You can look for this at The Library of Congress Website for more information. It was passed by the House on March 30 and now is being considered by the Senate.

Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HR 20 EH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

AN ACT

To provide for research on, and services for individuals with, postpartum depression and psychosis.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act’ or the `Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act–

(1) the term `postpartum condition’ means postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis; and

(2) the term `Secretary’ means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

TITLE I–RESEARCH ON POSTPARTUM CONDITIONS

SEC. 101. EXPANSION AND INTENSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES.

(a) Continuation of Activities- The Secretary is encouraged to continue activities on postpartum conditions.

(b) Programs for Postpartum Conditions- In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary is encouraged to continue research to expand the understanding of the causes of, and treatments for, postpartum conditions. Activities under such subsection shall include conducting and supporting the following:

(1) Basic research concerning the etiology and causes of the conditions.

(2) Epidemiological studies to address the frequency and natural history of the conditions and the differences among racial and ethnic groups with respect to the conditions.

(3) The development of improved screening and diagnostic techniques.

(4) Clinical research for the development and evaluation of new treatments.

(5) Information and education programs for health care professionals and the public, which may include a coordinated national campaign to increase the awareness and knowledge of postpartum conditions. Activities under such a national campaign may–

(A) include public service announcements through television, radio, and other means; and

(B) focus on–

(i) raising awareness about screening;

(ii) educating new mothers and their families about postpartum conditions to promote earlier diagnosis and treatment; and

(iii) ensuring that such education includes complete information concerning postpartum conditions, including its symptoms, methods of coping with the illness, and treatment resources.

SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF RELATIVE MENTAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES FOR WOMEN OF RESOLVING A PREGNANCY.

(a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health may conduct a nationally representative longitudinal study (during the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2018) of the relative mental health consequences for women of resolving a pregnancy (intended and unintended) in various ways, including carrying the pregnancy to term and parenting the child, carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the child for adoption, miscarriage, and having an abortion. This study may assess the incidence, timing, magnitude, and duration of the immediate and long-term mental health consequences (positive or negative) of these pregnancy outcomes.

(b) Report- Beginning not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and periodically thereafter for the duration of the study, such Director may prepare and submit to the Congress reports on the findings of the study.

TITLE II–DELIVERY OF SERVICES REGARDING POSTPARTUM CONDITIONS

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF GRANT PROGRAM.

Subpart I of part D of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 330G the following:

`SEC. 330G-1. SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH A POSTPARTUM CONDITION AND THEIR FAMILIES.

`(a) In General- The Secretary may make grants to eligible entities for projects for the establishment, operation, and coordination of effective and cost-efficient systems for the delivery of essential services to individuals with a postpartum condition and their families.

`(b) Certain Activities- To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall ensure that projects funded under subsection (a) provide education and services with respect to the diagnosis and management of postpartum conditions. The Secretary may allow such projects to include the following:

`(1) Delivering or enhancing outpatient and home-based health and support services, including case management and comprehensive treatment services for individuals with or at risk for postpartum conditions, and delivering or enhancing support services for their families.

`(2) Delivering or enhancing inpatient care management services that ensure the well-being of the mother and family and the future development of the infant.

`(3) Improving the quality, availability, and organization of health care and support services (including transportation services, attendant care, homemaker services, day or respite care, and providing counseling on financial assistance and insurance) for individuals with a postpartum condition and support services for their families.

`(4) Providing education to new mothers and, as appropriate, their families about postpartum conditions to promote earlier diagnosis and treatment. Such education may include–

`(A) providing complete information on postpartum conditions, symptoms, methods of coping with the illness, and treatment resources; and

`(B) in the case of a grantee that is a State, hospital, or birthing facility–

`(i) providing education to new mothers and fathers, and other family members as appropriate, concerning postpartum conditions before new mothers leave the health facility; and

`(ii) ensuring that training programs regarding such education are carried out at the health facility.

`(c) Integration With Other Programs- To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary may integrate the grant program under this section with other grant programs carried out by the Secretary, including the program under section 330.

`(d) Certain Requirements- A grant may be made under this section only if the applicant involved makes the following agreements:

`(1) Not more than 5 percent of the grant will be used for administration, accounting, reporting, and program oversight functions.

