Ufa: Another Opportunity Lost


Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

by Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

One thing is very clear. The statement issued by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif representing some kind of agreement at the Russian city of Ufa on July 10, 2015 seems on its face to be conspicuously duplicitous. One wonders if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had some subordinate prepare it, trusting him to convey the intent, but never actually read what was published before it was published.

Here’s the thing. There are two distinct parts to the Ufa agreement as it is explicitly written. First, It is prefaced with the general policy statement:

They agreed that India and Pakistan have a collective responsibility to ensure peace and promote development. To do so, they are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues.
Both leaders condemned terrorism in all its forms and agreed to cooperate with each other to eliminate this menace from South Asia.

“they are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues.” 

To any outside observer this specific remark implies that they are prepared to talk about Kashmir. How much significance should be given to the fact that “all outstanding issues” are not specifically enumerated? Instead, in part two, in elaborating what this meant,  an agenda is set.  A list of 5 items on the agenda are enunciated very clearly.  Nowhere is there any mention of Kashmir.  Why was Kashmir not mentioned in the statement?

Pakistan’s National Security Adviser Sartaj Aziz on August 22, 2105 implied that India must be confused. “We have always been clear on our stand on Kashmir. It is India that has misinterpreted it,” Aziz said.

Frankly, one cannot go around being “clear” about an issue if the suspect doesn’t say what it is he is being so clear about in his agreements.  If Sartaj Aziz is so adamant in pressing the Kashmir issue, then what kind of agreement is it that cannot name what is in fact the primary bone of contention between India and Pakistan?  Why is the issue of Kashmir being raised now, since it was not raised in this agreement?

The agreement is very clear in its focus.  India has placed terrorism on the front burner. Kashmir is nowhere to be seen.  In fact, India always wanted it to be that way

And doesn’t it seem abundantly clear that such an oversight — excluding Kashmir from the statement — was drawn up to allow India to slip through the noose?  By not explicitly naming Kashmir as an “outstanding issue,” Pakistan unwittingly allowed India to slip away from any commitment to discuss it, to deny that they did intend to discuss it, and to refuse any participation by Kashmiris because there is nothing to discuss.  And of course India has done this time and time again.

How sad. The past bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan have yielded no results. They are nothing but a charade. This represents insincere negotiations that are a form of grandstanding, the great pretense of prancing on the world stage, making claims of being serious about discussions when they are not.

India is not pretending.  It has not raised the issue of Kashmir and does not intend to.  India is not interested in resolving the Kashmir issue but to dissolve it. There’s been no change in its stance on Kashmir – that Kashmir is frankly not in dispute and not up for discussion.  Otherwise, why lock up the pro-resistance leaders?  Why refuse to include the Kashmiris in discussions if India has a sincere desire to open that issue up and agreed to such a discussion at Ufa?

“A meeting in New Delhi between the two NSAs to discuss all issues connected to terrorism” was very specific in defining and limiting the meeting in New Delhi to terrorism.  I don’t know how that could be construed otherwise.  One is left with the feeling that, well, ok. Kashmir won’t be brought up just now but maybe later, in some future universe, at an as yet unscheduled talk, which they will remain “prepared for,” as agreed, just in case.  I mean, after all, it isn’t constructive to try to bring up all the issues at one time.

That’s India’s loophole.  India is willing to talk about “all outstanding issues” which shall remain unnamed so that anyone can say anything, the issue of Kashmir can be ignored, and for now we are just going to talk about terrorism.

How strange that Sushma Swaraj, the foreign minister of India has the temerity to say “We just want you to honour the spirit of the Shimla and Ufa agreements .” Sushma Swaraj seems to invoke the Simla Agreement because of lack of knowledge about its actual terms and the circumstances in which it was signed.  She is taking full advantage of this factor to spread the misinformation that the Simla Agreement sanctions the perpetuation of the status quo in Kashmir and absolves her from the responsibility of striving for a settlement of the dispute. By citing the Simla Agreement at this stage, or encouraging others to do so, Sushma Ji obviously seeks to prevent those basic issues of the dispute being addressed that were fully taken into account by the United Nations. The Simla agreement is pressed into service as a formula for evasion. 

Sushma Swaraj does not bother to ponder that the Simla Agreement nowhere precludes a settlement of the Kashmir dispute along the lines laid down by the United Nations with the consent of both India and Pakistan. Nor does it require that the United Nations be by-passed in the effort towards a settlement. On the contrary, it expressly says that the relations between the two countries shall be governed by the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. The Agreement thus reinforces the obligations of both parties to achieve a settlement in accordance with the resolutions endorsed by the Security Council and, if their bilateral efforts fail, to turn to the United Nations for assistance. 

Perhaps the only redeeming value of Ufa is that Pakistan and India have joined a common purpose in the SOC (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the primary purpose of the Russian meeting.  The SOC is Vladimir Putin’s answer to Washington’s vision of a uni-polar world, and brings together, with Russia and China, South and Central Asia in a unified effort to confront security challenges in the 21st century without the U.S. dominance and its agenda. The opportunity for India and Pakistan to work together may ultimately benefit their relations back home. But for now, this does not seem to be working.

It is time for Pakistan and India both to get serious about talks.  It’s like two enemies at war agreeing to talk about the illegality of using FedEx to ship weapons.  They need to settle down and talk about what’s causing the war in the first place.

The United States has urged the two countries to settle their differences and come to the table, but it knows much better that bilateral talks have always failed. Third party engagement or facilitation is needed as it yielded results in Ufa and brought India and Pakistan at least together on the basis of other mutual interests.

The United States of course understands that India has always tried to siphon off international pressure by taking some cosmetic steps and nothing substantial. The international eye needs to be watchful.

In addition, the United Nations resolution on right of self-determination of Kashmir was not only cosponsored but also coauthored by the United States itself. Any resolution to the dispute must include the Kashmiris in talks with India and Pakistan. They are not the third party but the primary party to the dispute. The United States has the ability to persuade both India and Pakistan to do that. It must also find the will to do so. If that happens, peace and stability will be guaranteed not only in Kashmir but in the region of South Asia – home to one fifth of total human race.

