AR - Rep. Harris rehomed his adopted daughter to man who sexually abused her

[shadowraiths]

Harris backs off legislative roles bearing on DHS

On Monday, Gillam said Harris did not offer a reason for stepping down from his committee leadership post. Gillam said Harris hadn't been encouraged or pressured by fellow members to scale back his role on the aging, children and youth committee or to withdraw completely from the Joint Performance Review Committee, which specializes in evaluating the performance of state agencies.

[...]

The House majority leader, Rep. Ken Bragg, R-Sheridan, said that Harris' leaving the Joint Performance Review Committee and reducing his role in the House committee, which also handles DHS legislation, would reduce any potential for a "conflict of interest."

"I think it was mutual," Bragg said of Harris' request and Gillam's acceptance. "I think he realized that his continued vice chairmanship would be a distraction to the committee."

[...]

On Monday, Armstrong said he hoped that Harris would still consider resigning.

Asked if he's gotten calls from constituents wanting the Northwest Arkansas legislator to step down, Armstrong said yes.

"Everyday, someone in Northwest Arkansas, central Arkansas, people from around the state are calling," Armstrong said. "Rep. Harris has obviously recognized that maybe his position on those committees was an undue burden on [them] and the legislative body. Him stepping down should go in as the first step of his resignation, if [the resignation] is going to be imminent."​

link

 

[MyBelle]

Rep. Justin Harris was eligible for over $28,000 in tax benefits for adopting two girls who were later rehomed

It appears the Harrises did not retain the foster/adoption subsidies from the state of Arkansas, as explained below. However, the Harris family may have received another, more significant financial benefit as a result of adopting the girls: A one-time, nonrefundable federal adoption credit of $12,970 per child in 2013. The couple might have also claimed a federal Child Tax Credit of up to $1,000 per child, which means the Harrises may have saved some $27,970 in federal income taxes as a result of the adoption. Additionally, Justin and Marsha Harris' overall taxable income may have been lowered by claiming the girls as dependents. In 2013, a dependency exemption was $3,900 per dependent.​

link

As I suspected all along, he was gaming the system....and taxpayers to the detriment of those little girls that he obviously didn't care about. And yet he claims to be a Christian.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

As I suspected all along, he was gaming the system....and taxpayers to the detriment of those little girls that he obviously didn't care about. And yet he claims to be a Christian.

JMO

As I pointed out above--I believe, from my own experience, that the federal subsidy is only against actual expenses, which tend to be quite low when adopting through a public agency. So, even if he garnered the full 12 grand--he would have had to spend that much up front to receive it. And he has provided documentation of the subsidy checks being handed on. He might have some trouble with the feds if he claimed the girls as dependents--however, I think the rule is either a full deduction for any child who was there for any portion of the year (as in a baby born on Dec 31 who gets a full deduction for the year) OR over have of the expense for the dependent (as in shared or transferred custody situations). So, he might be in the clear there as well.

So, I am more that willing to go along with egotistical, naïve, religiously misguided, uncaring, pushy, abusive, manipulative and a good many things. But, if he had any notion of making money on this adoption, well then throw stupid into the pot as well. Because, I don't see that as an outcome.

 

[MyBelle]

JH letter of resignation from Vice Chairman position of Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative and Military Affairs, and Joint Performance Review committees.

Thanks. Hopefully, the head of DHS will follow suit.

 

[MyBelle]

As I pointed out above--I believe, from my own experience, that the federal subsidy is only against actual expenses, which tend to be quite low when adopting through a public agency. So, even if he garnered the full 12 grand--he would have had to spend that much up front to receive it. And he has provided documentation of the subsidy checks being handed on. He might have some trouble with the feds if he claimed the girls as dependents--however, I think the rule is either a full deduction for any child who was there for any portion of the year (as in a baby born on Dec 31 who gets a full deduction for the year) OR over have of the expense for the dependent (as in shared or transferred custody situations). So, he might be in the clear there as well.

So, I am more that willing to go along with egotistical, naïve, religiously misguided, uncaring, pushy, abusive, manipulative and a good many things. But, if he had any notion of making money on this adoption, well then throw stupid into the pot as well. Because, I don't see that as an outcome.

His gaming of the system includes the government money he receives for his school.

JMO

 

[K_Z]

Ban on Re Homing Clears Committee. It's a start. Still a ways to go to become law.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/mar/17/ban-re-homing-clears-house-committee/?f=latest

A bill that would prohibit re-homing adopted children has passed out of committee.

