In continuing my responses to Kane's single post....

Kane writes:

I know it sounds silly but it's based on rock solid human responses.
I've tested it again and again. When I worked for others I used to get
the best work evaluations because of it.

I called it my, Okay boss, and what was the next thing I could work on
to improve? Okay boss, and what next? Boss could you make some
suggestions about my compusive drive toward perfection in my work?"

Translated into workerese, it makes a little hero out of the worker.
Putting the white hat on them, so to speak. A student loan office
clerk taught me that. Had an apathetic loan officer. Clerk stopped me
on the way out, "You've been hittin the books on loans and grants
waaaaa too much. Let the loan officer save your butt" Ah ha, the light
went on.

I came back absolutely helpless the next week and watch an energized
student loan councelor work his butt off for me.

Same with anyone that goes into human services. Most are their because
of a hero complex. Hey, I knows it when I sees it. Got a touch of it
meself.

I understand the hero complex. The fact remains that there is a point
where the parent should agree to the need for a particular service and a
point where they should not, depending on the facts of the individual case.

Obviously, the CPS worker is advising parents to accept all services. While
he would be overjoyed if the parent agreed and went further to volunteer for
more, it may not be in the best interests of the family. The state would
have no problem with your advice.

...Only if the parent's attorney has read the safety plan and
advises
the
parent to sign it. One must be very careful not to stipulate to
anything
that may be determined to put the child at risk or suggest guilt,
thereby
negating their case at the adjucication hearing. This is the only
opportunity the parent has to challenge CPS allegations and CPS
has the
burden of proof.

That is exactly why the document should be returned with editing
initialed by the parent but no signiture of the parent on it until
CPS
puts pen to paper.

Sure.


It's The Whore solution made sane and reasonable. But then his is
not
to get the child back but to sue later. That's an entirely
different
ballgame. Me, I want the child back. Don't call me when it's time
to
sue. I'm not well versed in that aspect.

Well, hopefully, these tactics can be applied way before any children are
taken into state custody. The vast majority of services are provided
families whose children are not in temporary custody of the state and where
children remain in the home.

The practical application of some of your tactics would be before the child
is emotionally traumatized by removal. Once the child is taken into state
custody, she suffers major emotional injury -- often irreparable.

Agreeing to take a psychological evaluation from one of the
therapists
in
CPS's stable is a crucial error.

Bull**** again.

You simply walk into the evaluation session with a copy of the
evaluation of YOUR psychologist in hand and ask the current shrink,
smiling of course, their opinion of this evaluation.

Psychological evaluations for CPS are rarely -- if ever -- done by
shrinks.

oh stop the hair splitting. You certainly know that meant any kind of
head shrinker, not just psychiatrists.

No, I didn't. I thought you meant psychiatrists. I have never heard anyone
use the term head shrinker to refer to any other profession. But now I
understand your meaning of the term.


Therapists (social workers, LPC's or sometimes psychologists) perform
the
evaluations, complete with assigning a DSM-IV diagnosis. Once you
have the
evaluation done by a therapist you have retained, there really is no
reason
to get the CPS therapist's opinion.

Really? I think there is a very good reason. "the white hat" ploy for
one. The other is your willingness to jump high for your kids.

In my opinion, whatever slight gains are won by submitting to a evaluation
by a therapist in CPS stables is far outweighed by the disadvantages of
contenting with one of the DSM-IV labels the stable member is going to tack
on mom. The "white hat" cookie is not worth the risk of being evaluated by
a therapist whose client is CPS.

If mom has already had a psych eval done by an objective, private therapist,
there is no reason to farm for a conflicting one from a therapist whose
client is CPS.

Think
of what that would do to a judge when a lawyer says, "my client loves
his child so much he is willing to under any level of pain, trouble,
inconvenience, to convince the state of that love and have the child
returned to him." I'm practically quoting what I've heard.

Think what the judge is going to say when CPS's attorney introduces the
psych eval performed by one of the agency's contracted therapists diagnosing
mom with "Borderline Personality Disorder" or some other pathological label.
If the CPS therapist wants to get paid, she will need to tack on a
diagnosis. Naturally, the private therapists' evaluation is likely to
contest the CPS diagnosis, but the judge now must weigh the two conflicting
reports.

He may want to "err on the side" of caution and consider that mom is
mentally ill.

Damn, don't you people know ANYTHING tactically? What actually
works
is so damn simple when you don't spend your time ranting
hysterically
to "kill CPS" when you are in no position to do so.

Who said that killing CPS was proposed as a tactic? Depending on the
situation the family finds itself in, a direct legal challenge ("motion for
dismissal for failure to show cause") is often the successful tactic. As
you have said, there are situations that require parents consider more
defiant tactics.

