House Republicans Stripped Food Stamp Provisions from Farm Bill

by Jeffrey Lee

Last Thursday, House Republicans in their latest controversial vote removed the food stamp program from the farm bill. For as long as I can remember, there has been a food stamp program.  As a child growing up in the late 70’s and early 80’s, I often wondered where people got that funny looking book of money and what was it used for.  Later, I discovered the true purpose of a food stamp book which is helping to feed hungry children and families. Historically, the food stamp program and the farm bill have been voted on together in the same bill since 1973.

Hunger in America is an issue that many discuss, but at the same time few truly wanted to tackle the millions of starving families in the US.  On Thursday, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill that will completely remove the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) better know as “food stamps” from our government’s budget, and SNAP has been tied to the Agriculture or Farm bill since 1973.  However, conservative house republicans feel that there is no particular need for this program and moved to remove the program completely from the farm bill. In an America where 16 percent of its population is living at or below the national poverty rate, roughly 50 million people are hungry residing in one of the richest nations on the planet. How can this move be justified?

The New York Times published the article House bill would split farm and food stamp programs which gives a detailed view of exactly what the Farm Bill covers and how it has been used historically.

Here is an excerpt:

“Asked before the vote Thursday if he would allow a compromise bill to come to a final vote in the House, Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio shrugged and said: “If ands and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas. You’ve heard that before. My goal right now is to get the farm bill passed. We’ll get to those other issues later.”

Democrats did not allow this move by Senate Republicans to transpire without opposition.  All Democrats stood in solidarity and voted against the measure along with 12 republicans who bucked against party lines and voted with a social conscious.  Anyone in public office who serves a populous should have the political and moral obligation to act in the best interest of that populous and not special interest.  Too many times, the republican party has looked to those in our nation who can afford the least as a remedy to pay for tax cuts for the rich and unpaid for wars.  The truth of the matter is that money controls political campaigns, and ultimately it serves as a means to control political agendas.  So I ask you, if a political party has been bought and paid for why continue to vote for them?

Analysis of Shelby v Holder: the Downfall of the Voters Right Act of 1965



The Supreme Court struck a blow to efforts preventing racial discrimination in voting as a result of Shelby v Holder coming before the high court. In a 5-4 decision, the Court invalidated Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (the “coverage formula”), which determines which parts of the country are covered by Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 requires those “covered” jurisdictions (the jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination, and which continue to demonstrate discriminatory behavior) to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court before making any change in law that would affect voting. The Court said the formula used to decide which parts of the country are “covered” is unconstitutional, so for now there are no covered jurisdictions. The Court has created a result in which Section 5 cannot be applied anywhere.

When the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in 2006, Congress compiled thousands of pages of evidence that voting discrimination was still happening in the jurisdictions identified in the coverage formula. It was on this strong evidence that Congress decided to continue the application of Section 5 to the jurisdictions identified by Section 4.

Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion which ignored all of the evidence compiled by Congress in its 2006 decision reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. Instead, the Chief Justice wrongly focused on the reasons that justified the coverage formula in 1965—reasons that were not the justifications used in 2006. The majority opinion repeatedly discussed the injury to equal state sovereignty created by having only certain jurisdictions be subject to Section 5. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Congress did not adequately connect the coverage formula to current political realities. This position makes no sense when viewed with the evidence of recent voting discrimination in covered jurisdictions. The Court also departed from its standard deference to Congress—the elected officials that are best equipped to determine what kinds of voting rights protections are still necessary.

Justice Ginsberg drafted a powerful dissenting opinion, pointing out the flaws in the majority’s reasoning. The dissent also lifted up some of the stories of devastating discrimination in voting, including the significantly higher rate of successful cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in covered jurisdictions. She pointed out the error of halting Section 5 protections because they have been so effective. Indeed, she noted that “throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

Still, hope remains. The majority opinion noted that “voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.” Section 5 still stands, but Congress must act quickly to enact a new coverage formula, as the Court suggests. Protecting the right to vote is a bipartisan goal, and voting rights advocates will be pushing Congress to do the right thing—to restore the Voting Rights Act and respect the right of every American to participate in the political process.

