ParentingBanter.com

ParentingBanter.com (http://www.parentingbanter.com/index.php)
-   Spanking (http://www.parentingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have backgroundchecks (http://www.parentingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=61094)

fx February 10th 08 02:23 AM

DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have backgroundchecks
 
Our position: DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have
background checks

February 8, 2008

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,5388770.story

For many obvious reasons, anyone working with children should have to
pass a number of stringent background checks.

It's also painfully obvious that such a procedure wasn't followed
whenFlorida's Department of Children & Families hired Al Zimmerman in
March 2005.

Mr. Zimmerman's arrest on child-pornography charges last week
underscores that urgency. A thorough background check would have
revealed that Mr. Zimmerman had charges for drunken driving and an
outstanding arrest warrant for grand theft inTexas.

Those aren't nearly as serious as allegations that Mr. Zimmerman
photographed two teenage boys -- one under DCF care -- engaging in
sexual acts. But it certainly might have given DCF officials enough
pause to ask more questions before hiring him as its spokesman. Doing
homework on the front end is critical.

DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees,
looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006,
when a policy change required that all new employees go through
background screening.

The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are
victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough without
having to fear someone in the system.

DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially
dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental
agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary
for all employees.





An Inconvenient Truth about Child Protective Services, Foster care, and
the Child Protection "INDUSTRY"

Child Protective Services Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of CPS.

every parent should read the free handbook from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

Perpetrators of Maltreatment

Physical Abuse CPS/Foster care 160, biological Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS/Foster care 112, biological Parents 13
Neglect CPS/Foster care 410, biological Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS/Foster care 14 biological Parents 12
Fatalities CPS/Foster care 6.4, biological Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.

AMERICA'S HIDDEN HOLOCAUST

Currently Child Protective Services violates more Constitutionally
guaranteed liberties & Civil rights on a daily basis then all other
agencies combined, Including the National Security agency/Central
intelligence agency wiretaping programs…

THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
BY: Nancy Schaefer Senator, 50th District of Georgia

http://www.senatornancyschaefer.com/...s.php?filter=6

This is Child Protection?
By Gregory A. Hession, J.D.

http://www.jbs.org/node/4632

Mercenary Motherhood: "Memoirs of a Babystealer."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

FOSTER CARE IS A 80 PERCENT FAILU. A Brief Analysis of the Casey
Family Programs. Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. By Richard Wexler

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/cfpanalysis.doc

HOW THE WAR AGAINST CHILD ABUSE BECAME A WAR AGAINST CHILDREN

http://www.nccpr.org/issues/1.html

Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness
DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families
By Nev Moore Massachusetts News

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/...May/mayds4.htm

A recent study has found that 12-18 months after leaving foster ca

30% of the nation’s homeless are former foster children.
27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated
33% were receiving public assistance
37% had not finished high school
2% receive a college degree
50% were unemployed

Children in foster care are three to six times more likely than children
not in care to have emotional, behavioral and developmental problems,
including conduct disorders, depression, difficulties in school and
impaired social relationships. Some experts estimate that about 30% of
the children in care have marked or severe emotional problems. Various
studies have indicated that children and young people in foster care
tend to have limited education and job skills, perform poorly in school
compared to children who are not in foster care, lag behind in their
education by at least one year, and have lower educational attainment
than the general population.
*Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support

80 percent of prison inmates have been through the foster care system.

The highest ranking federal official in charge of foster care, Wade Horn
of the Department of Health and Human Services, is a former child
psychologist who says the foster care system is a giant mess and should
just be blown up.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2017991

Four rigorous studies have found that at least 30 percent of America’s
foster children could be home right now if their parents had decent housing.

This study found thousands of children already in foster care who would
have done better had child protection agencies not taken them away in
the first place.

Front-page story in USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...m?csp=34#Close

The full study is available here.

http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fo...arch07_aer.pdf

The bottom line? - Child Protective Services and the Foster Care system
for the most part turns out young adults that are nothing more than
walking wreckage...

CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CONSTITUTIONALLY
GUARANTEED LIBERTIES & CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER
AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAMS....

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...

BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...












fx February 10th 08 03:34 AM

DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have backgroundchecks
 
Greegor wrote:
DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees,
looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006,
when a policy change required that all new employees go through
background screening.

The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are
victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough without
having to fear someone in the system.

DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially
dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental
agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary
for all employees.


From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations
for them to root out their own perverts?

If they find some raging perverts inside their agency
will they announce it publicly? I doubt it.

