LA Foster Care Workers Take Donations Intended For Children

[JWBear]

Here. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-foster8nov08,1,7747098.story?coll=la-headlines-california)

In their latest report, auditors singled out the purchase of 160 tickets in July to see the hit musical "Wicked" as part of a $14,000 gala event for foster children and their mentors.

Only 53 children and roughly the same number of mentors were given tickets. The rest went to department employees and their relatives and guests, along with unidentified "potential mentors" and a number of employees of not-for-profit organizations, auditors wrote.

What low-lifes! I hope they all get fired!

[BarTopDancer]

Oh that makes me sick :(

[€uroMeinke]

I don't know, maybe more people would be willing to help out foster kids if they could get free tickets out of the deal. Charities often offer "premiums" how is this any different?

[wendybeth]

The tickets are intended for the kids and their foster care providers, not the case workers and office staff. At least, that's what I got out of the article. They really are stealing from kids, and they are the ones appointed to help them.

[Morrigoon]

Doesn't show if they were first offered the tickets and only got a few takers though.

But that only applies to Wicked... I see they had other abuses as well involving gift cards. B*stards.

[wendybeth]

Even if they did, the tickets were not theirs to take. (Somehow, I doubt that is the scenario in this case, and what about the money?) People who work for state agencies have to really watch for any appearances of impropriety and misuse of public assets. Those tickets were donated for a specific reason, and they were not used as intended. This sort of thing might inhibit future donations, so it's more than just diversion or petty theft in the long run.

[BarTopDancer]

With the quantity involved, it sounds like the tickets were meant for a field trip, not incentive to donate or volunteer. And if they were incentive to donate or volunteer then they still shouldn't have gone to employees, relatives or potential anything.

Just another reason why the foster care system is screwed up :(

[€uroMeinke]

Really, we should just ship the kids to Russia or China where they stand a better chance of being placed.

[Morrigoon]

ouch.

[BarTopDancer]

Sadly he has a point (not that I am saying we should).

It is easier to adopt from overseas then it is from the US. And there is less risk of the birth parents fighting it/wanting their kid back.

On an interesting side-note, one of our VPs adopted a child from here (OC, CA) last month. He lives in England. He said it was easier to adopt from the US then from the UK. They were out here for a month handling paperwork (it wasn't supposed to be a month but the fires put a kink in the schedule).

[blueerica]

Surprisingly enough - yes it is easier here than elsewhere in the world. For another class I did a project on surrogacy and adoption and California, OC & San Diego, specifically, is considered quite the hot spot.

I saw this on the news sometime this last week (or might have been the week before.) Though I'm sad, I'm hardly shocked. I forget what they said of the outcome for those guilty of taking the stuff, but if I remember correctly, one employee lied about how many of these goodies were around during the audit in which this was all found out.

[Kevy Baby]

Just another reason why the foster care system is screwed up :(I wouldn't say the whole system is screwed up. Especially since this appears to be a case of a few individuals who committed errors; not the system.

When Susan and I had exposure to the OC Foster Care program, they seemed to have their stuff together and were (possibly still are) rated one of the best systems in the country.

[Kevy Baby]

It is easier to adopt from overseas then it is from the US. And there is less risk of the birth parents fighting it/wanting their kid back.And I say that this a good thing for kids in the US and less so for kids overseas.

[BarTopDancer]

And I say that this a good thing for kids in the US and less so for kids overseas.

Not when the kids are in and out of care because their parents can't get their act together. When I was majoring in Social Work there was a lot of focus on kids who were removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect, drug abuse by the parents, etc.. The foster parents wanted to adopt them but were blocked every step of the way by the birth parents cleaning up their act long enough to stop the adoption process, and then as soon as it was stopped they would go back to their old ways. Those kids had homes who wanted to raise them permanently but because of the parents they were shuffled back home, then back in to care, back home, back in to care. It's not uncommon. :(

[Kevy Baby]

Not when the kids are in and out of care because their parents can't get their act together. When I was majoring in Social Work there was a lot of focus on kids who were removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect, drug abuse by the parents, etc.. The foster parents wanted to adopt them but were blocked every step of the way by the birth parents cleaning up their act long enough to stop the adoption process, and then as soon as it was stopped they would go back to their old ways. Those kids had homes who wanted to raise them permanently but because of the parents they were shuffled back home, then back in to care, back home, back in to care. It's not uncommon. :(But is it better for the child to be with their parent where possible or instantly shuffled off to some stranger as soon as Mom and/or Dad have a glitch in life.

There is no clean delineation as to when it the perfect time for the child to be removed from the parents permanently. Many parents are able to get their act together. The best thing for a child (very generally speaking) is to be with the parent.

With this in mind, I stick with my original statement.

[BarTopDancer]

But is it better for the child to be with their parent where possible or instantly shuffled off to some stranger as soon as Mom and/or Dad have a glitch in life.

There is no clean delineation as to when it the perfect time for the child to be removed from the parents permanently. Many parents are able to get their act together. The best thing for a child (very generally speaking) is to be with the parent.

With this in mind, I stick with my original statement.

I would generally agree with that statement. The cases I was referencing had the child going from foster home to unstable bio home, foster home to unstable bio home over and over again. Yes, it is usually best for the child to be with their parents. But not all parents should have custody of their kids. Parents who abuse and neglect their kids, have their kids removed, 'straighten up their act' only long enough to stop their kids from being adopted then start abusing and neglecting the kids again as soon as they get them back (repeat process numerous time) should not be able to do that to their kids.

It's scary and sad what happens to a kid who is bounced in and out of care, then ages out with no stability in their lives.

[JWBear]

...When Susan and I had exposure to the OC Foster Care program, they seemed to have their stuff together and were (possibly still are) rated one of the best systems in the country.

They are.

I spoke to a friend who is related to someone high up in LA's foster care agency. Apparently, it was a clique of managers and their staff that saw these donations as their prerogative to take for themselves - one of the perks of the job. It wasn't just the tickets; there were also thousands of dollars worth of gift certificates and vouchers intended for the foster families that made their way in to these people's pockets. Sickening.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I'm still waiting to be adopted...

[katiesue]

I always wished I was adopted.

[CoasterMatt]

My parents often wondered if I was swapped with their real child while in the hospital.

[Gemini Cricket]

How can someone's conscience allow them to even think about doing something so cruddy?
Sheesh.