Read the Shelby v Holder Supreme Court Case in Full:

[gview file=””]

Voting Rights Act, Privileges, and Immunities of United States Constitution

George WillAs I scanned newspaper opinions on the recent US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down section 4 of Voting Rights Act of 1965, political columnist George Will’s Washington Post article immediately stood out.  He proposes that Justice Anton Scalia might have referred to the name of the 2006 extension as the “Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act.”   George Will stated upholding the United States Congress’ 2006 reauthorization would have been “anti-constitutional”.  What does he mean by “anti-constitutional”, and why not the “John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Martin Luther King Reauthorization and Amendments Act?”

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 et seq.) prohibits States and their political subdivisions from imposing voting requirements or preconditions to voting, as well as standards, practices, or procedures that deny or curtail the right of a U.S. citizen to vote because of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.  Congress based its power to approve voting procedures on the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

  • Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

  • Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I would ask Mr. Will, why the reauthorization is “anti-constitutional”.  The 15th Amendment does not provide any specific formula nor does it require any specific benchmark for Congress to remedy its application. The decision by the Supreme Court is more of a legislative action rather than a judiciary explanation.

The Fourteenth Amendment was written to attack the effects of State policies adopted under the stimulus of unambiguously pro-slavery and racist doctrines.  The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to strengthen and increase the reach of the old Privileges and Immunities Clause. Consequently, one of its first proposals for the Fourteenth Amendment was to give Congress the power both to enforce the clause and to confirm that all persons be protected in their person and property.

On April 28 of 1866, the “Joint Committee of Fifteen” voted in favor of a second draft proposed by Congressman John Bingham, which would eventually be adopted into the Constitution.  On May 10 of 1866 during the closing debate on the House floor, Congressman Bingham the primary author of the Privileges & Immunities Clause explained:

“[M]any instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever…”

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868.  The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues, as earlier indicated, related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The Fourteenth Amendment specified in Section 1 of the amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” as citizens of the United States were citizens of the state in which they reside. This section also prohibited state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the law.

Sections 2 to 5 reflect the immediate concerns of the Union’s political leadership following the North’s victory over the South in the Civil War (1861–65). Section 2, for example, penalized any state that attempted to abridge (curtail) the voting rights of its black male residents by reducing the state’s representation in Congress (there were no female residents of any race afforded the constitutional right to vote in the United States until 1920). Section 3 prohibited from holding state or federal office any person who engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” or otherwise gave “aid or comfort to the enemies” during the Civil War. Section 4 reasserted the United States’ commitment to pay its Civil War debt, while declaring all debts and obligations incurred by the Confederate government as “illegal and void”. Section 5 enabled, and continues to enable, Congress to pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Given the history and purposes of the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Justice Department should be confident in its administrative efforts to curtail any State’s attempt to abridge American citizen’s right to vote.

Government Access to our Electronic Data

by Michael Morgan


There have been some recent law enforcement moves meant to retrieve information coming from the Internet in order to prosecute people. A US law enforcement agency issued a subpoena from the prosecutor’s office to gain access to electronic communications of a person, citing sections from a 1980s law, which was created long before the Internet became popular. Law enforcers wish to show that the law still has teeth and that it can be marshaled to prosecute offenders by using any electronic communication like IP phone service as a means to put them in jail. Is government access to our electronic data without our knowledge a violation of our constitutional rights?

Subpoena Results

The subpoena was given to an electronic mail provider and to a popular social networking website who reviewed the subpoena. It takes legal action to combat legal action so they simply ignored the papers issued by the prosecutor’s office. In short, the law enforcement agency never got hold of their request because of the exercise of civil disobedience from the email provider and from the social networking website.