So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family"
with all of the pervs they find internally, right?

How are they going to test hard enough to
find the perves within their agency?

If some slip through won't it prove that they
don't know their head from their heiney?

If they can't even accurately screen
their own people, how do they pretend
any credibility screening parents?






(Sexual Abuse CPS/Foster care 112, biological Parents 13)
this number says it all right here Greegor, the CPS / foster care
system is full of perverts, however the system is designed to cover up
for them...

the Federal Dollars must flow into the state coffers as you well know...

I would not be surprised if next year if each child that came into the
foster care/adoption system from Child Protective Services was in a drug
coma, individually wrapped, micro chipped, bar coded and supplied with a
free case of personal lubricant, plus a little label that reads state
commodity to be traded for federal dollars only, and a warning label
that reads "WARNING! FOSTER CHILD, DO NOT TREAT AS A HUMAN BEING"...





dragonsgirl February 11th 08 05:59 AM

DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks
 

"Greegor" wrote in message
...
DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees,
looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006,
when a policy change required that all new employees go through
background screening.

The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are
victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough without
having to fear someone in the system.

DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially
dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental
agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary
for all employees.


From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations
for them to root out their own perverts?

If they find some raging perverts inside their agency
will they announce it publicly? I doubt it.

So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family"
with all of the pervs they find internally, right?

How are they going to test hard enough to
find the perves within their agency?

If some slip through won't it prove that they
don't know their head from their heiney?

If they can't even accurately screen
their own people, how do they pretend
any credibility screening parents?


They don't screen parents.
They take parent's behaviors into account when determining their ability to
parent.



dragonsgirl February 11th 08 04:03 PM

DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks
 

"LK" wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 12:59 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

...

DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees,
looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006,
when a policy change required that all new employees go through
background screening.


The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are
victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough
without
having to fear someone in the system.


DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially
dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental
agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary
for all employees.


From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations
for them to root out their own perverts?


If they find some raging perverts inside their agency
will they announce it publicly? I doubt it.


So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family"
with all of the pervs they find internally, right?


How are they going to test hard enough to
find the perves within their agency?


If some slip through won't it prove that they
don't know their head from their heiney?


If they can't even accurately screen
their own people, how do they pretend
any credibility screening parents?


They don't screen parents.


Maybe they don't call it that.

They take parent's behaviors into account when determining their ability
to
parent.


And everything else they can find.

***Such as?



dragonsgirl February 11th 08 06:39 PM

DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks
 

"Greegor" wrote in message
...
DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500
employees,
looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November
2006,
when a policy change required that all new employees go through
background screening.


The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who
are
victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough
without
having to fear someone in the system.


DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially
dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental
agencies that deal with children that background checks are
necessary
for all employees.


From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations
for them to root out their own perverts?


If they find some raging perverts inside their agency
will they announce it publicly? I doubt it.


So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family"
with all of the pervs they find internally, right?


How are they going to test hard enough to
find the perves within their agency?


If some slip through won't it prove that they
don't know their head from their heiney?


If they can't even accurately screen
their own people, how do they pretend
any credibility screening parents?


BW They don't screen parents.

LK Maybe they don't call it that.

BW They take parent's behaviors into account
BW when determining their ability to parent.

They're not qualified to "determine" any such thing.


I think you are wrong.
I think that they are very well qualified to determine when parents lack the
ability.
There are indicators, as you very well know.
Heavy drug use, perisistent physical abuse and neglect, mental instability,
etc.
You can't argue those points Greg, because you, yourself, point to them many
times when it suits you.
And yet, you are no more qualified than a social worker is.
You point to the mental status of Lisa's daughter's grandmother as reason
for the child not to be placed in her home, as an example.
If, in your case, that is, indeed, a reason for the child not to be placed
there, then do tell how you can determine that, and how DFS is not qualified
to make that determination in the case of others.



LK And everything else they can find.

BW ***Such as?

"Mowing the lawn with a broken lawnmower"
was one of their complaints in our case.


If DFS cited that as a reason for removal, then it was wrong. No two ways
about it.
That has nothing to do with the ability of the parents to effectively raise
a child, and I would agree with you that it was absurd for them to bring
that up for any reason.



The child was forced to watch some Babylonian movie.
(Babylon 5, a sci fi show akin to Star Trek)


Again, that is no indicator of ability to parent...though I really don't see
any reason why someone would 'force' a child to watch a movie, and think
it's nuts to do so, it still has nothig to do with ability to parent.



