Monday, December 16, 2013

Filed a Complaint Against The County For Fraudulent use of Government Funds

I contacted the Federal Government and asked if human services are illegally placing children in foster care is that Fraud?

They asked me to send them the agency name and evidence of fraud. So I will send them a copy of the report that children were left alone for 15 minutes in baby proof room with people right up the steps. I will send them proof that the incident was poverty related and the state maltreatment screening guidelines that show imminent danger to be in or near heavy traffic, fire or water; or major safety hazard. I will also send them the rules of never finding maltreatment for poverty related neglect. instead offer services. I will explain it was Victor Atherton at Le Sueur county lead investigator who determined that poverty related neglect was maltreatment.  In case it will help the information detailing the fact that sally Schroer illegally entered a private residence and conducted a warantless search then lied to officers about illegally entering the property. I will then send a police report of Sally Schroer breaking in to the home a 3rd time. That should do it. It might take years to get results but it is important that another child or parent disabled or not ever have Someone as Dangerous as Schroer committing premeditated crimes against them. This is her second victim with a disability.

Many in the field commented that the administration was “overly harsh in prohibiting title IV-E
eligibility for an entire foster care episode if the reasonable efforts to prevent removal
requirements were not satisfied.”   Judicial Determination of Reasonable Efforts To Prevent a
Child's Removal From the Home, 65 Fed. Reg. 4051, 4052 (January 25, 2000), codified at 45
C.F.R. § 1356.21(b)(1) (2001).   The response to this comment highlights the significance of a
judicial finding in the view of the administration.
“Response:  The requirement for the State to make reasonable efforts to prevent removals is a
fundamental protection under the Act and one of several title IV-E eligibility criteria used in
establishing eligibility.   From both a practice and an eligibility perspective, it is impossible for
the State to provide efforts to prevent the removal of a child from home after the fact.
“In terms of practice, there is a profound effect on the child and family once a child is removed
from home, even for a short time, that cannot be undone.   If the child is returned after services
have been delivered, or  even immediately, the State has reunified the family, not prevented a
removal.
“The statute requires that title IV-E eligibility be established at the time of a removal.   If the
State does not make reasonable efforts to prevent a removal or fails to obtain a judicial
determination with respect to such efforts, the child can never become eligible for title IV-E
funding for that entire foster care episode because there is no opportunity to establish eligibility
at a later date ․” Id., 4052.
On May 29, 2003, as part of the order of temporary custody application, Judge Harleston waspresented with a form entitled, “Affidavit # 1, Affidavit to Remove Child pursuant to an Order of
Temporary Custody/Order to Show Cause.”   The form requires DCF to list the efforts that were
made to prevent the removal of the child from the home or to list the reasons that preventative
efforts were not possible.   Upon consideration of the evidence presented in the affidavits seeking
an order of temporary custody, the court must make findings of facts and enter orders regarding
preventative efforts made by the state.