March 1st Conference/Seminar

We here at Evidence, Inc. are preparing for a Presentation/Seminar that will occur on

March 1st 2011, at the Westside Community Center, 3534 South 108th Street, Omaha, NE 68144 at 7:00 PM.

Please mark you calendar, and look for one of our fliers or brochures to obtain a preregistration form. Send it along with $20 to “Seminars” PO Box 540995, Omaha, NE 68154-8995. You will have a wonderful time, and learn a lot. (If you cannot find a brochure or flier, just send your name, address and telephone to the same location, and we'll call to confirm receipt)




Here's a general idea of what this affordable, two-hour program will cover:

“Saving Our Children”

A program of instruction for parents of all ages geared toward understanding the trials and tribulations of contemporary society, and why we, as parents, have the problems we see.



Learn how to deal with and avoid the issues of misbehavior, protect your children from the dangers that contemporary society offers them, and be able to keep them safe from predators.



This two hour presentation will be a primer for understanding the human mind from the formative years until adulthood, and how you can influence that development in your child, from the perspective of a good parent.





This program is two hours of intense training on the human mind from an easy to understand behavioral psychology point of view. The focus will be on Protecting one's children from the effects of a very broken system, and an environment where the superficial reigns supreme. Learn to deal with all the problems of parenthood through an understanding of how individual personalities are formed.



The direction of the course is to improve parental understanding of the acts overtly effecting the child, the behavioral issues, and understanding the effects of proper parental decisions.



That means that all the things you've been taught by your parents, your peers, or the psychologist recommended by your insurance company may not be in your child's best interest.



The presenter's point of view is from years of study into the human mind, from the aspect of a criminal profiler who specializes in family matters, child custody, and criminal behavior statistics.



This is an affordable presentation that takes you to the heart of the matters that will make a huge difference in your child's behavior, the way you understand those behavioral issues, and how you respond to them.


What will I learn? Attending this seminar, you can expect to come away with a much better understanding of how the human mind works. You will know the cause and long-term effect of various parental decisions from the cuteness of infancy, to the age called the “terrible two's” From toddlers to pre-school and beyond. You will know that our children are MADE, not born to be who they are – and we, as parents, are the controlling factor that allows for their proper development. You will get some tips and short-cuts to being able to deal with outside influences, like your own parental directives that may not be the best patterns to follow.

Another one to coddle?

Ohio girl found still alive, bound in basement; no info on 3 others . . .



A 13-year-old girl missing for days was found bound and gagged but alive in a basement Sunday, and authorities hoped a man charged with kidnapping her might lead them to her mother, brother and another woman who disappeared with her.

Matthew J. Hoffman, 30, was arrested at his Mount Vernon home, where Sarah Maynard was found, Knox County Sheriff David Barber said. He said the girl was hospitalized in good condition but would give no details and did not say if she had been sexually abused.

Barber did not say what led investigators to Hoffman's home, a two-story house with tan siding and a large television antenna on the roof that is about 10 miles from the home of Sarah's family. He said authorities hoped Hoffman would give them information leading to Sarah's mother, Tina Herrmann, her 10-year-old brother, Kody, and Herrman's 41-year-old friend Stephanie Sprang.

"We were hopeful of finding more than one of the missing people in the house," Barber said. "But the information we had was that Sarah would definitely be found in that house."

The four vanished Wednesday in a case that was all the more alarming because an unusual amount of blood was found at Hermann's home.

Authorities believe the girl had been "under the control" of Hoffman since Wednesday, when she and her brother last attended school, the sheriff said. He did not know if Hoffman was connected to either Herrmann or Sprang, but said he is not the ex-boyfriend of either woman.

"At this time, whether he's connected to the family or whether he connected himself to the family ... a lot of that remains to be seen as the investigation continues," Barber said.

Hoffman was charged with kidnapping, and Barber said more charges are expected. Neighbors has said they saw a body bag being taken from Hoffman's home about 40 miles north of Columbus, but the sheriff said that was "absolutely false."

"We have no one that we're aware of who is deceased," Barber said. "So we're still treating this as a missing persons case."

Authorities blocked off about a half block on either side of the house as they investigated early Sunday afternoon, keeping people from entering or leaving about a half dozen homes. But by late afternoon, the only sign of investigative activity was red and white evidence tape sealing the front door of the home closed.

Diane Davis, whose daughter lives next door to Hoffman, described him as a "crazy man." She said he at times sat in a tree behind the house and looked out at other people and that he often went to a nearby fishing hole with a backpack but no rod.

Herrmann was reported missing Wednesday when she did not show up for work at a local Dairy Queen. Barber has said blood indicating an injury had been found in her home, where Sprang's vehicle was in the driveway.

Herrmann's pickup truck had been found Thursday night near the Kenyon College campus, leading to a lockdown at the school.

Hoffman was being held in the county jail. A bond hearing was expected to be held Monday. Attempts to reach relatives of Hoffman and of Sarah were unsuccessful Sunday.
***************************************************
 
Now, this story is just breaking, and the Associated Press has people in the area to report the progress of this investigation.  We have certain information that evade the epidemic of political correctness, and falls directly into our universal common sense, so we can make some fair and balanced conclusions:
 
1.) The perpetrator was not interested in this little, 13-year-old girl for help with his homework.  He wasn't interested in her to assist him in posting his latest church activities to his Facebook page, or in setting up an account with Twitter.
 
2.) although it hasn't been said, I'm willing to bet that he has an extensive history with local law enforcement and the criminal justice system, and that history will have several "second chances" that have been afforded him, in his escapades, so far.  If the local judges can be fooled into thinking that this kind of personality can be changed, or rehabilitated, I have a three-hour class for them!  If they then offer more "second chances" to similar criminals, there are procedures for their removal from the bench -- just ask the three most recent removals from the Iowa Supreme Court.
 
3.) In the event that the perpetrator is charged appropriately, there will STILL be efforts on the part of local prosecutors to plea-bargain the case into something less than what it should be, therefore the citizens of this jurisdication will be cheated from the very beginning, by being placed in harm's way by the very system that is supposed to protect them.
 
We cannot continue to treat these sexual predators as though we all live in some kind of "clinical world," where pseudo-experts come to court and testify that they can treat such malladies, with any level of success, whatsoever.  A pedophile is a pedophile, no matter what the courtroom definition may be; and none have ever been successfully treated.  Therefore, these creeps need to be handled as though they are among the most dangerous of psychological killers, and put them away for extended periods, (or even considering them for some kind of  humane capital punishment, in a majority of cases), and stop with the theorization that there could be something about them that they inherited or that it's part of their makeup since birth.  These monsters are created by their environmental concerns from early ages, but they are NOT born with these inflictions.  They know the differences between right and wrong, and they make the choices that lead them to their logical conclusions.  We, as society in general, cannot continue to allow them to prey on our perpetuity with impugnity, as our courts have unwittingly allowed.   

The Government's (Big) Business of Children

When I first began to travel down this road to understanding human behavior, and applying it to the protection of humanity's most valuable asset, (Our Children), I worked as an investigative intern at Evidence, Inc.

One of the first things I noticed, when working on domestic cases, and specifically those involving child custody, was the way the social workers and police officers took the seriousness of their jobs, as well as the importance of their contributions to the justice system with a very laid back attitude, and how they would simply lie through their teeth to justify what seemed to be their hidden objectives – to remove children from parental custody, then parental influence, and to help to promulgate a juvenile justice system where none was needed in the first place.

We looked upon it as a way for the judicial bureaucracy to self-justify. We spoke about the increasing budgets and the ways they would destroy the psychological personalities of the children, as well as their parents' maternal/paternal instincts, seemingly in order to keep the statistics on their side, with no regard, whatsoever, to the lives of those they held sway over.

But this is a much bigger monster than anyone could have anticipated. With President Obama's Administration and the control over Congress that his “very-liberal-leaning-toward-Socialism” political party currently enjoys, this has become something to be very aware of, and in keeping with that premise, I note that just to our north, the country of Canada is a great example of what might happen, eventually, right here in the Good Ol' U.S. Of A.

This is exemplary of where our nation is headed, when it comes to our most valuable resource. We are are on the fast track to Legalized Kidnapping. This report, by a Canadian, shows where the world of Child Custody is headed, and it's coming to a neighborhood near you, if it's not already there. Please pay close attention to what's going on with our friends and neighbors in Canada, so that we can avoid having the same thing happen here in America.

I have taken the liberty of linking to the original website, in order to spread the word about how the government might get involved in YOUR family, if we cannot control the apathy in our own country.