The morons from CPS will write up anything
they hope will "score" for them.


Those above are very invalid points.
What about the valid ones?



dragonsgirl February 11th 08 06:42 PM

DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks
 

"LK" wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 11:03 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"LK" wrote in message

...
On Feb 11, 12:59 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:

"Greegor" wrote in message


...


DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500
employees,
looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November
2006,
when a policy change required that all new employees go through
background screening.


The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who
are
victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough
without
having to fear someone in the system.


DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially
dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental
agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary
for all employees.


From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations
for them to root out their own perverts?


If they find some raging perverts inside their agency
will they announce it publicly? I doubt it.


So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family"
with all of the pervs they find internally, right?


How are they going to test hard enough to
find the perves within their agency?


If some slip through won't it prove that they
don't know their head from their heiney?


If they can't even accurately screen
their own people, how do they pretend
any credibility screening parents?


They don't screen parents.


Maybe they don't call it that.

They take parent's behaviors into account when determining their ability
to
parent.


And everything else they can find.

***Such as?


Haven't you ever seen one of their initial assessment forms? There
is a whole list of generalized questions on that alone, I'm sure they
differ slightly from state to state, but you can't tell me that the
only thing that they factor in is the behavors of the parents.
Condition of the house, interviews with the children or professional
care providers, etc.

*****No, and I was not implying that the behaviors of the parents are the
only thing that is taken into account.
I was simply pointing out that it is a major factor, nothing more, nothing
less.
I have seen an interview assessment form. I do think that some of the
things on them are off the wall, such as whether or not family lives in the
vicinity of the parents, but also some of the questions are valid as well,
such as the condition of the home.



dragonsgirl February 11th 08 08:19 PM

DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks
 

"LK" wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 1:39 pm, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

...

DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500
employees,
looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November
2006,
when a policy change required that all new employees go through
background screening.


The agency is considered the front line of defense for children
who
are
victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough
without
having to fear someone in the system.


DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially
dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other
governmental
agencies that deal with children that background checks are
necessary
for all employees.


From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations
for them to root out their own perverts?


If they find some raging perverts inside their agency
will they announce it publicly? I doubt it.


So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family"
with all of the pervs they find internally, right?


How are they going to test hard enough to
find the perves within their agency?


If some slip through won't it prove that they
don't know their head from their heiney?


If they can't even accurately screen
their own people, how do they pretend
any credibility screening parents?


BW They don't screen parents.


LK Maybe they don't call it that.


BW They take parent's behaviors into account
BW when determining their ability to parent.


They're not qualified to "determine" any such thing.


I think you are wrong.
I think that they are very well qualified to determine when parents lack
the
ability.
There are indicators, as you very well know.
Heavy drug use, perisistent physical abuse and neglect, mental
instability,
etc.
You can't argue those points Greg, because you, yourself, point to them
many
times when it suits you.
And yet, you are no more qualified than a social worker is.
You point to the mental status of Lisa's daughter's grandmother as reason
for the child not to be placed in her home, as an example.
If, in your case, that is, indeed, a reason for the child not to be placed
there, then do tell how you can determine that, and how DFS is not
qualified
to make that determination in the case of others.



LK And everything else they can find.


BW ***Such as?


"Mowing the lawn with a broken lawnmower"
was one of their complaints in our case.


If DFS cited that as a reason for removal, then it was wrong. No two ways
about it.
That has nothing to do with the ability of the parents to effectively
raise
a child, and I would agree with you that it was absurd for them to bring
that up for any reason.



The child was forced to watch some Babylonian movie.
(Babylon 5, a sci fi show akin to Star Trek)


Again, that is no indicator of ability to parent...though I really don't
see
any reason why someone would 'force' a child to watch a movie, and think
it's nuts to do so, it still has nothig to do with ability to parent.



The morons from CPS will write up anything
they hope will "score" for them.


Those above are very invalid points.
What about the valid ones?


And what do they need those for?

***I didn't say they did.
I was simply agreeing with Greg that it was useless for those issues to be
raised in his case.



dragonsgirl February 11th 08 08:30 PM

DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks
 

"LK" wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 1:42 pm, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"LK" wrote in message

...
On Feb 11, 11:03 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:

"LK" wrote in message


...
On Feb 11, 12:59 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:


"Greegor" wrote in message


...


DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500
employees,
looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November
2006,
when a policy change required that all new employees go through
background screening.


