SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon’s troubled foster care system still needs to undergo “extensive work” if it wants to adequately address child safety issues, according to a new report released Wednesday from the secretary of state’s Office. But a lack of funding could stand in the way of any major progress, and the report notes the state’s Department of Human Services will need an expensive overall requiring hundreds of new staff members plus years of dedicated investments from legislators and community members. “There is nothing more important than the wellbeing of children,” Secretary of State Bev Clarno said in a statement. “DHS is moving in the right direction, but there is still work that needs to be done to ensure proper staffing, suitable foster homes and residential facilities, and a better overall culture.” The report itself is a follow-up to a 2018 state audit that found systemic issues in the way the DHS manages the approximately 7,500 foster children in its care. Child welfare workers, overburdened with high caseloads, had little to no time to meet in person with the children in their care. Out of a lack of quality foster care homes, the department has been forced to keep children in hotels, refurbished juvenile jails or in out-of-state, for-profit facilities where child welfare advocates say kids were neglected and left vulnerable to further abuses. The agency has weathered years criticism and has recently been slapped with a federal lawsuit alleging that DHS has failed to shield children from abuse. The secretary of state’s office notes that DHS has taken some positive steps, working to improve workplace culture and expand training opportunities for caseworkers. But the report notes that problems still remain. Progress going forward could be more difficult, as the office cautions that “uncertain funding for improvements could undermine those efforts.” The report stresses that reducing caseworker turnover and workload is likely the “most important” step in addressing the flaws within the foster care system, but it’s also the most expensive. The Secretary of State’s office estimates that the department would need an additional 570 caseworkers and 800 support workers to meet its staffing needs, far more than even DHS’ original estimates. That, the office admits, would require “extensive funding.” It’s a tough ask, especially as legislative budget leaders are looking to make 5% cuts across nearly all state agencies. Gov. Kate Brown recommended spending $762 million on foster care in her proposed budget late last year, which is $56 million more than what the agency needs to maintain existing services. But her budget, which prioritizes recruiting foster parents and expanding placements for high-needs youth, notably doesn’t include the agency’s requests for an additional $77 million to expand staffing levels. Legislators are finalizing agency budgets and must decide how to allocate the historic amount of revenue flowing into the state before the end of June. But despite the unexpected increase in cash flow, budget leaders have cautioned prudence and previously suggested investing the money into the state’s rainy-day fund. Brown wants to use $50 million of the surplus revenue to pay for additional caseworkers among other improvements, saying it’s the first step to “lower caseloads, and improve staff culture and child safety.” “To move forward and make meaningful change, the agency needs more resources and expertise,” she said in a statement. “I have deployed an oversight board and crisis management team, but the Legislature needs to do their part and provide the funding needed for the state to better serve children.” Read original article here .

Sex offenders steal the innocence of our children. As a private practice attorney, it is an honor advocating for clients who are survivors of sex abuse. While previously serving as a district attorney, I witnessed the invaluable role that our judges play in holding child molesters accountable for their crimes. Oregonians are fortunate to have Measure 11, which provides mandatory minimum sentences for the most violent felons and sex offenders. Victims in Montana and Alabama do not have the benefit of Measure 11. The result is senseless sentences for sex offenders. In Montana, Judge Todd Baugh recently sentenced a convicted sex offender (and schoolteacher) to 30 days in jail and commented that the 14-year-old rape victim appeared “older than her chronological age” and “…was probably as much in control of the situation as was the defendant.” The victim took her life before she could be re-victimized by the judge. Is this an isolated misstep by a judge charged with the responsibility of holding a sexual predator accountable for his crimes? I wish it was. In Alabama, Judge James Woodroof recently refused to sentence a convicted sex offender for three rape charges. The judge’s initial sentencing order was successfully appealed by the prosecutor only to have