Dr. Fai is the Secretary General of World Kashmir Awareness. He can be reached at:   gnfai2003@yahoo.com


The Village as Family

In an MSNBC promo spot in 2013  Melissa Harris-Perry, writer, television host, and former professor at Princeton said:

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had a private notion of children, your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s we start making better investments.”

There is a lot that can be appreciated about this comment, but it is what can be extrapolated from it that is more of what is of concern to me.  Melissa Harri-Perry is widely considered by the mainstream to be a progressive, but I’m not so sure of that. Not long after we founded United Progressives in 2008, she came to me and raised questions about the project, and then did a piece on If you want to know what being a progressive is all about, you can find it framed over there in United Progressives.

It wasn’t a bad piece, but what struck me is that there was little in her tone that indicated she embraced our values.  It was like she was talking to blacks about “those people” — possibly those WHITE people and their notions.  Given the point of view that I’ve quoted, however, there is clearly a disease she has adopted that is rampant among progressives which is the devaluation of the family and a heightened value to a collectivist belief in community responsibility for family values.  The traditional family structure of a husband, wife and children is in conflict with the perceived need to emphasize the value of non-traditional family structures, particularly those developed by the LGBT community.

I certainly don’t believe that parents “own” their children as chattel, but there is little doubt that parents do have some proprietary interest as well as direct liability for the care or lack of it they give to their children.  You can’t abuse your children, and you can’t neglect them.  It is your job to make sure that they have a proper education, are properly clothed and fed, and are capable of living up to social expectations.  The state, as an intangible factor in anyone’s life, does not do that and cannot, and community means almost nothing in large cities where people don’t even talk to their neighbors.  So what is left in such a critique?

What is left when we diminish the value of parents?  Where is this community that is supposed to step in?  What we have instead is the State, struggling along in its bureaucratic stew, neither having the will nor desire to care, being asked to care, and being asked to make caring decisions for parents which parents once had.  The State, of course, is represented by individuals whose motives are quite different from those of parents.    The decisions made are inevitably budget decisions:  what money do we have, how do we get more, and what must we do to get it?  State agencies do not get money to strengthen families.  They get money only if they break them apart.  They get matching funds from the Federal government for every child they put in foster care.  They get nothing if they don’t take children from their parents.  So in what sense can the State really look after children when they have no incentive to maintain a family?  The philosophy adopted is the same as Melissa Harris-Perry’s.  One adopts a philosophy that comports with one’s behavior.  It is necessarily in the best interests of a child to rip it away from its mother, because then the State becomes the mother and the mother becomes a wannabe babysitter who must attend numerous classes in the belief that someday she will get her child back.  The parent-child relationship takes a back seat to the State-child relationship, which in fact never does exist, because the child is simply dumped on someone who needs some extra cash and uses the foster care system to get it.  What we have is government in our lives where it doesn’t belong fucking things up.

The excuses progressives use to fault the traditional family — patriarchy, sexism, and the like — are not excuses to get rid of the family.  They are valid reasons to correct imbalances and inequities in gender relations, but what is happening is that we are literally throwing out the baby with the bathwater.   No one seems ever to think of what babies really need.  They need real moms, their own moms, and heightened respect for the relationship between a mother and her child is greatly needed.   They also need dads, because children need a balanced perspective about the roles of men and women in society.  They need to know who fixes the car and takes out the trash.  They need to know that it wasn’t two women who went to bed together and had a baby.  And when they find out the truth, they will need that dad further along in their lives just much as they need the nurturing and care of a mom, a tender loving voice, and a dry rag whenever they dump the oatmeal.

I wouldn’t deny the opportunity for a gay couple to raise a child.  There are plenty of children who need to be adopted and not enough caring parents willing to take on the responsibility.  But it’s no substitute for the real thing.  A woman masquerading as a man won’t pass the dad test.  When you as a child grow older, you’re going to find out that there’s something different about your family, and its something that you are typically going to be ridiculed for and made to feel less than whole.  So when the State takes a child from its real mom and dad and gives it to an adoptive couple who are gay,  there’s something wrong.  A social aberration has occurred.  There’s something wrong with the culture, with society, and the kinds of families it supports, especially when a system is in place that favors taking children from their real mothers and fathers because it pays.  This is a corruption of a process in the child’s life that leaves permanent scars.

Let’s remember that the real source of children, the real fountain from which they all spring, is a mom and a dad pursuing some variation of a traditional couple who have shouldered that responsibility.   It is the path that will be taken by the vast majority of men and women, and it will not be destroyed by idealistic views that attempt to make equal what can never be equal.  However, the fabric of society can be destroyed, with a whole nation suffering from an identity crisis.  Yet, there is no community that will ever take responsibility for being a mom and dad to children caught in unfortunate circumstances.   The State will never serve as a substitute for what a child needs, nor will any other stand-in solution, however well-intended, that did not come with real parents doing what they are, by nature, designed to do.

Why do Kashmiris Observe August 15th as Black Day?

by Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

August 18, 2015

ghulamnabifai_thumb.jpgThe people of Jammu & Kashmir on both sides of the Cease-fire line and worldwide observed the 69th anniversary of India’s Independence Day as a black day because of India’s failure to honor its pledges that it has given to the people of Jammu & Kashmir at the United Nations. This year, the Kashmiri leadership had summoned all Kashmiris all over the world to demonstrate on August 15th, as a symbol of their unity and harmony. Their unity in mourning demonstrated their will to resist India’s illegal occupation and defiance of the United Nations Security Council resolutions mandating a self-determination plebiscite for the 18 million people of Jammu & Kashmir.

It is a historical fact that the dispute over the status of Jammu & Kashmir can be settled only in accordance with the will of the people which can be ascertained through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, internationally supervised.  This was the common ground taken by both India and Pakistan.  It was supported without any dissent by the United Nations Security Council – and prominently championed by the United States, Britain and France. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolution of August 13, 1948 and other resolutions of the Security Council state clearly that “the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people.”