The House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of House Bill 1676 on Tuesday after hearing from the bill's sponsor, state Rep. David Meeks, R-Conway.

HB1676 was one of two bills dealing with re-homing after Rep. Justin Harris, R-West Fork, acknowledged he had sent two of his adopted daughters to live with a man who later sexually assaulted one of them.

Just to recap, there are 3 bills "live" in the AR legislature with provisions related to re homing. 2 House bills, 1 Senate bill.

 

[Margo/Mom]

His gaming of the system includes the government money he receives for his school.

JMO

That is really a separate issue.

 

[shadowraiths]

Hutchinson calls for review of state's child welfare programs

Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Tuesday that he has ordered an independent review of Arkansas' child welfare system, a move that comes after a state representative acknowledged re-homing two adopted children to a man who later sexually assaulted one of them.​

link

 

[shadowraiths]

His gaming of the system includes the government money he receives for his school.

JMO

That is really a separate issue.

Not really. It appears he pushed the girls adoption through by 'gaming' the system. Or, rather showing Blucker, he could force her hand on decisions.

The emails that were provided to the Democrat-Gazette show that in one instance, Harris emphasized his ability to stop DHS funding in its tracks.

[...]

The routine bill shepherded through the Legislature by fellow Republicans had already passed in the Senate 34-0. It eventually passed 88-0 in the House, with Harris not voting.

But the first time it came up in the House, Harris sunk it.

[...]

After the vote, responding to a Blucker email asking which individuals should be invited to the meeting, Harris responded:

"Doesn't matter, went to the well and spoke out against SB737, an appropriation [of $1 million for DHS], it failed miserably. Only garnered 36 votes. I told them there was a 7-year-old girl stuck in an institution, and yet waiting on a meeting."

Afterward, emails show that Blucker quickly arranged the meeting.

Wells, Harris' attorney, said the girl in question wasn't one of the three sisters taken in by the Harrises. The girl belonged to a constituent who'd reached out to Harris for help with her daughter, according to Wells.​

There is also a questionable underlying tone of the above. Who was this 7-year-old girl? Was she a blatant lie (i.e., no girl) used to emotionally blackmail the house? Was she real? If so, how would he know about her. I thought children in DCFS are supposed to be protected? In other words, there is no good answer here. The emails indicate he was gaming the system. Wether for money or children, it's 10 shades of appalling.

 

[believe09]

Wells, Harris' attorney, said the girl in question wasn't one of the three sisters taken in by the Harrises. The girl belonged to a constituent who'd reached out to Harris for help with her daughter, according to Wells.

How does this make the situation any better? Blatant influence pedaling. Bald face blackmail in fact. Do what I tell you to do or I sink your funding. The reward for DHS was the funding they wanted, but it was done on the backs of little girls whose lives were exploded based upon his whim.

He owes these little girls everything. He has to make restitution-I would think as a self styled Christian he would realize that he is sunk in the afterlife if he doesnt make this right.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Not really. It appears he pushed the girls adoption through by 'gaming' the system. Or, rather showing Blucker, he could force her hand on decisions.

The emails that were provided to the Democrat-Gazette show that in one instance, Harris emphasized his ability to stop DHS funding in its tracks.

[...]

The routine bill shepherded through the Legislature by fellow Republicans had already passed in the Senate 34-0. It eventually passed 88-0 in the House, with Harris not voting.

But the first time it came up in the House, Harris sunk it.

[...]

After the vote, responding to a Blucker email asking which individuals should be invited to the meeting, Harris responded:

"Doesn't matter, went to the well and spoke out against SB737, an appropriation [of $1 million for DHS], it failed miserably. Only garnered 36 votes. I told them there was a 7-year-old girl stuck in an institution, and yet waiting on a meeting."

Afterward, emails show that Blucker quickly arranged the meeting.

Wells, Harris' attorney, said the girl in question wasn't one of the three sisters taken in by the Harrises. The girl belonged to a constituent who'd reached out to Harris for help with her daughter, according to Wells.​

There is also a questionable underlying tone of the above. Who was this 7-year-old girl? Was she a blatant lie (i.e., no girl) used to emotionally blackmail the house? Was she real? If so, how would he know about her. I thought children in DCFS are supposed to be protected? In other words, there is no good answer here. The emails indicate he was gaming the system. Wether for money or children, it's 10 shades of appalling.

Yes--he did indeed use his influence to get what he wanted.