him willfully order for the second time an inappropriately lenient punishment. You might ask yourself why these judges are handing down such offensive sentences. The method to their madness is based on a concept known as restorative justice. Restorative justice sounds warm and fuzzy, but let me assure you it is not. Restorative justice sounds good on paper and attempts to conceal the sentencing philosophy that victims and criminals are essentially morally equal. This concept plays a reasonable role in minor property offenses, particularly involving juveniles, but should be viewed with extreme caution when the crimes are sexual assault or murder. A few victims want to face the predator who hurt them, but usually in the safety of a courtroom. The goal of this philosophy is reconciliation between victim and offender, not accountability through an appropriate prison sentence. The power of forgiveness belongs to the victim, not the sentencing judge. Survivors of child sex abuse should be empowered to decide if and when they grant the offender forgiveness. Oregon’s constitution provides that the criminal justice system is based on four principles: 1) protection of society; 2) personal accountability; 3) accountability for one’s actions; and 4) reformation. Restorative justice is not appropriate in Oregon, but Measure 11 is. Laws provide definitions of crime. A victim makes it personal. According to statistics, child abuse damages 1 out of 4 girls and 1 out of 6 boys across America. As a community we are charged with the responsibility of protecting our children from sexual predators. We cannot accept the unacceptable sentences for child molesters highlighted in the national news. After starting my career as a prosecutor I have learned that not all justice is achieved in the criminal courts. That is why individuals and institutions need to be held accountable in ways that are meaningful. It seems fitting that our federal courthouse located downtown features one of my favorite quotes from Martin Luther King Jr.: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Tara Lawrence, former Sherman County district attorney, practices law in Portland, where she specializes in representing victims. Read original post here .

The daughter of the late Portland attorney Victor Calzaretta has filed a civil suit against her dad's third wife, alleging she took advantage of his dementia and interfered with her inheritance. (Aimee Green/The Oregonian) A former Medford police detective who investigated elder financial abuse is now accused in a lawsuit of using her knowledge to exploit her late husband's dementia for her own financial benefit, according to a lawsuit filed in Multnomah County. Diane Michele Miller, daughter of longtime Portland plaintiff's attorney Victor Calzaretta, says her father's third wife, Susan Campbell Calzaretta, a former Medford detective, interfered with Miller's inheritance. Victor Calzaretta, who often represented police, had accumulated an estate worth about $4 million at the time of his death, the suit says. Miller says Susan Calzaretta took advantage of her husband's increased dementia by helping to alter his will so his assets would all be left to her before he died last summer of dementia at age 72. Susan Calzaretta's attorney, James Callahan, said his client "adamantly denies the allegations.'' The daughter, according to the lawsuit filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, expected to inherit her father's entire estate, based on letters he had written and given to her to open after he died. According to the suit, in one letter, Victor Calzaretta told Miller that a "few million dollars'' would make her life "very easy.'' In another, he wrote again that "a few million will make life easier'' and explained that both he and his deceased second wife wanted Miller to inherit the estate upon their deaths. The suit alleges Susan Calzaretta "intentionally interfered with that expectancy by taking advantage of Calzaretta's weakened emotional and compromised mental state by marrying Calzaretta in haste, not because she loved him, but in order to guarantee a share of and access to Calzaretta's estate.'' The two married in a civil ceremony in April 2010. She was 13 years younger. That year, Victor Calzaretta's dementia worsened. His will was changed in July 2011, with Susan Calzaretta listed as the primary beneficiary, the suit alleges. By the time Victor Calzaretta died in June 2014, his estate was drained of all assets, according to Miller's lawyer. His death was caused by a three-day onset of sepsis as a result of the onset of pneumonia and three years of dementia. "This case demonstrates how easily the imbalance of power between a caregiver, and elderly person suffering from dementia can open the door to abuse,'' said attorney Tara Lawrence, representing Miller. Miller is seeking $4 million in damages and seeks to retain property that her father owned in Medford and West Linn. Read original article here .