TO SEE THIS SITE IN FULL ENTIRETY CLICK LINK:

http://www.sosquebec.com/

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON IN EVERY AMERICAN STATE, IN EVERY COUNTY. SENATOR NANCY SCHAEFER WAS JUST ABOUT TO REVEAL THIS REPORT BY HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH IN A DOCUMENTARY WHICH WAS ALREADY FILMED AND HOPEFULLY WILL BE SHOWN ON PBS. THIS WILL PROVE THAT CPS AND THE SOCIAL WORKERS WHO WORK THERE ARE LYING, COVERING UP THEIR BEHAVIOR, AND THAT THIS WAS AN INTERNATIONALLY PREMEDITATED GENOCIDE. THE WORST CASES IN THE USA ARE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. THIS REPORT IS OUT OF QUEBEC, CANADA, BUT THERE ARE GRAND JURY REPORTS THAT VALIDATE THIS REPORT. YOU CAN SEE ONE OF THEM HERE:

A Children's Gulag
Corruption, Child Abuse & the Business of Children
From a provincial population of 7.5 million, up to 30,000 children were seized from families by youth authorities in 2006, processed in secret trials, and placed in group homes, institutions or forced adoption programs. The majority of warehoused children are cut off from parents and extended family, often physically, sexually and emotionally abused, and held until the age of 18 when they are dumped on city streets.

Years of secrecy and a total lack of accountability have created a culture of impunity and corruption among bureaucrats and the judiciary, and destroyed the lives of 100,000's of children and families. Shattered survivors, forbidden from revealing corruption and abuse under threat of contempt of court charges and jail, create succeeding generations of angry and broken families, guaranteeing repeat business for the state. The business of children in Quebec is now a growth industry, worth over one billion dollars (USD $1,000,0000,000) per year to bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, social workers, psychologists, pharmacists, institutions and contracted guardians.

Uncontrolled state intervention has placed money and the interests of bureaucrats and the judiciary before the interests of children and families. The expansion of ministry and judiciary budgets, the creation of corrupt local power bases, and the advancement of lucrative careers have lead to systematic child abuse and some of the worst child abuse stories and scandals in the western world.

The suicide rate, above 44/1000 men in some regions, is among the highest in the western world, lead by victims of the children's aid service (Department de la Protection de la Jeunesse or "DPJ".) Other symptoms of failed state intervention policies include a declining population, falling birth rates among (non-immigrant) families, the buildup of a massive bureaucracy numbering over 800,000, the highest taxes and highest per capita debt levels in North America, rampant corruption, an exodus of private capital and jobs, etc.

Financial costs of corruption are born by the Quebec taxpayer as well as Canadian taxpayers through massive federal transfer payments.

To silence complaints of corruption and abuse in the treatment of children, the Quebec government, with no public debate or inquiry, has increased the powers of the DPJ and accelerated the programs of permanent institutionalization and forced adoption of children.

The Informant Network - Feeding the Machine

A public network of informers reported over 70,000 children and their parents to state children's authorities (DPJ = Children's Aid, CAS, CPS, DSS) in 2005. Tardiness, truancy, illness, cuts, scrapes, dirty dishes, unwashed laundry, politically incorrect books, magazines or pictures are considered valid indicators of child abuse. If a motive or incident is required the claim of possible future emotional or physical abuse is used by social workers to seize children. With no burden of proof required to seize and hold children, DPJ bureaucrats work closely with a corrupt justice system to attack and silence opponents, and to justify funding for expanding budgets.

Children seized are selected from parents considered vulnerable or naive - those least able to resist. Parents who have suffered accident, illness, separation, divorce, and those deemed marginal in lifestyle (home schoolers) are preferred targets. Well adjusted children are preferred candidates as they are easier to warehouse, and make better adoption candidates. In order to insure continued funding of DPJ and judicial budgets, the placement with extended family or relatives is blocked. (Marathon case details - french only.)

Parents are told that the children will be taken temporarily for evaluation, never to be returned. Court warrants are rubber stamped by court clerks without any proof presented. In many cases chDPJ workers using a police escort arrive at homes or schools to seize children. Naive parents ildren are seized without warrants, through the use of document and signature fraud.

Parents who resist the seizure of their children are charged with assault. This is then presented to the courts as proof of their unsuitability as parents. Parents who do not resist are presented to courts as detached, uncaring, unloving and emotionally unfit, grounds used to institutionalize or forcibly adopt children. Once children are in state custody, often in isolation cells, the inquisition and character assassination of parents in secret trials begins. With no burden of proof and with total impunity, collusion, corruption, fraud and psychological torture are systematically used to break parent child bonds, and create the distress used to justify the continued detention of children. Most children taken are never again released to birth parents. Parents and others who resist, including those working in the system, who attempt appeals, reveal corruption, or file complaints are intimidated, silenced, and subject to judicial and bureaucratic harassment.

A Legacy of State Child Abuse

Beginning with the forced institutionalization of native children in the 1930's,40's and, 50's, followed by the systematic abuse and torture of 1000's of children known as the Duplesis Orphans, and then to the present day abuse, the cycle of destruction has been repeated with every generation of children in Quebec for the past 70 years. The attack on parents has created lucrative work for the army of government bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, psychologists and aid workers etc. For decades, all system participants are paid by the omnipresent state, effectively linking the financial and career interests of bureaucrats and the judicial system. The lack of judicial independence has lead to a culture of flagrant corruption and impunity maintained by a conspiracy of silence. The system is a direct contributor to Quebec's suicide rate, one of the highest in the western world at 30/1000 for men.

The systematic removal of children from parents and the breakup of families creates millions of victims amongst siblings, parents and extended family. Raised without the unconditional love of parents and the family ties critical to identity and culture, victims leave the system emotionally shattered, drug and alcohol dependent, and lacking the role models, education, and skills to function in modern society. Forced out of institutions and onto the streets at the age of 18, the majority become suicide statistics or non-contributing, dependent members of society.

Duplessis Orphans :
Healthy children fraudulently declared mentally ill and institutionalized to collect federal subsidies.
20,000+ child victims of physical, sexual & emotional abuse, used as human guinea pigs in psychiatric laboratories, lobotomies, electric shock, drug testing.

Judicial Corruption
In the documentary "Childhood Thieves" the DPJ boasts of winning over 90% of their court cases. Years of secrecy and impunity have allowed the DPJ and judiciary to fashion a system of loopholes and illegal tricks to seize and hold children, and condemn parents without presenting any proof or without following due process.

• Children are represented by appointed lawyers they have never met, and often blocked from appearing in court. Children's wishes and interests are then misrepresented by their counsel, who in fact work for the state.

• Appointed children's counsel are vetted by the DPJ and collude openly with and advocate for, the DPJ. Children, often held in isolation, are coerced into testifying against themselves and/or their parents.

• Attempts to provide children lawyers without DPJ ties from outside corrupt regions are blocked by lawyers collaborating with the DPJ.

• Children requesting legal counsel are blocked by social workers, directly, or by moving seized children 3-5 hours distance from their home jurisdiction. Legal aid lawyers in neither area will then contact the child.

• Appeals to higher courts, costing $5000-$10000 dollars to prepare, are refused by legal aid lawyers, denying poor parents or children the opportunity to challenge verbal accusations and allegations against them.

• The normal burden of proof is reversed; Victims are forced to prove their innocence against verbal accusations and claims made with no corroboration or proof submitted. With no proof required for convictions, and with the collusion of the justice system, perjury and fraud by DPJ bureaucrats is commonplace.

• Access to court transcripts is often refused, denying parents and their lawyers the opportunity to prepare a defense or present appeals, and blocking civil suits and administrative action against the DPJ, judges and lawyers.

• Court transcripts, if released, are edited or erased to shield corrupt processes.

• Parents, whose attempted legal actions are deemed troublesome, are simply banned from access to the legal system by lower and upper courts.

• Using the threat of contempt of court charges punishable with imprisonment, parents and children are forbidden, for eternity, from revealing secret court proceedings (huit clos) . Ostensibly to protect the identities of children, the secret trial system serves to hide corruption and abuse by the DPJ, children's lawyers (vetted by the DPJ) and judges.

• In flagrant violation of the fundamental principals of justice, judges are in direct contact with DPJ directors outside of the courtroom. Judges who refuse to take orders from the DPJ bureaucracy are subject to harassment, pressure and complaints. (See the sacking of Judge Andrée Ruffo.)

• Accusations and charges against parents are presented on the morning of court appearances or during court sessions, intentionally denying parents the possibility of preparing a defense, challenging accusations or summoning witnesses.

• Documents obtained through signature and document fraud are presented in court as evidence of parents' agreement and acceptance of decisions made unilaterally by the DPJ. (See "Tools of Corruption".)

• When children leave the system, DPJ files and notes are destroyed to impede investigations and block civil suits. For child witnesses to corruption and abuse every effort is made to keep them in the system until the age of 18 to prevent their testimony.

  

Secret Trials and Inquisitions

Once children are in DPJ custody the judicial and financial resources of the state are unleashed with the intent of breaking family bonds, removing parental authority, and attacking the emotional and financial defenses of parents and children. The system and tactics are deliberately designed to provoke emotional and physical reactions in both children and parents, which are then used to justify DPJ intervention. Financial subsidies and income support, upon which the majority of Quebec families depend, are immediately cut off, forcing parents to move to smaller or cheaper lodging. Parents are then portrayed as unstable or unable to provide adequate lodging for children. Once in custody over 30 days (waiting for court etc.) or the school has begun, the DPJ will argue that the child is now stabilized and should not be returned to parents.