Who has said that parents should kill CPS?

You must miss alot in this ng. There was a claim that Brian Christine
should have and would have and the poster said he would under similar
circumstances. Want the citation?

Sure.


There is even Kill CPS posted in sig lines. Come on Doug. You are too
full of your propaganda. It's clouding your judgement and your vision.
You've let thugs go unchallenged here and it's becoming more and more
noticable all the time.

While you have admitted you are posting propaganda, I have not done so
because I don't believe I am. I do not think my judgment is being clouded.
We just clearly disagree.

You are willing to challenge me when I'm only an insulting thug..r r
r, but you let the ones that can and do advocate direct harm to
workers, and by suggesting it, harm to a parent who might in their
pain and despiration turn to violence.

That doesn't go unnoticed.

I am not interested in joining you in insulting members of this newsgroup.

It might be forgiven but your credibility goes down a notch each time
you let lies or threats go unchallenged FROM EITHER SIDE. If Dan said
to kill abusive parents do you really think I would let that go
unchallenged?

My credibility is not being judged by my willingness to call other posters
names. As much respect as I have for Dan, I would not bother challenging
him if he suggested killing abusive parents. Why would I? If he ever had
that twist to his logic, there is nothing I can say to change his mind.

Assholes like Greeg get exactly what they deserve based on exactly
what they reveal here, but those that come here with decency and need
are not threatened with death, and you know it, not by my side.

You consistently insult newcommers to this newsgroup. A recent post of
yours responds to a woman seeking help by falsely predicting what harsh,
stupid things other members would say to her.

So tell me, do you think, based on Gregs own story that he did no harm
to the girl? That it is CPS fault that the child isn't in the home?

That the Motion he posted here and was apparently presented to the
court over his "fiances" signature, was calculated to get the child
returned?

It is my understanding that the motion was intended to get the little girl
back home, yes.

How can you stomach him?

It is the ideas and child welfare information posted to this newsgroup that
interests me, not the personalities who write them. I am not interested in
praising or personally attacking members of this newsgroup. Greg has
presented some very valid and useful information. I try to evaluate the
information and its impact on the issues we discuss here, not the
individual.

As the Plant would say, "Shame on you."

Regardless of the author, the shame on you comment does not apply. I have
done nothing, in my opinion, to be ashamed of.
Above, you -- not Fern -- attempt to place shame on an individual you
disagree with. Besides the fact that no one can place shame on another, the
statement is meaningless name-calling. It does not direct itself to the
issues.

My worst cursing is nothing compared to the pain he delivered to that
child. Mine causes momentary shock recovered from with a few words and
a few minutes.

Your worst cursing is nothing compared to the institutional abuse suffered
by thousands of children in this country each year. Your cursing is nothing
compared to the agony suffered by children wrongfully taken from their
homes. That does not make the name-calling any more appropriate than the
abuse inflicted upon children by bureaucrats.

That child gets to go to bed each night longing for her mother,
painfully, for years.

Yes. The situation is tragic.

The reason I make it plain I don't like you is that you are lacking in
moral fiber. It's that simple.

Again, I care nothing about personalities. I could care less whether you
like me or not. Your personal attack that I lack morality is as pointless
and meaningless as it is untrue.

You'll take a stand that's easy to
maintain in this setting, but you'll igore what would be
uncomfortable, to confront a "parent" r r r , that has lost "his"
child and shows you just how he did it.

I present information and take stands on child welfare issues, yes. I try
my best not to personally attack individuals who take stands in opposition
to mine.

Be a man. Stand for something besides endless debate with me on
hairsplitting.

I am a man. I would become no more a man by joining you in personally
attacking other members of this newsgroup. Name-calling is the act of a
child. I would be less of a man if I went against my stand and engaged in
what you are asking.

They can STILL show the court their willingness to take the CPS
pscyh
eval. That is a very powerful statement.

Of course if they ARE nuts this will bite them in the butt, but I
have
not a qualm about that. I prefer they face the truth. 1

Psychological evaluations do not determine if someone is nuts.
What they do consist of are vague, unsupportable judgments of people. All
psychological evaluations will end up in a negative DSM-IV diagnosis since
all classifications in the DSM-IV are negative. Too often, these
evaluations are little more than witchcraft wrapped up in psycho-babble.

People involve in the child welfare system run across therapists all the
time. We often meet their children. Our personal experiences tell us this
is far, far less than a concrete science. The future of a child should not
be determined by a psychological diagnosis made by a stakeholder to CPS
agencies.


Don't you?

Psych evaluations have little to do with determining if someone is
"nuts."