My objection is to the thinking that he was gaming the system--if that's what you want to call it (not sure I would--the checks and balances within the system itself seemed to be working as they should, it wasn't built to withstand pressure from a legislator threatening the head of DHS to hold up her funding if he didn't get what he wanted) for monetary gain. There are some harmful corollaries to this line of thinking, which are that the existing subsidies provide an incentive for people to adopt children that they don't want and then hand them on to others. Recall that the majority of rehomed children are internationally adopted, and therefore do not receive subsidies.

So I think we need to be very cautious in furthering the notion that Harris was gaming the subsidy system. As I said, I think he is an egotistical idiot who followed some extremely misguided theology and used his influence to get himself into a very difficult situation that he could not pray his way out of. Further, having burned all his bridges with any of the front-line DHS workers who might have been able to assist, he went on to do something even stupider and more callous in moving the girls on down the line. I think there is plenty there to hold him accountable for.

 

[shadowraiths]

So I think we need to be very cautious in furthering the notion that Harris was gaming the subsidy system. As I said, I think he is an egotistical idiot who followed some extremely misguided theology and used his influence to get himself into a very difficult situation that he could not pray his way out of. Further, having burned all his bridges with any of the front-line DHS workers who might have been able to assist, he went on to do something even stupider and more callous in moving the girls on down the line. I think there is plenty there to hold him accountable for.

Agreed. And yes, people def should avoid sweeping generalizations by comparing his case to most adoption cases. Imho, that's the biggest danger. That is, viewing disrupted adoptions as a negative reflection on adoptive parents who really are trying/have tried everything they can when it comes to children afflicted with RAD.

That said, one could argue that once the girls were adopted, they began to act out bc they realized they would no longer be able to go back to their birth mom. Kids, regardless of how badly they're abused, still love their parents. Something that I think, we as a society, and even people in the psychological community, sometimes forget. After all, they've been moved from an abusive home to a loving home, they should be grateful, right? I would say this would be rarely the case. Esp with young children. They do not understand. They're being taken from their mommy and/or daddy.

Moreover, bc of JH & his wife's belief system, I can see how they would naturally see their adoptive daughters as being possessed. The demon haunted world is a mainstay in fundamental christianity. That is, the belief that there is a spiritual war occurring around us, every day. To get a feeling how something like that may have played out within the Harris household, see the HBO special, Child of Rage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME2wmFunCjU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H55Oz92Kh-A​

While I don't agree with the whole laying on of hands thing, I am hard pressed to condemn this man for beliefs I do not hold. At the same point, their seeming obsession with possession, to the point that they appear to see demonically possessed children behind every tree, and under every rock, bears further scrutiny.

Importantly, that this man presently holds a place of power, should be concerning to the people in his district. Regardless of his religious and political affiliations. This is especially so in light of the abuse of power that is and has been revealed. Including but not limited to pushing the adoption through, as well as, arguably, putting pressure on DHS for other children in the system.

And finally, there appears to be a great deal of murkiness around his case wrt the two girls, rehoming them to Francis, and to the other family, shortly thereafter.

 

[LaLaw2000]

That is really a separate issue.

Actually, I don't believe it is a separate issue at all. It all has to do with Harris and his propensity to do underhanded things. He is accepting tax dollars for his school and it sure sounds like a religiously based school. I don't believe he is entitled to it.

MOO

 

[shadowraiths]

Hutchinson promises independent review of DHS; declines to give opinion on Justin Harris

Hutchinson also was asked if he believed Justin Harris was fit to continue to serve. According to Brian Chilson, who was there, the governor said he intended to focus on what he could do as governor and let the legislature deal with matters that fell under legislative control. To date, no Republican has issued a word of criticism of Justin Harris. House Minority Leader Eddie Armstrong has said he thinks Harris should resign because of distraction his case presents. Harris yesterday resigned as vice chairman of a committee that handles children's issue and also dropped off the power Joint Performance Review Committee. But House Speaker Jeremy Gillam was careful to say those were Harris' decision alone.​

link

 

[Margo/Mom]

Actually, I don't believe it is a separate issue at all. It all has to do with Harris and his propensity to do underhanded things. He is accepting tax dollars for his school and it sure sounds like a religiously based school. I don't believe he is entitled to it.

MOO

Not at all defending the school or his use of subsidy for what seems to me to be a religious school (although, depending on how payments are made, could still be legal. In other states vouchers to parochial schools have been upheld if given to the parents rather than issued directly to the school--a fine point).

Just saying, that was going on before adoption was ever an issue and I see no connection between the two.

I was responding to a great AHA about how he was "gaming the system" for monetary gain by adopting the girls. When I challenged that there was any real monetary gain to be had there, then the school was tossed in.