As no evidence is required or presented for seizure of the children, the DPJ begins a well-rehearsed process of character assassination, a systemic violation of the Quebec and Canadian Charter of Rights and the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child.

Protect Your Children (PDF) (available on website link, above)

Thieves of Innocence

  

Crimes against Nature, Psychological Torture, Intimidation and Provocation
Physical intimidation is used to provoke parents and children. In court sessions, after months of no contact with children, DPJ workers will place themselves between parents and their young, denying any intimacy or opportunity to talk. Emotional reactions to provocation is presented as evidence of the unsuitability of parents and continued reclusion of children. Parents who obey the rules, remain unemotional and refuse their children's calls are portrayed as distant, uncaring and unworthy of caring for their children. If children behave while in custody, the DPJ will argue that they should not be disturbed and kept in custody. If children begin acting out because of emotional stress, deliberately provoked, they will then be held for further "treatment". The forced administration of potent drugs to "correct" the emotional states of children is standard practice. (Quebec is the Ritalin capital of Canada.)

Children of the DPJ - Review (Eng) (Fr)

A frequent tactic is to deny parents all contact with children for months or years at a time, directly or through family and friends. Any contact with distraught children is presented in the courts as evidence of disobedience and defiance of the court and/or the DPJ, grounds for further punishment and separation of children from parents.

The Business of Children - A Billion $ Growth Industry
Over 12000 DPJ social workers are used to process 70,000 child evaluations each year. The average DPJ worker is female, single and childless. The majority have no relevant formal qualifications in social work or child care. The completion of secondary school is the only firm requisite. New hires receive six days of training, and then given the powers and mandate to seize children. Computer software is provided to prepare court reports with the technical jargon of the trade.

With jobs and pensions for life, 37.5 hour work weeks, paid vacations, etc. conditions unmatched in the private sector, recruits are easy to find. Monday to Friday work weeks, from 9am to 5pm, insure that children held in custody receive no attention, services or parental visits for weeks, particularly during holidays or weekends during which children are held incommunicado. DPJ workers receive promotions based on their record of seizing children.

The DPJ operates with a budget approaching USD $650,000,000, increasing annually by 8- 10%. The judicial system operates with a USD budget of USD $520,000,000, with at least 50% allocated to children and family cases.(With the exception of large corporations and families, the justice system has been abandoned by the public, due to cost, complexity and an open bias in favor of bureaucrats. If awarded, damages rarely cover legal costs, even for the destruction of lives.) Parents seeking release of children pay millions in legal fees. Parents from whom children have been seized are forced to pay for the incarceration of children, while at the same time being denied contact. Judges in Quebec, numbering around 300, receive annual salaries over USD $200,000, and enjoy effective immunity from prosecution. In total, over USD $1,000,000,000 of public money is spent annually to institutionalize and forcibly adopt children.

Please don't let this happen in America!  Stop the business of government interference in families before it consumes our heritage and destroys our children, in the name of bigger and better government.


God Bless,
Cindy

Now, go out and make a difference!

Evaluating a Psychological Profile of a Serial Killer

Evaluating a Psychological Profile of a Serial Killer 



Murder has been illustrated as "the unlawful killing of a human being by another" (Oxford dictionary, 1997, p.742). The definition of Serial killings on the other hand, is not so simple to define, for it takes on many different forms, and is brought on by many different states of mind. Holmes and De Burger (1988) have attempted to define serial murder as consisting of repetitive killings which are one-on-one with rare exceptions, where the relationship between the victim and the offender is that of a stranger or slight acquaintance, and the motivation to kill and apparent motives are lacking (p.138). As we will see, this is not an extremely accurate description, because the motivation and motives are not lacking at all, but are just shrouded. Rarely do any of these killers act for money, instead they do it for the thrill, sexual satisfaction and/or dominance they achieve in their own world.

A more specific profile of a serial killer has been presented by Apsche (1993) stating that most are white males in their twenties or thirties, who target strangers near their homes or places of work. "According to criminologist Eric Hickey, who has assembled the most extensive database on demography of serial murder states that, 88% of serial killers are male, 85% are Caucasian, and the average age when they claim their first victim is usually around 28.5. In terms of victim selection, 62% of the killers target strangers exclusively, and another 22% kill at least one stranger. Finally, 71% of the killers operate in a specific location or area, rather than traveling wide distances to commit their crimes"(Apsche, 1993, p.16). Also, the F.B.I claims that to be classified as a serial killer, the person must first complete 3 separate murders, that are spaced by a duration they call "the cooling off period" which can vary from a few days to years. But one thing that very few definitions include is that for a killer to be known as a "serial Killer", they must have a particular method to their killings. For instance, Wayne Gacy, had the trade mark of gagging victims with their own underwear so that they would die in their own vomit.

To discover what makes a serial killer function, it is necessary to look back into their past, particularly their adolescent life. By looking at many and varied cases, it is evident that virtually all serial killers come from dysfunctional backgrounds involving sexual or physical abuse, drugs or alcoholism and their related problems. Many traits that seem to be universal in all these serial killers, though in varied amounts, include disorganised thinking, bipolar mode disorders, a feeling of resentment towards society brought on by their own failings, sexual frustrations, an inability to be social or socially accepted, over bearing parents and a wild imagination that tends to drag them into a fantasy world. In a chart of serial killer - childhood development characteristics - created by Ressler, Burgers and Douglas (1990), the three most frequently reported behaviors included day dreaming, compulsive masturbation, and isolation.

The daydreaming, which is brought on by an over productive imagination, tends to lead the way into the general fantasy world that the serial killer begins to live in to protect himself from any isolation he is faced with. At an early age, if a child is left alone, or forced to live in isolation whereby little attention is given to them for long periods of time, their minds become the object of their company, and thus begin the daydreams and the fantasy world (Ressler, Douglas and Burgess, 1990).This kind of isolation tends to breed feelings of inadequacy in some way or other in all serial killers. These feelings maybe masked by numerous artificial successes, but these feelings run deeper than the normal neurotic feelings of not being good enough. Essentially, these early life attachments which are known as ‘bonding’, set up a map by which the child will in later life react to others. In such cases, the children do not learn how to interact properly within their society, and at best, turn into mirror images of their isolators. A prime example of this can be seen in the case of Ed Kemper, whose mother condemned him to the basement of their home at the tender age of ten in fear that he would molest his younger sister (though he had not given his mother any reason to think this). Confused and angry as to why he was suffering this punishment, he turned to his fantasies, which may have started out as ‘normal’, but with the continued isolation they quickly became his dominant world.

At this point, it is important to acknowledge that the majority of all daydreamers will not find themselves turning into murderers in later years; and so too, not all fantasy life is pathological. In fact, ordinary, healthy human beings often dream about their hopes and pleasures, even those that are beyond their reach. "Some of these fantasies may include such deviant and bizarre sexual practices as fetishes, pedophilia, bondage, and rape…Because of their strong sense of conscience or concern over their public image, most will resist translating their desires into action" (Ressler, Douglas and Burgess, 1990). Detailed, ongoing research by the F.B.I shows that many convicted serial killers enact their crimes because of the incredibly rich, detailed and elaborate violent fantasies (including the act of murder) that have developed in their minds as early as the age of seven and eight. What distinguishes killers from ‘normal’ civilians is that the aggressive day dreams that have been developed as children, continue to develop and expand through their adolescence right into manhood, where they are finally released into the real world (Wilson & Seamen, 1992). Through the use of murder and mayhem, the serial killer literally chases his dream. With each successive victim, he attempts to fine tune the act, striving to make his real life experiences as perfect as his fantasy (Apsche, 1993).

David Berkowitz, known as "The son of Sam", is a typical example of an average serial killer, and quiet normal in comparison to his other counterparts who have been known to eat their victims. From the years of 1976 through to 1977, he set out his reign of terror in New York City, by shooting over ten lovers who were parked in secluded areas. Upon being interviewed by John Douglas (a member of the F.B.I) at Attica State Prison, it was discovered that Berkowitz came from an adopted home, and upon discovering his real mother, was told by her that he wasn’t wanted. Originally being shy, insecure, and angry, he blossomed into a potential killer. He procured a large and powerful weapon, which in turn made him feel bigger and more powerful, and set about unknowingly to obtain revenge for what his mother had done to him.

In most cases, there is an event known as the "Pre-crime stresser", as discussed by Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas (1990). The pre-crime stresser can be looked at as the reason for why the person turns to killing as a form of release, even if the criminal does not realise the full extent of his motivations or fails to see the reasons behind the stress he feels. A clear example of this can be seen upon the questioning of Berkowitz who denied he had anything against women, nor did he have reason as to why he killed so many. In actually fact, his mother’s rejection was the stresser that ultimately turned him violent. He did not attack his mother directly (few serial killers ever attack the source of their resentment), but the majority of his killings where based on women who had a likeness to his mother.

