Mission Statement

This blog is set up to support families that have had their lives torn apart by various Social Services departments. To connect people to others who understand what they are going through, to provide links to resources, and to shed light on the abuse that is rampant in our social services department.

Daddy and Dulce

Daddy and Dulce
A week before Dulce was stolen away.

About Me

My photo
My wife and I are a father and mother(non-biological) who were accused of just about everything under the sun (never charged because it was untrue).The daughter of our heart was ripped out of her family. We are devastated and will never get over this. I have since found out I am not alone there are thousands of families that have been heartbroken over having their children literally kidnapped by the all powerful social services all over the world. I am hoping that by coming together we can help one another.
Showing posts with label Department of Children and Families. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Children and Families. Show all posts

Friday, August 22, 2014

Teen Calls DCF Ineffective, Calls For Action Following Murder-Suicide

Posted: Aug 22, 2014 9:38 AM EST Updated: Aug 22, 2014 11:02 AM EST
 
Janice Lesko (left) and Gregory Pawloski, Jr. (right). (Facebook photos)
Janice Lesko (left) and Gregory Pawloski, Jr. (right). (Facebook photos)
COVENTRY, CT (WFSB) - It's been nearly a year since a murder-suicide rocked the town of Coventry.
Friday, 16-year-old Rachel Pawloski, daughter of Gregory Pawloski, Jr., plans to speak out about how the Department of Children and Families and court systems failed her family through the years.
She said DCF was begged to provide services to her family less than 60 days before Gregory Pawloski attacked Janice Lesko.
Police said Gregory Pawloski used a shotgun to kill Lesko and himself in a home on Stage Road last August.
Gregory Pawloski was no stranger to violence, according to the Connecticut Coalition against Domestic Violence.
The group said he had been arrested before for threatening his former partner, Kimberly Fontaine of East Hampton.
Since the murder-suicide, Rachel Pawloski created a nonprofit group called Youth Alliance Against Violence.
She said she will issue a plea to Gov. Dannel Malloy to demonstrate effective leadership and enact her proposals to protect families.
Rachel Pawloski's news conference was set for 11 a.m. in front of the Stage Road home where the incident happened.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/26345835/teen-calls-dcf-ineffective-calls-on-gov-to-act-following-murder-suicide

Sunday, May 25, 2014

DCF Exodus

The Department of Children and Families crisis returns to Page One today, and with reason.
Two stories, neither favorable. First, the Herald reports that social workers have bolted the embattled agency this year faster than DCF has replaced them. Second, Walpole cops claim a DCF foster care contractor running a school for children with behavioral problems didn't notify local authorities about a recent sexual assault allegation. (Margery Eagan, infuriated by the latter situation, writes an impassioned accompanying column.)


Compelling spot-news photos improve any news section, and staffer Mark Garfinkel took a Page One-worthy doozy yesterday. A low bridge on Route 1A in Eastie claimed another victim — snagging its second big rig in two days. Talk about maxed-out headroom! The state yesterday finally improved signage at the intersection imploring trucks over 12 feet not to bang that particular left onto the highway's southbound on-ramp. (Now there's an idea ...) 

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/page_one_blog/2014/05/may_22_2014_dcf_exodus

Eagan: A Child’s Allegations Swept Away — Again


 Just call the cops. Dial 911. Let police officers trained to investigate do their jobs.
But instead, after allegations of a sexual assault by 13-year-old boy on a 9-year-old boy at the Walpole campus of the Home for Little Wanderers, staff there called the state Department of Children and Families. Most of us, for good reason, have lost all confidence in DCF’s ability to protect children or, sadly, even to tell the truth.
DCF Commissioner Olga Roche is gone. Yet nothing has changed. Joan Wallace-Benjamin, who runs the Home for Little Wanderers, might have offered some clarity yesterday.
But she declined interviews and the home put out a statement that raised questions about its own credibility and DCF’s even more.
The home downplayed the “incident,” calling it a “behavioral health matter.”
Walpole police, however, called “the incident” a sexual assault — a rape, in fact. And the social worker at Norwood Hospital, which treated the 9-year-old, apparently agreed with police. That social worker alerted cops by requesting a sexual assault evidence collection kit.
“The home would typically call the local police,” the home’s statement read, “if and when we suspect and have reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed.”
What are we to make of that? That the home is right, but police and Norwood Hospital and now the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office, which is investigating, too, are wrong?
Walpole Deputy Police Chief John Carmichael told the Herald this is just the latest example of the home’s reporting crimes there too late or not at all.

Olga Rochecaption

To be clear, we don’t know for sure what happened in Walpole.
But in January, in the midst of exposing a series of tragic mistakes by DCF, the Herald reported on an 11-year-old child whose claims of sexual assault were dismissed by DCF as “consensual sex.” That’s hard to fathom when the legal age of consent in Massachusetts is 16; under federal law, it’s 18. And this was an autistic child in foster care.
DCF never explained its bizarre conclusion.
Here’s a safe bet: Neither DCF nor the home will ever detail why its staff did what it did in this case either.
Yesterday the home said that “out of respect for the dignity of the children” and “the ongoing investigation we are unable to provide further information.”
But an agency’s refusal to explain itself is almost never about dignity or ongoing investigations. It’s about hiding misdeeds.
“No one wants anyone else to know what they’re doing,” longtime victims’ advocate Laurie Myers said yesterday — which means horrible things will keep happening to children, in secret. And nobody pays.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/margery_eagan/2014/05/eagan_a_child_s_allegations_swept_away_again

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Massachusetts Health Official: Justina Pelletier Should Return to Home State As Soon As Possible