`(2) The grant will be used to supplement and not supplant funds from other sources related to the treatment of postpartum conditions.

`(3) The applicant will abide by any limitations deemed appropriate by the Secretary on any charges to individuals receiving services pursuant to the grant. As deemed appropriate by the Secretary, such limitations on charges may vary based on the financial circumstances of the individual receiving services.

`(4) The grant will not be expended to make payment for services authorized under subsection (a) to the extent that payment has been made, or can reasonably be expected to be made, with respect to such services–

`(A) under any State compensation program, under an insurance policy, or under any Federal or State health benefits program; or

`(B) by an entity that provides health services on a prepaid basis.

`(5) The applicant will, at each site at which the applicant provides services funded under subsection (a), post a conspicuous notice informing individuals who receive the services of any Federal policies that apply to the applicant with respect to the imposition of charges on such individuals.

`(6) For each grant period, the applicant will submit to the Secretary a report that describes how grant funds were used during such period.

`(e) Technical Assistance- The Secretary may provide technical assistance to entities seeking a grant under this section in order to assist such entities in complying with the requirements of this section.

`(f) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) The term `eligible entity’ means a public or nonprofit private entity, which may include a State or local government; a public or nonprofit private recipient of a grant under section 330H (relating to the Healthy Start Initiative), public-private partnership, hospital, community-based organization, hospice, ambulatory care facility, community health center, migrant health center, public housing primary care center, or homeless health center; or any other appropriate public or nonprofit private entity.

`(2) The term `postpartum condition’ means postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis.’.

TITLE III–GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

To carry out this Act and the amendment made by section 201, there are authorized to be appropriated, in addition to such other sums as may be available for such purpose–

(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and

(2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

SEC. 302. REPORT BY THE SECRETARY.

(a) Study- The Secretary shall conduct a study on the benefits of screening for postpartum conditions.

(b) Report- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the study required by subsection (a) and submit a report to the Congress on the results of such study.

SEC. 303. LIMITATION.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or the amendment made by section 201, the Secretary may not utilize amounts made available under this Act or such amendment to carry out activities or programs that are duplicative of activities or programs that are already being carried out through the Department of Health and Human Services.

Passed the House of Representatives March 30, 2009.

The Hampshire Social Services caseworkers don’t want us to read this story. In fact, they placed an injunction against the Mail Online news site when they found out the story was in the hands of an investigative reporter there. That was two months ago; the Mail pursued a legal fight to get the injunction lifted so that Michael Shergold’s CPS story could be told.

Michael Shergold, 55, is the father of four children – the three he raised and the one he wasn’t aware of until social workers sent him a letter asking him to get in touch. They told him a woman he’d had a brief relationship with had a child which was taken from her on child cruelty charges.

They found the child an adoptive home in 2006 and didn’t bother contacting Michael Shergold until January 2007 even though he’s lived in the same house for the last 11 years and wasn’t hard to find. At first they strung him along, pretending they would evaluate his home as a permanent home for the boy. The evaluations included a series of invasive questioning sessions.

The true reason that Social Services caseworkers contacted Michael Shergold was that they wanted him to donate one of his organs to the boy because the boy’s mother has already refused. Her reason: she wants to have more children!

Last November a judge ruled that Michael Shergold could not have custody because it would be too disruptive to the child. Was it because he had remarried – this time to an American woman of color? Two days later the child was formally adopted out to his foster parents.

Though Michael Sherwood and his other children are not allowed to see this child, the social worker still wants him to agree to donate his body part so the child won’t die.

The statement Social Services made on this matter is jaw dropping:

What kind of NONSENSE is that? This man was robbed of his child under color of law. Those responsible have apparently committed what I consider a treasonous offense against a British citizen. This is shameful and reprehensible. These social workers and the judge(s) that agreed to this injustice should be held liable and punished.

The mother who concealed this child from Michael Shergold was found guilty of child cruelty, but is allowed to see her son even though he’s been adopted. Mr. Shergold, who is guilty of nothing, and who has a long-time steady job, a stable home and marriage, and plenty of successful parenting experience, is not allowed to see his son. He is only allowed that “contribution he could make to his son’s life” meaning an operation to remove one of his vital organs.

