Families are affected everyday by Child Protective Investors taking the children out of their homes when unnecessary just in an attempt to adopt those children out for monetary incentives. Child Protective Investors are NOT held accountable for any lies they commit in the courtroom and even went as far as asking if it was okay to lie in court and fabricate evidence in order to take more children away from their families. To improve the Child Protection Service system, legal liability should be a requirement. Sign this petition for the Child Protection Service system’s employees to finally be held liable for destroying families.

Much of what CPS does is illegal, unconstitutional, unethical and blatantly criminal. (MBA., 2018, p. 60)

The bias in family court has become so problematic that providing false evidence has become commonplace. In December 2016, the 9th district court of Appeals heard an argument by CPS stating that CPS should be allowed to falsify evidence to the court in order to present a better case and accelerate family child removal. In the case, Hardwick v. Marcia Vreeken, case #15-55563, revolved around whether or not CPS should be allowed to lie in court for their means. Not an argument about whether or not CPS had provided false evidence, they fully admitted to falsifying evidence in the case, the argument is about whether or not they are allowed to do so in a court of law. The part which amazed me was, the three judges went on recess to consider the argument. The 9th district court of appeals was considering whether or not an agency of the state is allowed to falsify evidence to a court of law, to promote the violation of the right of parenthood. (MBA., 2018, p. 104)
The case is located online, Hardwick v Marcia Vreeken case number 15-55563.(MBA., 2018, p. 105)

The Adoption and Child Safety Act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1997 was meant to expedite the adoption of children living from foster care into stable families. As you look at the legal title of this law, it appears benign, but it is sinister in its focus. The law decreases the time between when the investigation and child removal from 18 months to 12 months, and develop subsidies from Title IV-B and Title IV-E to Child Protective Services as motivation to speed up the process. These subsidies provide $ 4000-$ 6000 stipends to Child Protective Services from the United States Federal Budget for every child removed from one family's care into a foster or adoptive home. On its face, the subsidy appears to be a small amount provided to the state, but when multiplied by a relatively small number like 20, you can see how a $ 4000 stipend turns into $ 80,000 fairly quickly. If you consider the numbers as one year, 200 children removed equals nearly $ 1,000,000 of extra funding. According to (Children's rights.org), "On any given day, there are nearly 428,000 children in foster care. (MBA., 2018, p. 98)

The Adoption and Child Safety Act provide a revenue stream to be exploited to maintain and grow CPS' budgets. This funding is sourced by on taking children from their homes, placing them with foster families, and then adopting them out. It sounds unbelievable that something like this could happen in modern day America, but it happens on a daily basis to people who have done nothing more than given the wrong information to the CPS agent. (MBA., 2018, p. 95)

The National Association of Social Workers in District of Columbia website (NASWDC.org ) directly states the federal government provides technical assistance for "encouraged use of fast-tracking for children under age one into pre-adoptive placements; and programs to place children into pre-adoptive placements before termination of parental rights.". Meaning, Child Protective Services is to start placing a child into adoptive care while the parent still has rights to the child. (MBA., 2018, p. 97)

Removing a child from the home causes anxiety, depression, separation and attachment issues which cause an increase in psychiatric services and the likelihood of legal problems including incarceration as an adult. According to the Juvenile Law Resource Center (www.youthrightsjustice.org (MBA., 2018, p. 92)

Lastly, to improve the Child Protection Service system, legal liability should be a requirement. Currently, 36 states in the U.S. provide immunity for the CPS agent acting under the agency banner. This is an opening for abuse. With immunity in place, violations of the law cannot be prosecuted or managed in civil court. The complaint would be directed to CPS as an organization. It is difficult to receive remedy as the organization would deny responsibility, cannot be criminally charged and can remove the agent from the position which will appear as a remedy but doesn't repair the damages to the parent, child or family, as well as doesn't educate CPS or the agent regarding the infraction. By placing some legal liability on CPS and its agents, we can decrease strong-arm tactics and legal infringements upon families. People behave differently when they have a legal liability, and they become careful about what is communicated, cautious about their techniques and diligent to follow standards of care. This is observable in nursing care where a violation of standards of care can not just end a job, but a career by losing licensure. Having worked with nurses, they taught that the standard of care is ultimately the focus of treatment, and by focusing on the standard of care fewer mistakes are made, and outcomes improve. Legal liability should always be present when decisions are made, and supervision is required when questions arise. Child Protective Services agents should be held to a similar requirement, as the violation of the standard of care for CPS can be just as dire. (MBA., 2018, p. 122)

Cited:

MBA., D. B. MS. (2018). Defending the innocent from Child Protective Services.