A Massachusetts Health and Human Services official has penned a letter supporting the return of Justina Pelletier, the teen at the center of an emotional custody battle, to her home state and went so far as to write that the “groundwork” for a “reunification plan” has been laid.
Justina Pelletier for 14 months has been in custody of the state’s Department of Children and Families after a disagreement over a diagnosis between her parents and physicians at Boston Children’s Hospital led to accusations of medical child abuse.
Justina's parents have been fighting against Boston Children's Hospital and the state's Department of Children and Families for more than a year, as they believe she needs to be treated for mitochondrial disorder, a diagnosis some doctors disagreed with. (Image source: Fabebook)
Justina’s parents have been fighting for more than a year to have their daughter return home. (Image source: Fabebook)
When her parents disagreed with the hospital’s plan that would treat Justina for a psychiatric disorder — not mitochondrial disease, for which she had been previously diagnosed and treated — they tried to discharge the now 15-year-old in order to take her to her doctor at Tufts Medical Center. That’s when the state stepped in to address concerns presented to it by Boston Children’s.
Since then, Lou and Linda Pelletier, Justina’s parents, have been in and out of court fighting to have custody returned to them, fearing their daughter’s health is failing without treatment for mitochondrial disease.
Lou Pelletier, Justina's father, spoke briefly before a March 17 hearing. (Image source: Liz Klimas/TheBlaze)
Lou Pelletier, Justina’s father, spoke briefly before a hearing on March 17 to supporters outside a Boston courthouse. (Image source: Liz Klimas/TheBlaze)
Though a Boston juvenile court judge recently awarded permanent custody to the state DCF, it would appear, based on the letter by Massachusetts HHS Secretary John Polanowicz, that a plan is in the works to at least return Justina to her home state of Connecticut.
Here’s Polanowicz’s full letter sent Friday:
Justina Pelletier should return to her home state of Connecticut to receive the services and support she needs close to her friends, family, school and community. We strongly believe that this outcome is in Justina’s best interests, and have laid the groundwork to make it happen.
The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) has been working with providers and the State of Connecticut to develop a reunification plan for the family to help achieve this goal as soon as possible.
Last year, the Juvenile Court gave custody of Justina to DCF and since then she has received treatment and supports from both DCF and a residential treatment provider in Massachusetts. She has received tutoring, made friends and attended events in the community, including a recent outing to see Blue Man Group.
We were also pleased we could help arrange for Justina to observe religious services and to spend time with her family on Easter. But we hope she is able to spend future holidays with her family in Connecticut.
Contrary to the belief of many, DCF does not have the authority to determine when and if custody should be returned to Justina’s parents. As with all cases of alleged abuse or neglect, that authority is held solely by the court. In this case, after reviewing all of the evidence, the court found that it is in the best interest of Justina to remain in DCF custody for now.
DCF is ready to work with the family around reunification planning and we hope the family will fully engage in this process. We have taken numerous steps to achieve our shared goal of Justina ultimately returning home — and we will stay focused on achieving this result.
Some state lawmakers have supported the Pelletiers with a petition that their daughter should be returned to them, and family advocates have called upon Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to address the case as well.
Patrick briefly responded some questions before another engagement earlier this week.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/25/massachusetts-health-official-justina-pelletier-should-return-to-home-state-as-soon-as-possible/

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Budget Cuts Blamed For DCF’s Recent Issues

Children's League of Mass. wants $100M to be restored to DCF in Fiscal 2015 
By Tiffany Chan, State House reporter  
Updated: Monday, April 14, 2014, 7:21 pm
BOSTON (WWLP) – Key funding has been cut from the Department of Children and Families over the past five years and now social workers say 100-million state dollars need to be restored to protect the young.

It’s been nothing but controversy for the Department of Children and Families. The agency has been under strict scrutiny after losing track of missing 5-year old Fitchburg boy, Jeremiah Oliver, and more recently with the Justina Pelletier case.
Social workers blame the deep budget cuts, which have resulted in heavy caseloads. The national average of caseloads is 14 to 15 families per worker. Here in Massachusetts, workers could be seeing more than double.
Peter MacKinnon

According to Peter MacKinnon of the Service Employees International Union, “We have caseloads, 25, 30, 35, some as high as 40 families per worker. You just cannot do the work safely with that type of caseload. It’s really putting kids at risk.”
The Children’s League of Massachusetts wants $100-million to be restored to DCF in Fiscal 2015. $17-million would go towards hiring more front-line social workers to reduce the heavy caseloads.
The league also wants to dedicate $250-thousand towards DCF training to equip social workers with state-of-the-arts skills and approaches to child protection.
 
http://wwlp.com/2014/04/14/budget-cuts-blamed-for-dcfs-recent-issues/

Thursday, February 27, 2014

DCF Worker Accused Of Falsifying Well-Being Report

ORLANDO, Fla. —

Posted: 3:12 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2014
Investigators said a 38-year-old woman was supposed to be checking up on some of the most vulnerable victims of child abuse and neglect but instead lied in her paperwork to avoid being fired.
Margaret McCalman
Margaret McCalman told investigators at the Department of Children and Families she was exhausted from her case load and typed up a false home visit in her computer to avoid missing a required visit.
McCalman and others in her position are required to go out and investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect, authorities said.
According to the arrest warrant, McCalman documented a visit in May 2012 to a home with at least two children.
In the report, it was written that the children were seen without abuse and that the house was cluttered but no major hazards were seen.
The catch, according to payroll data, is that McCalman wasn’t working that day.
Channel 9′s Karla Ray went to McCalman’s home on Wednesday to ask why she would put children’s lives at risk by making up information about their well-being, but no one came to the door.
McCalman quit her job at DCF month after her internal investigation started.

“We absolutely do not tolerate the falsification of child protective records,” said a DCF spokeswoman. “We have a zero tolerance for it.”
If convicted, McCalman could face prison time.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/dcf-worker-accused-falsifying-well-being-report/ndhJx/

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Local Lawmakers Grapple With Changing The Culture At DCF

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/NSF) – Both chambers of the Legislature took up child-welfare reform Tuesday, hearing from a wide range of experts with research about staff turnover and caseloads.
Florida-capitol
But one number stood out: 432, the number of Florida children who died of abuse and neglect in 2012, according to Pam Graham, a social work professor at Florida State University.
Graham, who spoke to the House Healthy Families Subcommittee, served on the State Child Abuse Death Review Committee. Of the 432 children who died in 2012, she said, 40 percent were already involved with the Department of Children and Families.
“It pains me that if the right people had been helping those families, a lot of the deaths could have been prevented,” Graham said.
The number of child deaths usually mentioned in legislative committees is 40, the number that the Casey Family Programs, a policy group, reviewed after a series of child deaths last year.
And that’s how many it took to prompt legislative leaders to vow to overhaul the child-welfare system.
“The public is crying out to us to have revolutionary reform,” said Sen. Eleanor Sobel, a Hollywood Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Children, Families and Elder Affairs Committee. “We don’t want to keep reading about children’s deaths. …However, we’re going to do it in a pragmatic way, step by step.”
Sobel’s panel and the House Healthy Families Subcommittee examined such steps as requiring all new child-protective investigators to have social-work degrees and helping the current investigators get such degrees.
Not everyone who spoke to the lawmakers agreed on how to fix the workplace culture at DCF, but virtually all said it had to be done.
“The thing that we keep coming back to is a lack of fraternity,” Mike Watkins, chief executive officer of Big Bend Community Based Care, told the Senate panel.
To the House panel, Mary Alice Nye, of the Legislature’s Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability, said child-protective investigators report feeling pressured to close cases within a 30-day window and to get all of their work done without filing for overtime pay.
The investigators “felt that they were less and less able to use their knowledge and expertise in decision-making,” Nye said.
They also reported spending 50 to 80 percent amount of their time on administrative tasks and expressed concern about going into homes where there had been violence, difficulty in getting law enforcement officers to meet them there and using their own cars for work, which could identify them in small communities.
“They generally indicated they felt support from their immediate (supervisor) but not from DCF or the lead (community-based care) agencies,” Nye said.
DCF Interim Secretary Esther Jacobo said a program to pair child-protective investigators was being piloted in cases where a child is 3 years old or younger, has a prior DCF history and other family risk factors such as domestic violence, mental illness or substance abuse.
Jacobo said the pilot has been so successful that it will go statewide. Gov. Rick Scott has recommended hiring 400 additional child protective investigators, bringing their caseloads down to 10 apiece.
Sobel said it’s important for state agencies to be more consistent.
“Stop the turnover and create a workforce that likes where they’re working and enjoys what they do and accomplishes a lot,” she said. “For the sake of the kids, we have to do this.”
According to OPPAGA, the turnover for child-protective investigators in Florida is 20 percent. For the case managers who provide services at the local level, it’s 30 percent.
“The News Service of Florida’s Margie Menzel contributed to this report.”

