• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Sugar Cookie

Veteran Member
Bold Member!
A 69-year-old northern Minnesota woman pleaded guilty Tuesday to child endangerment for binding a 5-year-old child in her foster care to a high chair for several hours.

Martha Ann Smith, who lives on the Red Lake Indian Reservation, pleaded guilty to one count of felony child endangerment, according to the the U.S. Attorney’s Office District of Minnesota.

In her guilty plea, Smith admitted to endangering and neglecting a child in her foster care for years, since the child was just three months old, prosecutors say. On occasion in October of 2019, she tightly bound the child’s wrists and ankles to a high chair, forcing the child to remain in the chair overnight. The child suffered bruising, cuts and emotional trauma, court documents say.
1613612395786.webp
 
According to the defendant’s guilty plea and documents filed with the court, SMITH endangered a minor child in her foster care on multiple occasions at her residence on the Red Lake Indian Reservation. SMITH admitted that on the evening of October 10, 2019, through the morning of October 11, 2019, SMITH tightly bound the 5-year-old child’s wrists and ankles to the sides of a highchair and forced the child to remain shackled to the high chair throughout the night. As a result of the shackling, the child suffered bruising and lacerations on her wrists and ankles as well as mental and emotional trauma. SMITH further admitted that she neglected and endangered the child on multiple occasions during the time the child was under SMITH’s foster care, since the child was approximately three months old.

This poor child has been abused her entire life.

I am sure they will go out and find another shitty culturally appropriate foster home to put her in.
 
They need to really address and fix this problem

Marc and Misty Ray of Perry adopted four children from Iowa’s foster care system: a 10-year-old boy, two girls ages 10 and 12, and 16-year-old Sabrina Ray.

Nicole and Joseph Finn of West Des Moines adopted four children from foster care before they divorced.

Mindy and Andy Knapp of Urbandale adopted six kids from the state.

The parents received monthly adoption subsidies — part of $159 million the state of Iowa spends each year to support families and prevent children from languishing in foster care.

But even after being accused of horrific abuse, none of those parents will have to pay back the adoption subsidies — not even if they are convicted of crimes ranging from assault to child endangerment to murder, Reader's Watchdog has found.

Federal statutes mandate that states terminate adoption subsidies when parents are no longer supporting the children they are supposed to help.

But neither the state of Iowa nor the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has systems in place to check on recipients of adoption subsidies for fraud or recoup payments when parents commit abuse.


Unlike federal programs such as Social Security or food stamps, those receiving adoption subsidies are not subject to verification processes or scrutiny, state officials confirmed.

That worries advocates for abused children, people who review children's placements and former foster and adoptive children interviewed by the Watchdog.

While foster kids are subject to monthly home visits and routine checkups, children adopted out of state care — especially those who are independently home-schooled — are not monitored again.


State workers can put a stop to taxpayer-backed subsidies if they find that foster or adoptive parents are not supporting the children in their care.

But McCoy acknowledged the agency does not track when or even if that happens.

Typically in Iowa, subsidies end only when children age out of foster or adoptive homes, of if parents themselves decide to terminate their contract with the state, McCoy said.

“The vast majority of these families are using the subsidies to care for their families,” she said.

The state of Iowa puts no limits on the number of foster children parents can adopt. Instead, families are assessed on how well they can meet the needs of the children at the time, McCoy said.

Adoption subsidies are negotiated with the state and vary depending on a child’s age and special needs.

The amount is determined by an assessment of the child’s needs, but it does not exceed that provided for foster care. The adoptive family’s income is not considered when negotiating financial support.

Generally, parents receive more for older children with special needs, bringing in as much as $12,333 annually.

Adopting four older children with special needs can bring in close to $50,000 a year.
But some parents have made headlines nationally for taking thousands of dollars while abusing the children in their care.

Judith Leekin was charged in Florida in 2007 for abuse and maltreatment of 11 children adopted in New York City.

Leekin allegedly denied the children access to food and toilets, handcuffed and restrained them for hours; trapped them in cribs; beat them with a belt, a nightstick and other objects; and repeatedly threatened them with a gun or with being beaten to death, according to a judge in the case.

Only three could read (at a third-grade level), and six were declared either “totally incapacitated” or “vulnerable adults” when the children were removed in 2007.

Because the children suffered from physical or mental disabilities, Leekin received increased adoption subsidies — a total of about $1.68 million from the state of New York.

After the abuse charges, Leekin was charged in federal court for fraudulently using the subsidies.

Eight of the children she adopted eventually sued the three private agencies who placed them with her, winning a $17.5 million judgment. The state of New York paid a $9.7 million settlement.

So the only ones hurt are the tax payers who have to pay for these lawsuits.
 
Back
Top