Serial killers come in many different varieties. One which is driven by the desire to be acknowledged and feared is the "copy cat". As described by John Douglas (1996), they basically set out copying the actions of previously ‘famous’ serial killers who struck terror into people’s hearts. For example, in Wichita Kansas, the BTK strangler (Bind, Torture, Kill), has been said to have attempted following in the footsteps of Berkowitz. This particular issue has been much debated, with some people arguing that the BTK incidences took place prior to any of Berkowitz's. As to the accuracy of this concept, it is debatable, particular when evidence suggests that the BTK activities continued up until 1979, though the murders were said to have ended during 1977. It is not so much the celebrity statues that they so enjoy, but instead the ability to control the lives of thousands of area residents, who are held in their grip of terror. "Psychologically the thrill-motivated killer tends to be a sociopath, someone with a disorder of character rather than the mind. He lacks a conscience, feels no remorse, and cares exclusively for his own pleasures in life…It has been estimated that 3% of all males in our society could be considered sociopathic" (Fox & Levin, 1994, p.18).

Society generally is quick to place tags on serial killers. Many believe that they are psychotics who hear voices or see visual hallucinations, but this is a misconception as explained by John Douglas (1996). Most are not at all psychotics who have lost touch with reality, but instead psychopaths who are suffering from chronic mental disorders with violent or abnormal social behaviors. Only a small hand full, like Richard Trenton who believed he needed to drink other people’s blood to stay alive, are actually psychotics. And this group is so disorganised in its crimes that it is generally apprehended quite quickly.

One of the most hideous serial killers would undoubtedly have to be the sexual killer. Many specialists, including Douglas (1996) have agreed that the most crucial factor in the development of the serial rapist or killer is the role of fantasy. It has been suggested that the escalation from fantasy to reality in these instances, can be attributed to pornography. In response I would tend to agree, for pornography tends to build on the natural inner desires that exist within us all. The desire to have sexual intercourse is dominant in all males. The action of penetration brings on a sense of triumph and conquest . The only difference here is that these killers have not had the opportunity to learn intimacy due to childhood restraints, and they substitute intimacy with control (which they obtain by inflicting bodily harm to the other(the equivalent to the penetrating conquest) to counteract their inner desires for a mate. As Dr. Richard G. Rappart, a forensic psychiatrist, writes that the mode of death is one where factors indicate that the victim has meaning to the killer and that the intimacy of the murderous act is part of a close bond between himself and the victim formed in the killers fantasy and delusions. A study by Samuel Yochelson and Stanton Samenow (1988) pointed out that a high proportion of serial killers are ‘highly sexed’ in childhood, and have been known to look into bathrooms through keyholes on females undressing, or initiated sexual games - sometimes amounting to rape - with girls at school.

As Jack Apsche (1993) makes clear, serial murderers see themselves as dominant, controlling and powerful figures. They hold the power of life and death, and in their own eyes, they perceive themselves as God. In their fantasies and their enactment of the murder, they become God. This is actually probably the only power they have ever had, and for this reason they savor and continue to persist. As B.F Skinner proved in ‘Science and Human Behavior’, once a killer has tasted the success of a kill, and is not apprehended, it will ultimately mean he will strike again. He put it simply, that once something good has happened, something that made the killer feel good, and powerful, then they will not hesitate to try it again. The first attempt may leave them with a feeling of fear, revulsion and remorse, as stated by Ted Bundy to psychologists on the eve of his execution in 1989; but at the same time, it is like an addictive drug. Some killers revisit the crime scene or take trophies, such as jewelry or body parts, or video tape the scenario so as to be able to re-live the actual feeling of power at a latter date. Many have been reported as saying that they had fallen into the power of the devil after several kills, which is contradictory to their initial beliefs that they were God. It is almost as though initially they believed that they would be powerful in that they had the choice in taking or sparing life, but as time progresses, and the kills mount up, they find they are driven to kill as though they have no choice. Apsche (1993) has noted that many killers have attempted to get help when they discovered they had little control. They appear to want to stop their actions, but regain control to avoid their discovery. This is possibly an example of a bipolar personality clash.

Ultimately, it is virtually impossible to detect a serial killer. Many seem to be quiet normal in their everyday lives, only some actually tend to act differently to the general population. Many have stated that it is easy to fool society, especially psychiatrists, by simply stating what they want to hear. Nor is there any way of detecting for certain who might become a homicidal maniac. But by comparing many past cases it is possible to put together a list of general personality traits that are common in serial killers, and that may prove useful in determining future killers. The F.B.I has its own list, but due to its unavailability I have prepared my own. Traits that should be looked at when trying to decide if a person is a potential killer include: Social withdrawal, abnormal dependence’s on ones mother or ulcerated relations with ones parents, hypochondria or other attention seeking behavior including forms of clothing, delusional mind as to grandeur, severe depression, a general feeling of emptiness as to the future, inability to take criticisms, a general feeling of being mistreated, inability to assert ones self, parental taunts as to ones inability to be sufficient (or as I prefer to call it - the Hitchcock ‘Psycho’ syndrome), mood disorders, and a general failing in attempts to succeed. Of course these are very general points, and even if someone had the majority of these (as I do), it would not necessarily mean that they would become serial killers, it is only meant as a point of reference.

As Freud once commented, a child would destroy the world if it had the power. In a sense the serial killer’s mind can be contrasted to that of a child’s for it has not had the opportunity to develop to that of a ‘normal’ adult. Instead, fantasy takes the place of reality, and it is almost always solely based on acquiring power. A majority of serial killings might have been avoided if the killers had been better treated in their youth. But then again, there is no concrete evidence that suggests this to be true. In all actual fact, most of the conclusions that have been made on serial killers are only speculations based on observations and interrogations of the subjects. But to be realistic, can we really trust anything that may come from the equivalent of a child’s mind filled with falsities created through fantasy?

References

Apsche, J. (1993). Probing the mind of a serial killer. International information Associates.


Douglas, J., (1996). MindHunter. Mandarine Publishing


Fox, J.A., & Levin, J., (1994). OverKill - Mass Murder and Serial Killing Exposed. Plenum Press


Hughes, J.M. (Ed.).(1997). Oxford Concise Australian Dictionary (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press


Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A.W. & Douglas, J.E., (1990). Sexual Homicide patterns and Motives. Lexington Books


Wilson, C., & Seamen, D., (1992). The Serial Killer. Carol Publishing’s


Yochelsen, S. & Samenow, S. (1988). The criminal personality. New York Press

Trusted Pediatrician Charged with Molesting Kids

Earl Bradley is accused as Pediatric Pedophile. 
Is the Delaware Pediatrician is a rapist?

Warning: this is a true story as reported in several media outlets.  It is not for the squeamish, or those who don't like the pooh-pooh things of real life. (but for those interested in protecting your children, you should read and thoroughly understand what has happened here, in order to prevent it from becoming a part of your life!) 

Dr. Earl Bradley is a Delaware pediatrician charged with pedophilia. He has been indicted by a grand jury and charged with multiple acts of child rape and abuse - in what may be one of the worst cases of pedophilia in U.S. history.  Local authorities are working diligently to investigate multiple claims of both sexual and physical abuse, (our various state and federal laws still don't make much allowance for the "mental abuse" that accompanies either of those accepted legal descriptions of dispicable behavior by animals, posing as human saviors). 

This man was a trusted member of the local community, but the allegations apparently date back at least five years, and maybe more.  Where have the investigations into those early allegations gone?  Why was this man allowed to continue to perpetrate these heinous crimes on children?  Incompetent investigators?  Lack of prosecutorial interest?  Or even lack of understanding of the psychology behind such crimes? 

Dr. Earl Bradley

According to ABC News, the Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden, says he expects more victims to come forward. Bradley, 46, is facing 471 separate counts of sexual assault and molestation. Over a ten year period, Bradley is believed to have raped and sexually exploited 102 girls and one boy since 1998 at the office of BayBees Pediatric in Lewes, Delaware, a community of 1300 persons.

The charges include first-degree and second-degree rape, unlawful sexual contact, sexual exploitation of a child and continuing sexual abuse of a child.

The indictment cites videos Bradley made of the various abusive incidents, which were seized from his office after investigators began looking into reports of child abuse last year.

Bradley allegedly videotaped sex acts while parents were waiting in a separate room.

Among the 471-count indictment includes allegations that Bradley forced children to perform sex acts on him as recently as Dec. 13.

Some of the children were allegedly molested continuously over a series of days or months. One victim was allegedly raped by Bradley from June 2007 until February 2009, and another was molested "continuously" between November 2008 until November 2009.

Biden said that some of the alleged victims were just months old.

The abuse of a 2-year-old girl started the investigation.  According to court documents obtained by ABCNews.com, the investigation was spurred after a 2-year-old girl told her mother that Bradley had touched her genitals and "hurt her" during a Dec. 7, 2009 appointment at Dr. Bradley's clinic.

According to the child's mother, Dr. Bradley first examined the toddler in her presence, but then "removed the victim to the basement of the office, where a toy room is located." 

