Friday, February 26, 2010

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.

Friday, February 19, 2010

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.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

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

Introduction


Hello, my name is Cindy Sorensen. The children of America are my passion.

I am a professional who may be able to help you to understand some of the things going on in your life, that have eluded you and your abilities to comprehend the ways that people respond, and the reasons they do such crazy things. I hope to be able to help you with the various difficult tasks of parenthood, from infancy to grade school and beyond.

I have made a life-long study of the human behavioral traits, and have taken innumerable courses in forensic behavioral analysis and behavioral psychology that allow me to accomplish more than most therapists. What I offer is a basic understanding of the goals and objectives that should be a part of every parent's daily routine. Meeting those goals and objectives is not an easy thing, considering the contemporary environmental obstructions created by many, many considerations that even our own parents could never have anticipated. It's a really tough world out there, and getting a grip on the realities is an awakening exercise beyond most people's comprehension. Some of those realities take you into unpleasantries and others are downright fearsome. Handling them with a better level of skill is rewarding, beyond compare; and may even be somewhat addictive. Stay with me, and you'll see.

First, allow me to present a little background on my own life experience. I grew up in a lower-middle income family in the Midwest, and was raised with very conservative values. I married way too young, and worked as a housewife for the vast majority of my life. I gave birth to two children, both girls, and did my very best at raising them into upstanding, responsible adult citizens. I now have two wonderful grandchildren who are being raised in the same mold.

Somewhat late in life, I took it upon myself to help a few acquaintences to understand the behaviors, (and subsequently, the likely causes of those behaviors), by their spouses and children. I worked on cases where the spouses were unfaithful and I worked on cases where the children were incorrigible. I never failed to find a causational event. It's nothing more than an understanding of basic human behavior -- psych 101, if you will. Anyone who has ever had a basic class in psychology will understand the premise.

The problems encountered by most in the practical application of those basic principles are almost always attributable to the ways in which our society has become accustomed to looking toward any medical professional as though they were offering a cure for the common cold -- one of the most basic human malladies, (and one that has never been successfully accomplished by the millions who have attempted). You see, the modern medical profession is one governed by "professional ethics" above all else. Those "professional ethics" involve boards and commissions comprised of some pretty impressive people with curricum viteas beyond compare. They make professional determinations about what can and cannot happen within certain recognized, licensed, and certified professions. You may have heard the old addage, "The American Medical Association does not allow any member to offer a 'cure' for any particular medical condition." It's true!

Allow me to digress a bit. I haven't mentioned that I am also a licensed private investigator, as well as an accredited criminal profiler. In my experience in these two, closely related professions, I have noted that our system of justice operates in a somewhat parallel universe to that of the medical professions. When a person is charged with a crime, they are given the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of proper jurisdiction. That's the way our county is supposed to work. During the defense of someone accused of a criminal offense against another person, sometimes a medical professional is called upon to testify as an expert. The experts are almost universally members of a professional organization, not dissimilar to the AMA. When it comes time to testify about certain behaviors, the more complexity that can be introduced into the questioned behavior, the better for everyone involved in the understanding of that behavior. Theoretically, when a pedophile is tried for crimes against children, in his own defense, he is allowed to call rebuttal experts to counter the claims that he has a condition that cannot be cured or treated successfully, and in the end, the jury is so confused. Those non-professional juries are usually relying upon one or more of the jurors' personal anecdotal experiences with "Uncle Jack," or "Cousin Mike," or even "Aunt Mary's gardener/boyfriend/neighbor/etc," then cannot reach a proper consensus and a lessor included offense is the only finding they can offer, and the perpetrator walks away, essentially unscathed.
(Needless to say, I am a huge proponent of a change to our system of justice, whereby people of recognized sound judgement, who have been selected by their fellow citizens, can be appointed to special lists from which jurors are selected; instead of the current policy of selection from lists of registered voters.)
I hope that my positon as one of a very small number of professionals in the area of providing services to people with legal issues will help parents to produce children who are cultivated into responsible, productive, caring adults, inside safe home and educational environments, where the dangers are easily identified and neutralized. I tell parents on a daily basis, "Providing a quality parenthood is a balancing act beyond that of the Flying Walendas!"  You will often hear me tell you just how proken the system you've become accustomed to is completely broken and should never be depended upon, for anything.  I cannot solve the problems of that system, but I can advise you on raising a responsible adult in a safe environment.

I am nearing completion of a book on the rearing of such quality citizens, written from a perspective that allows the reader to understand human behavioral traits and uses the kinds of examples we have come to know through news reports and events that helped shape the history of our modern world.

I am NOT a proponent of the idea of "child-day-care," or any other institutionalized child care system. I wrote the book, based upon my desire to assist parents in understanding their children, their behaviors, and what causes them, as well as the mistaken idea that some things are "just a part of modern day life," as we've been told by the mainstream media and our mental healthcare system for decades.

During the discussions here on "Criminal Profiling," I will be presenting some news articles from past and present that have some very contemporary useage, if one can simply understand the likelihood of various behavioral traits, their causes, their effects, and the ramifications of the ways in which our "system" deals with each of them. We'll be talking about the famous cases of the recent past, as well as some you may not have been familiar with, as well as the news of the day, and maybe even a prediction or two, based upon my observations of the ways the system deals with these kinds of individuals. Although I don't propose to offer solutions to systematic issues, I can offer individual advise on dealing with the behaviors, and the causes for such behaviors in practical application to real life. My Prayer is that anyone reading along, might be able to correlate the subject matter, whether it's old or new, into something useful in their own lives.

I recently spoke to a group of mothers of pre-schoolers on the subject of "Parenthood: You are Your Child's First Line of Defense." There were about 55 mothers present for the event. Afterward, the audience swarmed me, mostly with questions about their own situations. It was hailed as "one of the most informative presentations we've ever had!" But one mother felt that is wasn't appliable to her situation, as she felt that since her child was an infant, knowing the methodolgy of keeping her child safe from pedophiles was "something too far into the future," for her to be concerned with at this point. So, I learned that sometimes you simply cannot save people from themelves. I hope that you will understand the perspective of this blog, and the intent with which is is presented. Take from it, what ever you can, and ignore the portions you feel don't apply. I will predict, however, that you will likely have second thoughts, somewhere in the future, should you commit these missives to memory. Climb onto this effort for the ride, by bookmarking this blog.

Watch for my book, and be ready to enjoy some massive satisfaction by being a better parent, through an understanding of the dangers of parenthood on the way to raising an adult, (we're never to refer to "raising a child" -- we only work on "raising adults"). I'm not one for candy-coating things, so please understand that what you read here is presented without the trappings of political correctness, and should be served with proper consideration to anyone to whom PC might be of paramount concern, (as I said, I already know I cannot save everyone), . . . . Here we go, . . . .