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/02/11/lawmakers-grapple-with-changing-the-culture-at-dcf/

Friday, December 6, 2013

Shocking Report Of Abuse: Kids Harmed While In State Custody

Boston Herald front page - Dec. 3, 2013

 

Children supposedly out of harm’s way in foster homes were abused and neglected at a higher rate than their counterparts in schools or day care facilities under the state’s watch, according to an alarming new report one outraged lawmaker called “unacceptable.”
State officials found evidence supporting 249 allegations of physical and sexual abuse and poor care involving youngsters in state-watched settings last year, according to the Office of the Child Advocate’s 2013 report, a copy of which was obtained by the Herald.
Among those shocking cases, 30 percent were in foster homes — more than 70 instances.
The report adds 29 percent of the cases were in treatment programs; 19 percent in day cares; 18 percent from schools; and 4 percent from “others.”
The stunning report comes just months after the state trumpeted its victory in a lawsuit over its foster care system.
“You’re talking about a child-and-a-half a week who is in state custody and nonetheless is maltreated. That has to be a red flag,” said Sara Bartosz, an attorney for the advocacy group Children’s Rights, which unsuccessfully sued the Department of Children and Families for failing to protect kids in its care. Bartosz said the group is appealing a judge’s October ruling dismissing their suit.
“Unlike homes where unfortunately some individuals become parents and they’re not prepared to do so well, when you’re dealing with foster care, these are hand-selected providers to be trained and overseen by the state,” she said. “The appropriate standard is zero tolerance. This should be a safe harbor.”
DCF officials said the total number of abuse and neglect reports — often referred to as 51A reports — in the out-of-home settings has remained steady in recent years.
But Bartosz, citing data provided to the group during its lawsuit, said the number of those generated from foster homes has ticked back up — all while fewer kids enter the system — from 64 in federal fiscal year 2011, which ended that October. The state, she said, recorded 84 in 2010.
The state, meanwhile, has touted reducing its foster care population by 2,000 kids over the past five years, bringing it down to 7,300 youngsters last year.
“DCF has worked hard to build a strong system for protecting children and families across the commonwealth,” DCF spokeswoman Cayenne Isaksen said in a statement.
State Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton), who sits on the Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities, said she demanded more be done at the top of the state’s health agencies.
“It’s been a pattern with this administration with failed oversight — we saw it in the drug lab scandal and the New England Compounding scandal,” O’Connell said. “We’ve had a lack of oversight in these various agencies, and it’s a very alarming pattern and deaths have resulted. ... These numbers are unacceptable when it comes to protecting our children.”

 

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

249 Children Abused In State Custody In Massachusetts: Report

Massachusettes Gov. Deval Patrick answers a question after addressing a campaign rally in New Brunswick, N.J., Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013 (AP Photo/Mel Evans) | ASSOCIATED PRESS

Massachusettes Gov. Deval Patrick
In one year, more than 200 children were abused while under the state of Massachusetts' care, according to a new report.
The Boston Herald reports:
State officials found evidence supporting 249 allegations of physical and sexual abuse and poor care involving youngsters in state-watched settings last year, according to the Office of the Child Advocate’s 2013 report, a copy of which was obtained by the Herald.
Thirty percent of those cases were in foster homes, 29 percent in treatment programs, 19 percent in day cares, 18 percent from schools and 4 percent from “others.”
The Associated Press reports that a Department of Children and Families spokeswoman said "the state works hard to protect all children."
The Herald's report comes just as officials in Arizona grapple with their own child abuse scandal.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is under heavy criticism after it was revealed the state's Child Protective Services department failed to investigate more than 6,000 abuse reports.
The American Humane Association has more information on child abuse and how to report it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/03/children-abused-massachusetts_n_4379305.html

Friday, November 29, 2013

Former DCF Worker Faces Charges Of Falsifying Records



Mable Peters mug
ORLANDO, Fla. —A former Department of Children and Families employee has been arrested and accused of falsifying records.
According to DCF officials, Mable Peters, 45, was arrested on Oct. 30 based on an investigation in 2010. She is accused of falsifying records about visits to multiple children.
Officials said none of the falsified records resulted in injuries to children.
Investigators said Peters reported making a visit on a night of bad weather, and a supervisor followed up with the family involved and learned Peters was never there.
Peters admitted to authorities with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement that she lied. She was transferred to desk duty.
Peters resigned when she was told she would be fired.

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/orange-county/former-dcf-worker-faces-charges-of-falsifying-records/-/12978032/23116232/-/cvhjyfz/-/index.html#ixzz2m30SVZCP

Monday, November 18, 2013

DCF-The Frightening Reality Of The Florida State Mob Punishing Parents And Pulling Favors

I’ve never seen DCF move so quickly….and without probable cause. This case was a terrifying jolt of reality.