When I heard the description on the Youtube® video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgtZtF3oTzM
and compared it to other news reports from the Google® research, I couldn't help but ask myself why a parent of either flavor would allow ANYONE to examine their child outside their viewing range, but it apparently happens, when the entire community fails to understand the realities of sexual molestation and pedophilia.

I have given presentations on the subject of "Protecting Your Child" to a couple of local chapters of Mothers of PreSchoolers, (MOPS), and almost universally, I have had someone ask questions like, "How can we tell if a person is a pedophile?" or "What does a pedophile look like?"  I always offer them two pieces of advice, during my one-hour-plus presentations:

• 1.) Pedophiles and Child Molesters need two basic things, (a) Access; and (b) Privacy. 
• 2.) There is no accepted physical description, or appearance of a pedophile -- THEY LOOK JUST LIKE ALL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, THEY LOOK LIKE THE LOCAL BANKERS, DOCTORS, POLICE OFFICERS, CLERGYMEN, DENTISTS, STOCK BROKERS, ANYONE YOU MIGHT MEET ON THE STREET AT ANY TIME OF DAY OR NIGHT.   

The mother told authorities that she permitted her daughter to be alone with Bradley "because of his position as a doctor" and because she "trusted him."  But, on the way home from the doctor, the mother alleges that her daughter said Bradley had sexually abused her while they were alone in the basement. The girl's father, who had taken to her to a previous appointment with Bradley, also told authorities his daughter had made a similar complaint to him in November.

I cannot think of a more naive line of thinking that might endanger a child. I'm not trying to single out this mother, or father, but asking that we consider our own thinking as a comparison, and learn something from their mistakes. I'm sure these parents have some serious issues dealing with that mistaken, misplaced, and unwarranted trust. 

In the small town of Lewes, with a citizenry of only 1,300, a videotape seized by law enforcement authorities shows this 6 foot, 225-pound man yell, violently, at a two-year old, demanding the child to "perform sexual acts on him."  Why did it take so long to issue the search warrant that led to the seizure of that video tape?

That particular video was described by the investigating officer in an affidavit as "one of the most violent and brutal attacks on a child of any age" that he had ever seen. 
Biden's office is dealing with questions as to why complaints dating from 2005 against Bradley were not taken to the State Board of Medical Practice. An investigation is ongoing.

Every citizen of the State of Delaware needs to question the reports of complaints against this man that date back to 2005, and why this was not thoroughly investigated back then.

Earl Bradley is being held in the Vaughn Correctional Center on $2.9 million cash bond.

As a Criminal Profiler, had I been aware of even the physical layout of the BayBees Child Clinic, as depicted on the YouTube® video, I would have raised red flags all over the town of Lewes.  We must consider all the things this man was willing to do, in order to accomplish his goals as a child molester/pedophile.  He went all the way through medical school, and specialized in pediatrics, just to gain access to those children.  He opened a business, hired at least a few employees, (although this aspect isn't clear from the current journalism on the case), paid taxes, bought, rented or leased a building, purchased all of the very unique, very expensive decorations, (see Buzz Lightyear and other large display items in the video), and went to such extremes to gain the entire community's trust in his personality, his business, and his profession. 

Think about it!  We should never allow a child molester/pedophile to work harder at gaining access the opportunty to sexually exploit our most precious resource -- our children.  Never forget that parents are the "First Line of Defense" against these monsters.  In some communities, that makes them the ONLY line of defense.

PARENTS, PLEASE BE AWARE    . . . .  AND BEWARE.  These perpetrators are out there, working just as hard as this guy, to get to your child.

I can only hope that the people of the Great State of Delaware will be asking why this was allowed to continue for so long, while there were active allegations over such al ong period of time.  They need to wonder aloud about how many additional victims were added because of an inadequate initial response.  These crimes need expert attention from the very first moment they are suspected.

Images can be deceptive!

Tiger Woods gave his press conference this morning, and it was everything I thought it would be.

From the perspective of an Accredited Criminal Profiler, and someone who has an understanding of these things, I must preface the perception that I'm about to give, by saying that Mr. Woods was cast into the public arena at the age of FOUR! He never had the opportunity to become his authentic self. He was taught to be a “public persona,” before he was allowed, or able, to become a normal human being.



The foundation of Mr. Woods' life was a recipe for disaster. Without the opportunities of failure that should have occurred during his childhood, Mr. Woods has now been forced to come to grips with the concept that he isn't held to a different set of rules than those of every other human resident of this planet. Mr. Woods now recognizes, as he said in his statement, that he has come to understand that he is not special, and must atone for his actions.



Try to imagine being a child and being coached and taught from the age of FOUR how to speak, how to project an image of professionalism, how to put inflection into your words describing your own actions, . . . essentially how to play to the cameras. Mr. Woods learned, early on, how to be less than his authentic self – how to project certain emotions that weren't necessarily real. Mr. Woods learned well. He became a “public persona.” He never came close to offering himself as simply himself to anyone, including is wife, his friends, his family, and his sponsors. He became a salesman. Selling only himself. He WAS a “public persona.”



This is nothing unique to the man named Eldred “Tiger” Woods. Other examples can be found throughout the entire celebrity spectrum. Let's try to limit our perspective to that of people who came into the realm of “public persona,” early in life. Robert “Bobby” Blake is the first one that comes to mind. You remember Robert Blake. Blake was born Michael James Vincenzo Gubitosi. Wide-eyed little Bobby Blake began his acting career as an Our Gang kid and eventually matured into one of Hollywood's finest actors. He came from early childhood into the realm of unrealistic Hollywood expectations. He went through a wildly successful career as an actor, while suffering many failures in his personal life, including several divorces and sour relationships; and he ended up as a complete sociopathic narcissist, charged and convicted of killing his wife and mother of Rose, his child. Bonnie Bakley died a horrible death at the hands of this former child star, who still has no concept of his authentic self.



Another child who was thrust into a similar situation was Little Gary Coleman. Gary Coleman starred in the ongoing and very successful television series “Different Strokes.” Coleman now works from time to time as a Professional Security Guard, but has more unemployment than employment. His personal life is a series of personal failures, from his relationships to his arrests, he's not much different than his two fellow child stars from the same source, Todd Bridges and Dana Plato, who both had running issues of drug abuse, (Plato died of a drug overdose in 1999), several arrests, and many failed relationships. None of these children were allowed to know their authentic selves. Can you see the common threads here?



Tiger Woods' issues stem from his abilities in the sport of golf, as his father so deftly taught him. If he had been allowed to know his authentic self, there may have been a couple of embarrassing moments during his childhood, but he would have suffered only a little embarrassment during his adolescence, instead of thinking that his private life would be covered up by all his adoring fans and those in the media who watched his every move.



Imagine if you will, the young Mr. Woods somewhere in his early teenage years, with his whole life suddenly infused with tremendous amounts of money and personal influence, coupled with what he perceived as ridiculous amounts of undeserved adulation, all during a time when his anatomy was undergoing the biological event of puberty, with the natural occurrence of male hormones, and his complete misunderstanding about who he really was. Over time, he was able to convince himself that he needed certain relief from having to live up to those unrealistic expectations required of that “public persona.” He found a certain type of connection in his private life could be made with certain individuals whom he found that he could be something less than was expected of him by those in his public life. One can certainly draw a number of conclusions about similarities between those who have gone public about Mr. Woods not-so-public behaviors, and his efforts to hide them. Those people, it turned out, led to the destruction of his “public persona,” and the opportunities that lie before him, beginning with today's media event. He seems recalcitrant, and yet somewhat defiant in his presentation. I hope he has a better understanding of what led him to this place. My prayer for Mr. Woods would be that the therapeutic counseling goes very well, and his new handlers will keep him in some kind of private setting that will allow him to educate himself on the reasons for his traditional behaviors.



Mr. Woods grossly mishandled the immediate aftermath of the public discovery of his philandering ways, as the media played both sides of the issue to their every advantage. With his news conference this morning, it is apparent that he finally has made contact with someone who understands and can manage his public image in a manner that is more realistic. The jury is still out on whether Mr. Woods has begun to make the necessary transition in his personal life to gain the understanding of his authentic self. If he is undergoing a true therapeutic counseling, the effort will be entirely toward educating Mr. Woods on all the things he missed as a child, and how he must deal with the realities of the world, where those celebrity things, (aka “public persona”), take a back seat to the personal realities of being his authentic self.

Definitions: Passive-Aggressive Behavior

Let's get some backgound on one of the terms I'll be using, frequently to define certain individual behavior.  This is a learned behavior, and it's basically like living with a sniper.  Many of you will recognize this as something of a common trait in your spouses.

Passive-aggressive behavior

 

Passive-aggressive behavior refers to passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following authoritative instructions in interpersonal or occupational situations. It can manifest itself as resentment, stubbornness, procrastination, sullenness, or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is assumed, often explicitly, to be responsible. It is a defense mechanism and, more often than not, only partly conscious. For example, people who are passive-aggressive might take so long to get ready for a party they do not wish to attend, that the party is nearly over by the time they arrive. Alternatively, leaving notes to avoid face-to-face discussion/confrontation is another form of passive-aggressive behavior.

