Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Thirty-five Kansas Sentors Voted Against Children's Rights

March 20, 2012

Today, thirty-five Kansas Senators voted against accountability, children's rights, the protection of children, due process, Kansas statutes, the family heritage/traditions, and the constitutional right to be a parent. Phyllis Gilmore, as the former Executive Director of the KS BSRB and the board members,
denied parents and family members their complaints, made on behalf of their children and grandchildren, against licensed social workers by dismissing them due to "lack of jurisdiction".  By Kansas law, Gilmore and the board which she oversaw didn't have the option to refuse any complaint of a licensed worker. 
Gilmore is now the new Secretary of SRS over Social Services/CPS/Foster Care.

The Kansas Senators that voted "Yeas" for Gilmore
need to be voted out of office.

Appointment today confirmed by the following:
By the Governor
On the appointment to the:
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services:
          Phyllis Gilmore, term expires At the pleasure of the governor
          On roll call, the vote was: Yeas 35; Nays 0; Present and Passing 5; Absent or Not Voting 0.
          Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Brungardt, Donovan, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Huntington, Kelsey, King, Longbine, Love, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, McGinn, Merrick, Morris, Olson, Ostmeyer, Owens, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, A. Schmidt, V. Schmidt, Steineger, Taddiken, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil, Wagle.
          Present and Passing: Kelly, Kultala, Petersen, Reitz, Schodorf.
          The appointment was confirmed.


  1. This is a sad event when 35 Senators all vote "Yea" and the evidence of Phyllis Gilmore's record, while being the head of the BSRB failed to address the numerous complaints of derelict and even evil Social Worker behavior complaints. She constantly side stepped her responsibilities by declaring so many legitimate reports as "out of jurisdiction" or "due to lack of juridiction." Additionally, a unanimous vote like this does not indicate any review or study by these Senators about the former BSRB's do nothing about social justice leader. Also, the five members of the Senate who were present and passed on this vote must have had reasons for doing so and were either afraid to say Naye or had ulterior motives. This is not a good decision and does nothing but promote poor or no leadership in an orgaization that truly needs it.

  2. I see from the list of yea's, some have been and continue to be part of the "machine". What is the wrench that needs to be thrown into the "machine" to stop it? It seems the louder families cry, the worse it gets, in my opinion.

  3. This may not have been completely intended by Brownback, but when doctors are given the leeway to refuse diagnosis or refuse to share diagnosis of fetal defects, the whole cycle of not being able to care for a sick child and having that sick child taken away, only to be used as an expirimental subject by pharmaceutical companies creates a great reason for some of the children who have grown up as victims of this to hire an attorney for a class action lawsuit. Sadly, life as a sheep and a victim have not favored the type of thinking that will make this happen. I have two stepchildren and guardianship of one child who were the victims of this kind of dynamic before I can into their lives, and the small town I live in does nothing but look for anything at all to try to prove that I am a bad step parent! Unfornately, for them, all three of these children have gone from "developmentally delayed", with "low IQ's" to normal, or "bright", and the one that had been thought to be least intelligent makes only A's and A-'s in class, with NO special ed! Of course, I am not FROM Kansas, I am from somewhere else, and when the "experts" here in Kansas initially told me that my stepchildren would never make it and always be dependant on others, I told them they were insane to make such judgements. I stopped the cycle from turning that direction, and was met with wildly insane resistance.

    Some of the victims, adult children who have been subjected to this, have to sue Kansas. It looks like that is the only way it is going to change.

  4. I wonder what would happen if, in view of what happened to Adam Herrman, Kansas was forced to give each child over the age of six in foster care a seminar explaining the dangers of foster care. It seems that they often have no legal counsel or ad litem, and no one to make sure they are not exposed to danger. Suppose a foster child wants to go home or see his mom? Does anyone ever represent the child's wishes?