kallman said in a statement. “DHS workers knew and documented that this was not the case. As a result, these families were, and continue to be, irreparably harmed.”
Some of the parents specifically stated they would not be willing to adopt children with significant mental, emotional or physical disabilities, according to the complaint.
The suit names Gov. Rick Snyder, DHS Director Maura Corrigan and several other DHS officials.
DHS spokesman Dave Akerly released the following statement today.
“DHS has already prevailed in the majority of cases referenced by this attorney at the administrative level, and Michigan courts on review have repeatedly ruled in DHS’ favor in most of these cases. Because DHS takes all issues of child safety seriously, the state Attorney General’s office — on behalf of DHS — met with Mr. Kallman regarding his allegations this past August. Subsequently, the Attorney General’s Office has requested information from Mr. Kallman to assist with this matter, thus far to no avail."
Ingham County DHS could not be reached for comment. Clinton County DHS referred questions to the state.
Kallman alleges adoption agencies and social workers in seven cases covered up or lied about the level of abuse and neglect the children endured before being removed from their birth parents. Kallman also accuses DHS of denying all eight families access to Social Security funds through an adoption assistance program called Title IV-E, designed to support families who adopt children with special needs.
“These families love their kids,” Kallman said. “They want to care for their kids. But one family, for example, is literally destitute. They’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for help and psychologists, things that state should have been paying for.”
Supporting documents for the lawsuit include disturbing descriptions of the conditions in which the children allegedly lived and the abuse they suffered prior to their placement in the foster care system.
In the Ingham County case, for example, the complaint alleges workers documented extreme neglect of three siblings in 1994, including an infant sleeping beneath bags of garbage, dead rodents throughout the home and children walking around in nothing but urine-soaked diapers.
“Mushrooms grew in the toilet and nails stuck up from the bathroom floor,” according to the documents. “They sucked spoiled milk from bottles. While the workers were there, the garbage in the crib moved and an infant was discovered in the crib.”
Despite the conditions in the home, the workers left the children with their birth parents for another six months, according to the lawsuit, then falsified documents to cover up the children’s history of abuse and neglect before they were adopted.
The lawsuit alleges the abuse caused severe emotional and behavioral disorders in the children, including violence disorders, fetal alcohol syndrome and reactive attachment disorder — which is a rare but severe psychiatric illness often caused by abuse that limits a child’s ability to bond with others or to feel empathy. The children all displayed signs of sexual abuse. One of the children was deemed “legally incapacitated” as a teenager and will never be able to care for herself, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit is another hit for DHS, which is still under federal oversight following a lawsuit by a group called Children’s Rights. That lawsuit accused the state of neglecting children in its child welfare system, including failure to adequately assess and treat psychological, behavioral and emotional issues.
Michigan Quo Warranto Petition Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
Friday, November 11, 2011
Is privatizing foster care bad for kids and costing you more money?
Am I the only one screaming for federal intervention?
Ask Bill Johnson.
(WXYZ) - A grandma has been fighting the state to get her grandkids out of foster care for years. A great aunt has been trying to do the same for her niece. But both have been met with strong resistance—and it may be a matter of money.
The state pays private agencies to handle most foster care adoptions. By law, they are supposed to make placing foster children with extended family members a priority. But 7 Action News has found some cases where relatives say the agencies may be putting profits ahead of policy – and this can cut kids off from family forever.
When Lori Scribner found out her grandchildren were put in foster care after the state declared their parents unfit, she came forward to claim them.
“I have been telling them I want them all along,” says Scribner.
But she also was told that she needed a bigger home for her four grandkids. So she bought a five-bedroom ranch with a pool.
“That’s one of the things they love most is swimming,” says Scribner.
Then she was told she had to earn more money. The registered nurse came out of semi-retirement and went back to work full-time.
“So I could support the kids. I understood that,” Scribner says.
Scribner also says she has spent $50,000 in legal fees and other costs fighting for her grandkids. But she still faces the prospect of never seeing them again.
“There was nothing I could do that they would let them come,” she says.
Micky Gordon says she’s been fighting a system that seems set on breaking family bonds. The Department of Human Services (DHS), and the private agency it contracts, approved another couple to adopt her great niece who’s in foster care.
“I feel like I have been living under a bully mentality," says Gordon, who is a social worker in Oklahoma, and is very familiar with foster care. She and her husband have foster-parented dozens of kids and adopted two of them.