These are not resolutions in the routine sense of the term. Their provisions were negotiated in detail by the UNCIP and it was only after the consent of both Governments was explicitly obtained that they were endorsed by the Security Council. They thus constitute a binding and solemn international agreement about the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

India has defied United Nations Security Council resolutions for more than 69 years because she knows Kashmiris will never vote in her favor. The irony of the fate is that even President Obama would like India to be the member of the Security Council whose resolutions have been blatantly violated by India right from 1948.

It is beyond any doubt that for more than half a century, India has treated Kashmiris more like ink blots to be ignored than as human beings to be respected. Indian Government has betrayed most of its high-minded ideals in Kashmir that marked its entry into the family of nations after long years under the British raj: shocking human rights violations, including more than 100,000 killings in the last two decades alone, torture, rape, mutilations, arson, plunder, abductions, arbitrary detentions, and draconian punishment for the exercise of peaceful political dissent; and, contempt for international law and binding self-determination resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. Indeed, India’s gruesome record in Kashmir is far worse than the records of the Federated Republic of Yugoslavia in Kosovo, Indonesia in East Timor, and Russia in Chechnya, all of which provoked international outrage and more. But not a word has been uttered by the world powers to bring the human rights violations in Kashmir to an end. The studied unconcern by the United Nations in Kashmir has given a sense of total impunity to India. It has also created the impression that the United Nations is invidiously selective about the application of the principles of human rights and democracy.

All experts of South Asia discount the United States hopes that the dispute over Kashmir could be settled through bilateral peaceful talks between India and Pakistan. They recount the litany of failed bilateral efforts between New Delhi and Islamabad. At the same time, the people of Kashmir have steadfastly mainlined that talks between the three parties, India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris, are the only way to resolve the Kashmir issue. We hope that the leadership of India and Pakistan recognize that there can be no settlement of the Kashmir dispute, without the active and full participation of the people of Jammu and Kashmir living on both sides of the Ceasefire Line.

We urge the United States to resist the temptation to jettison its traditional foreign policy championing democracy and human rights in the case of Kashmir for in the name of big power politics or economic opportunities in India. Down that road lies a troublesome blow to international law and amity. A promising first step towards a just and peaceful settlement of the Kashmir tragedy would be the recognition by the United States, Pakistan and India of the leadership of the people of Kashmir as an equal partner in any future negotiations to settle the Kashmir dispute.

Dr. Fai is Secretary General of World Kashmir Awareness, Washington, D.C. and can be reached at: 1-202-607-6435 OR gnfai2003@yahoo.com

The Family Stability and Kinship Care Act Fails to Protect Children

Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Lloyd Doggett have introduced to the U.S. Senate The Family Stability and Kinship Care Act.   I have urged a number of organizations supporting this to withdraw their endorsement until the following changes/additions are included in the bill.  The evils inherent in the current foster care system are too well documented to ignore.  This bill represents an opportunity to demand the changes now that are desperately needed.
The bill states under the lines below:

11 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—Section 471 of such Act (42
12 U.S.C. 671) is amended—
13 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘and’’ and
14 all that follows through the semicolon and inserting
15 ‘‘, adoption assistance in accordance with section
16 473, and, at the option of the State, time-limited
17 family services in accordance with subsection (e);’’;
18 and
19 (2) by adding at the end the following:
                   ‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may provide time limited family services (as defined in section 475(13)) to individuals described in subparagraph (C) of section 475(13) only if the State—
                   ……….includ[es] a description of how Federal funds provided for such services will be used to supplement, and not supplant, the level of State and local funds expended for child welfare.

Totally disagree.  Federal funds for front end services ought to by all means supplant the level of State and local funds expended for child welfare, not simply “supplement” them.  The incentive for taking children from families is going to be just as great unless States are forced to refocus their efforts on front end maintenance of family integrity rather than simply throwing in a little extra for such an effort.  At least half of funds now allocated by Title IV need to be shifted to front end services, forcing States to re-evaluate their policies. They will always follow the money.

States ought to be required to review and evaluate all cases and determine which children may be safely transferred from foster care back to their families with adequate front end services.  lncentives need to be blocked where providing increased services in foster care increases payment of Federal funds to states. This is at the heart of all systemic abuse.  There must be a balance to the weight of financial benefit to a State between determining foster care  as a choice and maintaining family integrity. 

In addition, a requirement that direct and obvious sexual or physical abuse and/or neglect must have occurred based upon reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of the evidence,  before a child may be considered a candidate for foster care, and that any decision regarding the “probability” of it occurring again meet a high threshold of evidence, such as the necessity of filing criminal charges,   A clear pattern of behavior must be absolutely established before any determination of a child’s removal from the home can occur.   

A requirement that all caseworkers who make decisions regarding the disposition of children have proper academic qualifications, such as a degree in sociology and/or psychology. Jean Levy Zlotnik, senior consultant for the Washington, D.C.-based National Association of Social Workers, says that “nationally, only 40% of child welfare caseworkers have a degree in social work.”

Caseworkers should be required to be married. They should have direct personal experience in raising children and in being a parent before they are given the power and discretion to make judgments about parenting.

Clear acknowledgement by states when accepting Federal funds that preserving the family is the primary foundation of civil society.

Strict policing of States’ adherence to a policy of prioritizing family integrity.  It’s a numbers game.  Nationally, only about 44% of children taken from their parents ever go home again.  That number ought to be raised to 95%.

Strict prohibition of any child being removed from the home based upon evidence that the child was abused by a third party who is not a family member.  Parents are stigmatized by fear that they will lose their child if they report sexual abuse to the police or take a child to a hospital for a medical exam that might indicate possible abuse.  There is no healing for abuse that goes unreported.  Measures need to be in place to encourage reporting, not discourage it. Parents who report clearly have the best interests of the child in doing so, and they ought to be given support and encouragement, not penalized because they are seen as bad parents.  

