On Nov 12, 1:59 am, Bearic wrote:

The system does experience some corruption, as all systems do to
one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.

GOT PROOF?

The Child Protection INDUSTRY has never proven
that they reduced child mortality or abuse one bit.
Cherry picked anecdotal stories are used for PR purposes.
(Note how below you blow off anecdotal stories...)

The instances
of children being killed and abused in foster care are less than the
success stories.

They had better be, because the RATE is higher than
if they stayed home DESPITE the abuse!

Parents could argue the "instances" of abuse are
less than the success stories also, but it's a lame argument!

What brought you to this discussion and what is your
actual experience with the Child Protection INDUSTRY
Eric? When somebody shills for the disgraced
BUREAUCRACY it's usually because they are a
beneficiary of it somehow. Caseworker, contractor,
foster or adopter, somebody who is getting something somehow.

Donald Fisher lied about his "in" as a caseworker
for around 6 years before I proved he is a retired
Oregon state caseworker who resides just across
the border in WA state.

Apparently he thought this denial was advantageous
in discussions! Gosh, I can't imagine why! LOL

Children in normal two-parent homes are killed by
their mothers and fathers sometimes, too, but you can't judge all
families harshly based on random anecdotal examples. Resptectully,
E.B.

Actually, the Child Protection INDUSTRY very much
THRIVES on emphasizing the few horrific cases to
justify their funding, in propaganda, PR and legislative
appeals they work to create the mythology that the
horror stories are the bulk of their caseloads.

Cases involving blood, broken bones or sex abuse
are actually less than one % based on the Fed stats.

A bigger bunch is drug addicts.

But 80% never were removed for reasons that meet the
required imminent danger standard.

Would you like to be arrested because somebody
looked at you and decided you were thinking about
robbing a bank?

And they called it in and so you have to go to jail
""until it's sorted out"". (BUREACRATIC HELL)

Removing a child is supposed to be done with
more care and legal safeguards than a jailable
offence, not fewer safeguards.

To "Err on the side of safety" has been ruled
as flagrantly unconstitutional, it generally only
makes sense to the people working for the
bureaucracy.