This week, a family was ambushed by the Florida Dept. Of Children and Families (DCF). The DCF mafia, under investigation and responsible for several deaths due to unqualified and un-credentialed so-called social workers and investigators from mostly third-world countries who have been charged with protecting abused and neglected children in the state of Florida, moved swiftly in their attempts to usurp two children from a couple grieving over the recent suicide death of their teenage son.
In dependency court in Palm Beach County this week, the Child Protective Investigator blatantly lied in her Petition for Shelter, citing that the children of the Palm Beach County family were in imminent danger, citing physical abuse and neglect. The misquotes and material misrepresentations in the Petition were so blatant, that the DCF attorney didn’t even bother putting the investigator on the stand. Without a private attorney present, those parents would have been thrust into a system operated by this mafia that was not only eager to cash in on their living children, but also on their dead son. But why…?
Also disturbing was the jurisdictional issue. Though the family resided in Palm Beach County, it was an investigator from Broward County and a BSO Deputy, that initially contacted the parents just 4 days after the death of their son. DCF cited “a conflict” which was later learned to be that a family member of the natural father, who had been paying child support and, though he had very little (if any) relationship with the children, also stood to capitalize on the estate of the deceased child. The father’s immediate relative is an “award-winning” Supervisor at DCF. Evidently, even DCF isn’t immune from calling in the occasional favor. It is known that this DCF Supervisor and her family made the allegations against the mother, who had been engaged in a custody battle for years, and the step-father, who had been a daily and active participant in the lives of the children, picking up where the natural father had dropped off. Ironically, the natural father, though present, was neither a witness nor a party to the case.
The investigator never entered the home where the alleged abuse took place (which was clean, full of food, and had zero history of domestics or abuse). In fact, they never even went to the home. They coerced the older remaining son to write an email to the investigator…though even his email stated clearly that there had never been any physical abuse. The intake report cited bruising on the now deceased child, but there was never any abuse in the home, and the boy played contact sports. The accusations were false, misleading, and a disgusting attempt at DCF to pull favors and punish a family that was already grieving for the obvious sake of estate standing and child support adjustments.
The parents and their counsel were given less than 24 hours to prepare for the hearing. This isn’t uncommon, though it’s also interesting given the fact that the investigator never entered the home and there had been no police or school reports citing abuse, domestics or any type of violence or even harsh corporal punishment ever. DCF rarely moves quickly in cases of serious abuse, so this move by them was preposterous.
The courtroom was filled with witnesses in favor of the mother and step-father, and when DCF’s fumbling attorney began questioning the son, she essentially threatened him with perjury, trying to prove that there was any purpose at all for DCF to have even removed the children in the first place. Her leading questions were compounded, and she was clearly frustrated. The private counsel was repeatedly interrupted by the presiding judge, who, in his defense, has to spend every day with the DCF lawyers. He walks a tightrope with trying to protect children and families, while protecting same from the Department of Children and Families.
Without an ounce of evidence to statutorily substantiate the removal of the children, and without an iota of case law or factual standing to consider the children in imminent danger, show that the least restrictive means test had been met, or further prove that even notice of hearing had been served except via phone by an investigator that refused to disclose the location of the hearing in the first place, the judge had no choice but to dismiss the Petition against the already grieving parents.
One thing is certain: without the parents having private counsel, they would have been living more of an already massive nightmare. They already lost one child, and now because DCF’s Star-Supervisor was an accomplice in an obvious custody and estate matter that didn’t involve abuse, they would have lost their other children.
The fear-mongering Palm Beach County DCF staff (all colleagues of that Supervisor who called in her mafioso favor) were unapologetic and upset at the outcome. In fact, their manager was overheard saying, “This is ridiculous.” Yes, ma’am, this was. This was a disgusting overreach of your department’s power and a gross example of your desire to intimidate and harass a grieving family as a favor to your colleague.
The reality is, DCF (no matter how lousy their lawyers) rarely loses to unsuspecting parents-yet rarely protect the children that ARE abused (see Miami Herald articles on DCF). Don’t EVER attempt to fight allegations alone. Hire an attorney….you can’t put a price on your Constitutional right and liberty to parent.
imaconstitutionalist

http://imaconstitutionalist.com/2013/11/16/dcf-the-frightening-reality-of-the-florida-state-mob-punishing-parents-and-pulling-favors/

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Child-Protection Worker Accused Of Falsifying Reports


October 10, 2013|By Erika Pesantes, Sun Sentinel, By Erika Pesantes, Sun Sentinel
A Broward sheriff’s employee entrusted to help shield kids from harm didn’t even bother to meet five children she needed to watch over, possibly compromising their safety, authorities say.

Sandra Marti
Sheriff’s child investigative specialist Sandra Marti has been arrested, accused of falsifying reports that stated she had met with the children, according to a sheriff’s report. Instead, Marti simply arranged for parents to send her cellphone photos of the children, the report said.
Marti was jailed Wednesday on multiple counts of falsifying reports, records show.
“The falsification of official records, and the potential risks that any kind of falsification could pose for children, will not be tolerated,” said Dennis Miles, the regional managing director for the state’s Department of Children and Families’ Southeast Region.
Marti submitted the falsified records involving the five children between Dec. 1, 2011, and June 30 this year, the Sheriff’s Office said. Detectives found that those children are doing well, sheriff’s spokeswoman Keyla Concepcion said.
“We have gone back and made sure that all of those kids were safe, and the original allegations had been addressed,” she said.
An investigation into Marti’s actions began in June when a child’s mother phoned the Broward Sheriff’s Office. The mother said she planned to send Marti a photo of her son, but couldn’t because she had lost Marti’s phone number, an arrest report said.
That was a red flag for Marti’s supervisor, Concepcion said.
Detectives from the Broward Sheriff’s Public Corruption Unit reached out to several parents who each similarly detailed Marti’s instructions to send her photos of their children. They all said their sons and daughters did not meet with her on instances when she indicated they had, according to an arrest report.
Marti, a civilian employee, is currently suspended without pay, Concepcion said. Marti, 57, of Coral Springs, has been employed with the Sheriff’s Office for nine years.
She previously worked in pre-trial services and community control supervision of offenders, and later began working as a child investigative specialist.
Detectives have reviewed all of Marti’s cases since July 2010 — when she began working in the Child Protective Investigations Section — and only found five cases “in which she acted inappropriately,” Concepcion said.
Marti, who was freed from jail on a $5,000 bond, could not be reached for comment Thursday despite several attempts to contact her via a relative.
As part of their role, child protective investigators take a look at allegations of abuse, neglect or abandonment that come into the DCF hotline. Those cases range from neglecting to offer a child medical attention, to leaving minors who cannot care for themselves home alone, to sexual abuse, DCF spokeswoman Paige Patterson-Hughes said.
However, it was not known Thursday what circumstances led Marti to each of the cases for which she allegedly falsified reports.
“It’s important for there to be the appropriate contact with the potential victim and other people involved,” Patterson-Hughes said. “Not following through clearly is a problem.”
In the case that helped start the investigation, Marti filed a report indicating she met a child on June 13 this year, authorities said. But in a sworn statement, the boy’s mother said Marti did not meet her son and instead asked the mother for a cellphone photo.
According to the arrest report, investigators found that Marti filed a report in January 2012 stating that she had met with another child. But that boy’s mother also gave a sworn statement that said Marti didn’t see her son.
The scenario repeated itself in December 2012, when Marti said in a report she visited a 7-year-old girl at Croissant Park Elementary School in Fort Lauderdale, an arrest report said. But the school’s assistant vice principal said she had no record of an investigator visiting the child at the time, the report said.
Marti allegedly also asked that girl’s mother to send a cellphone snapshot of her other child, a 2-year-old girl. The mother, in a sworn statement, said she did as instructed.
In April 2013, Marti gave a 16-year-old boy’s mother her business card and asked that his photo be emailed to her, the report said. The boy told investigators that he never met Marti, but did take a photo of himself on his cellphone and emailed it to Marti.
Patterson-Hughes said meeting people is essential: It offers investigators clues to anything else that should be taken into account during their investigation.
“Clearly, when you’re talking to a person, you’re oftentimes taking in more than the words. You’re looking at other aspects, the behavior, the demeanor and the circumstances that brought you to the person in the first place,” Patterson-Hughes said.
Marti also is accused of falsifying a report that said she had met with a parent, authorities said.
In May this year, Marti allegedly filed a report stating she had met with the father of a child who had an open case, authorities said. The father told detectives that he had a telephone conversation with a child protective investigator, but did not meet the investigator in person, the arrest report said.
Miles called the allegations against Marti a “serious matter” and commended the Sheriff’s Office for investigating. In an emailed statement Thursday, he said that DCF “will work with [sheriff's] investigators to ensure the integrity of other cases which involved this investigator.”
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-10-10/news/fl-child-protection-arrest-bso-20131010_1_broward-sheriff-five-children-falsifying-reports