Open up juvenile court procedures and cases to public review for the sake of transparency. 

Dependency cases are now highly adversarial. The State does its best to prove abuse or neglect by painting the worst possible picture of the defendant parent.  Parents typically do not have the resources to fight a whole army of caseworkers, investigators and attorneys and are threatened that if they don’t cooperate, they could lose their child.   This needs to end.   Most parents want to do a good job of raising their children.  This must be presumed.  The benefit of the doubt must always be given to parents in the spirit of What can the State do to HELP resolve this problem?  Parental rights must not be threatened.  Parents must be made to feel in control and given all the resources they need to overcome any obstacles to achieving good parenting.  

I urge those weighing the passage of this bill read the following, which demonstrates the level of casual abuse of parents and children perpetrated by the State itself, which is enabled by current policies focused on the foster care business. 

The Growing Menace of State Fascism in the Child Protection Industry


The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services

By Nancy Schaefer
Senator, 50th District, Georgia

Nancy SchaeferNancy Schaefer was a two-term state Senator representing Georgia’s 50th district. She lost her seat in 2008. Schaefer was also a candidate for mayor of Atlanta, Georgia lieutenant governor and governor of the state. She was found shot to death in what was termed by police a murder-suicide by her husband in March 2010, a view challenged by many who believe that her expose of corruption and child trafficking by CPS brought her enemies to eliminate her.

My introduction into child protective service cases was due to a grandmother in an adjoining state who called me with her tragic story. Her two granddaughters had been taken from her daughter who lived in my district. Her daughter was told wrongly that if she wanted to see her children again she should sign a paper and give up her children. Frightened and young, the daughter did. I have since discovered that parents are often threatened into cooperation of permanent separation of their children.

The children were taken to another county and placed in foster care. The foster parents were told wrongly that they could adopt the children. The grandmother then jumped through every hoop known to man in order to get her granddaughters. When the case finally came to court it was made evident by one of the foster parent’s children that the foster parents had, at any given time, 18 foster children and that the foster mother had an inappropriate relationship with the caseworker.

In the courtroom, the juvenile judge, acted as though she was shocked and said the two girls would be removed quickly. They were not removed. Finally, after much pressure being applied to the Department of Family and Children Services of Georgia (DFCS), the children were driven to South Georgia to meet their grandmother who gladly drove to meet them.

After being with their grandmother two or three days, the judge, quite out of the blue, wrote up a new order to send the girls to their father, who previously had no interest in the case and who lived on the West Coast. The father was in “adult entertainment”. His girlfriend worked as an “escort” and his brother, who also worked in the business, had a sexual charge brought against him.

Within a couple of days the father was knocking on the grandmother’s door and took the girls kicking and screaming to California.

The father developed an unusual relationship with the former foster parents and soon moved back to the southeast, and the foster parents began driving to the father’s residence and picking up the little girls for visits. The oldest child had told her mother and grandmother on two different occasions that the foster father molested her.

To this day after five years, this loving, caring blood relative grandmother does not even have visitation privileges with the children. The little girls are in my opinion permanently traumatized and the young mother of the girls was so traumatized with shock when the girls were first removed from her that she has not recovered.

Throughout this case and through the process of dealing with multiple other mismanaged cases of the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), I have worked with other desperate parents and children across the state because they have no rights and no one with whom to turn. I have witnessed ruthless behavior from many caseworkers, social workers, investigators, lawyers, judges, therapists, and others such as those who “pick up” the children. I have been stunned by what I have seen and heard from victims all over the state of Georgia.

In this report, I am focusing on the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). However, I believe Child Protective Services nationwide has become corrupt and that the entire system is broken almost beyond repair. I am convinced parents and families should be warned of the dangers.

The Department of Child Protective Services, known as the Department of Family and Children Service (DFCS) in Georgia and other titles in other states, has become a “protected empire” built on taking children and separating families. This is not to say that there are not those children who do need to be removed from wretched situations and need protection. This report is concerned with the children and parents caught up in “legal kidnapping,” ineffective policies, and DFCS who do does not remove a child or children when a child is enduring torment and abuse.

In one county in my District, I arranged a meeting for thirty-seven families to speak freely and without fear. These poor parents and grandparents spoke of their painful, heart wrenching encounters with DFCS. Their suffering was overwhelming. They wept and cried. Some did not know where their children were and had not seen them in years. I had witnessed the “Gestapo” at work and I witnessed the deceitful conditions under which children were taken in the middle of the night, out of hospitals, off of school buses, and out of homes. In one county a private drug testing business was operating within the DFCS department that required many, many drug tests from parents and individuals for profit. In another county children were not removed when they were enduring the worst possible abuse.

Due to being exposed, several employees in a particular DFCS office were fired. However, they have now been rehired either in neighboring counties or in the same county again. According to the calls I am now receiving, the conditions in that county are returning to the same practices that they had before the light was shown on their deeds.

Having worked with probably 300 cases statewide, I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in the system.

I have come to the conclusion:

  • that poor parents often times are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;
  • that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are always to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and that’s where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;
  • that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while they are at work and while their children are separated from them. This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by “the system” that makes a profit for holding children longer and “bonuses” for not returning children;
  • that caseworkers and social workers are oftentimes guilty of fraud. They withhold evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights. However, when charges are made against them, the charges are ignored;
  • that the separation of families is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;
  • that Child Protective Service and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and “court watches”! Look who is being paid! There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, court personnel, and judges. There are psychologists, and psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. Parents do not realize that social workers are the glue that holds “the system” together that funds the court, the child’s attorney, and the multiple other jobs including DFCS’s attorney.
  • that The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion by President Bill Clinton, offered cash “bonuses” to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the “adoption incentive bonuses” local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sell and you must have plenty of them so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 bonus for each child adopted and an additional $2,000 for a “special needs” child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing;
  • that there is double dipping. The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. When a child in foster care is placed with a new family then “adoption bonus funds” are available. When a child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a constituent of mine, more funds are involved;
  • that there are no financial resources and no real drive to unite a family and help keep them together;
  • that the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, “This must end! No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer;
  • that the “Policy Manuel” is considered “the last word” for DFCS. However, it is too long, too confusing, poorly written and does not take the law into consideration;
  • that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today all children are not always safer. Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care and the head of a Foster Parents Association in my District was recently arrested because of child molestation;
  • that some parents are even told if they want to see their children or grandchildren, they must divorce their spouse. Many, who are under privileged, feeling they have no option, will divorce and then just continue to live together. This is an anti-family policy, but parents will do anything to get their children home with them.
  • fathers, (non-custodial parents) I must add, are oftentimes treated as criminals without access to their own children and have child support payments strangling the very life out of them;
  • that the Foster Parents Bill of Rights does not bring out that a foster parent is there only to care for a child until the child can be returned home. Many Foster Parents today use the Foster Parent Bill of Rights to hire a lawyer and seek to adopt the child from the real parents, who are desperately trying to get their child home and out of the system;
  • that tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat, yet the victims, parents, grandparents, guardians and especially the children, are charged for the system’s services.
  • that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia trying to get custody of their grandchildren. DFCS claims relatives are contacted, but there are cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs.
  • that The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population.
  • That according to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes.
Final Remarks

On my desk are scores of cases of exhausted families and troubled children. It has been beyond me to turn my back on these suffering, crying, and sometimes beaten down individuals. We are mistreating the most innocent. Child Protective Services have become adult centered to the detriment of children. No longer is judgment based on what the child needs or who the child wants to be with or what is really best for the whole family; it is some adult or bureaucrat who makes the decisions, based often on just hearsay, without ever consulting a family member, or just what is convenient, profitable, or less troublesome for a director of DFCS.

I have witnessed such injustice and harm brought to these families that I am not sure if I even believe reform of the system is possible! The system cannot be trusted. It does not serve the people. It obliterates families and children simply because it has the power to do so.

Children deserve better. Families deserve better. It’s time to pull back the curtain and set our children and families free.

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and the needy” Proverbs 31:8-9

The Elections: Act One

In a country as polarized politically as ours is, the in-your-face politics of confrontation seems to be growing. The gap between left and right has always been there, but people have become fierce and combative in demanding that their own agenda dominate over the other.  Perhaps social media and technology have become both the weapon of enlightenment as well as propaganda where we each have our own preferred source of truth.

Now, on the one hand, we have the crassness and insensitivity of a Donald Trump who boldly goes where no one has gone before by insulting his way to the highest, and perhaps the most corrupt, office in the country. Clearly he has his constituents.  His take no prisoners approach to immigration and women is apparently beloved by many. 

But what happened to Sanders builds on the idea that the radical left is not so radical after all because it’s been absorbed by, would you believe, the Democratic Party.  His mellowed out, yellowed out tone on race issues, however, seems not to have been well thought out in the context of an energized black consciousness. People like directness. That’s the national mood. Talk about shit.  Let’s call out the bastards.  Nebulous remarks about income inequality don’t nail any real sin or define any real evil in the system.  That’s where Trump has it all over Sanders. It’s not that he’s in greater possession of the truth.  He’s in greater possession of people’s feelings – at least a certain segment of them.

And obviously the Democrats are as divided as the Republicans on who it is that represents the party. 

So we have two cripples in the end that will do battle, because it seems unlikely that either side will ever really come to an agreement that unifies the party and takes on the challenge seriously of trying to win an election.  The Hillary people will never get behind Sanders, but I can see the apologists from the other more progressive left caving in because they are by nature and nurture the just-want-to-get-along type, you know.

Trump can’t be bought, but that’s a lie, because what do capitalists do anyway?  We’ll see where that goes.   

Heidi and Sarah

The Growing Menace of State Fascism in the Child Protection Industry


This case really began on March 25 at the Titusville, Florida, Public Library when a 14-year-old boy coaxed  three-year-old toddler Sarah behind a book case and sexually assaulted her.  Sarah’s mother had briefly left the area to go to the bathroom, but it was a special children’s hour and Sarah had been left at a table to play with other children of the same age, whose mothers were all standing around monitoring them.  The staff desk was occupied as well and prominent on the scene, no more than five feet from where the assault took place. Heidi felt that Sarah was in safe hands.  There wasn’t an ounce of suspicion in her that a 14 year old there in the library would do such a thing.

The mother immediately called the police, and the boy was chased down and arrested.  Although he willingly made a written confession of what he had done right then,  the charges were dropped to a lower offense, and he was sentenced to 18 months of therapy.   Contrary to such an overtly lenient policy, he is a previous offender, and the rate of rehabilitation for child predators is only 3%.  What were they thinking? With no record, the boy is on no list that libraries might refer to in protecting children from them.  There are huge odds that he will strike again.

What is the philosophy that dictates this?   It’s been speculated that these pedophiles are being put back on the street intentionally.  After all, they are just kids.   Brevard County Sheriffs officers have complained that it is practically useless to apprehend them, because the courts simply won’t prosecute them.  They were surprised that the case involving Sarah was.  Sadly, 40 percent of all sexual assaults to children between three and four years old are committed by boys aged 12 to 14.  And their victims often become the the property of the state, moving from foster home to foster home two or three times a year until they can’t handle it any more and are placed on psychotropic drugs.  And it’s financially rewarding, a booming business .