You sir, are dead wrong. Dangerous conditions, to the victim and to
others around him or her are clearly established by diagnosis and
actions to protect all parties can be taken.

Nope. With the exception of a few major diagnosis, evaluations do not
establish dangerous conditions for people around the person with MI. Most
MI afflicted people are not a danger to anyone.

One mother that used to regularly, when she got off her meds against
orders, would swim her 2 to 6 month old baby out into a major river
here. Usually a fisherman would come across them, both naked on an
island somewhere and rescue them. This in freezing weather.

Are you saying the mother has a diagnosed mental illness? If so, what is
the diagnosis? Is the problem here that the mother was on meds?

No, the problem here is the mother is taking her infant with her into
freezing water -- a dangerous situation that risks the child's life. All
people with mental illness do not go swimming with their infants in unsafe
conditions.

She finally got it when once again her diagnosis was shared with her
during a time she was stable, and someone had video taped her in the
river. She screamed and cried when she saw the women in the river with
the baby. She froze up when she saw the faces up close. She
reliquished her baby shortly after, and now has a wonderful open
adoption with a family that will keep both of them safe and connected,

What was she taking meds for? Are you suggesting that the first therapist
was wrong in her diagnosis? Was she on her meds when you saw her crying at
the pictures?

I hate what you say about CPS not because you are wrong, but because
you do not say what is right, and you exaggerate and frankly you lie,
far too much.

I don't lie. I say things you don't like to hear. You cannot challenge the
information, so you resort to this sort of stuff.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, actually, I shouldn't. I have done nothing to be ashamed of.

teria for one or
more
DSM-IV diagnoses have been met. Some of the labels are relatively
mild,
while others are major. All are negative.

There is little point in your point.

One of the major problems in the publics misperception of
psychological
evaluations.

Yes. Why do you continue to perpetrate that misperception?

It isn't an entertainment. The purpose is to chart a course of tx and
often rx. And protect that person and those around them.

That
evaluation report will be provided to the client (the parent).
Evaluators
in CPS stable make a good deal of their income (if not all) from
CPS and
they provide the parent's evaluation report to their client
(CPS). If a
stable therapist doesn't have a history of saying what CPS wants
to hear
they are taken out of the stable.

You are as usual either lying or badly misinformed. A few months
back
I spent a profitable afternoon, three billable hours, consulting
with
a worker that was finding a counselor evaluating (obviously to
route a
family back to MORE therapy) with bias...in fact three involved
therapists.

Nothing you have said above or below disputes what I have said. And
it will
always be up to the CPS worker to act on or ignore the psych eval.
Taxpayer
money need not be spent on consultants to so advise their
caseworkers.
Caseworkers routinely ignore the findings of a psych eval if it
doesn't fit
in with their plan.

Lower slobbovia again doug? They don't where I come from. The only
ignore when the practitioners overstep the reasonable application of
the evaluations.

Yes, they would term their reason for ignoring the evaluations something
like that.

And you yourself said caseworkers are not diagnosticians. So who will
do the evaluations? And caseworker malfeasance is not an excuse for
stripping clients of needed services. Stop that.

Independent therapists should do the evaluations. Evaluations should not be
ordered unless there is probable cause to believe there is mental illness.

The resolution? With my facilitation of the worker examining the
circumstances and what SHE knew the family needed: reuniting
without
further services divided up between the three shrinks, just a few
wind-up sessions for the family together, that little bull****
number
by the shrinks ended.

There is a lot of bull**** numbers pulled up by CPS stable
therapists. Is a
family's chances restricted to hoping the caseworker hires a
consultant?

You must live in hell. I see a lot of very careful work that results
in a great deal of healing and recovery and children returned because
children can be parented safely after parent treatment.

I see a lot of children wrongfully removed from innocent parents because of
hazy labels placed on parents by therapists looking, like your stable of
psychs above, for ongoing business.

I heard the howl from 50 miles away, but this is not an unusual
action
by a worker. I had to remind her that she was the case manager, not
the shrinks. And they hadn't a decent argument to support their
evaluation.

Right. It is not an unusual action by a worker. Something a
caseworker does
all the time without a consultant. Who was howling?

The therapists. It was one of those "treatem' the the end of the
grant" numbers and the worker put her foot down. That particular
worker, and there are something of a surplus of them in CPS, was,
surprize, a licensed clinical social worker with about 8 years of
therapeutic experience herself.

So, she was an LCSW who disagreed with the psych evaluation
done by other therapists. Happens all the time. A lot of disagreement.
That is why the parent should seek out their own independent therapist.

Why did the worker leave clinical work after 8 years?


Her services to vet some of her collegues cases came in handy and
tamed the therapeutic world just a tad.

You have a good one.

You, too, sir!