Sunday, June 30, 2013

STOP Florida Department Of Children And Families Circuit 20

March 6, 2013
Department of Children and Families News Letter

Social Workers Help Children, Families, Vulnerable Adults in Need

Marian B. Scirrotto
There are several Social workers who really care and take their cases very personal and not just a job or paycheck. Those are few that are deserving of recognition, here in the 20th circuit.
Since 2005, I have been a court watcher at the Lee County Justice Center, I have seen success stories, However, I have seen more Horror in Family and Dependency courts.
In my experience with the Florida Child Protection System, I can assure you what I have seen and heard is beyond disbelief. I know every one of the Fl Status 39 and stay up to date on all revisions, which I find that the Sub-Contracting Agencies are NOT complying with at all.
I and my fellow court watchers across this state , find this Extremely Disturbing.
As a voice for the last 8 years, I have made my position very well known. So known, that my door was knocked on too many times with false allegations with the hope that one day, Something would stick.
Having the knowledge I do, Your case workers were unable to prove or pursue.
In 2010, They finally found something to suck us into the system of corruption. With NO Allegations or Association, My grand-daughters estranged mother, who had abandoned her in 2004 and lost her rights to 1 child in New Jersey (2010) , Gave birth while having a drug addiction, which was passed to another new innocent child. Now, we have a legitimate case with this mother..
Because my son and her were never married and there was NO legal court order of custody, We became victims to the system. My son had to jumped threw hoops of fire for 2 1/2 years before his portion of the case was closed.
The mother and other father, did not attend court hearings and were non-compliant with their case plans
The one thing I have found to be a benefit from being a victim and a court watcher, Is I know all the players. I have done my research, I have watched them closely, I listen to them intensely and I can see the money trail that hold families hostage.
The system is Black and White, There should be No shades of Grey for either the Court or the case management. The Status are defined as such to be followed, Not to be interpreted by anyone differently.
Here in the 20th , I can say honestly that only 1 Supervisor and her staff at DCF , Follow the laws, Genuinely, in the best interest of the children and help to the fullest degree, Above and Beyond, To help the children or families reunite.
The Courts, Family Court does not reaffirm Standing orders from Dependency Court, Dependency Court holds NO weight in Family court at all. The entire Family Court system is for profit. Regardless of any standing order, You must BUY your child to have legal custody. The entire Family court system is not in the best interest of the family or the children…
In closing, I have some very strong advice. The 20th Should be investigated and NOW.. Rumors are that several seasoned DCF employees are leaving . Those in charge, have Never done their job to know their job. You are about to see the this circuit implode. Working lunches at the bar are not meant to be.. Lucifer Services supervisors and case managers should not be entertained by DCF Operations.
The click of drunks, Should NOT be openly seen and heard during court recess.
Professionalism is Non-existent, when the public can hear them cursing and bad mouthing fellow workers. One of which was referred too as a fucking cunt for knowing how to do her own job and the job of that OPA . Making sexual remarks about male staff members is very inappropriate to say the least and offensive..
(Not to jeopardize the job of the seasoned well known person, she was speaking of, I will keep that to myself unless needed in the future.)
I will be watching and listening in the coming weeks, The interest of what will be happening is too hard to resist and I sincerely Hope, You take my advise. Remember the Black Eye the media will have in store, as they feed off failure. And, The BEST INTEREST of the families..
Marian B. Scirrotto


“Committed to Change”

“If you can read this, thank a teacher-and, since it’s in English, thank a soldier !!”


And they did NOT take my advise,However,They
DID go back for my grand-daughter !
https://sites.google.com/site/stopflcircuit20dcf/

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Governor Rick Scott Why our Are Children Being Used For Research?

Tricky Ricky I am not a crook? lol
                                                    
I was online and came across this DCF article that goes into the correct procedures to use our children as human research subjects, even to manipulate the environment they are in,
I need to know, we the human race needs to know why in God’s name are you using CHILDREN as guinea pigs?

I call on each and every one who reads this to please Stop this madness!

Call upon our Governor Rick Scott and the First Lady Ann Scott who is the child advocate for Florida to Stop this, please notice the schools and companies listed on the link, how are they benefiting and how is the state of Florida benefiting? http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/admin/publications/policies/215-8.pdf

Even if you are not from Florida please let Rick Scott know that you are not interested in living in a state that uses children as research and if you planned on visiting tell him you will not spend your tourist dollars to help pay for this barbaric practice.

God Bless everyone who will not tolerate this form of abuse. Please pray for our children, and for our Governor Rick Scott and Ann Scott to have an open mind and not be hard hearted, that they will do the right thing.