 

Passive-aggression as a personality disorder

 

Passive-aggressive personality disorder (also called negativistic personality disorder) is a controversial personality disorder said to be marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and passive, usually disavowed resistance in interpersonal or occupational situations. It was listed as an Axis II personality disorder in the DSM-III-R, but was moved in the DSM-IV to Appendix B ("Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study") because of controversy and the need for further research on how to also categorize the behaviors in a future edition. On that point, Cecil Adams writes:

 

Merely being passive-aggressive isn't a disorder but a behavior — sometimes a perfectly rational behavior, which lets you dodge unpleasant chores while avoiding confrontation. It's only pathological if it's a habitual, crippling response reflecting a pervasively pessimistic attitude.

 

When the behaviors are part of a person's disorder or personality style, repercussions are usually not immediate, but instead accumulate over time as the individuals affected by the person come to recognize the disavowed aggression coming from that person. People with this personality style are often quite unconscious of their impact on others, and thus may be genuinely dismayed when held to account for the inconvenience or discomfort caused by their passive-aggressive behaviors. In that context, there is a failure to see how they might have provoked a negative response, so they feel misunderstood, held to unreasonable standards, and/or put upon.

 

Treatment of this disorder can be difficult: efforts to convince the patient that their unconscious feelings are being expressed passively, and that the passive expression of those feelings (their behavior) inspires other people's anger or disappointment with the patient, are often met with resistance. Individuals with the disorder will frequently leave treatment claiming that it did no good. Since the effectiveness of various therapies have yet to be proven, these individuals may be correct.

 

Passive aggressive disorder is said to stem from a specific childhood stimulus (e.g. overbearing parental figures, or alcohol/drug addicted parents).

 

History

 

The term "passive-aggressive" was first used by the U.S. military during World War II, when military psychiatrists noted the behavior of soldiers who displayed passive resistance and reluctant compliance to orders.

 

Common signs of passive-aggressive personality disorder

 

There are certain behaviors that help identify passive-aggressive behavior. [3]

 

• Ambiguity
• Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness
• Blaming others
• Chronic lateness and forgetfulness
• Complaining
• Does not express hostility or anger openly - (e.g., expresses it instead by leaving notes)
• Fear of authority
• Fear of competition
• Fear of dependency
• Fear of intimacy (infidelity as a means to act out anger)
• Fosters chaos
• Intentional inefficiency
• Making excuses
• Losing things
• Lying
• Obstructionism
• Procrastination
• Resentment
• Resists suggestions from others
• Sarcasm
• Stubborness
• Sullenness

 A passive-aggressive may not have all of these behaviors, and may have other non-passive-aggressive traits.

 

Interpretation in Transactional Analysis

 

In the psychoanalytic theory of transactional analysis, many types of passive-aggressive behavior are interpreted as "games" with a hidden psychological payoff, and are classified with names like "Why Don't You...? Yes, But...", "See What You Made Me Do", "Look How Hard I've Tried", and "I didn't do it on purpose, I forgot or it was an accident" into stereotypical scenarios.

 

Passive-aggressives are very dangerous individuals, if the disorder is allowed to progress.  They cannot be good parents, and cannot understand the various virtues of setting a good example for children.  It is not recommended that one consider remaining in a committed relationship with a passive-aggressive personality, and they are one of the worst choices for parenting.  When a relationship involving at least one passive-aggressive enters  into dissolution of marriage where shildren are involved, there are no possibilities of control of behavior during visitation, and this is one of the long-reaching effects that is never considered by our broken system of justice. 

 

 Be very careful with whom you make a baby!   

 

 

The following article is an example of the discussions we intent to have on this blog. This is a discussion of the current state of affairs, when it comes to understanding the system put into place by our government, in order to make an effort at protecting our most precious resource -- OUR CHILDREN.

You will hear me repeat the phrase, often: "You cannot depend upon the system to protect your child. The system is broken beyond anything you can possibly imagine. I have case, after case, after case to prove it. Enjoy:

A CHILD'S JOURNEY THROUGH THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

1.)
A Child’s Journey Through the Child Welfare System
This paper describes the typical progression a child makes through a state’s child welfare
system.* Each state’s child welfare agency1 is responsible for ensuring the safety and
well-being of children. Child welfare systems have several chief components:

• Foster care – full-time substitute care for children removed from their parents or
guardians and for whom the state has responsibility. Foster care provides food
and housing to meet the physical needs of children who are removed from their
homes.

• Child protective services (CPS) – generally a division within the child welfare
agency that administers a more narrow set of services, such as receiving and
responding to child abuse and neglect allegations and providing initial services
to stabilize a family.

• Juvenile and family courts – courts with specific jurisdiction over child
maltreatment and child protection cases including foster care and adoption
cases. In jurisdictions without a designated family court, general trial courts hear
child welfare cases along with other civil and criminal matters.

• Other child welfare services – in combination with the above, these services
address the complex family problems associated with child abuse and neglect.
They include family preservation, family reunification, adoption, guardianship,
and independent living.
! While 542,000 children were in foster care on September 30, 2001, 805,000 spent
some time in care over the course of that year.2
! Children in care in 2001 had been in foster care for an average of 33 months. More
than 17 percent (91,217) of the children had been in care for 5 or more years.3
Once a child is known to the child welfare agency, he and his family become subject to a
series of decisions made by judges, caseworkers, legal representatives, and others, all of
whom have an important role to play. A child may encounter dozens of other new adults
including foster parents, counselors, and doctors.
Most children (60%) enter foster care when removed from their homes by a child
protective agency because of abuse and/or neglect. Others (17%) enter care because of
the absence of their parents, resulting from illness, death, disability, or other problems.
Some children enter care because of delinquent behavior (10%) or because they have
committed a juvenile status offense (5%), such as running away or truancy. Roughly 5
* Throughout the paper, the following bullets are used: ! for statistics; !for federal law
and regulations; and"for a child’s experience.


2.)
percent of children enter care because of a disability.4 For many, it represents their only
access to disability services, for example, mental health care for a child with severe
emotional disturbance. In these rare instances, in states that allow such placements, a
child is placed in foster care voluntarily at the request of his parents.
Foster care is intended to provide a safe temporary home to a child until he can be
reunited safely with his parent(s) or adopted. However, being removed from home and
placed in foster care is traumatic for a child, and the period of time he may spend in care
can be filled with uncertainty and change.5
A child in foster care is affected by a myriad of decisions established by federal and state
laws designed to help him. At each decision point, action or inaction can profoundly
influence the child’s current circumstances and future prospects. The discussion that
follows highlights typical decision points on a child’s journey through foster care.
Although the format is based on federal and common state law and practice, nevertheless
it is only a model. Laws vary across states, as does the capacity and practices of child
welfare agencies and courts to manage their caseloads. These factors can and often do
create delays that complicate a child’s journey through the child welfare system and often
extend his time there.
DECISION POINT - Abuse or neglect is reported and the CPS agency responds.
The child’s journey through foster care usually begins when a mandated reporter6 or
concerned citizen makes a report of abuse or neglect to a state agency. For example, a
doctor delivers a baby who has drugs in his system; a neighbor notices bruises on a child;
a toddler is found abandoned in a public place; or a teacher notices a student who is
unclean, unfed or severely ill.
! Child abuse and neglect, or maltreatment, are defined in both federal and state law.
Federal law provides a foundation for states by identifying a minimum set of acts or
behaviors that define physical abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse. The Federal Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act defines child abuse and neglect, at a minimum,
as "any recent act or failure on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death,
serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure
to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm" to a person under age 18.7
States can and do expand on or clarify definitions in a variety of ways that are
particular to local needs. Although any of the forms of child maltreatment may be
found separately, they often occur in combination.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates that in 2001, CPS
agencies received nearly three million referrals of maltreatment involving five million
children. Approximately 903,000 of these cases were substantiated after investigation.8
The following types of abuse and neglect occurred (some in combination with others):
Type of Abuse Percentage

3.)
Neglect 59.2%
Physical Abuse 18.6%
Sexual Abuse 9.6%
Emotional/Psychological maltreatment 6.8%
Other (abandonment, congenital drug addiction) 19.5%9
The ages of the victims ranged as follows:
Age Percentage
Birth to 3 years 27.7%
4-7 24.1%
8-11 22.8%
12-15 19.5%
16-21 or unknown 6%10
More than half (56.5%) of substantiated reports were made by professionals, including
teachers, law enforcement officers, and physicians. The remaining 43.5 percent were
made by family members, neighbors, and other members of the community.11
The majority of the victims were maltreated by a parent (birth, adoptive or step). The
breakdown is as follows:
Relationship to the Child Percentage
Mothers (acting alone or with a non-parent) 46.9%
Fathers (acting alone or with a non-parent) 18.7%
Mother and Father 19.3%
Non-parent 11.9%
Unknown 3.1%12
In 2001, an estimated 1,300 children died from abuse or neglect. Eighteen of these
deaths, (1.5%) occurred while a child was under the custody or supervision of the child
welfare agency.13
Once a report of maltreatment has been made, the CPS agency investigates whether abuse
or neglect has occurred and assesses the risks to the child.
DECISION POINT
The CPS agency finds that the allegations of abuse and neglect are unfounded and
the case is closed.
or
The CPS agency finds evidence that the child is at risk for subsequent abuse or
neglect and conducts an assessment to determine whether the child can remain
safely at home with supervision or support services.