“My credentials are impeccable,” insists Gordon, who says she has spent about $30,000 in legal fees fighting to adopt her niece and has no plans to stop.
“I’m not going away. She’s coming home to her family,” says Gordon.
The law is on their side.
“Both federal and state law require that the agency and the court give priority to relatives seeking placement of children in foster care,” says attorney Vivek Sankaran, who heads the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy and is an expert on child welfare law.
Sankaran says, “Systemic road blocks are created, license, home-study requirements, criminal background checks take time. By the time these checks are done, the child is living somewhere else.”
Scribner and Micky suspect this is about more than just bureaucratic red tape
“I think a lot of it has to do with these agencies earning money,” says Scribner.
DHS contracts with private agencies to handle foster care adoptions. But DHS wouldn’t talk to 7 Action News because Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases are being litigated.
The private agencies also wouldn’t talk about their cases, citing adoption confidentiality laws. But they did tell us that a child’s welfare is their top priority.
Scribner and Gordon aren’t buying it. They point to the current contract between DHS and the private agencies. The agencies get between $5,400 and $11,500 per adoption. The faster they get a child adopted, the more money the agency receives.
“We’re moving way too fast into adoption, close that deal, show me the money,” says Gordon.
Gordon and Scribner have something in common that would mean less money for the agencies. Both live in other states. For out-of-state adoptions, private agencies in Michigan get $3,500 tops.
“The whole system is set up to give the children away, and pay other people to take care of them when family is right there,” says Scribner.
In fact, the state would have saved more than $330,000 had the private agencies placed the children in Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases with them.
The state gives foster and adoptive parents $14.24 a day to care for a child until they turn 18-years-old. Scribner and Gordon say they told the agencies they didn’t want the subsidy, they just want their loved ones.
“I told the adoption worker with the agency, look, we’re not asking for your money,” says Gordon.
A recent study put together by a former county DHS director shows that it costs more for the state to pay private agencies to manage foster care than to have the state do it.
The report shows that for a state case worker to manage 18 foster care cases, it costs about $174,590 a year. That’s compared to about $297,087 for a private agency worker to handle the same case load.
Meanwhile Scribner and Gordon are not giving up.
“There are days you just sit and cry because you don’t know what’s happening,” says Scribner. “You don’t know anything about the kids and the more that they stonewall you, the more you think something must be wrong.”
In Scribner’s case, court records show the private agency had their recruited couple apply to adopt her grandkids—while, at the same time, they were telling Scriber that
the children were not available for adoption.
“The only thing they will tell you is you can’t have them,” says Scribner.
DHS admitted in court records that Scribner is a “loving, caring, nurturing and suitable care-giver,” but that the kids should be adopted by the agencies recruited couple since the children had already bonded with them.
Attorney Sankaran says he has seen agencies drag out the placement process and then argue it’s in the best interest of the child to stay with the recruited family.
By the time these checks are done, the child is living somewhere else and then bonding and things of that nature are brought up as the reason to keep kids away from family,” says Sankaran.
Bonding was the key reason in both Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases for not letting them have their loved ones.
“Do you think the agency purposely delayed this process?” Catallo asked Gordon.
“It certainly does appear that way,” says Gordon
To be clear, a judge has the final say, but rarely goes against a DHS recommendation. And children can be cut off from family forever.
“I want the kids to know that we fought and we tried everything to get them that we could,” Scribner says through tears.
After 7 Action News contacted DHS about Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases, Scribner got a letter.
It says DHS is now reconsidering their decision to deny Scribner adoption of her grandkids. The letter also says it is looking at new information and will issue a new decision in 30 days.
Gordon’s hearing to challenge DHS’s decision is still ongoing.
We’ll stay on these stories and tell you the outcome of both.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Beverly Tran Nominated As Michigan Child Welfare Advocate The Year
MICHIGAN'S
CHILD WELFARE
ADVOCATE
OF
THE
YEAR
 |
Beverly Tran |
It looks like we have another child abuse propaganda campaign going on over here!
That's right folks. Since it looks like there is going to be a significant influx of kiddies into the foster care system beginning October 1, 2011, ole Maura Corrigan has revved up the campaign to justify Medicaid fraud in child welfare.
Jim Novell is giving out the awards to those who advocate for child welfare? Well, it is only proper to nominate me. Yes, that's right. Jim and I are dear friends, going all the way back to 2001.