The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who
are
victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough
without
having to fear someone in the system.


DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially
dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental
agencies that deal with children that background checks are
necessary
for all employees.


From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations
for them to root out their own perverts?


If they find some raging perverts inside their agency
will they announce it publicly? I doubt it.


So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family"
with all of the pervs they find internally, right?


How are they going to test hard enough to
find the perves within their agency?


If some slip through won't it prove that they
don't know their head from their heiney?


If they can't even accurately screen
their own people, how do they pretend
any credibility screening parents?


They don't screen parents.


Maybe they don't call it that.


They take parent's behaviors into account when determining their
ability
to
parent.


And everything else they can find.


***Such as?


Haven't you ever seen one of their initial assessment forms? There
is a whole list of generalized questions on that alone, I'm sure they
differ slightly from state to state, but you can't tell me that the
only thing that they factor in is the behavors of the parents.
Condition of the house, interviews with the children or professional
care providers, etc.

*****No, and I was not implying that the behaviors of the parents are the
only thing that is taken into account.
I was simply pointing out that it is a major factor, nothing more, nothing
less.
I have seen an interview assessment form. I do think that some of the
things on them are off the wall, such as whether or not family lives in
the
vicinity of the parents, but also some of the questions are valid as well,
such as the condition of the home.


Well, when it comes to the behavior of parents, any true professional
would realize that no parent is going to be happy to see them.

****Surely. I would agree with you. No parent would be happy to see social
services knocking on their door.
However, I am not referring to behaviors that are exhibited over the course
of an interview necessarily.
It's easy to imagine, and understand, a person being agitated, sometimes
rude, feeling on the defenseive, etc during an interview.
What is harder to swallow is persistent and extensive drug abuse, outbursts
of anger that cause lack of work, or minor injury to a child, destruction of
property, etc. I am talking about behaviors that are exhibited over time
before, and after social services interviews.
Not during the itnerview itself.
Those behaviors can be seen via police reports, court records, medical
records, etc, and are not based on the opinion of a caseworker, intake or
otherwise.
Some behaviors during an interview can be indicators, though.
Screaming at kids in the presence of a worker?
How about things people say? "I didn't whip Johnny with no belt, it was a
switch off that peach tree", for example.
People say and do stupid things, and sometimes they do them in the presence
of the wrong person...DFS, doctor, LE.
Does it take an assessment form and a genius to figure out there are serious
problems in that case?



dragonsgirl February 11th 08 08:40 PM

"Structured Decision Making" SDM idiot sheets
 

"LK" wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 2:04 pm, Greegor wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:34 am, LK wrote:

On Feb 11, 11:03 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:


"LK" wrote in message


...
On Feb 11, 12:59 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:


"Greegor" wrote in message


...


DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500
employees,
looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November
2006,
when a policy change required that all new employees go through
background screening.


The agency is considered the front line of defense for children
who are
victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough
without
having to fear someone in the system.


DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially
dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other
governmental
agencies that deal with children that background checks are
necessary
for all employees.


From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations
for them to root out their own perverts?


If they find some raging perverts inside their agency
will they announce it publicly? I doubt it.


So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family"
with all of the pervs they find internally, right?


How are they going to test hard enough to
find the perves within their agency?


If some slip through won't it prove that they
don't know their head from their heiney?


If they can't even accurately screen
their own people, how do they pretend
any credibility screening parents?


They don't screen parents.


Maybe they don't call it that.


They take parent's behaviors into account when determining their
ability
to
parent.


And everything else they can find.


***Such as?


Haven't you ever seen one of their initial assessment forms? There
is a whole list of generalized questions on that alone, I'm sure they
differ slightly from state to state, but you can't tell me that the
only thing that they factor in is the behavors of the parents.
Condition of the house, interviews with the children or professional
care providers, etc.


LK, Are you talking about the Risk Assessment "instrument"?


The one that the "Product Acquisition Team" comes to the door with.

They have a document by that title that
caseworkers would see as an insult to their
intelligence IF only they were smart enough
to realize it is.


Well they can't afford to have any independant thought going on in
there, can they?

In the ascps newsgroup in the past, these
"idiot sheets" have been discussed.

They were created supposedly to make
the decisions objective and non-biased.

One outfit that created a set of these forms
was called "Structured Decision Making".
I was greatly amused that on their web site
they warned that their forms were NOT to
be used for decision making.

Imagine an outfit with that name having
to disclaim that their form is not for
making decisions.

It's a bit like actuarial tables but used to decide risk.