4.)
The assessment may include a visit to the family home and interviews with the family
and persons outside the family. The family may help identify services that may be
needed to better care for their child, such as parenting skills training or addiction
services.14
! The majority of children entered foster care because of neglect, often the result of
inadequate housing, poor child care, or insufficient food or medical care.
! A substantial percentage of parents with children in foster care have substance abuse
treatment needs.15
DECISION POINT – The CPS agency petitions the court recommending the
removal of the child from his home under the supervision of the child welfare
agency. This petition initiates a series of judicial hearings.
If the CPS assessment indicates the child is at high-risk for subsequent abuse or neglect,
the CPS agency conducts an investigation and requests a court order to remove the child
from the home. Generally, in emergency situations, the agency will remove the child and
place him in emergency or temporary foster care before receiving the court order.
DECISION POINT – Protective hearing: the court determines initial placement.
An emergency custody hearing, or protective hearing, will be held for the court to first
determine whether the child has been abused or neglected. If the judge determines that
abuse or neglect has occurred, the case then proceeds to an adjudicatory and dispositional
hearing, where the judge will decide, based in part on the child welfare agency’s
recommendation, to do one of the following:
(1) Send the child home without services;
(2) Send the child home with supervision and support services; or
(3) Remove the child from his home.
This same set of options will be considered at each subsequent hearing.
DECISION POINT – Adjudicatory and dispositional hearing(s): the court
determines that the child must be removed and approves an initial placement and
reunification plan.
Once the child is removed from his home, he and his parents become formally involved
with the juvenile or dependency court system, and the child is considered in state custody
and generally a ward or dependent of the court. The child and his family are assigned a
case worker from the child welfare agency.
The child’s case worker develops a case plan detailing:

5.)
(1) The types of services that the child and his family will receive, such as parenting
classes, mental health or substance abuse treatment, and family counseling;
(2) Reunification goals, including visitation schedules and a target date for a child’s
return home; and
(3) Concurrent plans for an alternative permanent placement options should
reunification goals not be met.
The court reviews and may modify the recommended case plan.
! Federal regulations require that the child’s case plan describe how the state will
achieve a safe placement for the child in the least restrictive, most family-like setting
in close proximity to the child’s parents. The case plan must also describe how the
placement is consistent with the child’s best interests and special needs.16
! Many jurisdictions are experimenting with innovative approaches to develop effective
case plans and facilitate safe reunification. Such approaches include mediation,
family group conferencing, and co-location of services such as substance abuse
assessment in the court.
! Before a State may receive federal reimbursement for the costs resulting from
supporting a child after removal from his home into foster care, a judge must
determine that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the family together by
providing such services as parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, or subsidized
child care.17 However, federal law does not require States to pursue reasonable efforts
if a parent has committed specific types of felonies, or subjected the child to
aggravated circumstances, such as abandonment, torture, or sexual abuse.18
In 2001, the case goals of 541,998 children in state custody were:
Case Goal Percentage (number)
Reunify with Parent(s) or Principal Caretaker(s) 44% (241,051)
Adoption 22% (116,653)
Case Plan Goal Not Yet Established 11% (62,014)
Long Term Foster Care 8% (45,792)
Emancipation 6% (32,309)
Live with Other Relative(s) 5% (26,555)
Guardianship 3% (17,624)19
In 2001, the placement settings for children in state custody were:
Placement Setting Percentage (number)
Foster Family Home 48% (260,384)
Relative foster home 24% (130,869)
Institution 10% (56,509)
Group Home 8% (43,084)
Pre-Adoptive Home 4% (20,289)

6.)
Trial Home Visit 3% (16,685)
Runaway 2% (9,112)
Supervised Independent Living 1% (5,068)20
More than 20 percent of children in foster care will move at least three times and in some
cases seven or more times.21 Children move for many reasons, including attrition and lack
of training or support for foster families, lack of resources to address a child's special
needs, or because the child’s behavior may be difficult for some foster parents to manage.
" If the child is removed from his home, he is separated from his parents and may be
separated from his siblings. He will meet new temporary “parents” and adjust to their
lifestyle and house rules. Foster parents may have their own children or other foster
children in their homes. The child may have to attend a new school, leaving old
friends behind and adjusting to a new teacher and new classmates as well as new
rules. The child will have a caseworker assigned to him. Ideally the caseworker will
visit the child at least once a month. The emotional adjustments will differ for
children placed with relatives, or placed in their own neighborhood. The child will
have to make these adjustments each time he is moved.
DECISION POINT – The child is placed in the home of a relative.
! Federal law recognizes a preference for placement with relatives.22 However, the
regulations clarify that health and safety are the paramount considerations when any
placement decision is made regarding a child in foster care, including care with a
relative.23
! Generally, relatives do not receive foster care payments unless they are licensed
foster care providers.
DECISION POINT - The child is placed in a non-relative foster family home.
Although the total number of licensed family foster homes in the United States is not
known, in 1998, 38 states reported a total of 133,503 homes.24 Unfortunately, turnover
among foster parents is high; 30 to 50 percent leave the system every year.25
Foster parents receive stipends to cover room and board, child care, and clothing. They
may also receive Medicaid coverage for the children in their care.
DECISION POINT - The child is placed in a residential facility or in a group home.
The child may be placed in therapeutic foster care, residential child care, or residential
psychiatric care if he has emotional, behavioral, physical or medical needs and requires a
higher level of supervision and treatment. A child may be placed in group home care
because of a shortage of foster family homes. Group home care is more frequently used
for older children.

7.)
! A group home is a licensed or approved home providing 24-hour care for children in
a small group setting that generally has from 7 to 12 children.26
! An institution is a child care facility operated by a public or private child welfare
agency and providing 24-hour care and/or treatment for children who require
separation from their own homes and group living experiences, i.e. child care
institutions, residential treatment facilities, and maternity homes.27
! Federal child welfare funds cannot be used to support children in public facilities that
serve more than 25 children or used to maintain children in facilities that are operated
primarily for the detention of delinquent youth.28
DECISION POINT - The court reviews progress every six months and holds a
permanency hearing after 12 months.
Periodic reviews are held in the court or reported to the court.
! Federal law requires states to review a child’s case at least every six months after
placement in foster care to determine whether the placement is still necessary and
appropriate, whether the case plan is being properly and adequately followed, and
whether progress has been made toward reunifying the family. The case review must
also set a target date for the child’s return home, adoption, or other permanent
placement.29
Permanency planning hearings are always held in court.
! Federal law requires states to hold a permanency planning hearing for each child in
foster care within 12 months of initial placement, or after a determination that
reasonable efforts to reunite are not required.30 Some states require this hearing
sooner. Foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers must be given
notice and an opportunity to be heard at case reviews and permanency hearings.
Some advocates believe that a child should not remain in foster care longer than 12
months. Other advocates believe that this is too short a period to address the complex and
multiple needs of the family, particularly families with substance abuse or mental health
needs.
A judge may choose from among several permanency options for the child. In 2001,
263,000 children exited foster care in the following ways:
Outcomes for Children Exiting Foster Care Percentage (number)
Reunification with Parent/Primary Caretaker 57% (148,606)
Living with Other Relative(s) 10% (26,084)
Adoption 18% (46,668)
Guardianship 3% (8,969)
Emancipation 7% (19,008)

8.)
Transfer to Another Agency 3% (7,918)
Runaway 2% (5,219)
Death of Child31 less than 1% (528)32
DECISION POINT – The child is reunified with his birth family.
If the parents are successful with the court-ordered treatment plan, the child is reunited
with his parents, and the case is closed.
! In 2001, more than 57 percent (148,606) of children in out-of-home care were
reunited with their families.33
! However, other studies have noted that approximately 33 percent of children who
were reunified with their families re-entered foster care within three years.34 And,
approximately 17 percent of children who entered foster care had been in foster care
before.35
DECISION POINT – The birth family does not complete the court-ordered
reunification plan. The child welfare agency petitions the court for the termination
of parental rights (TPR).
If a parent fails to comply with the reunification plan, the child welfare agency will
petition the court to terminate the parents' rights to the child. At any point during the
court process, a parent may seek to voluntarily relinquish their parental rights.36 When
the parents' rights are terminated, a permanent plan for the child will be created.37
! Federal law requires states to initiate TPR proceedings for (1) children who have been
in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, (2) infants determined to be
abandoned, or (3) cases in which a parent has killed another of his/her children, or (4)
certain other egregious situations. States may opt not to initiate TPR if (1) the child is
in a relative’s care, (2) the child welfare agency has documented a compelling reason
that TPR would not be in the child’s best interest, or (3) the state has not provided
necessary services to the family.38
! In 2001, more than 65,000 children’s living parents had their parental rights
terminated.39
! Federal law requires that the permanency plan document the steps taken to place the
child and finalize the adoption or legal guardianship and document child specific
recruitment efforts taken to find an adoptive family or legal guardian for a child.40
! Federal regulations direct states to concurrently begin to seek and approve a qualified
adoptive family for the child whenever a state initiates TPR proceedings.41
DECISION POINT - The child is placed with an adoptive family and the court
holds an adoption hearing to finalize the adoption.