DCF, Florida’s Department of Family and Services (often called CPS in other states) got involved immediately..  A Hotline report had been made. DCF, however, had no intention of giving any support to Heidi at a time when the mother was completely distraught.  This was no different than if she had been raped herself.  She couldn’t imagine anything worse happening to her.  Sarah had still been in the womb in many respects, was still being breastfed, and was deeply entwined in every moment of the mother’s life.  They had been as one person. As a mother, Heidi had adopted a very pronounced philosophy of allowing Sarah to wean herself in her own time, and to allow the process of stepping out and becoming independent to follow as naturally as possible   She was a vocal advocate of it.  And Sarah was in love with mommy’s generous boobs.  “Take a relax,” she would sing. “Have a boobie” to the tune of the 80’s hit “Relax” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood.  it was affectionate humor at its best between mother and child.  But what it was really about, as every mother knows, was the comfort  of just being in mommy’s arms, snuggling close with a nipple in her mouth. And for mom, it was the true spiritual heights of motherhood.  She was then, in the deepest part of herself, finding the true source of her reason for being.   But children inevitably grow up.   After all we are all born with an innate desire to find our own identity unique and distinguishable from our parents.  the child will eventually go to school, or engage in other social events with peers, and she will exchange some of that need for mommy for a broader group of friendships. But for now,  Sarah was her life.  She had never ever wanted anything more than to be a mother.  And mommy was Sarah’s life as full and whole as she could be.

Yet DCF now targeted her as though she was guilty of terrorism.  They knew nothing of Heidi’s relationship with her daughter, and very possibly would not have approved, had they known the truth. The truth stood in direct opposition to their objectives. And Heidi was especially vulnerable now, and she could be trapped.

On three different occasions, they forced Heidi to take drug tests.  They told her that if she didn’t take them, she could lose her child.  Yet they have produced no report or any evidence that Heidi uses drugs, or has ever used them.  None could be produced, for that matter, because Heidi does not use drugs.  So where there was no case, they decided to manufacture one.   DCF’s assessment of the relationship between Sarah and her mother was loaded with inferences to supposed irregularities that one should not expect to see in a normal mother-daughter relationship.  They proposed that these irregularities were sufficient cause for great concern that Heidi had, in fact, stolen the little girl and that she might be engaged in child trafficking.  On the face of it, by all appearances, it could be supposed that these DCF caseworkers were all struggling writers working collaboratively on a script for a horror movie.

Wild fantasies were not enough.  Titusville police, in collaboration with DCF, then went on a hunt for a missing child, targeting the states Heidi had previously had some connection with. They found one in Tennessee, a girl featured on a Facebook page, Zaylee Grace Fryer. She seemed the perfect candidate.  She had been born only a few months prior to the date given for Sarah’s birth, and she was of mixed blood,  And like an infinite number of other baby girls that age of mixed blood, she looked just like Sarah.  The child had disappeared when it was still a baby.   More intriguingly,  Zaylee’s mother had been murdered.

So now, to the weight of a great tragedy that had already unfolded, a ruthless killing is added.  To the torture of knowing that your child has been raped, you are now accused of being a cold-blooded killer.  Titusville police and DCF were obviously having a party creating this little drama.  The police of  Millersville, TN, where the child had turned up missing, were contacted and advised that DCF may know where the child is.

In the meantime,  Heidi had taken Sarah to Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando on April 29, 2015, to be checked for pneumonia. She was very sick herself and the child was sniffling and coughing. In addition, she was still trying to find out more than a month later what medical records showed regarding the possibility that Sarah had contracted STDs at the time of the sexual assault.  No one was telling her and she was growing more and more frustrated..

It was then that x-rays were made of Sarah’s chest and, while nothing as serious as pneumonia was discovered,  a radiologist indicated that there were anomalies in Sarah’s ribs that were unexplainable but that could have been caused by fractures. As medical records show, the reference to “possible” fractures somehow grew into simply emtres about  fractures  DCF, of course, seized upon this immediately.  Their Shelter Petition, a document requesting that the dependency court grant DCF temporary custody,  reflected then the fact that a Hotline report was made again regarding the fractures, with supplementary reports restating the conditions over and over, particularly regarding candid comments the mother had made about the library incident.  Heidi was telling the story because she was trying to get medical records on a checkup on Sarah for STDs.   The Petition stated over and over again the sexual assault, saying at one point falsely that a sexual assault had occurred several months prior, implying that there might be more than one, and unequivocally stating the medical opinion that x-rays “revealed a history of bone fractures dating to before the child’s sexual assault.”   This was an obvious fabrication.   What were in fact anomalies of unknown cause with no time frame attached as to when they might have occurred then became twisted into a bizarre allegation by DCF that actual fractures did exist, and that they were caused intentionally and brutally by the mother. Court transcripts will show that the attorney for DCF claimed, without a shred of evidence, that the fractures had been caused by the mother intentionally to control Sarah  (The judge, who, in another weird twist,  recused himself, saying that he wasn’t qualified to make judgments in cases like this when he should have dismissed the case, told  the DCF attorney she was lying.)  Another DCF caseworker explained the reasoning behind that allegation when she said privately to a Sheriff’s investigator that the fractures were an explanation for why Sarah was so well-behaved.  Guantanamo would love this woman.

DCF was obviously intending to paint the most grotesque picture they could of Heidi. This was one evil woman.

DCF wanted Heidi arrested and held. Had the Brevard County Sheriff’s investigator not refused, they would have had another basis for taking Sarah.  That’s how determined they were in pressing their case.

What were their so-called suspicions based upon?

1 Multiple visits to hospitals to check for STDs. (The insinuation was being made here that Heidi was trafficking her daughter in sex.  DCF, however, had blocked Heidi’s access to medical records related to tests done on Sarah after the molestation. She was very concerned and made several attempts to get those records.)

2. Mother says she is both parent and guardian.  (This is supposed to imply that the mother can’t make up her mind and therefore is hiding the theft.  But isn’t a parent also a guardian?  Since DCF takes guardianship away from parents as the most common aspect of their duties, they should know better than to ask such a question. )

3. The Mother does not know who the father is. (No, she doesn’t.   The pregnancy could have come from only one of two men she had had relations with. One of the men had left the country, and with a common Arabic name,  would never be traced.  The other man was black had also simply disappeared. In a mobile society, this is not uncommon.)

4. Mother says the daughter was born in Russia.   (If DCF had asked, Heidi could have produced a Russian birth certificate as well as a passport.)