I think the guy is slime and needs to leave the legislature. Further, I hope that parents are so creeped out by him that they leave his school in droves. I just don't see that he adopted those girls for the money.

 

[shadowraiths]

I was responding to a great AHA about how he was "gaming the system" for monetary gain by adopting the girls.

I agree. I highly doubt they were adopting the girls for monetary gain. I do, however, think their motives were not as pure as he was claiming, in that he used the oldest girl (who they did not adopt) for his campaign posters.

 

[MyBelle]

Actually, I don't believe it is a separate issue at all. It all has to do with Harris and his propensity to do underhanded things. He is accepting tax dollars for his school and it sure sounds like a religiously based school. I don't believe he is entitled to it.

MOO

It has never been a separate issue in this case. Harris has been exploiting loopholes to gain an advantage. It is what it is. For all I know, he still has those little girls enrolled as "students" in his school.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Not really. It appears he pushed the girls adoption through by 'gaming' the system. Or, rather showing Blucker, he could force her hand on decisions.

The emails that were provided to the Democrat-Gazette show that in one instance, Harris emphasized his ability to stop DHS funding in its tracks.

[...]

The routine bill shepherded through the Legislature by fellow Republicans had already passed in the Senate 34-0. It eventually passed 88-0 in the House, with Harris not voting.

But the first time it came up in the House, Harris sunk it.

[...]

After the vote, responding to a Blucker email asking which individuals should be invited to the meeting, Harris responded:

"Doesn't matter, went to the well and spoke out against SB737, an appropriation [of $1 million for DHS], it failed miserably. Only garnered 36 votes. I told them there was a 7-year-old girl stuck in an institution, and yet waiting on a meeting."

Afterward, emails show that Blucker quickly arranged the meeting.

Wells, Harris' attorney, said the girl in question wasn't one of the three sisters taken in by the Harrises. The girl belonged to a constituent who'd reached out to Harris for help with her daughter, according to Wells.​

There is also a questionable underlying tone of the above. Who was this 7-year-old girl? Was she a blatant lie (i.e., no girl) used to emotionally blackmail the house? Was she real? If so, how would he know about her. I thought children in DCFS are supposed to be protected? In other words, there is no good answer here. The emails indicate he was gaming the system. Wether for money or children, it's 10 shades of appalling.

There is no question he was gaming the system. There are multiple spigots of money to be exploited if one knows the loopholes and Harris knew and was arrogant in his exploitation.

JMO

 

[wfgodot]

There is no question he was gaming the system. There are multiple spigots of money to be exploited if one knows the loopholes and Harris knew and was arrogant in his exploitation.

JMO

Well-said, MyBelle. Makes me so angry -- the notion of "multiple spigots" makes me want to take a pipe wrench to the faucet-grubbing fingers of those who would abuse systems in place to aid those most in need.

"To rehome" here seems a synonym for "to deprive of" and "to exploit." I wouldn't trust Harris to rehome rocks in a quarry.

How can any political party in a democracy continue to lend its name to these sorts of people? Expel them; have some pride.

 

[shadowraiths]

DHS worker firing raises more questions about maltreatment reporting

Division of Children and Family Services head knew about abuse allegations, but did not report, according to sources.

Two children whose mother was an employee in the Division of Children and Family Services of the state Department of Human Services were ordered removed from her custody last year by a judge who found the children were in "imminent danger" at her home.

The employee, Chanel Moore, who is required by law to report child maltreatment to the state's abuse hotline, apparently did not inform DHS that her husband had done anything to harm the children. It was the boys' grandfather who first called the abuse hotline to report that the older boy had cuts, bruises and scars on his back. Circuit Judge Mackie Pierce awarded custody to the grandfather, George Turner II, after Turner initiated court proceedings in November 2013.

[...]

A trusted source says that not only did Moore not make a maltreatment report, DCFS Director Cecile Blucker also knew about the abuse allegations and did not report them.

The case is of particular interest because state Rep. Justin Harris (R-West Fork) also said that Blucker was aware he had rehomed his children before a maltreatment report of abandonment was made to the hotline.

[...]

But why did DHS evidently not take action against Moore on its own, considering Turner's original call to the child maltreatment hotline occurred many months prior to the court's involvement?

Turner said he believes the abuse was known to Moore's boss, Cecile Blucker, the head of DCFS, prior to Judge Pierce's involvement. An anonymous source corroborated this account. Like Moore and other DCFS employees, Blucker is a mandated reporter​

link