The first clue that a teacher had been shutting Cecilia and Kevin Wilson’s son, Ryleigh, into a school closet appeared on Facebook. The first-grader frequently had emotional outbursts in fall 2012. Administrators at Mint Valley Elementary School in Longview, Washington, often asked the parents to take him home. During a particularly bad incident on Halloween that year, they arrived at the school to find Ryleigh being restrained by the principal, as the child screamed and hyperventilated. After that, the Wilsons say Ryleigh resisted going to school and became afraid to be left alone. They began to understand his behavior when another Mint Valley parent posted pictures of the school’s “isolation booth” to Facebook in November of that year. The booth was a closet-size, lightless, windowless room with padded walls. The pictures circulated among Longview parents, and when Ryleigh heard his parents discussing it, he said he’d been shut into it multiple times that fall. On Halloween, it was because he left his seat without permission. Washington state law at the time permitted isolation rooms to be used only with parental permission as a type of therapy for special education students. Ryleigh was not in special education, and the Wilsons hadn’t even known the booth existed before the Facebook pictures. They and four other families, who also were unaware of this practice until the Facebook posts, sued the district in 2015. The parents lost. Their attorney Tara Lawrence of Portland, Oregon, says the plaintiffs were stunned by the verdict. Advocates for disabled students say this kind of loss is not unusual. Though isolation of juveniles is forbidden in federally funded mental health care facilities, as well as in federal prisons, no similar provision exists for schools. State laws, if they exist at all, are a patchwork. Some apply only to disabled students, some to all students, and other causes of action have had only mixed success. Juries unfamiliar with the needs of disabled students may defer to teachers’ judgment. “It’s hard to win these cases, legally,” says Mary Griffin, a lawyer and education program director of the Washington Autism Alliance & Advocacy. “I’ve always thought it was bias. But … this Mint Valley thing was very disturbing because she still didn’t win when she took out all the kids that had [disability diagnoses].” NOT A TIMEOUT Disabled students are disproportionately affected by seclusion policies. According to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, special-needs students were just 12 percent of all students in 2013-2014, but they represented 57 percent of those put into seclusion. Black kids were also overrepresented; they were 19 percent of the student population with individualized education plans, which were authorized by federal disability rights law that year, but were 36 percent of those secluded. Seclusion is not considered a timeout or a moment in a quiet area. The Department of Education defines seclusion as involuntary confinement in a space that the student is prevented from leaving. Using that definition, a 2014 report from the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee said research has found there’s no therapeutic benefit to the practice. State laws, school policies and IEPs often authorize seclusion as a last resort in an emergency or permit it as a way to calm highly emotional students. But in practice, the Senate report found that it can be misused, with students sent to isolation as a punishment, sometimes for long periods or repeatedly over the course of a semester. “Anecdotally, [we] just hear stories of kids being secluded for shockingly minor behaviors,” says Annie Acosta, director of fiscal and family support policy for the Arc, a Washington, D.C., disability rights organization. As with Mint Valley, the Senate report found that many schools don’t tell the parents when they’re using seclusion—even when the law requires it. But like the Wilsons, those families will still notice the effects. “I think just the violation of one’s autonomy and civil rights by being held against their will is a really traumatic experience for a lot of kids,” says Acosta. This may be particularly acute for children whose disability prevents them from speaking because they can’t tell anyone. Seclusion also subtracts from instructional time, which can be significant if done frequently. It’s also not a long-term solution to the problem behavior. In fact, Seattle education attorney Katherine George says it can backfire. “In some cases, removing the kid to isolation in response to disruptive behavior encouraged the behavior, because it removed the kid from whatever was bothering him or her,” says George, who helped write a Washington state law limiting the use of isolation and physical restraints. The legal recourse for those families is limited, attorneys say. Families may sue over violations of state law, but 16 states permit nonemergency seclusion, according to a report compiled by attorney and parent advocate Jessica Butler. Disability rights laws apply under some circumstances, but families using the most directly appropriate law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, must usually exhaust their administrative remedies before suing. As a result, plaintiffs often end up using tort law and constitutional claims. The Mint Valley plaintiffs