Advocates for Children and Families
And California Family Advocacy Centers

Advocates for Children and Families, PO Box 10
Los Gatos, CA 95031
California Family Advocacy Centers
AFCAF Phone 408-395-6999
Email chw@jps.net
CFAC
Email jradvocate@juno.com

February 7, 2001

Mr. George W. Bush
President of the United States
White House
Washington, DC 20447

Dear President Bush:

Our agencies represent over a thousand children and parents in California. Our goal is the safety and protection of children. CFAC represents children and parents throughout California and AFCAF represents children and parents in the San Francisco Bay Area. We believe your proposed faith based Social Services plan is one very real way to start to protect children and families in California as well as the rest of this fine country. CFAC and AFCAF represent children and parents as Authorized Representatives (AR's) for State Fair Hearing's and help filing complaints to the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) children's services operation bureau (CSOB) for violations of the state plan. The CDSS and its agents (the county Departments of Social Services) continue to flagrantly violate the state plan yet are accepting federal funding.

California continues to accept Federal Funding with the real knowledge that it is fraudulent to do so when violating the federal laws. We have attached several documents, which show that CDSS and the state legislature have full knowledge of these violations. We bring to your attention three audits of CDSS by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG) which detail system deficiencies including a lack of state oversight covering a period of the present to 1994 and this is only a sampling of some of the problems. We also bring to your attention two audits by the California State Auditors Office, Bureau of State Audits (CSAO) that again detail severe oversight and management problems within CDSS and its agents in the 58 counties of the state and cover a period of present to 1988. Children and families are being hurt on a daily basis by the lack of oversight by CDSS and it is a conspiracy to defraud the taxpayers of the United States of America for billions of dollars annually when this money could be used to help children.

We have brought this fraud to the attention of former President Clinton, Donna Shalala and their HHS agents and were told that they had no oversight over the abuse of federal funding in a ongoing conspiracy by CDSS and in fact sent our complaints back to the CDSS who then covered up the issues. Senators such as Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstien were also informed of the fraud and they chose to not address the issues but to pass the buck to state legislators who will not even return calls. Why would a state legislator bring out the CDSS and state defrauding the federal government in a ongoing conspiracy for billions in federal tax payers money? They did not do anything but ignore the issues. We have included all of the letters and correspondence documentation for your review and plead for your help, not for us but for the children and parents that are hurt on a daily basis. We ask that you have your staff review the documentation we are sending and that you take the appropriate actions. We think that faith based social services will be the choice to stop the abuse of children and parents by CDSS.

Federal Oversight Will Stop CDSS Fraud

The OIG/DHHS has primary responsibility for investigating fraud within the programs of HHS yet they choose not to investigate the gross fraud by CDSS and lack of oversight by HHS Region IX. As will be shown in the attached letters, California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and portions of Region IX of HHS as well as agents of the Secretary of HHS are allowing the state of California to defraud the federal government for billions of dollars annually. Accepting federal funding while continuing to violate the state plan mandates is Federal Fraud. Our agencies will provide the evidence and documentation you need to stop the fraud and with your investigative powers save the tax payers billions of dollars. These agencies are also in violation of 18 USC Ch, 13 Civil Rights, Section 241/242, a federal criminal conspiracy. Please start a investigation by Presidential Order to stop the abuse of children and families at the hands of CDSS and their agents, the counties.

Our agencies have filed hundreds of state fair hearings and CSOB (CDSS Childrens Services Operations Bureau) complaints yet the state denies they are in violation. We have worked with DHHS Region IX to try to solve these programmatic violations. The ACF Region IX had helped in the past and we thought we were well on the way to correct the problems with the help of Selena Long. When John Coddington moved Ms. Long out of this investigative position, the problems with the ACF and Region IX started. Over forty claims were sent back to our agencies without even being reviewed and this has caused significant harm to children and parents. On April 30, 2000, a letter was sent to Catherine Dodd the Regional Director of Region IX to ask for her to help in the lack of over sight and monitoring by the ACF. Ms. Dodd responded with a letter dated May 26, 2000. Ms. Dodd states that we requested the ACF to conduct a fair hearing but in fact we stated that a fair hearing has been conducted and that the ACF conduct a state compliance review hearing, seek injunctive relief, civil action and/or any other appropriate remedies at the DHHS/OCR/ACF's disposal. We have attached her letter and it further asks that our agencies not ask her office at Region IX or the ACF to exercise it's over sight and monitoring responsibilities over the state plan. If we can not turn to HHS Region IX to help children and parents who are being hurt due to state plan violations, then who can we report these violations too?

The following is a summary of the failure of the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to exercise its over sight and monitoring responsibilities. These are but a few examples of over a thousand clients of our agencies. We have also communicated with President Clinton's aid's but they send us back to the CDSS who is defrauding the federal government for billions of dollars and breaking apart families on a daily basis. Where is the FEDERAL OVERSIGHT? CDSS has told us that President can do nothing to help.

Over Sight and Program Plan Problems in California Department of Social Services

Our issue at bay is the failure of the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to exercise its over sight and monitoring responsibilities. This over sight failure is detailed in the latest HHS/OIG audit. Pursuant to this states own submitted plan, which CDSS guarantees three types of over sight. The first over sight is CDSS's CSOB. The second over sight is the state hearing division (SHD). And the last over sight is the civil rights bureau (CRB). Our problem is an issue of fact that none of these agencies do anything and the cases are clear and convincing proof of such.