Since it is an obviously a minor oversight, I felt compelled to make this minor correction by pointing out that Jim forgot to include a category for community advocates, as commonly referred to by law.
More than likely, Jim and Maura did not include this category for there is only one person from the community who arduously advocates for child welfare. Me.
I encourage each and everyone on my fans to nominate me. It really does not matter which category you choose, just nominate me. Let them know that Beverly Tran is on a mission...
NOTE: Whenever it asks for address, always list my cyber address: http://beverlytran.com and you can take it from there.
Feel free to include my email: tranbeverly@gmail.com and number: 313-312-5195
Saturday, September 3, 2011
The Morbidity of Child Abuse Propaganda
The Wayne County Juvenile Court, the infamous Lincoln Hall of Justice, is changing its policies. Isn't that sweet. It is now saying "judge" must sign the orders for removal of a child.
I am quite sure Kelly Ramsey, Referee and Board Member of Child's Hope over there at University of Michigan Dearborn, who was removed from the bench and put behind the desk in the capacity of head honcha, far away from the purview of the public, is pretty pissed right now as she was the lead person who encouraged rubber stamping of judges and even referees.
What I find as a gross morbidity of child abuse propaganda is the entire concept of judicial oversight. People have forgotten who was the top dog in Michigan of the courts. Maura Corrigan. And where is Maura now? Girlfriend did a lateral shift right over to the Michigan Department of Human Services to do damage control of the gross morbidity of child abuse propaganda which allows and encourages Medicaid fraud in child welfare. Brilliant.
The grossest morbidity of all is found in the minds of the people who have not even considered what has happened to the children and original parents who have been victim to rubber stamping and generation of false reports to the courts. Considering the fact the it is only in Wayne County that the Attorney General prosecutes these cases, you would think they would know better than to allow rubber stamping to go on in the court.
Then, you know the Michigan Attorney General went on to fight these rubber stamps all the way up to the Supreme Court where Maura "Cash Cow" Corrigan presided over these cases. You really do not have to guess how she ruled because most of them never saw the light of day.
The results of rubber stamping are termination of parental rights and Medicaid fraud. The gross morbidity is that nothing will happen to anyone except the children.
I encourage everyone to contact Referee Kelly Ramsey and thank her for her dedicated work in promoting the gross morbidity of child abuse propaganda.... and make sure you tell her beverlytran.com sent you.
office@childshope.org
Kelly... I'm on a mission...
The Action News Investigators broke the story about how Wayne County Juvenile Court rubber stamps orders that allow the state to take kids from parents. Now, the court is changing the policy so that a judge must sign the order before a child is taken away. The change came just one day after the highly-publicized Maryanne Godboldo case in which a judge scofffed at the order used to remove her child. LK: http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/#ixzz1WvIcVoze
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Wanna See A Michigan Policy Lie To Cover Up Medicaid Fraud?
Wanna See A Michigan Policy Lie To Cover Up Medicaid Fraud?
Here, I present to the public, Michigan's blatant lie on how it conducts business in child welfare.
Yes, it is true to say that this is proper information presented on the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.
Yes, it is true to say that there are no lies presented on the names and titles of administration.
Yes, it is true to say the final decision maker on the ICPC is not the compact administrator. It's Mr. Omnipotent. Bill Johnson, the Superintendent of Michigan Children's Institute!
Michigan Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC)
First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
Here, I present to the public, Michigan's blatant lie on how it conducts business in child welfare.
Yes, it is true to say that this is proper information presented on the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.
Yes, it is true to say that there are no lies presented on the names and titles of administration.
Yes, it is true to say the final decision maker on the ICPC is not the compact administrator. It's Mr. Omnipotent. Bill Johnson, the Superintendent of Michigan Children's Institute!
Michigan Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC)
First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Maura Corrigan: Michigan's Cash Cow
 |
| Ricky Holland |
Bill Johnson, Superintendent of Michigan Children's Institute authorized the adoption of Ricky Holland's two younger siblings to the murders during the murder investigation.
Ricky Holland was placed in foster care by his mother because there was no help for her. He was never removed for abuse and neglect.
Ricky Holland was placed in foster care by his mother because there was no help for her. He was never removed for abuse and neglect.
Now, every time the Ricky's mother has another child to replace the one who was murdered by the State of Michigan, the State of Michigan comes and cuts the umbilical cord.
I used to have in my possession some of the case transcripts where the foster murderer was testifying on the scheme to dope up Ricky Holland with the highest dosages of psychotropics in order to get more money.
