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.

Friday, September 30, 2011

Records of the Indiana Department of Child Services reveal that Christian Choate.

Christian Choate

Christian Choate, Boy Who Died Locked In Cage, Wrote About Abuse And Desire To Die


Records of the Indiana Department of Child Services reveal that Christian Choate, a boy who authorities claim lived locked in a cage and died from savage abuse, wrote letters describing his situation and saying that he wanted to die.
According to the Chicago Tribune, DCS visited with the Choate family in Gary, Indiana more than a dozen times starting in 1999, investigating allegations of abuse and neglect. Authorities never discovered what prosecutors claim was the true depth of the misery in which young Christian lived.
Based on accounts from his sister and stepsister, Christian, who died in 2009 at age 13, spent much of the last year of his life locked in a three-foot-high dog cage, with little food and drink and few opportunities to leave. When he did get out of the cage, he endured savage beatings from his father Riley.
One night in April of 2009, Christian was too weak to keep his food down. His father allegedly beat him to the point of unconsciousness, then locked his limp body in the cage.
The next morning, his sister Christina found him dead.
According to investigators, Riley then buried the boy in a shallow grave, covered his body in concrete, and moved with Christina to Kentucky, where he threatened to harm her if she ever told anyone about his death. It would be two years before his body was found.
One of the reasons his absence wasn't noticed was that his stepmother, Kimberly Kubina, took him out of school, saying that he was being home-schooled.
The extent of that homeschooling was revealed in some letters found by DCS. When other children were out playing, Kubina would give Christian paper and tell him to write.
"Christian wrote of why nobody liked him and how he just wanted to be liked by his family," a DCS document wrote, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. "Christian stated that he wanted to die because nobody liked the way he 'acted.' Christian's writings detail a very sad, depressed child who often wondered when someone, anyone, was going to come check on him and give him food or liquid. Christian often stated he was hungry or thirsty."
In a still more disturbing twist, the Northwest Indiana Times reveals some of the assignments his stepmother gave:
Kubina wrote topics on top of some of the pages including, "Why do you want to play with your peter? Why do you still want to see your mom? Why can't you let the past go? What does it mean to be part of a family?" DCS records state.
Riley Choate and Kimberly Kubina have been charged with murder, battery, neglect of a dependent, confinement, obstruction of justice, moving a body from a death scene and failure to notify authorities of a dead body. They have both pleaded not guilty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/26/christian-choate-boy-who-_n_884731.html

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Child Protective Services in Brazoria County, HOUSTON Texas Is Being Ordered To Stay Away From A Child

Mother accuses CPS of neglecting child

by Jeremy Desel / KHOU 11 News
khou.com
Posted on September 29, 2011 at 12:12 AM
Updated yesterday at 12:21 AM


HOUSTON – Child Protective Services is being ordered to stay away from a child, due to what happened to the girl while she was in the agency’s custody.

Jaime Brown, the girl’s mother, said it’s been a long fight.

"I felt very helpless. Very helpless, and very alone," she said.

Brown’s daughter was taken from her by Child Protective Services in July of 2009, because of allegations of neglect.

Brown claims it is all a big mix-up.

"I was horrified. I did not know what was happening. I wanted to help her and I couldn't," she said.

After 18 months in a CPS overseen group home 14-year-old Christianne ran.

”The case worker called (her) mom and said she ran away, but you find her, you can keep her," said Julie Ketterman, the Brown’s attorney.

That is exactly what her mother did. After Brown found her daughter and made sure that she was safe, her attorney went to court turning the tables on CPS asking for a protective order against Child Protective Services, because of what allegedly happened when Christianne was in CPS's care.

"She was beat up quite a bit. There was the running away. She has braces and the wires were literally falling off of her teeth," Ketterman said.

In August of this year the Brazoria County court ruled in her favor granting a protective order saying:

"(CPS) engaged in conduct constituting family violence and good cause exists for issuance of a protective order...in best interest of the child."

It is a one-page ruling with big potential impact.

"It could snowball," said Ketterman.

That is because if you apply CPS's own rules when it comes to child placement, CPS may now have a problem.

"If there is a finding of child abuse or neglect or family violence, then you no longer qualify to have a child placed," said Ketterman.