Wrong Documentation

They presented several reasons why they declined the request. In the first place, the affected providers pointed out that the law, which was drafted in the 1980s, doesn’t cover the current electronic communication that exists in the present. In addition to this, they pointed out that the subpoena is not a proper document that will enforce them to open their servers to the requesting department.

Ignorance Not an Excuse

The law can very tricky. When law enforcement agencies want swift action, what they do is coordinate with the justice department to issue out the necessary papers. A search warrant is a legal document issued by the judge who will enforce a receiving department or agent to open their servers for search and seizure purposes. Once the evidence that’s enumerated on it is found, it will be used against the person in a court of law. However getting a search warrant takes time and a judge makes it a point not to carelessly issue out such documentation. The police department must make a notable presentation that it’s really needed. Assumptions of an offense are not given any weight by the court. There must be strong proof that a person has electronic communications using a specific mail server or social networking website in order for a judge to issue out a warrant.

Work around the Law

Law enforcement agencies prefer to do go around this. Instead of waiting for a warrant, they would go directly to a prosecutor to request for a subpoena. The prosecutor’s office works directly with law enforcement and they are the ones responsible in issuing out subpoenas for this purpose.

Bullying Not Effective

When the affected Internet providers received the subpoena, they used the document itself as their defense. Instead, they pointed out that a subpoena isn’t enough for them to open their servers to the law and bridge the privacy of their users. As Internet providers they have a responsibility to protect the personal privacies of their clients and being issued a mere subpoena isn’t going to make them budge. Law enforcement will need to obtain a search warrant in order to gain access to the electronic data they want to review.

Respect to Personal Privacy

It is nice to note is that our Internet providers, social networking, and mail websites value our personal privacies, and would take action to protect our electronic data from unwanted searches and seizures. The practice of civil disobedience is necessary in order to prevent misuse of the law to gain access to our personal information.

Supreme Court Guts the Voting Rights Act of 1965


Supreme Court

Community organizing is even more critical after the United States Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a key provision from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 earlier today. Voting rights suffered an unnecessary setback with the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby v. Holder (June 25, 2013).  Section 5 is a part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which requires certain jurisdictions, identified in Section 4 of the Act, to get preclearance before implementing any changes affecting voting.  In an opinion not consistent with decades of Supreme Court precedent, this Court struck down Section 4 deemed the coverage formula which determined which states and counties had to obtain preclearance before changing its voting laws.  Without the coverage formula, states with histories of discriminatory voting practices do not have to consult with the Department of Justice before changing its voting laws.  The Court has effectively removed any barriers preventing re-implementation of legislation that prejudices the voting rights of vulnerable populations.

How Can I Help

One of the most important elements of Section 5 is the notification requirements and comment processes the Voting Rights Act established and the centralized flow of information through the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).  Since the implementation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, jurisdictions had to seek input from affected minority voters, and submit information about the proposed change to DOJ.  They are no longer required to do so. Now, organizations on the ground will need to develop a procedure for collecting and disseminating this vital information.

  • Voting rights advocates and communities still have options for challenging discriminatory voting laws, but they’ll have to be more proactive in bringing those challenges.  We can no longer rely on the Section 5 process.  Grassroots community organizers should begin by identifying voting rights experts and attorneys that have the capacity to help challenge bad voter laws.  The Southern Coalition for Social Justice is one of those resources in many areas, and we can refer you to resources in geographic areas we don’t have the capacity to help.  E-mail us at
  • This is critical: we need community organizations on the ground to track changes and potential changes in voting laws.  There are jurisdictions who will try to pass bad changes under the radar.  Develop a plan to have your representatives at county commission, school board and city council meetings, so that you can be aware of proposed changes.  Develop relationships with county boards of elections so that you will have another avenue for notification of changes to election laws.  Identify any changes to voting laws that may have already been enacted, but were not yet implemented because of Section 5. Also, identify when those changes may become effective and establish a reporting system for immediate dissemination.
  • Working with the voting rights experts and attorneys you’ve identified at  either SCSJ and other groups. Develop a mechanism for communicating potential changes in voting laws.  Attorneys will need to file lawsuits and seek preliminary injunctions and seek rulings from courts halting the implementation of bad voting laws.  But we can’t file those lawsuits unless we know about the changes.  Decide on a plan for conveying information about changes in law.