5. The mother is involved in a strange cult called the World Congress of Families which is sponsored by the Russian Orthodox Church. (The ROC has a membership of over 150 million and is almost a state religion in Russia now. The World Congress of Families is simply a distinguished family advocacy association of which the ROC is a member, one of many church organizations across the globe. )

6. The daughter calls her mother Ms. Heidi. ( If Sarah did not call her mom “mom,” there must be something wrong here.  However, Heidi had recently been a worker in a daycare facility where most of the children were black, among whom it is culturally appropriate and a custom to address adults by their first name, with the prefix Ms. or Mr.  Many blacks have addressed me as “Mr. Paul.” Sarah also attended the daycare and began mimicking the other children, joking with her mother occasionally.)

Brevard County Sherriff Robert Fischer was not convinced at all that Heidi had stolen Sarah. he obviously thought the notion was absurd.   It was hinted in words that only slightly disguised his opinion in a report he wrote later that he could see through the machinations of DCF and was highly critical of them. He advised them repeatedly that they were on the wrong track.   Titusville police investigator Detective Cabrera was nevertheless resolute.  She had asked him to make contact with the mother and child and investigate the circumstances involving the alleged rib fractures, since Heidi and daughter lived within their jurisdiction. Following up, he met them at Nemours, and through deception, he obtained a sample of Sarah’s DNA.  He advised the mother that he wanted the DNA just in case Sarah ever turned up missing.  It’s real purpose, however, was to determine whether or not Sarah was Zaylee Fryer.  Perhaps Heidi should feel relieved that the sample was taken, but taking DNA from children is not a trite matter. A warrant must be obtained, or the parent’s permission must be granted willingly with full transparency regarding the purpose.. There was no probable cause to assert that Sarah was Zaylee beyond a comparison of photos of a three or four month old baby and three-and-a-half year old Sarah.  They could have found any baby of mixed race about the same age as that baby, and made such a comparison, because babies, given certain perimeters, tend to have a generic look.

However awkwardly inconvenient for DCF, Heidi was in Russia with the World Family Congress and was personally the guest of a Russian Orthodox priest at the time of the murder and the disappearance of Zaylee,  Based upon a chronological report provided by Heidi of her whereabouts, a subsequent check with Homeland Security verified the date that she had returned to America with Sarah.  But DCF then hatched another theory,  that  Paul Barrow, the author of this commentary, may have committed the murder with help from his daughter Arbor, because they were in fact living in Nashville at the time, which is no more than 15 minutes south of  Millersville.

So this writer was on the radar as well.  But none of this was fruitful for DCF.  Millersville sent an officer all the way down to Titusville to retrieve the DNA who then had it tested.  Sarah, as the test proved, was not Zaylee Grace Fryer.  She was in fact Heidi’s daughter.

The hospital could not legally hold the child more than 24 hours on the basis of any suspected abuse, so they simply didn’t tell Heidi.  There was never any discharge. The hospital should have formally discharged the patient, Sarah, after 24 hours, and informed her mother, but they did not,  and she just sat there waiting and waiting and waiting.  DCF had, on the basis of lies, instructed the hospital not to release them.   This was clearly a violation of law, since DCF did not have any legal rights at that point.   In fact, the discharge papers were eventually given to DCF, not to Heidi.  A Dr. Seacrest said that they had no medical reason to hold the child but they were not discharging her because DCF told them not to.  They discharged Sarah to DCF. No doubt hospital staff were informed that she was a suspect in a murder and kidnapping, and that DCF wanted to take the child for its own protection.  But at least 32 hours had elapsed before DCF came and took her.

Sarah has fallen unconscious in the arms of a caseworker, unable to handle the realization that she is being taken from her mother.

Sarah has fallen unconscious in the arms of a caseworker, unable to handle the realization that she is being taken from her mother.

Why would DCF conflate totally unrelated facts, distort others, and even invent others, and go so far out of their way to create a case?  An independent evaluation of the x-rays provided by Nemours Children’s Hospital conducted by expert forensics radiologist Jon Anderson of Leesburg, FL indicates that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that any fractures had ever occurred, let alone three of them, inflicted intentionally through acts of the mother. Anderson recommended a bone scan to try to determine more conclusive evidence. Otherwise, he was totally convinced that no fractures had ever occurred.  A bone scan should have been ordered by Nemours, but none ever was made.  While no one knows the origin of the supposed anomalies, a more probable source is rickets.  60% of children born in Russia have rickets because of the climate and long winters without much sun.

Later, a bone scan was in fact done at Florida Hospital in Orlando and the results were completely negative.  No fractures could be found, no rib abnormalities, no evidence whatsoever that the allegations had any substance whatsoever.  The only injury she had sustained had occurred since then while in the care and supervision of DCF, a dislocation in her hand.  .

The bases upon which DCF were able to allege that Sarah was not Heidi’s daughter demonstrate not only completely far fetched conclusions but a willful attempt to create a case where there was none.  They got the character all wrong.  Heidi was not a child thief or murderer, so the significance of their evidence dissolved on the spot.  What DCF was engaging in was itself child kidnapping.

What had just happened here is clearly an indication that the state of Florida, through its agency the Department of Children and Familes, has become a threat to the very fabric of society.  They look at innocence with cruel eyes. They see love as some sort of forced confession beat into children through torture. They invent tragedy. They see good where there is evil, and evil where there is good.   The objective seems to be a dark mission to destroy the very concept of family. They see nothing of the real spiritual, social and psychological aspects of bonding between parents and children and and rather propose that the village is the family and the state is the parent.  Any attachment between parent and child is irrelevant and not to be weighed in the overall picture.  Because those who make the recommendations and determine outcomes and receive financial compensation for them are in fact private contractors to whom DCF outsources 85% of its budget, this is simply liberal feminist fascism at work.

The reality of foster care.

The reality of foster care.