cited unreasonable seizure, due process violations and unconstitutional policies under the Fourth and 14th amendments, as well as negligence, outrage and the right to an education guaranteed by the Washington state constitution. The results of those lawsuits have been mixed. The challenge, Acosta says, is that “it has to shock the conscience, and unfortunately courts don’t quite see these cases as doing that.” SAFETY MATTERS Congress has considered addressing isolation in schools several times in the past decade. The Keeping All Students Safe Act, introduced several times from 2009 to 2014, varied, but the 2014 version would have banned seclusion and permitted families to sue over violations. The bill never passed, but it was considered long enough to attract some opposition. One opponent was AASA, the School Superintendents Association. Advocacy director Sasha Pudelski says the association opposes using seclusion as discipline, but prefers to leave regulation to the states. “It’s not clear that one state’s policy is better than another state’s policy, for a variety of reasons,” she says. “Given the very few number of students that this impacts, it’d be inappropriate to craft federal policy around it.” Though the number of students affected may be small in proportion to the total number of students enrolled in the nation’s schools, it’s still significant. The Department of Education reported nearly 29,000 incidents of student isolation during the 2013-2014 school year, the most recent data available. Total school enrollment last year was 50.7 million. Deborah Rigsby, program director for lobbying and federal legislation at the National School Boards Association, says seclusion is a tool for ensuring everyone’s safety, which her organization’s members would like to draw on when appropriate. She emphasizes that seclusion would be discussed with parents when creating an individualized education plan and revisited yearly when the IEP is reviewed. “Our goal is the safety of students and school personnel,” she says. But parents have a right to reject IEP conditions they don’t agree with, and Griffin does not recommend that most parents sign IEPs authorizing seclusion. Legally, she says, “it becomes what the school’s supposed to do.” Acosta agrees, noting that there’s no educational value in seclusion. “We at the Arc don’t believe that this should be allowed in the IEP, because the IEP is about learning,” she says. They do agree with Rigsby that training—and adequate funding for that training—is important in a special education context. Acosta says there’s a pervasive lack of training on special education, and the misuse of seclusion is just one way that it shows up. Griffin also thinks the misuse may arise when school personnel resist changing the way they’ve always handled misbehavior. In the case of disabled kids, they may also not realize that special-needs students are genuinely different. “Society tends to see these behaviors as poorly behaved children from parents who don’t know how to control their children,” she says. But disability advocates say that behavior is often related to the disability. That may be true for Ryleigh, now 11, who was eventually diagnosed with ADHD. He’s also been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and severe anxiety, which the complaint says were caused by his trips to the booth. He has still not returned to public school. Read original article here .

Repeat sex offenders steal the innocence of our children, while repeat drunken drivers play Russian roulette with the safety and lives of Oregonians. These and other violent offenders inflict devastating emotional and economic losses on you, whether or not you are a direct victim of the crime. If you ask a father of a sexually abused daughter or a mother who lost her son's life at the wheels of a drunken driver, the pain and sense of loss last a lifetime. Justice delivered through a civil judgment or a criminal conviction will not bring back a loved one. Money does not restore a child's lost innocence or restore a rape victim's peace of mind -- ever. Accountability delivered through our civil and criminal justice systems may bring some level of finality, but what is taken can never be returned. Crime is costly. In 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice estimated the cost of a single episode of adult sexual assault at $87,000. In 2008, 233 Oregonians died at the hands of intoxicated drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates the economic cost at more than $1.2 million for each life taken. The estimate does not include the pain and suffering, but it does reflect some of the economic price, such as ambulances, court costs, jail sentences and insurance costs. Repeat drunken drivers are 40 percent more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than those without a prior DUII, according to NHTSA. Investing in public safety avoids future costs. According to a 2007 Criminal Justice Commission Report to the Oregon Legislature, $1 invested in locking up the most dangerous offenders saves Oregon taxpayers $4.35. A dollar invested in public safety helps create safer roads, protects the innocence of our children and holds violent murderers, rapists and burglars accountable for the damage caused. Our justice system is based largely on federalist and democratic