The best way to fight back against changes that will be detrimental to voters of color is to elect officials who will be respectful of voting rights which means voter registration and Get Out The Vote work is even more critical.  Let potential voters know their voting rights are at stake. Let’s get them registered and make sure they cast their vote on Election Day!

For Information on North Carolina Voter ID Laws, view below:

[gview file=””]

Exactly When Does Gun Violence Matter?

by Jeffrey Lee

Gun violence in America became a hot topic of discussion in our country when Adam Lanza committed the unthinkable.  This single act placed a spotlight on our nations relaxed gun laws.  What this act did not do is shine a spotlight on the gun violence that persists on American streets daily.  This newfound resurgence of the gun control debate has yet to make any impact on the stifling gun violence found on the streets of many cities across our nation.  Chicago, IL seems to have assumed the position as the true poster child for gun control in America.

According to a report just this past weekend, 26 people were shot in Chicago.  This number may shock you and it should.  However based on Chicago numbers, this was a mild weekend in terms of gun violence.  According to the website, a site that tracks Chicago crime statistics, it has reported in the month of June 131 people shot and wounded in the city of Chicago.  Of those 131 victims, 23 of the shootings have been fatal.  These numbers should do more than simply create a spotlight on this issue.  These numbers should outrage anyone who sees or hears these statistics.  The question that has to be asked is why are these numbers not being reported on national media?  Why is the fact that year to date Chicago has had 146 homicides due to gun violence and an unbelievable 703 individuals shot in the seemingly lawless streets of one of our nations greatest cities not “news worthy”?

The truth of the matter seems to be that theses acts of violence are taking place in the wrong zip code.  If these same events took place in any suburb such as 23 citizens of Highland Park, IL were shot in one weekend, the city police, state troopers, and the National Guard would have been called in and the crimes would have received national if not international news coverage.   Why does it seem that the murders of 146 people hold less value than those murdered in Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Tucson?  Certainly these aforementioned tragedies deserved the attention they received, but what happens on a daily basis in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and several other U.S. cities needs attention as well.

According to the National institute of Justice 467,321 individuals became victims of firearm violence in 2011.  During the same year, the state of California alone reported that 1,220 individuals had been murdered due to gun violence.  These mark a level short of an unnamed civil war being fought on the streets of our nation and these wars have no news coverage, no ride along journalist, they simply exist within a shroud of malignant self-imposed ignorance.  The questions that need to be asked of government officials are simply, what measures are being developed to help curd this violence?  Are there any grassroots think tanks being held to get to the bottom of why this violence is taking place to begin with?  Surely local government officials and police departments have looked at this issue, but have they looked at it from a preventative stance or are they simply trying to place a band aide over an issue that has become a severe infection.

Mothers of Bedford and Prison Reform

On February 12, 2013, Our Children’s Place, a local nonprofit based in Chapel Hill, in partnership with Meredith College hosted the viewing of “Mothers of Bedford” and opened the discussion on prison reform.  This riveting documentary by Jenifer McShane, follows the lives of five women as they try to be mothers to their children while incarcerated in a maximum security prison.  Early on in the film, viewers are hit with some cold, hard facts:  Women are the fastest growing population in today’s U.S. prisons.  Furthermore, 80 percent of those women are mothers of school-aged children. While many parents find it difficult to be away from a child a week, imagine being separated for ten to twenty years?

After the film, we had a Q&A with Jenifer McShane, and the audience was eager to ask questions.  McShane said that it was a 5 year process to make this film, because she had to keep going back and forth.  When asked what her motivation was, McShane replied, “Sister Elaine’s work should be told.  She is a mother, a visionary, and she has been doing it for decades.  I went into the prison and this took over my life.  It had to be told.”