There are many reasons why this case is so dear to me, why I swore I would never let Ricky Holland's memory fade away, but I will only share one.
 |
| Michigan's Cash Cow |
Michigan's Cash Cow had the audacity to run a statewide commercial paid with undisclosed funds in to the tune of $80,000 asking the people of Michigan to call the Supreme Court and thank her for "all she has done for foster care and adoption" in order for her colleagues to elect her as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. She was not elected.
It was at that moment I began my mission...
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Maura Corrigan Is A Brilliant And Refined Liar
Maura Corrigan Is A Brilliant And Refined Liar
This is my comment on the recent audit of Michigan's federal child welfare services Title IV-E reviews. I thought it best to post it here just in case the moderator takes it down.
This is my comment on the recent audit of Michigan's federal child welfare services Title IV-E reviews. I thought it best to post it here just in case the moderator takes it down.
 |
| Corrigan proud of false claims |
The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in the Office of Attorney General does absolutely nothing except expend great amounts of defending its pattern of covering up Medicaid and other forms of health care fraud and antitrust representing the Superintendent of Michigan Children’s Institute, Bill Johnson,who represents the State of Michigan without appointment or election, with no oath of office on file with the Secretary of State, and possesses the power to overrule a decision of another state by denying ICPC interstate adoptions.
The following string of excerpts from federal and Michigan audits and evaluations is a working example of Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare:
“Michigan staff, both at the Central Office and county level, did an excellent job of preparing for the review. Records were extremely well organized with necessary documentation of eligibility requirement readily located. The State provided a “reviewer friendly” environment for the review to take place. Of note was the willingness and untiring efforts made by the Program Office in leading this effort. DHS licensing and field staff, in partnership with personnel from the SCAO and the Wayne County Department of Children and Family Services, were most efficient in obtaining additional information or acting as resources during the onsite review. Additionally, DHS’ fiscal unit is recognized for the thorough and updated payment histories.
Michigan staff actively and enthusiastically participated in reviewing the cases.
(That’s because they successfully covered up the Medicaid Fraud.)
(That’s because they successfully covered up the Medicaid Fraud.)
Exemplary is the collaborative relationship between DHS and the State Court. This was evident not only in the presence of either the current or former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court at the entrance or exit conference, but also in the excellent quality of court orders observed during the review. In particular, the involvement of SCAO is noted for conveying title IV-E requirements to the court, instituting revisions to court orders and garnering greater consistency in the use of those revisions among the county courts. The ongoing collaboration between DHS and SCAO is a strong mechanism to foster an understanding of the need for and timely occurrence of appropriate and meaningful judicial determinations for children within both the child welfare and legal communities.”
“The state averted the loss of nearly $40 million in child welfare funding, thanks in part to the work of judicial branch staff.”
“If DHS did not improve, it faced a possible penalty of $22 million”…. “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services conducted the second eligibility review of DHS’s case files for foster care maintenance payments issued between April 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006. Prior to the review, DHS conducted an extensive case file review to identify cases that did not meet Foster care: Title IV-E Program eligibility requirements. For cases that DHS determined did not meet the Foster Care: Title IV-E Program eligibility requirements, DHS changed the funding source on the cases to a funding source other than Foster Care: Title IV-E Program before April 1, 2006… As a result, those cases were not in the population reviewed during the federal review…The federal review concluded that DHS was in substantial compliance with federal eligibility requirements for the period April 1, 2006 through September 30, 2006.
We issued a qualified opinion on the Foster Care: Title IV-E Program. Our conclusion is different from the federal review because our sample included cases from the entire audit period.
During the (Michigan) onsite review, (federal) reviewers determined that criminal background checks were in evidence for all foster home files that were examined. In instances where children were placed in child caring institutions, reviewers determined that law enforcement checks had been done on administrators. Particularly noteworthy is Michigan’s practice of screening all licensed foster homes against its child abuse register on a weekly basis.
DHS had not developed a formal policy that defined when and for what service types criminal background checks and educational qualifications should be required as a part of a human service contract (includes foster care).
Health care fraud is health care fraud. Pettibone got punked by Corrigan, the same way Madoff pulled the wool over the eyes of the FCC for decades, but you have to give Maura credit, when it comes to cover ups of federal false claims and racketeering in the child welfare system, the gal is damn good.
"Qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur!"
Beverly Tran
An Original Source
An Original Source
DHS prevails in federal audit appeal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)