CFOP 215-8
This operating procedure supersedes CFOP 215-8 dated March 11, 2008.
OPR: PDMH
DISTRIBUTION: B
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF
CF OPERATING PROCEDURE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
NO. 215-8 TALLAHASSEE, June 11, 2010
Safety
INSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT OF HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH
AND INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD DESIGNATION
1. Purpose. The intent of this operating procedure is to provide a structured framework within which
Department staff and contracted providers proposing or conducting research can ensure that the rights
of the individuals that the Department serves, and its employees, are protected. It is the policy of the
Department of Children and Families to uphold its assurance as filed with the federal Department of
Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).
2. Scope. This policy is applicable to all Department and contracted provider staff that engage in, plan
to engage in, or are asked to authorize or support research using human subjects within the
Department’s areas of responsibility.
3. References.
a. 45 Code of Federal Regulations Subparts 46, 160, 162, and 164.
b. 21 CFR Subparts 50, 56, 312 and 812.
c. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
d. Terms of Assurance, Office of Human Research Protections, Department of Health and
Human Services (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/assurance/filasurt.htm).
e. The Belmont Report, 1978 (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm).
4. Definitions. For the purposes of this operating procedure, the following definitions shall apply:
a. Agents. Agents of the Department include all individuals performing institutionally
designated activities or exercising institutionally delegated authority or responsibility.
b. Assent. The affirmative agreement to participate in research. Assent is required even if the
individual’s parent (of child) or legally authorized representative (for child or adult) provides consent.
Failure to voice objection to participate in research does not qualify as assent.
c. Assurance. An agreement that establishes standards for human subjects’ research as
approved by the Office for Human Research Protections.
d. Belmont Report. A report that was issued in 1978 by the National Commission for Protection
of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to explain the fundamental ethical
principles that should guide the conduct of research involving human subjects.
e. Child. As per s. 39.01 (12), Florida Statutes, a child or youth means an unmarried person
under the age of 18 years old who has not been emancipated by order of the court.
June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8
2
f. Department. Department of Children and Families.
g. Dissent. An individual’s negative expressions, verbal and/or non-verbal, that he/she objects
to participation in the research or research activities.
h. Human Subject.
(1) An individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student)
conducting research obtains:
(a) Data (of any kind) through intervention or interaction with the individual; or,
(b) Private identifiable information (see definition below) even in the absence of
intervention or interaction with the individual.
(2) For purposes of this operating procedure, human subjects also include any
Department employees, or persons being served by the Department or by one or more of its contracted
providers, whose relevance to the research is based on his or her connection with the Department or
who is otherwise within the Department’s areas of responsibility and authority.
i. Intervention. Physical procedures by which data are gathered and/or manipulations of the
subject or the subject’s environment that are performed for research purposes.
j. Interaction. Communication or interpersonal contact between investigator(s) and the
research participant, or review of their private identifiable information.
k. Institutional Review Board (IRB). A review body established or designated by an
organization to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects recruited to participate in biomedical or
behavioral/social science research. To be used by a project covered in this operating procedure, an
IRB must be in good standing with the Office for Human Research Protections of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.
l. Legally Authorized Representative. An individual authorized under applicable law to grant
permission for services, treatment, benefits or other activities as determined by the court on behalf of
another person.
m. Memorandum of Understanding. A formal written agreement between the Department of
Children and Families and another institution.
n. Private Identifiable Information. This includes any information that may be linked to the
identity of the subject as defined by HIPAA (e.g., Social Security Number, birth date, agency case
number, address, health plan number, other demographic information, etc.). For the purposes of
human subject research, it also includes information about any behavior that occurs in a setting in
which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place.
o. Provider. Any service provider that contracts with the Department to provide services to
populations of individuals or families on behalf of the Department. A contracted provider is an agent of
the Department for the purposes of this operating procedure.
p. Research. A systematic investigation, including research development, testing and
evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.
June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8
3
5. General.
a. Institutional Commitments.
(1) The Department shall safeguard the rights and welfare of human subjects in
research by ensuring that all human subject research receives approval through a federally approved
Institutional Review Board(s), consistent with general policy established in Florida Public Law 381.86
and 45 CFR 46, 160, 162 and 164.
(2) The Department shall safeguard the rights and welfare of human subjects in clinical
research (of Food and Drug Administration regulated products, including drugs, devices, or biologics)
through rule set forth by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Human Subject Regulations (21 CFR
50, 56, 312, 812) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
(3) The Department shall uphold the ethical principles of the Belmont Report found at
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm and apply Health and Human Services
regulations (45 CFR 46, including subparts A, B, C and D) to all proposed research which is funded or
supported by the Department of Health and Human Services or any other funding source. The ethical
principles set forth in the Belmont Report are summarized as follows:
(a) Respect for Individuals. Recognition of the personal dignity and autonomy of
individuals and the special protection of those persons with diminished autonomy or vulnerability.
(b) Beneficence. The term is often understood to cover acts of kindness or
charity that go beyond strict obligation. Persons are treated in an ethical manner not only by respecting
their decisions and protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure their well-being.
Such treatment falls under the principle of beneficence.
(c) Justice. Persons are treated with fairness in the distribution of research
benefits and burdens. For example, the selection of research subjects needs to be scrutinized in order
to determine whether some classes (e.g., recipients of financial assistance, racial and ethnic minorities,
or persons confined to institutions) are being systematically selected simply because of their easy
availability, their compromised position, or their manipulability, rather than for reasons directly related to
the problem being studied. Finally, whenever research supported by public funds leads to the
development of therapeutic devices and procedures, justice demands that these not provide
advantages only to those who can afford them, and that such research should not unduly involve
persons from groups unlikely to be among the beneficiaries of subsequent applications of the research.
(4) The Department shall offer annual training free of charge for Department employees
and provider staff who engage in research. The training certification is required annually for
investigators and is offered through the Collaborative Institutional Review Board Initiative (CITI) on-line
course hosted by the University of Miami at http://www.miami.edu/citireg/.
b. Human Subject Research/Non-Research Determinations.
(1) The Department’s Human Protections Administrator has the authority to determine
whether activity represents “human subject research” or not in accordance with federal regulation.
(2) Investigators do not have the authority to make an independent determination of