Now it is the agency itself that now has this finding of abuse. A hearing in Brazoria County could make the order against CPS permanent for two years. We contacted CPS and the agency told us simply that they would be answering the allegations in court.


http://www.khou.com/news/Mother-accuses-CPS-of-neglecting-child-130758708.html

Houston Texas

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

CPS Michigan Has Way Too Much Power

Yes They Have Way To Much Power!

May 7, 2011
State taking your kids… Too much power?
http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/state-taking-your-kids
(WXYZ) – All parents make mistakes. But in Michigan, one mistake can cost you your child. Critics say it’s happening all too often.
Legal experts say one of the reasons kids are getting wrenched from their parents is because we have one of the worst laws in the country when it comes to how and when the state can take your children.
You probably remember the “Mike’s Hard Lemonade” case – where a University of Michigan professor accidentally gave his 7-year-old son alcoholic lemonade at a Tiger’s game. By all accounts it was an honest mistake.
The dad in that case had never heard of Mike’s Hard Lemonade and had no idea it was for adults.
But legal experts tell Action News the chain of events that led to that boy being put in foster care isn’t unique.
On Sunday, on Action News at 11, Investigator Heather Catallo digs deep into what many call a broken system.
Catallo also takes a close look at something called the “guilt by association” problem – where even a parent who isn’t accused of anything can get caught up in the court system and risks losing the rights to their own child.

https://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/category/abuse-by-cps/

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Governor Christie Of New Jersey Stop the abuse of Abdulrahman In Foster Care

PLEASE HELP BRING ABDU HOME
This is a pdf file and you may need adobe reader to view it. You can download adobe by clicking here.
PLEASE HELP BRING ABDULRAHMAN HOME 
Only a few pictures are included that show the abuse AbdulRahman received while in foster "care". Meanwhile you can check out our facebook page at
This page was created to help FREE AbdulRahman from his misery.
If you would like to help us SAVE him from more harm & torture. 
When your scroll through these images I want you to imagine this as your own child, your niece of nephew or even yourself as a child. Would you tolerate this? Is this acceptable in a country that claims to be the leader of democracy and human rights? How can a Judge claim these are normal bruises?


How can the judge dismiss the social workers testimony that this child shakes and shivers and hides under the table when he sees the Foster "mother" approach? How can you stand by letting this happen in our great ad just country. We must stand up for AbdulRahman and all those innocent children who the NJ DYFS has turned into hell on earth and allowed them to be molested, physically and emotionally abused?? We need the governor of NJ to look into this immediately, we need the US President and the First lady to look into this immediately. 

There is still time to fix this mistake DYFS did, and this child can still be helped! Lets at least give him 10% of the attention the puppy in Iraq got and get something done about this.

Please, if you know of anyone in the NJ area that can help this child be reunited with his loving and caring child, please email us at helpmychildnow@gmail.com

Abdul is still in custody of the Abusive foster "family" along with another child. We Need to get them out of there before they are killed and it's too late to save them.

Let's not wait for solutions after body bags!
Let's Help these Children Out Of that abusive home NOW!

They are relying on us all, as parents, as communities, as humans, as brothers and sisters, as AMERICANS!

Contact NJ Governor Through his website & Call and voice your concern.

Go to drop down menu and select "Children & Families"
Then hit continue, that will take you to step 2 where you select the sub-topic "Abuse" and fill out your information include under the relation box "Concerned citizen" Then express your feelings in the "Message" Box and click on "send your message".

Please do not disappoint this poor child in need of your help.

You can call them at (609)777-2500

Or send them a letter at the address below & mention the 
childs name
AbdulRahman Khalil.
DOB 04/19/2004
Office of the Governor
PO Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625

To listen to audio files click on the underlined text for each file.






Bruises on his forehead and cheeks. :(



Bruises all over his little body by the incompetent Foster "mother"



The marks of abuse are now permanent on AbdulRahmans Face! We can't wait until he gets killed or kills himself if he ever gets to grow up! Every person responsible for such trauma should be held accountable starting from the Judge that dismissed these abuses as "normal bruises children have"!




(Above) AbdulRahmans dad on his last visitation about 2 years ago, writing "I LUV U" on the glass of the car before his son was taken away from him not be seen again. NJ DYFS did this and we want every person held accountable for the trauma the child has been put through!


(Below)These are not pictures of Iraqi prisoners overseas. These are marks of abuse in NJ perpetrated against and innocent child by who is supposed to care for the child.


