GUILTY OR - Jeanette Maples, 15, dies of abuse, torture in Eugene, 9 Dec 2009

[LCoastMom]

an editorial:

http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/27695711-47/jeanette-state-maples-abuse-child.html.csp

A settlement awarding $1.5 million to the estate of Jeanette Marie Maples serves as a grating reminder that there is no adequate measure of justice for the murdered Eugene teenager. Not in this world, anyway.

<<snipped>>

The state’s agreement to pay $1.5 million to Jeanette’s estate leaves a particularly bad taste. A third of the money will go to Portland attorney David Paul and the rest to his client Anthony Maples, Jeanette’s biological father and her only legal heir under Oregon law. He will get the money despite his lack of involvement in his daughter’s life. Court records show the father had nine drug possession convictions between 1990 and 2008.

more at link...

 

[PHB]

article states mcanulty's kids are still in foster care. doesn't she have any relatives who can take them?

 

[Missizzy]

Being an Oregonian, I'm ashamed to admit that the children are placed in "permanent foster care". This is expressly contrary to the federal mandates concerning permanency and parity. The children should be adopted but in order to maintain subsidies and services, the state of Oregon requires families to maintain their children in limbo. Don't think that I haven't worked hard against these ridiculous rules for years!!

Please don't cast blame on the foster parents. This is actually the only way that they can serve their children appropriately.

 

[PHB]

mizzizzy,
i'm sorry can you elaborate? what is "permanent foster care"? i thought if a parent has their kids removed/goes to prison, the state would rather a relative take them, if possible, before putting them in foster care. i would guess it would be less traumatic for the kids, and cheaper for the state. is that not the case? TIA

 

[Missizzy]

Relative placement is often the first choice but please remember that kinship care also involves parity in funding (equal access to foster care or adoption assistance subsidies) but is not always possible.

When a foster family informs a judge that they'd like to be a permanent resource for a child, that child is federally mandated to be tracked for adoption with that family. Some states are woefully out of compliance on this issue and Oregon is one of those states. In other words, the child will continue in a permanent placement with a foster family--receiving a foster care payment until age 18.

Per the Child Welfare Act of 1980, Section IV-E, this same family is actually eligible to receive an adoption assistance subsidy, equal to but no more than the foster care rate. Studies prove that children who are legally adopted achieve a greater level of permanence, and thus success, than children who remain in foster care.

Oregon has long practiced "permanent foster care". A family might express the desire to have the child remain with them but there is no legal adoption. Because of this fact, the permanence is somewhat tenuous, in my opinion, and the child is deprived of adoption. I find it shameful that families are effectively forced to continue in a foster situation in order to receive adequate financial support for their child.

 

[PHB]

Relative placement is often the first choice but please remember that kinship care also involves parity in funding (equal access to foster care or adoption assistance subsidies) but is not always possible.

When a foster family informs a judge that they'd like to be a permanent resource for a child, that child is federally mandated to be tracked for adoption with that family. Some states are woefully out of compliance on this issue and Oregon is one of those states. In other words, the child will continue in a permanent placement with a foster family--receiving a foster care payment until age 18.

Per the Child Welfare Act of 1980, Section IV-E, this same family is actually eligible to receive an adoption assistance subsidy, equal to but no more than the foster care rate. Studies prove that children who are legally adopted achieve a greater level of permanence, and thus success, than children who remain in foster care.

Oregon has long practiced "permanent foster care". A family might express the desire to have the child remain with them but there is no legal adoption. Because of this fact, the permanence is somewhat tenuous, in my opinion, and the child is deprived of adoption. I find it shameful that families are effectively forced to continue in a foster situation in order to receive adequate financial support for their child.

But a relative is still the 1st choice if the family is suitable?
And the family gets the subsidy even if they are related to the child?
And in other words, theres no way in Oregon to permanently adopt a child that was placed with you as a foster child, despite a 30+ year old federal law??
Sorry if i sound a bit naive, I had no idea it was that complicated. My mother worked for child services (not sure what they call it here) in the 60s, before becoming a probation officer.

 

[Missizzy]

PHB-- Yes, yes and yes. A relative family is almost always first choice but is not always available or appropriate. A relative family also qualifies for an adoption subsidy. And you are correct, a 40 year old law which is directly connected with states remaining in compliance, is not always followed.

But it should be....and most often is, if there is a fair hearing on the matter.

 

[PHB]

missizzy,
I see your concern. If a child isnt permanently adopted, there's always the threat the birth parent could get out of prison/find Jesus/get clean, and show up demanding thier child back, even though you've raised that child for years. Like the "sword of Domocles". Sounds like there should be a class-action lawsuit to address that.
O/T, my mom never would talk about the things she had to deal with in child services, but she must have told my dad, who worked for the welfare dept. before also joining the probation dept. Whenever there's a really awful child neglect/abuse/murder case in the news here (remember Nixzmary?), he always says he'd have rather gone to Vietnam than work for child services!
Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Missizzy]

Trust me. There have been many many class action suits. I was party to the one which finally clarified the law in California. Oregon, for some reason, absolutely refuses to follow their State Plan which is tied into the federal mandate. Should be a no-brainer, IMO.

Who loses? The children do, of course.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Oregon’s only woman on death row to get new trial: Judge says he’ll throw out her child-torture murder conviction

McAnulty should get a new trial because her attorneys failed to adequately represent or advise her during her trial, Senior Circuit Court Judge J. Burdette Pratt said in a draft ruling.

 

[YESorNO]

 

[Winter67]

The first thing I did when I moved to Eugene 2 years ago was go over to Howard Ave and see the house where poor Jeanette suffered so much. I will follow this 2nd trial all the way through. Sickening that the family and everyone has to go through all of this again. Truly one of the worst cases I have ever read. She would be 24 had she been allowed to live. Her sister got married I saw recently, I so wish Jeanette could have had a future.

 

[grillzgirl]

Hoping she gets the same sentence. What a horrible, wretched monster this thing is.

 

[YESorNO]

State appeals decision granting new trial to only woman on Oregon’s death row

Aug 30, 2019

"The state is appealing a ruling that reversed the conviction of a Eugene woman who became the state’s only woman on death row for torturing, starving and killing her 15-year-old daughter.

Attorneys with the Oregon Department of Justice filed notice Friday with the Oregon Court of Appeals that they disagree with Senior Circuit Judge J. Burdettte Pratt’s order earlier this summer calling for a new trial for Angela McAnulty...."

State appeals decision granting new trial to only woman on Oregon’s death row