Bear with me on this one, Roger, as this is better "baked" than my
recent musings regarding the possible applicability of RICO.
In a Department of Health and Human Services press release of recent
vintage, Donna Shalala cut through the rhetoric embodied in HHS
program instruction ACYF-PI-94-12, announcing The Court Improvement
Program, which specifically targets the Court of Appeals in each
state, declaring the intent of this program to be one of enabling
social workers and the courts to "work together as never before."
Each of these documents having enjoyed previous posting here, I'll not
clutter the area again, but let us review some of the more salient
points:
In fiscal Year 1995, an estimated $86,277, of a five million dollar
federal allotment, was earmarked for Arkansas, while an estimated
$139,371 was similarly earmarked for Virginia.
In fiscal year 1996, an estimated $103,109, of a ten million dollar
federal allotment, rolls into Arkansas, while an estimated $220,522
similarly rolls into Virginia.
What prompted me to look at this anew is my recently having taken
notice of a disturbing trend in the Virginia Court of Appeals best
described as a shifting away from a long-established line of precedent
in Virginia.  In previous years, parental rights were "to be respected
if at all consonant with the best interests of the child."  DSS lost
more often than it won, on appeal, having failed to establish "clear,
cogent and convincing evidence that severe and irremediable injury is
likely to result to the child if allowed to remain in the care and
custody of his parents."  [Citations omitted]
A recent string of cases would suggest that just the opposite position
is now being taken.  Citing Santosky, the Virginia courts have often
_lowered_ the standard to meet its requirement, rather than apply the
higher standard previously applied under Virginia statute.  Look at
these:
    Where's mother's parenting and housekeeping skills remained poor,
    despite the years of extensive services and assistance mother
    recieved through the Department of Social Services and the
    evidence demonstrated that mother's interactions with her children
    were mercurial and inconsistent and continued to exacerbate their
    emotional problems, the record contained sufficient credible
    evidence in support of the desicion of the trial court terminating
    mother's parental rights.
    Durham v Alexandria Dep't of Social Servs., No. 2176-93-4 (Ct. of
    Appeals June 7, 1994).
    Where mother received extensive services from Department of Social
    Services (DSS) and other agencies since 1977 but despite these
    services, her other four children suffered from severe neglect and
    abuse, including multiple instances of failure to thrive, and her
    parental rights to each were terminated and because of this
    history of abuse, her daughter was placed in the custody of DSS
    immediately after her birth and had never lived with the mother;
    the evidence indicated that mother was able to care for her own
    daily needs but that she was functioning at the highest level in
    which she could be expected to reach and she would never be
    capable of either caring for daughter independently or responding
    to her needs in an age-appropriate manner; moreover, daughter was
    attached to her foster parents, and removal from that home would
    cause her permanent harm; the trial court did not err in
    terminating the mother's parental rights.
    Jenkins v Winchester Dep't of Social Serv., No. 1001-93-4 (Ct. of
    Appeals, May 17, 1994).
    Clear and convincing evidence proved that defendant neglected his
    daughters and permitted them to be abused, that he suffered from a
    mental illness that constituted prima facie evidence of his
    neglect and abuse . . . that defendant was unwilling to cooperate
    with the Department of Social Services . . .; therefore, the trial
    court did not err in terminating defendant's parental rights to
    his daughters, pursuant to subsections B and C of this section.
    Hileman v Winchester Dep't of Social Servs., No. 0320-93-4 (Ct. of
    Appeals, May 3, 1994).
[As you can see, the Winchester department has been busy, lately]
[continued next message]
--- FMail/386 1.0g
(1:2629/124)
---------------