principles that justice should reflect the values of the community in which the citizens, victims and offenders alike live. Oregon voters' values are demonstrated through the passage of Measures 11, 57 and 73. Voters overwhelmingly supported Measure 11 in 1994 and voted 3-to-1 against its repeal in 2000. In 2010, 57 percent of Oregon voters passed Measure 73, which applied to repeat sex offenders and intoxicated drivers, providing enhanced sentencing for these dangerous crimes. In 2009, Oregon legislators passed a law intended to save money by permitting the early release of some violent offenders. It was a costly mistake. Victims and their families were retraumatized by these legislatively forced release hearings, which ultimately resulted in almost no cost savings. An administrative nightmare and cost-shifting occurred because some legislators ignored the collective warning issued by Attorney General John Kroger and law enforcement leaders. The law enforcement community was simply locked out of the discussions or ignored altogether. Those responsible apologized for their mistake, but they are back at it again. They are once again proposing public safety cuts that are penny-wise and pound-foolish. They want to undermine the will of the people once again by attempting to dismantle Measure 11 and water down Measure 73. Measures 73 and 11 provide truth in sentencing, save lives and protect Oregonians from the most violent of criminals and sex offenders. Do not let legislators roll back the clock to the late 1970s, when violent crime was at an all-time high, or bring on a new set of unintended consequences, much like the 2009 fiasco. An apology is inadequate. Crime is costly on many levels. It hits taxpayers in their pocketbooks. Victims are forced to deal with emotional pain, suffering and a sense of loss that may last a lifetime. An investment in public safety makes cents as well as common sense, and, most important, it keeps the faith of victims and voters, for whom all elected officials work. Tara Lawrence is a lawyer who practices in the Portland metro area. She is a former Sherman County district attorney and worked as the statewide executive director of a victims rights advocacy group. Read original article here .

It's no surprise that Oregon's criminals and their supporters love a budget crisis. Already, some repeat property offenders and violent criminals are enjoying early release because voter-passed Measure 57, designed to hold these offenders accountable, was delayed for about two years by the Oregon Legislature. Now some legislators and state officials want to take one step further and begin dismantling Measure 11. The people of Oregon passed Measure 11 in 1994 in response to a failing justice system. The measure applies only to serious violent crimes and sex crimes, such as murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery. There are no mandatory minimums under Measure 11 for property crimes or drug crimes. Most Measure 11 sentences are less than 10 years and are shorter than the average sentences for similar crimes in other states. For example, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the national average sentence for first-degree rape is more than 13 years. Measure 11 requires only eight years and four months of prison time for a first-degree rape conviction. Before Measure 11, child molesters were often sentenced to probation, and it was not unusual to see convicted killers walk free after serving only eight years in prison. Oregonians were forced to turn to the initiative process because 15 years ago, as today, some legislators thought real justice was too expensive. Measure 11 still costs far less than the 1994 voters pamphlet's projected fiscal impact. Each Oregonian currently pays roughly $35 a year to keep about 4,000 violent felons -- including convicted murderers, rapists, kidnappers and armed robbers -- off of our communities' streets. Oregon's Criminal Justice Commission estimates that tougher sentencing laws prevent 100,000 crimes a year in the state. How can we ever say it's too expensive to prevent a rape, murder or armed robbery? It's difficult to imagine an Oregonian unwilling to spend $35 a year to prevent violent criminal victimization. The Oregon Constitution says, "Laws for the punishment of crime shall be founded on these principles: protection of society, personal responsibility, accountability for one's actions and reformation." Sentences handed down by judges under Measure 11 accomplish each of these four principles. When violent criminals and sex offenders are locked in prison, society is protected, these offenders are held personally responsible for their serious violation of the law, the sentences hold offenders accountable for their actions and, with effective treatment and work in prison, offenders have an opportunity for reform. Measure 11 provides truth in sentencing, actually saves lives and protects Oregonians from the most violent of criminals and sex offenders. It helps prevent future victimization. Measure 11 achieves its stated goal at a cost considerably less than the predicted cost. During this budget crunch, the real question is: How many government programs can claim that? Tara Lawrence of West Linn is executive director of the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance. Read original article here .