what activity qualifies as not being human subject research. Investigators shall submit a request in
writing to the Department’s Human Protections Administrator to make this determination.
June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8
4
c. Enrollment of Vulnerable Populations in Research (specifically, children, pregnant women,
individuals with mental illness or mental retardation, or prisoners).
(1) Consistent with federal regulations in 45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR 50 and 56, all
research involving vulnerable populations as listed above require special assurances. The Institutional
Review Board is required to ensure that these special assurances are met.
(2) Children will only be enrolled in research with the signed consent of parents or a
legally authorized representative, such as a guardian or the court. Where appropriate, there must also
be an indication of the child’s own assent to participate (when the child is capable of providing such
assent). A waiver of assent can only be granted by the Institutional Review Board.
(3) At no time shall a child in the custody of the Department be allowed to participate in
a clinical trial that is designed to develop new psychotropic medications or evaluate the suitability of
providing medications previously approved for adults to children. This paragraph does not preclude
research that evaluates the consequences of administration of psychotropic medications to children in
state care.
(4) Adults who have a legally authorized representative will only be enrolled in research
with signed consent from the legally authorized representative and assent from the individual. A waiver
of assent can only be granted by the Institutional Review Board.
(5) It is the responsibility of any Department employee or provider agency aware of
proposed research involving children or adults in any way to alert the appropriate Department program
office and the Department’s Human Protections Administrator as soon as it is known. The intent is to
ensure that the investigator(s) are aware of policy and Institutional Review Board requirements, and
that research does not begin until approval is received from the Institutional Review Board and the
Department’s Human Protections Review Committee, as described below.
d. Florida Statewide Advocacy Council.
(1) The Florida Statewide Advocacy Council has access to Institutional Review Board
meetings and to the Department’s Human Protections Review Committee for all research proposed
involving any adult or child served by the Department or its providers, per Section 402.166(7)(d),
Florida Statutes. If the Florida Statewide Advocacy Council has any concerns, the Council may
express those concerns to the Human Protections Administrator or to the Institutional Review Board
directly.
(2) The Human Protections Administrator will serve to resolve any issues that the
Florida Statewide Advocacy Council may have with the proposal concerning constitutional or human
rights.
6. Procedures.
a. Maintenance of a Federal-Wide Assurance (FWA).
(1) The Department’s Federal-Wide Assurance # FWA00004629 shall be maintained by
the Deputy Secretary who is the signatory official for the Department and registered with the Office for
Human Research Protections.
(2) The Deputy Secretary shall appoint a Department employee to function as the
Human Protections Administrator. The primary role of the Human Protections Administrator is to
ensure that Department employees, providers, and anyone acting as an agent of the Department
comply with the Assurance and this operating procedure.
June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8
5
(3) The Human Protections Administrator shall renew the FWA every three years and
ensure that any Memoranda of Understanding (or interagency agreement(s)), when warranted, are
maintained.
(4) The Signatory Official and Human Protections Administrator shall complete the
OHRP Training Modules (see http://137.187.172.153/CBTs/Assurance/login.asp).
b. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Designation.
(1) In lieu of its own IRB, the Department shall agree with and designate one or more
Institutional Review Boards outside of the Department that have valid designations as active
Institutional Review Boards with the Office of Human Research Protections. These IRBs shall be listed
on the Department’s Federal-Wide Assurance (FWA). Current agreements are listed in Appendix A to
this operating procedure.
(2) The Department requires that any person or entity that wants to conduct research
involving individuals who are receiving services from, or on behalf of, the Department, or involves
Department employees, have written approval from an IRB and must provide a copy of the approval
notification to the Department’s Human Protections Administrator.
(3) In addition to IRB approval, the investigator must also have Department approval to
conduct human subject research. While both approvals are required, the investigator should consider
obtaining the Department’s approval before proceeding with an IRB application (see paragraph 6.c.
below regarding Department approval process), as the Department is not obligated to allow IRB
approved research.
(4) A contracted provider is considered to be an agent of the Department, and as such,
is covered under the Department’s Federal-Wide Assurance.
(5) When a contracted provider receives federal funding for research as a result of a
grant from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either through a contract with the
Department of Children and Families, or directly from HHS, the investigator is required to seek approval
from an IRB listed on the Department’s FWA. However, if the provider has their own IRB (and thus,
has their own FWA) in good standing with the Office of Human Research Protections, the investigator
may seek IRB approval through the provider’s designated IRB. If this designated IRB is not listed on
the Department’s FWA, the investigator must work with the Human Subjects Administrator to ensure its
addition to the FWA.
(6) When the research is unfunded or funded by any source other than the Federal
government, the investigator may use any IRB as long as the institution has a valid and active IRB
designation by the OHRP.
(7) If the investigator is not an employee or agent of the Department, he/she shall
complete an Individual Investigator Agreement (Appendix B to this operating procedure) prior to
approval from the Department’s Human Protections Review Committee (see paragraph 6.c. below). If
the investigator does not have access to an IRB through his or her own institution, the Department has
an agreement with Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB) which enables any DCF-approved
investigation to be reviewed for the relevant fee. Information about WIRB, including instructions for
submission of proposals, may be found on their web site at http://www.wirb.com/. The Department’s
Human Subjects Administrator can provide additional information. .
(8) The investigator is responsible for any fees charged by an IRB unless the research
project is specifically requested or designed by the Department. In this case, the Department will pay
June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8
6
the fees through contract or agreement with the IRB, or through a payment mechanism with the
investigator, such as a contract or Direct Order.
(9) Investigators must comply with the principles established in the Belmont Report, this
operating procedure, the policies and procedures of the Institutional Review Board, and all references
herein.
(10) The Department shall execute a Memorandum of Understanding with each
Institutional Review Board listed in its FWA.
c. Establishment of the Department’s Human Protections Review Committee (HPRC) and
Submission of Research Proposals for Department Review.
(1) The HPRC shall be established by the Department’s signatory official to review and
approve all human subject research activity prior to the research beginning to ensure that the scope of
the research falls within the mission of the Department. This committee is not an Institutional Review
Board and does not replace the need for IRB approval; however, its permission to conduct the
proposed research is required. This committee shall include appropriate program office personnel
designated to serve on the committee by the Deputy Secretary of the Department. At a minimum, the
HPRC shall include the Assistant Secretary for Programs, or his or her designee authorized to approve
research proposals, and the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, or his or her
designee authorized to approve research proposals.
(2) The HPRC shall be chaired and coordinated by the Human Protections
Administrator. The HPRC shall meet as needed to review all research proposals submitted.
(3) This internal review serves the purpose of alerting the appropriate program office of