The picture above was the last time the father had contact with his child. They did not know this was their final Good Bye. Let us all reunite them! Please help the father "who was never abusive" reunite with his child. Let us stop the heartache, the misery, the trauma both the child and father go through on a daily basis.



How can someone, anyone, have the heart to inflict such injuries on such a beautiful child?
How can any Judge or Authority allow this to happen and dismiss a childs cry for help as "normal"
Please help!

Friday, September 23, 2011

STOP PLACER COUNTY CORRUPTION

DEAL OR NO DEAL?


                                                     

Deal or No deal? That is the question!

After the last criminal hearing Connie's attorney made a demand to the District Attorney to dismiss all the charges.  Since then, the DA has come up with a deal for Connie Bedwell for the next hearing.  Which leads us to the recent hearing last week on September 13, 2011 regarding this offer.

In case you aren't aware, Placer County is attempting to prosecute Ms Bedwell for using her constitutional right of freedom of speech to speak out about the illegal actions the court and authorities have made to cover the illegal actions of Dustin Thompson molesting and physically abusing their daughter Aaliyah. These charges consist of penal code 273.6a on three counts, violating an unconstitutional Restraining Order that prevents her from speaking out to the public. The three specifics of these charges are Charge 1) the http://www.SaveAaliyah.com site being up on the Internet where you can find further accurate factual information on the case; Charge 2) The infamous "Daddy's Worm" video on the Internet where you see Aaliyah at 2 1/2 years old explain what her father is doing to her. Keep in mind that the court has not allowed the original 27 minute video into the court violating Connies due process rights; Charge 3) is for Connie speaking
on a private Twitter account about the case, which I personally feel is absurd given she speaks daily on Facebook in front of 8,000 people and has been featured on  multiple radio shows exposing this blatant corruption, what's one more Twitter account? Dustin Thompson's father, John David Thompson, is the one who personally took the time and effort of putting together the packet of 501 pages he chose to print off the Internet for these bogus charges. He was the one who sat in the police station eight plus times trying to get Connie arrested for talking about what he and his poor excuse of a son are doing to Aaliyah. Tax payers should be outraged at the fact Placer County has wasted an entire year on illegal charges on this mother just to silence her. The charges don't stop here, imagine that?

Placer County stacked more charges on Connie earlier this year when Dustin Thompson planned an orchestrated attack on Connie on Saturday February 26, 2011. We discuss the details of this violent attack in our last blog here at Stop Placer County Corruption, be sure to read it.

There are many details along with factual information pro-Connie's case to add to this particular incident, but it is still possible there might be a pending trial in front of a jury soon in which the evidence will then be presented.

The three more recent charges are two counts of felonious battery and one count for violating a Restraining Order. The DA has already dropped the recent count of violation of the RO. I think we can safely assume that particular charge was dropped due to the fact it's clear even by Mr Thompson's contradictory stories told in the police report that Connie was indeed at the location by her home first before she was attacked. Don't forget Connie has filed 4 Restraining Orders in two different states to protect her daughter and herself from Mr Thompson's stalking, harassing, physical and sexual assaults. Clearly he is still at it.

THE OFFER:

The offer from the DA consists of dropping all of these charges except one battery charge. The word around the block is the DA wants nothing to do with the 3 unconstitutional charges violating her freedom of speech; they know they don't have a case against her and a lawsuit against them is in the works. The 3 illegal orders freedom of speech violations are what the court claims as reason to illegally keep Aaliyah from seeing and speaking to her mother, Connie. They have illegally alienated the two of them from each other for two whole years now based on these unconstitutional orders.

As far as the battery charges, I've seen witness testimony letters, evidence gathered off the net, IP addresses, threatening emails, threatening posts, the very inconsistant police report statements by Dustin Thompson, pictures of injuries and the list goes on and on. According to Connies attorney, "Placer County doesn't have a case." This case can easily be summed up by simply saying, It's not illegal for someone to defend themselves when they are assaulted by a stalking Dustin and his 3 accomplices, one assaulting Connie and her father with a weapon.  

Connie has fought long and hard for the truth without backing down an inch for the protection of her child. So I asked protective mother Connie Bedwell about the DA's offer, "Deal or No Deal?"

Her un-surprising answer: "NO DEAL!"

Thank you for reading.

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)