Stop Drugging Foster Children

PRESS RELEASE October 29, 2006
Contact: Rick Callender, President
(408) 406-5203 Phone

NAACP Calls For Ending Use of Psychiatric Drugs on
Foster Youth

Says Foster Care Children should be protected from the financial incentives the Foster Care Industry receives for pushing psychiatric drugs on them.

OAKLAND, CA - Mr. Rick Callender, president of the San Jose Silicon Valley branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) submitted a resolution to the State NAACP Convention calling for an end to the profit-motivated practice of using psychiatric drugs on foster youth. The resolution was unanimously passed today by the membership.

Several investigations into Foster Care have recently exposed how group-home "parents" request and administer psychotropic drugs on foster youth at far greater rates than any other population. Since 1999 State & Federal regulations provide a financial incentive for Group Homes and Foster Parents to use psychiatric drugs on these children. California's deranged foster-care system pays higher rates when young people are drugged for even the slightest sign of misbehavior or upset.

In July of this year, the Blue-Ribbon Commission on Foster Care Members were reportedly stunned to learn the overuse of psychotropic medications was an important area foster youth pleaded for reform.

Mr. Callender said that, "In February 2006 an FDA Advisory panel recommended a black-box warning that certain psychiatric drugs, like Ritalin, Adderall & Concerta, when prescribed to children can cause violence, suicide and sudden death. This resolution is significant since we already know that children of color make up a disproportionate amount of children within the foster care system. We must ensure foster youth are given proper medical care and only prescribed medically necessary medications, not just a drug to quiet them down and add dollars to their guardian's pocket."

Dr. Lawrence Hooper, a medical doctor and the Health Committee Chairman of the San Jose Branch said, " Ever since the American Psychiatric Association admitted no lab tests exist to diagnose any mental disorder, the entire legitimacy of psychiatry has become questionable. Couple this with the 19 international warnings about how psychiatric drugs have been linked to causing diabetes, liver failure, violence, suicide and sudden death, it becomes apparent that strict constraints against psychiatry must be called for to protect children."

2006 marks the three year anniversary of when Mr. Callender helped guide the passage of a national NAACP resolution that stated, "Research by medical professionals have indicated considerable controversy and diverse opinion about the validity of childhood behavioral or learning 'disorders' such as, but not limited to ADHD." This resolution called upon San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP (www.sanjosenaacp.org).

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, is the oldest, largest and strongest civil rights organizationin the United States. The principal objective of the NAACP is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of minority group citizens of the United States. The San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch of the NAACP was founded in 1952.

Outing the Flawed Social Science Research

The author of "Parental Alienation Syndrome: Getting it WRONG in Child Custody Cases" has a new must-read article out that discusses the misuses and misrepresentations in the social science research that impacts child custody policy.

Professor Carol S. Bruch is Distinguished Research Professor of Law and Professor Emerita, University of California, Davis; Visiting Scholar, UCLA Center for the Study of Women (2004-2005). Her article, "Sound Research or Wishful Thinking in Custody Cases? Lessons from Relocation Law" has been published in the ABA's Family Law Quarterly, Summer 2006. The introduction:

Professionals who deal with specific child custody disputes surely seek to advance the children’s best interests, as do the legislators and commentators who address child custody law. Yet there is often profound disagreement about the principles that should guide them, and decision-makers are at a particular disadvantage if—as is increasingly the case—flawed research and inaccurate reviews are offered as improvements on the sound work of others.

This article examines these forces in the context of relocation disputes—cases that arise when a noncustodial parent seeks to prevent the custodial parent and their children from moving. It summarizes the relevant legal issues, provides an overview of the credible U.S. research on children’s needs, and critiques the wishful thinking and mistaken analyses that threaten sound outcomes for children.

The full article may be found and downloaded from the liz library website at http://www.thelizlibrary.org/bruch