the proposed research and giving the appropriate personnel the opportunity to express support,
withhold support, and discuss concerns. The concerns will be communicated to the investigator
through the Human Protections Administrator as soon as possible following the meeting. The
Department shall provide the investigator with a written statement of approval or disapproval within 5
days of the HPRC meeting, or following the resolution of any concerns.
(4) The Department reserves the right to disallow any research proposal, regardless of
IRB approval. However, all research must receive HPRC and IRB approval prior to commencement.
Program offices of the Department may require additional review and approval processes, but
authorization is subject to final decision by the Human Protections Review Committee.
(5) All research proposals, regardless of funding source and IRB approval, must be
electronically submitted via email to the Department’s Human Protections Administrator. The contact
information for the Human Protections Administrator can be found on the Department’s website at
http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/admin/publications/humanResearch.shtml.
(6) The research proposal submitted to the Human Protections Administrator by the
investigator shall include a narrative description that includes the following:
(a) The name, address, email addresses, and phone numbers of all investigators
involved in the proposed research;
(b) The name of the organization(s) involved in the research project;
(c) The funding source(s) for the research;
June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8
7
(d) The specific subject population served by, or working for, the Department
and a list of the specific locations where the research will take place;
(e) A description of the research proposal and its purpose;
(f) A discussion of the level of risk associated with the research and how the
risks will be minimized;
(g) Name and FWA number of Institutional Review Board that applies to this
research project; and,
(h) Any other relevant documentation related to the research project that is
requested by the Department.
(7) Once received, the IRB approval letter shall be sent to the Human Protections
Administrator prior to commencement of the research.
(8) The investigator may submit a copy of the research proposal and application that the
investigator plans to submit to the designated IRB in lieu of the above narrative description as long as
the aforementioned documents contain all of the information described above in paragraph 6.c.(6).
f. Reporting of Adverse Events. The Human Protections Administrator will ensure prompt
reporting of the following events to the Department’s Deputy Secretary, the HRPC, the IRB who
approved the research project, and the Office of Human Research Protections:
(1) Unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others;
(2) Serious or continuing noncompliance with the federal regulations or the
requirements or determinations of the IRB; and,
(3) Suspension or termination of HRPC or IRB approval.
BY DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY:
(Signed original copy on file)
DON WINSTEAD
Deputy Secretary
June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8
Appendix A to CFOP 215-8
Institutional Review Boards
Listed on Department of Children and Families’
Federal-Wide Assurance
FWA # Institution Name
FWA00001669 University of South Florida 01A
Medical A, 02 Behavioral A, 01B
Medical A, 01C Medical A, 01D
Medical (IRB) (IRB00000362,
IRB00000363, IRB00001786,
IRB00001787, IRB00001884)
FWA00005790 University of Florida #1 A, #2 A, #3 A
(IRB00000335, IRB00000336,
IRB00000337)
FWA00003331 Research Triangle International #1A,
#2A, #3 A (IRB00000653, IRB00000654,
IRB00000655)
FWA00000340 Public/Private Ventures (IRB #1 A
(IRB00000830)
FWA00005897 Western IRB #1-8, #11-14, & #35 A
(IRB00000533)
FWA00004801 U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
IRB #8 – Behavioral A (IRB00000543)
FWA00005551 Westat Inc. #1A (IRB00000695)
Not applicable Independent Review Consulting, Inc.
(IRC) IRB #1 A ( IRB00000762)
June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8
Appendix B to CFOP 215-8
Individual Investigator Agreement
Name of Institution with the Federal-wide Assurance (FWA): Florida Department of Children
and Families
Applicable FWA #: FWA00004629
Individual Investigator’s Name:_______________________________________________________
Specify Research Covered by this Agreement:___________________________________________
Institutional Review Board:___________________________________________________________
(1) The above-named Individual Investigator has reviewed: a) The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles
and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (or other internationally
recognized equivalent; see section B.1. of the Terms of the Federal-wide Assurance (FWA) for
International (Non-U.S.) Institutions); b) the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
regulations for the protection of human subjects at 45 CFR part 46 (or other procedural standards;
see section B.3. of the Terms of the FWA for International (Non-U.S.) Institutions); c) the FWA and
applicable Terms of the FWA for the institution referenced above; and d) the relevant institutional
policies and procedures for the protection of human subjects.
(2) The Investigator understands and hereby accepts the responsibility to comply with the standards and
requirements stipulated in the above documents and to protect the rights and welfare of human
subjects involved in research conducted under this Agreement.
(3) The Investigator will comply with all other applicable federal, international, state, and local laws,
regulations, and policies that may provide additional protection for human subjects participating in
research conducted under this agreement.
(4) The Investigator will abide by all determinations of the Institutional Review Board
(IRB)/Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) listed above and will accept the final authority and
decisions of the IRB/IEC, including but not limited to directives to terminate participation in
designated research activities.
(5) The Investigator will complete any educational training required by the Institution and/or the
IRB/IEC prior to initiating research covered under this Agreement.
(6) The Investigator will report promptly to the IRB/IEC any proposed changes in the research
conducted under this Agreement. The investigator will not initiate changes in the research without
prior IRB/IEC review and approval, except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate
hazards to subjects.
(7) The Investigator will report immediately to the IRB/IEC any unanticipated problems involving risks
to subjects or others in research covered under this Agreement.
June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8
B-2
(8) The Investigator, when responsible for enrolling subjects, will obtain, document, and maintain
records of informed consent for each such subject or each subject’s legally authorized representative
as required under HHS regulations at 45 CFR part 46 (or any other international or national
procedural standards selected on the FWA for the institution referenced above) and stipulated by the
IRB/IEC.
(9) The Investigator acknowledges and agrees to cooperate in the IRB/IEC’s responsibility for initial
and continuing review, record keeping, reporting, and certification for the research referenced
above. The Investigator will provide all information requested by the IRB/IEC in a timely fashion.
(10) The Investigator will not enroll subjects in research under this Agreement prior to its review and
approval by the IRB/IEC.
(11) Emergency medical care may be delivered without IRB/IEC review and approval to the extent
permitted under applicable federal regulations and state law.
(12) This Agreement does not preclude the Investigator from taking part in research not covered by this
Agreement.
(13) The Investigator acknowledges that he/she is primarily responsible for safeguarding the rights and
welfare of each research subject, and that the subject’s rights and welfare must take precedence over
the goals and requirements of the research.
Investigator Signature:____________________________________________ Date_____________
Name:______________________________________________________ Degree(s):_____________
(Last) (First) (Middle Initial)
Address:__________________________________________________ Phone #:________________
___________________________________________________
(City) (State/Province) (Zip/Country)
FWA Institutional Official (or Designee):_______________________________ Date___________
Name:______________________________________________ Institutional Title:_______________
(Last) (First) (Middle Initial)
Address: Department of Children and Families 1317 Winewood Blvd. Phone #:_______________
Tallahassee, FL. 32399, US
(City) (State/Province) (Zip/Country)