Men are payers only. Sugar daddy slaves. Unwed childless women sit in naked fluorescent offices and conspire to take the children of real mothers. It is not just because they can. America devours itself in its own hate and bitterness for what we have done to men, for our lack of balls, and for those women we have empowered whose values are framed around the disintegrated self, a self that knows only itself as a crumbled heap of war, tragedy and emptiness we spread like a disease everywhere. We see our self image and are horrified. Nothing is ever satisfactory. Everyone fakes it.  Fakes will do. Fake America, united we stand. And it is these fakes, masked as do-gooders of society, who have become the destroyers.

The massive abuse dumped like shit upon the child and mother leaves a permanent scar upon both.  Both were innocents, both were terrorized, and both must now breathe in sorrow the oxygen of a more cruel and ugly world.  The child no longer sees her mother as the indomitable empire of security and trust that is the true foundation for maturity and growth.  Now Sarah cannot sleep at night, she has an ear infection, and there is snot all over her face.

In addition, there are no condolences offered to those who have been accused of child abuse or neglect. Everyone stands off waiting. Just waiting. Friends distance themselves. Did he or did he not. Did she or did she not? Who can really tell? One’s life begins to change. Periods of loneliness run so deep that life has no value any more.  There have been panic attacks. Paranoia sets in. No one can be trusted anymore.   The accused is left alone to defend himself, or herself, against state charges that are shrouded in secrecy. The press cannot investigate. Court records are sealed. It’s between you and those whose agenda, we all believe, is a mission to protect and to do whatever is necessary in the best interests of the child.  Parents are sucked into the illusion of trust. The faith we all have in courts, in the justice system, in people we sincerely believe are guided by the highest principles, rules our consciousness and our conscience, and what the accused is left with is a system which delivers the verdict long before any trial has taken place: guilty until proven innocent.

More than 25 years ago, I was caught in this impossible trap. The charge: Neglect through no fault of my own. I never beat it. No one does. If I’m guilty even though the law acknowledges that I’ve done nothing wrong, what can I plead? Instead I fought and fought and fought and wore my adversaries down through slow attrition until I got my children back. i think the fight impressed them more than anything. It was my determination to hold on, because I loved and cared for my children. The proof was in my caring. Or was it?

To suppose that higher principles such as caring or the love of parents has anything at all to do with the outcome in such cases, I’ve since realized, is terribly naive. Carol Rhodes, a former CPS investigator/enforcer who worked in Michigan’s juvenile system for more than 20 years before becoming a whistleblower, puts it this way:

“it was about how to get federal and state tax dollars that were allotted. [Our] Director would say regularly, We aren’t the friend of the family; we’re a friend of the court.

“We stumbled over ourselves trying to get more [Social Security] Title IV-D cases on our records and to increase the child support orders, because the Federal government granted huge allotments for each case we “enforced.” In the years that I worked in the system, I witnessed regularly deception to clients that was mandated by office policy, I saw gender bias and discrimination, I saw records destroyed. I saw office policies and rules change from week to week for the profit of the agency.

“I saw hundreds of pleas over time for enforcement get buried because there is no money for enforcing custody or visitation issues.

‘Increasing the child support money that came into our office was the goal for each of us. We were rated for how much money we brought in.

‘Court hearings, warrant issues. We wrote the orders. My director probably told me that we were the darling of the circuit court and that we actually made money for the judge and the court — unlike the sheriff’s department and so many other county agencies.

“Our county or state was not an exception to the rule. We were one of the most successful counties, and we shared training with other counties and states so they could learn how to maximize their efforts toward increased collection.

“We were not only told to withhold information, forms, policies, laws and statutes from our clients with questions, but we were forbidden to help them obtain legal relief from unfair situations beyond their control. We were instructed to quickly help those who were demanding increases in child support, but we were threatened with losing our jobs if we should breathe a word to encourage an injured or unemployed payer to petition for a reduction of any kind.

“In the years that I worked in the system, I put my job on the line whenever I helped any of the parties in trouble. We were not to get personally involved. The best interest of the children or parents had nothing to do with that. I was accused of being a social worker.

“We worked closely with child protective services and family dependency agencies and they worked the same way. No one wanted to improve services or hear about abuses within the system, because every worker in this huge bureaucracy was trying to keep his or her job by covering up any errors or problems.

“I had six secretaries underneath me, unlimited power in my 401k and an office to lose if I rocked the boat. But rock the boat I did when I wrote the book Friend of the Court, Enemy of the Family. Families that were bleeding from the pain of divorce and separation were insulted, tricked, lied to by persons without adequate training to be making those kinds of judgment calls. Most of the custody determinations were made by unwed childless individuals who were totally unqualified to hold the lives of so many. Determinations were made on the most child support orders that could be ordered for each case.

“Fathers and non-custodial parents were stereotyped as payers only. The court and most caseworkers thought that fathers were unnecessary and possibly too dangerous to have contact with.

“This is an adversarial system. It encourages parental alienation and court battle, an elaborate game of winner vs. loser. Attorneys coming into the picture further divide the already fractured family and insulate the family from communicating with each other. When attorneys become involved, further charges of abuse, neglect and addiction enter the picture.”

When we see what kinds of charges they have leveled against Heidi, how fraudulent they are, and how irrelevant her relationship with her beautiful young daughter was to the monsters who have made successful careers out of devastating the lives of others, we can’t help but feel deeply deeply troubled. Who are these people? WHO? What has become of our country?

Giving the obligatory nod to perhaps some good that is done by Florida’s DCF is no longer warranted because any good is only occurring in spite of this agency’s action, not because of it. When the mission is money, then all become pawns. There is no mission to restore or to build family strength. There is no mission to educate or nurture. There is no mission that has any regard whatsoever for the best interests of the child.

Each child is simply prostituted to as many non-profits — private contractors — as possible, those who have become bottom feeders, taking advantage of what they can get out of the most weak or vulnerable among us. Psychiatrists, medical doctors, social workers, analysts, pharmaceutical companies, daycare facilities, food, clothing, travel, and those who want to use them as guinea pigs for drugs and all sorts of exotic experiments all have their hand out. At least 85% of Florida’s DCF budget is spent on these private contractors. And it”s a feeding frenzy.