The topic of privatizing prisons arose, and how it is scary to think prisons owners can make a profit from housing inmates.  The viewer wanted to know McShane thoughts on this phenomenon. McShane stated she did agree that privatized prisons are a scary thought.  McShane went on to say that the model used at Bedford Hills is hard to replicate, but she is convinced it can be done with supportive superintendents and communities.  The curriculum was made at Bedford, but it can be shared to help spur prison reform in other states. One final question was asked which was directed to Melissa Radcliff, Executive Director of Our Children’s Place.  An audience viewer asked, “Why North Carolina does not have this program implemented in our prisons”.

Radcliff stated that this public forum is the start of the conversation.  It has been noticed that people are not talking about it, so the public needs to help ask questions.  Ask teachers if they know about the children in their class? Do they have parents in prison? Do they know what resources to offer?  I had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Radcliff, and I asked her if she saw N.C. implementing this model in the future? Also, did she find legislators hesitant and/or resistant to change?  Yes, I do think we’ll have the opportunity to implement some new types of programs for children of incarcerated parents, both inside prisons and in the community, in the near future.  With that in mind, our education and awareness efforts will need to be ongoing as will our work to gather research and data on how children are impacted when a parent goes to prison.”

The Children’s Center at Bedford Hills Correction Center in New York was initiated and led as the Director by Sister Elaine Roulet.  The Children’s Center is a highly unique program that allows infants born while the mother is incarcerated, the ability to stay with the mother for up to one year.  One of the five women in the film, Melissa, who is serving a two year sentence had her daughter, Emma, while in Bedford Hills. Therefore, she has been able to take advantage of the Nursery resources and keep Emma with her at all times.

This has given her the ability to see her daughter’s first achievements and create the natural bonding that is needed during this developmental stage.  The Children’s Center not only houses a Nursery, but it also has a children’s playroom and a parenting center.  The playroom is useful during visitation hours, so the children can feel that they have a more “normal” visit with their mother instead of sitting at a table with a guard.

The mothers are allowed to have a planned weekend with their children twice a month.  However, if you have any infractions, you are not allowed to participate.  For example, one mother, Tanika, had gum in her cell, and that is not allowed. She was not allowed to participate in her scheduled overnight / weekend visit.  Tanika was also confined to her cell for 15 days, except for the 1 hour she was allowed outside.  Even though she received this punishment, Tanika knew how disappointed her sons would be in not having their visit. One holiday that is widely celebrated at Bedford Hills is Mother’s Day.

The film shows Mona doing arts and crafts with children, fixing up the rooms, and decorating. Mona, while her sons are much older and she is a grandmother, has become the “honorary party coordinator” on the unit. It is no surprise to see Mona go all out for Mother’s Day.  She has everything decorated, and she has created silhouettes of the moms to give to their children.  All of the prisoners anxiously wait for everyone to get there because buses were sent out to pick up their families.  Anneathia, who has a history of drug use and her mother is also a recovering addict, waits for her two daughters to arrive.  She says, “Today you’re a mom, but tomorrow you go back to being an inmate.”

Rosa, mother of two boys, works in the Nursery while serving her sentence. Throughout the film, I noticed that Rosa’s oldest son, Joey who is only 10 years old, seemed very mature for his age.  It could be seen in the way he talked and in his thought process.  At one point, Joey was talking about what happened to him and his family, and how he was not going to let it stop his dreams.  He said, “The past is the past, but the past also travels with you into the future.”  You could hear murmurs and “wows” from the audience, as they were all thinking the same thing…. How profound to come from this innocent child.

In retrospect, N.C., along with many other prisons has a long road ahead of them to make things better for these children.  I have personally worked in a Labor & Delivery unit for 10 years, and have seen how a prisoner comes in to have a baby, and then goes back to the prison without her baby, sometimes in tears.  Everyone makes a mistake, and while there needs to be punishments and consequences, I feel that the children are not being considered or recognized.  Therefore, their “sentence” is far worse than the mothers, because not having their mother during crucial stages of development has long lasting effects that can carry on past childhood.  Joey, 10 years old, asked what “prison” was when he was younger, and he was told: “that is where the bad people that do bad things go”!