We base our claim on the following:

¨ Claimant's (Palmer, Ybarra, Wittman and numerous others including children) submitted Request's for State Fair Hearing and Investigation against Sacramento and Santa Clara County Department of Health and Human Services Child Protective Services pursuant to 45 CFR 205.10 and Title 22 CCR Div. 22, 22-001, et seq. (State Plan). This claims cited numerous violations of Division 31 CCR (MPP). This claims also cited many violations of Division 21 for violations of civil rights. The files can be provided.

¨ Simultaneously Claimant's filed a copy of the Request for a State Fair Hearing to CDSS/CSOB also requesting their assistance in this very same matter. To date, there has not been any response from CDSS/CSOB.

¨ Claimant's received a Position Statement's from Sacramento and Santa Clara County Department of Social Services demanding that claimant's hearing be dismissed based on a standing order of the Superior Court Juvenile, yet the California Rules of Court show that this court has no jurisdiction over Administrative Law Issues. The counties asked for bifurcated hearings to determine if the SHD had jurisdiction to hear the claims.

¨ Claimant received a Decision from CDSS/SHD Administrative Law Judge dismissing Claimant's claim for lack of jurisdiction.

¨ There are so many violations of the state plan, it will take weeks to detail them but the files will be made available for your review.

Based on the aforementioned Claimant's have been denied due process rights guaranteed by 45 CFR 205.10 and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Goldberg vs. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S. 254; Jackson vs. Department of Public Welfare of Florida (1970) 397 U.S. 589. The Supreme Court in their decision stated clearly that 45 CFR 205.10 is mandated upon the State and a Superior Court of a State has no jurisdiction to countermand that order. The doctrine of staire decisis and supremacy law must apply. The fact that in 1992, the United States Supreme Court in Suter vs. Artist, M. 503 U.S. 347, the Court held in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist that "requisite features of state plan ... in order for a state to be eligible for payments under this part it shall have a plan approved by the secretary ... provides that the plan shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the state, and, if administered by them, be mandatory upon them and their political subdivisions".

The facts are clear the Superior Court has no jurisdiction in interfering with a program plan that Congress gave the authority over to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and not to the Superior Court.

The next question at bay is can a State Superior Court or Appellate Court modify or change a state plan. The answer is No. On February 2, 1999, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in State of California: Department of Social Services vs. Donna Shalala, Secretary HHS, Case No. 9870622. A California Appellate Court initially ruled on this case concerning changes to Title IV E benefits. The California Court of Appeals decisions concerning these benefits were applied by then CDSS Director Anderson. Upon notice by the Secretary of the HHS, who took a different interpretation of Title IV E, the Ninth Circuit changed the determination of the Court and CDSS. The Ninth Circuit clearly indicated that if a state is dissatisfied with a decision or state plan requirement they must file for a waiver and appellate jurisdiction is only proper in a United States District Court of proper jurisdiction. See 42 USC 610.

There are only two motivations for the Superior Court's actions as well as CDSS - if you have no over sight, then billions of federal dollars can pour into these counties. Without proper checks and balances and as in this matter there is a strong suspicion that the minors being detained should have been returned to the care and control of the Claimant's. But without proper procedural safeguards mandated through state plan requirements, this cannot occur. This brings a serious question of violations of 18 USC 1031 because the basic requirements of the plan See 42 USC 5101, et seq. Title IV B & E which requires that the sole purpose of the act is to protect children from abuse and neglect and to then reunify families. But because of the financial incentives brought forth by such statutes as 42 USC 673 B, which has been recognized by the U.S. Ninth Circuit on August 26, 1999, in Calabretta vs. Floyd. The Ninth Circuit held and warned Congress that such financial incentives would create serious problems for the purpose of financial gain, these problems appear more and more prevalent and these cases are a classic example of the problem. But because Claimant's cannot bring forth these issues to the mandated jurisdictions they can be covered up because the Superior Court and CDSS does not want to hear the truth.

Requested Actions by President Bush (California and its political subdivisions have stated the President has no Authority)

We are requesting a Presidential Order for the immediate investigation of these local agencies and the states' agency's actions or inaction's as gross violations of the state plan. We are requesting that you and the office of the DHHS/OIG general counsel seek injunctive orders against the state of California, CDSS, all political subdivision's (counties), and the Superior Court of the State of California, to cease and desist any further interference with federally mandated requirements. Further, we are requesting that an injunctive order against the California Department of Social Services seek that this agency follow its mandated requirements of over sight and monitoring, inclusive of state fair hearings and civil rights compliance reviews. We are also requesting an investigation into ALL Claimants' matters because there is extreme manipulation, falsification, and willful withholding of exculpatory evidence by social workers in these counties. Here again the only motivation for this is federal funding and the only way for this to work is with the assistance of the judiciary as in this matter and the CDSS turning a blind eye to these violations for they too receive immense funding from the federal taxpayers. The State Department of Social Services with this knowledge allowed this state plan violation to continue for approximately 12 years and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Your prompt attention to this serious matter will be greatly appreciated. We additionally ask that you ask Region IX of DHHS move the ACF to do the job they are set to do which is monitoring and over sight of the state agencies. Your actions will save children's lives and save them from further serious abuse by the state and counties.

Sincerely,

Charlie Wittman
Director AFCAF

Junior Maning
Director CFAC

Cc:
Senator Boxer
Senator Feinstein
HHS/OIG
Claimants

Response status: unknown.

Copyright retained by authors. Please contact them directly for reprint permission.