Where’s the justice?

Source: ‘You can’t see your son – but can he have one of your organs?’: how social workers left one man with a terrible moral dilemma by Alison Smith Squire, published on November 2, 2008 in the MailOnline.

Those publicized pleas for more foster “parents” are an open invitation to child predators who want to harm other people’s children in an unsupervised living arrangement.

Here we have yet another case that proves this point:

“Bergthold admitted that during the time he acted as a foster parent for the Arkansas Department of Human Services, he had sexual contact with and produced several photos and videos of a minor who had been placed in Bergthold’s care and custody.”

“Bergthold also pleaded guilty on the same day to a one-count criminal information filed in the District of Oregon, which was later transferred to the Western District of Arkansas, that charged a separate incident of production of child pornography in Oregon.”

Source: Former Foster Parent Sentenced for Production and Transportation of Child Pornography published by Market Watch, the online version of The Wall Street Journal, on Aug. 21, 2008.

I’ve been getting a lot of comments and emails saying “Please someone, do something to help me!” This is the answer. – ljm
…

Child protective services caseworkers almost always go to court working against you. At court the judge can and often does rule in favor of the families and against the social meddlers.

Be dignified around caseworkers – do not lose your temper. Do not let them see you in fear. Do not bother trying to kiss up to the caseworker. Do not try to give them more evidence of how good you are. Your evidence is to be shared with your lawyer and presented in court to the judge or juvenile court referee. If you give evidence to a caseworker you’ll find out everything you say can be twisted and used against you. This is a LEGAL case. Caseworkers are not nice friendly do-gooders trying to help you.

Caseworkers are your adversaries, though they are very deceptive and pretend to be your friend so they can get more evidence against you. What they do is practice sick deception for family destruction. They spend their days preparing a case against YOU.

To win in juvenile court and get a judge to rule in your favor, you must be able to present “a preponderance of the evidence”. That’s the standard of proof needed in juvenile court. To come up with a preponderance of the evidence, you must give the court more documentation & evidence than the other side.

Listen, very few of us are ever gifted with a good lawyer. We won (those of us who did) through our own hard work. We gathered the evidence. We documented things in writing and on tape. We typed up our own legal documents. We learned how to do it because we had to, for the well-being of our children trapped in the inhumane child “welfare” system.

If you feel you can’t type your own legal documents, then find a typist or paralegal to do it for you at a lot less than an attorney charges.

You can give your compiled legal documents and evidence to your attorney for review. Be sure to do it a few weeks before court so there’s time for the attorney to look it over and file it at the county clerk’s office for you. If the attorney won’t talk to you send the documents via certified mail along with a letter demanding his time and response on the documents so you’ll be prepared for court. You deserve fair representation – be sure your attorney knows you’re aware of the law.

If it’s too late for that – prepare legal documents anyway. The judge may accept them in court. Be sure you have plenty of copies for the judge, your attorney, the child’s attorney and the CPS attorney. You may have to ask for a continuance while your attorney deals with your compiled legal documents and evidence.

Use online resources, and help from friends, but mainly – it’s up to YOU.

PREPARE for court.
…

See these sample documents: The FightCPS Legal Document Library

…
Written by Linda Martin for Fight CPS.

A wheelchair-bound mother in Montana won a special needs trust of $50,000 from the state. Her child will receive $100,000, and her attorney fees and costs will be paid. The lawyer gets $180,000. The Health and Human “Services” agency, also known as Children and Family “Services” (CFS) gets mud on its face and a debt to pay.

Geri Glass filed suit against the state of Montana because CFS social workers violated her rights and then retaliated against her when she complained.

Very important to those of you fighting false child abuse and neglect charges, it should be noted that when Geri Glass’ case was reported on in the media, the CFS agency dropped its investigation. They were apparently more worried about their own reputation than about possible problems with Glass’ child.

Source: State settles with disabled mother by Matt Gouras of the Associated Press, published May 10, 2008 in the Helena Independent Record.

…
Written by Linda Martin for Fight CPS.