Joey’s reply: “Where do the good people that do bad things go?”


Photo Credit: Our Children’s Place Website

Child Welfare: Where Are We Going And Where Have We Been

Child Welfare refers to a set of government services that are designed to protect children, and also to encourage stability within the family.  These types of services include, but are not limited to:  foster care, adoption services, and child protection services.  The “child protection services” were aimed at investigating child abuse and neglect, and if necessary, removing the child from the home.

Policies and legislation regarding child welfare trace back all the way to 1825, when states were given the right to remove neglected children from the abusive parents and the home.  The children were then placed into an orphanage or in another home, which later became known as “foster care”.  In 1835, the Humane Society founded the National Federation of Child Rescue.

These agencies had the authority to investigate child maltreatment.  It the late 19th century, private agencies, decided to follow the Humane Societies’ agenda and were able to investigate maltreatment, present cases to the court, and advocate for proper child welfare legislation.

Moreover, in 1874 the first case of child abuse that was criminally prosecuted in court was in regards to Mary Ellen, a young girl that was moved from place to place and beaten by her stepmother.  Etta Wheeler, a Methodist social worker, sought assistance from Henry Bergh, founder of the ASPCA, to use the defense of “cruelty to animals”.  Mary Ellen was removed from the home and placed into a safe environment.

Government officials continued to make changes and create policies to benefit workers fighting for neglected children.  President Roosevelt, in 1909, created a “publicly funded volunteer organization to establish and standards of childcare”, and in 1930, the Social Security Act provided funding for interventions needed for the “neglected and dependent children in danger of becoming dependent”.  In 1958, the Social Security Act was amended and mandated that states would fund child protection efforts.

However, the Child Abuse Prevention and Tax Act (CAPTA) was passed in 1974, and US Congress implemented a number of laws that made a major impact on the state child protection and welfare systems, by providing federal funding wide-ranging federal and state child maltreatment research and services.  This helped lead up to Congress passing the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, which was the first federal child protective service act which primarily focused on the state economic incentives to help decrease the length and number of foster care placements.

Interesting enough, also paving the way for social workers today was Helen Boardman.  She earned her Master’s in Social Work in Chicago, and worked as a Social Worker at a Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles until 1972.  It was there that Boardman developed a passion for advocacy for children and the prevention of child abuse.  She was the first to recognize the true depth of child abuse and make it known to the medical and legal systems.

Boardman pressured Henry Kempe to write, Battered Child Syndrome Awareness of a Child, as a social issue, and pressed the National Children’s Bureau for mandatory laws in reporting child abuse.  Helen Boardman was the founding member of the Social Workers Association of Los Angeles (SWALA), which played an enormous role in the planning and development of the National Association of Social Work (NASW) (Univ. of SC, 2005-2006)

Therefore, the mid-70s through the 1980’s seemed to be where child welfare gained a lot of momentum in the policies and reform.  However, policies will continue to be amended and added in efforts to ensure that children remain safe and secure in their home environment.  Following the footsteps of Etta Wheeler and Helen Boardman, social workers must continue to advocate for the voices that cannot fight for themselves.


American Humane Association. (n.d.) Retrieved from:

Bryjak, G.J. (2011, April). Parents, Children, Faith Healing, & the Law. Retrieved from

Michel, S. (2012, April).  Child Care: The American History. The Social Welfare History Project. Retrieved from american-history/

North Carolina Division of Social Services. About Child Abuse and Neglect.

University of Southern California. (2005-2006). California Social Work Hall of Distinction.

Retrieved from

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Major Federal Legislation Concerned

With Child Protection, Child Welfare, and Adoption. Child Welfare Information Gateway. Retrieved from

Exit mobile version