Single mother?
Under 30 years old?
Two or more kids?
Lives in the country?
Owns a hunting rifle (locked in gun safe)?
Butcher any farm animals?

In an example a woman has the first four
against her so she is considered guilty
before CPS even arrives at her door.

The "risk assessment" instrument is
supposed to be used after a family is
founded and set up for services to decide
what services are appropriate.

The "instrument" is only supposed to be
used by people who are thoroughly trained
to use it.

The problems:
These are often are brought out at the very
beginning of a "case" and used to decide
whether to "found" somebody.

Many people using them have not had the training.

Even if a set of these "idiot sheets" is used
only after a founded and to decide "services"
then they are assigning "services" based
on risk factors (actuarial tables) rather than
actual facts IN THAT CASE.

This would NOT be a legally acceptable
basis for assigning a "service".

The "serv ices" are not supposed to be assigned
but agreed to through a meeting of minds with
the family, first of all.


Since when has what the family thought mattered?

Secondly, an "actuarial table" rationale does
not seriously qualify as a material BASIS for a service.

But my personal favorite gripe is that the
"instrument" is supposed to be scientific,
impartial and objective, but throughout the
"instrument" there are places deliberately
intended to "fudge" the numbers.

If a caseworker is inclined for or against
somebody they have many places actually
arranged specifically to "fudge" the
numbers either for or against the "suspect family".

So the pretense of impartiality and objectivity
is just a load of BS.

By the way, the "SDM Structured Decision Making"
website disclaiming that their forms are NOT to be
used for DECISION MAKING was quickly changed.

SDM was a consortium of several states but later
incarnations of the "idiot sheet" forms appear
to be plagiarized BY those states. I doubt that
the ""expert material"" is something that can
actually even be copyrighted.


It's a generalized form. There are no check boxes, lots of open types
of questions.

****That is not true.
At least, not on the form I have seen, and I believe I provided that form
some time back, maybe two years ago, for viewing with personal information
of the subjects (no, not me) blacked out.
It was a grid type form, each column had a heading...can't recall exactly
what they said, but something like 'Physical appearance', and other types of
generalizations.
Under those were descriptors in boxes, and the worker was apparently to
check mark the descriptor that best described the conditions that applied.
For instance (because I'm not making myself clear, I don't think), under the
heading 'Environment', for example, there would be several boxes that said
things like (box 1) "Homeless", (box 2) Living with friends or family, (box
3) "Inadequate housing' and that box would go on to name what constituted
such...no heat, no utilities, over crowding, etc. in each case.
I can't recall what the risk ratings were, but for each category there was a
no risk, low risk, moderate risk, and high risk box.
The end of the assessment asked for the number of moderate to high risk
check marks, and then gave a determination as to the over all risk based on
that.



dragonsgirl February 11th 08 08:51 PM

DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks
 

"Greegor" wrote in message
...
To get back to the original topic, how do you think that
the caseworkers THEMSELVES would do if put
under the same scrutiny they use on others?


I think that the vast majority of them would fail their own tests miserably.
I think that the majority of them know that.

I can't recall if I ever mentioned this in the group.
There was a family that lived on my block.
The parents had two kids that were the same ages as my two oldest.
It was weird...after my kids went to bed at night and I'd go out on the
porch to smoke I would see their little girl, then only about seven, riding
her bike. I once stopped her...it was like 11 or 11:30 at night, and I told
her to get her butt home and stay inside, and asked where her mom and dad
were. She told me her dad was home, but she didn't know where her ma was.
Then, one day, I was taking a shirt over there that their kids had left in
my yard and it was summer...oh my god, the smell from that house being so
dirty almost knocked me off the front porch, and the door hadn't even been
opened yet!
The last day of school my son and this other boy got into an argument on the
way home and the boy took out a pocket knife and held it to my son's throat.
Of course, I marched right over there to get onto their mom.
She answered the door and asked me to come in. The place was literally a
pig stye...some of the links to photos that have been posted here made that
lady's house look CLEAN!
I almost gagged at the smell.
When I told her why I was there she started telling me that she hadn't the
time to keep an eye on her kids, she was busy going to college to become a
social worker for the county.
I got pretty ****ed off, and I told her that she'd better hope that she
never got a call to come to my house because I'd laugh her ass right off the
lawn.


Curio Jones the famous mental case caseworker
did a LOT of harm to families before she became
a huge Public Relations liability to the CPS agencies.

Bring on the Witch Hunt to burn the perverts within the agency!





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com