9.)
Some children will leave foster care through adoption.
! In 2001, 51,000 children were adopted.42 Nearly 59 percent were adopted by their
foster family and nearly 24 percent were adopted by a relative.43
" Because children adopted from foster care may have been abused, neglected, or may
have lived in multiple homes, the transition to an adoptive home can be difficult.
Some states are beginning to explore ways to offer post-adoption services, such as
respite care, to ensure the adoptions stay intact.
! In 2001, more than 126,000 children in foster care were considered waiting to be
adopted because they have the goal of adoption or because of TPR.44 These children
had been in foster care for an average of more than 3½ years, and their average age
was eight.45
DECISION POINT – The child is placed with a legal guardian, often a relative.
Some children will leave foster care through placement in the custody of a guardian. The
guardianship can be granted to relatives, foster parents, or another adult who has a
relationship with the child.46 Guardianship is not as legally secure as adoption. However,
it does provide a measure of permanency and stability without requiring the termination
of parental rights.47
! Federal law defines legal guardianship as a judicially-created relationship between
child and caregiver intended to be permanent and self-sustaining. The following
parental rights with respect to the child are transferred to the caretaker: protection,
education, care and control, custody, and decision-making.48
! Subsidized legal guardianships are a means by which some states provide relative
(and in some states non-relative) foster parents with financial assistance after they
have obtained legal guardianship of the child and the child has exited the formal child
welfare system. Subsidized guardianships can provide an alternative form of support
for children whose relatives have chosen not to adopt.49 The federal government does
not provide States reimbursement for costs associated with subsidized legal
guardianship payments.
DECISION POINT – The child reaches age 18 with no permanent home.
Some children will reach 18 and leave foster care without being reunited with their
families, adopted, or placed in another permanent home. In these cases, the child welfare
agency may provide basic living skills training, housing assistance, and educational
opportunities through federally funded independent living programs.
! In 2001, approximately 19,000 youth left foster care when they reached the age of 18
(or 21, in some cases).50

10.)
" Studies have found significantly lower levels of education, higher rates of
unemployment, and higher rates of homelessness for adults who spent time in foster
care as children.51 For example, a study by Westat, Inc. reported that only 54 percent
of young adults who grew up in foster care had completed high school, 40 percent
continued to rely on public support in some way (were receiving public assistance,
incarcerated, or receiving Medicaid) and 25 percent had been homeless for some
period. 52 Other studies indicate that a significant percentage of the homeless
population in many cities were adults who once had been foster children.53
As this paper indicates, the rate at which a child progresses through the foster care
system, and the nature of his experience there, depends on many factors. These include
federal and state financing, timelines, and legal provisions: good and timely decisions;
the availability of services for birth and adoptive families; and the availability of licensed
foster homes willing to care for children. Many of these factors are interrelated. But each
can contribute to the length and quality of a child’s time in foster care.


1Public child welfare agencies are often called by different names such as the Department of Human
Services (DHS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Department of Children and Families
(DCF), or the Department of Social Services (DSS).
2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, The AFCARS Report #8 (March
2003). Available online at www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/afcars/report8.htm.
3 Ibid.
4 Karen Spar, Specialist in Social Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division,
Congressional Research Library, Library of Congress, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Human
Resources, July 20, 1999. The figures in this paragraph represent Fiscal Year 1994 data.
5 Ibid.
6 State laws identify certain professionals who are mandated to report suspected abuse. They generally
include medical professionals, teachers, day care workers, photo lab developers, and law enforcement.
7 42 U.S.C. 5106g.
8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Child
Maltreatment 2001, p.21 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003).
9 Ibid, 21. The percentages total more than 100 percent of victims because children may have been victims
of more than one type of maltreatment.
10 Ibid, p. 23.
11 Ibid, pp. 3 & 7.
12 Ibid, pp. 43 & 45.
13 Ibid, pp. 51 & 55.
14 The Oklahoma Department of Human Services, The Child Welfare Journey. Available online at
http://www.okdhs.org/cfsd/howtos/cw/journey.htm.
15 Child Welfare League of America, Behavioral Health Division, Alcohol and Other Drugs. Available
online at http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aod.htm.
16 42 U.S.C. 675(5).
17 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect
Information, Overview of the Civil Child Protective Court Process. Available online at
www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/usermanuals/courts/protect.cfm.
18 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(D).
19 The AFCARS Report #8.
20 Ibid.
21Kathy Barbell and Madelyn Freundlich, Foster Care Today (Casey Family Programs, Washington, DC,
2001), pp. 3-4. These figures were based on 1994 data from the U.S. House of Representatives, 2000.
22 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(18).
11
23 Children’s Defense Fund, Child Welfare and Mental Health Division, The Adoption and Safe Families
Act (ASFA) Regulations and Kinship Care Families - Frequently Asked Questions (Spring 2000) and
Federal Register, Vol.65, No. 16, (January 25, 2000), pp. 4032-4033.
24 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, National
Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, Foster Care National Statistics April 2001.
25 University of Tennessee Family Foster Care Project, Foster Family Forum, Issue 1. (July 2002).
26 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Child
Maltreatment 1999: Annual Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001). Some
states may include settings with fewer than seven children as group homes.
27 Ibid.
28U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Program Instruction, ACYF-PI-89-09 (October 1989).
29 Overview of the Civil Child Protective Court Process.
30 42 U.S.C. 675 (1)(5)(C).
31 These deaths resulted from all causes including accidental and natural. Only 18 resulted from abuse.
32 The AFCARS Report #8.
33 Ibid.
34 U.S. General Accounting Office, FOSTER CARE Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding
Permanent Homes for Children , but Long-Standing Barriers Remain (GAC-02-585) (Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002), p. 10.
35 Foster Care National Statistics April 2001 (2000b).
36 The Child Welfare Journey.
37 Ibid.
38 42 U.S.C. 675(1)(5)(E). In the case of an abandoned child, regulations require States to initiate TPR
within 60 days of a court determination of abandonment and in the case of a child whose parent has been
convicted of a felony specified in the law 60 days of a court determination that reasonable efforts to reunite
are not required.
39 The AFCARS Report #8.
40 42 U.S.C. 675 (1)(E).
41 42 U.S.C. 675 (5)(E).
42 The AFCARS Report #8. This figure is based on the most recent revisions to AFCARS, which only
include adoption outcomes. This figure differs from the figure presented in the table showing outcomes for
children exiting foster care. That figure is based on preliminary data which will be revised once all the
outcomes are updated.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 The Child Welfare Journey.
47Steve Christian, A Place to Call Home Adoption and Guardianship for Children in Foster Care, p.28
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2000)
48 42 U.S.C. 675.
49 The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) Regulations and Kinship Care Families - Frequently Asked
Questions.
50 The AFCARS Report #8.
51 State of Tennessee, Comptroller of the Treasury, Foster Care Independent Living Programs (1998).
52 1994 Green Book (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994).
53 National Alliance to End Homelessness. Web of Failure: The Relationship between Foster Care and
Homelessness (1995). Available online at http://www.endhomelessness.org/pub/fostercare/webrept.htm.
A Child’s Journey through the Child Welfare System
Abuse or neglect is reported
and the agency investigates
Unfounded: Case is closed Substantiated
Court sends child
home with
supervision or
support services
Court orders child
to be removed
from home
Court sends child
home without
services
Child’s family works
on plan to be
reunited with child
Agency works with child’s
family and also develops an
alternate permanency plan
Court places child in
foster family
home
Court places child in
the home of a
relative
Court places child in
group home,
shelter or
residential facility
Birth family completes
reunification plan: child returns
home
Birth family does not complete
reunification plan
Case closed: Child has permanent
home (adoptive, relative or
guardian)
Child remains in foster care until
age 18, or in some states age 21,
with no permanent home
Case closed:
Child has “aged-out”
Agency recommends removal
from home
Agency sends child home with
supervision or support services
Agency sends child home
without services
Preliminary
Protective Hearing:
Court determines
initial placement
Court terminates
parents’ rights
(possible appeals
follow)
Court holds
adoption or
guardianship
hearing
Adjudicatory & Dispositional
Hearing(s): Court determines
placement & permanency plan
Court reviews progress
every 6 months &
holds permanency
hearing after 12
months
Court places child in permanent
home (adoptive, relative or
guardian)
Child remains in foster care and
may receive independent living
services