"Doug" wrote in message
...
Why are non-victims provided "services?" Because they are removed during
the investigation and it was not determined they were NON-VICTIMS until
the investigation was complete.
Hi, Kane,
You are quite incorrect. Services are usually provided families whose
children have not been removed.
Actually doug, you are quite incorrect.
Services are provided to families AND children, both before and after
removal. Removal itself is a service, for the child.
"Based on data from 35 States, it is estimated that 26.7 children per 1,000
children in the population received preventive services. This results in a
national estimate of nearly 2,000,000 children."
"Almost 60 percent (59.4%) of the child victims received postinvestigation
services. Nearly 30 percent (27.3%) of nonvictims received such services."
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...ix.htm#prevent
Ron
So, the fact that services are provided does not equate to children being
removed during the investigation. The opposite is true. Removal itself
is a "service," but the vast majority of families who are forced into
accepting CPS services, whether they involve substantiated victims or
unsubstantiated non-victims, involve children who are NOT removed during
the investigation.
In fact, the method used to force families to accept services is the
THREAT to remove their children. The threat of removal is, as you have
explained, the "stick" CPS uses to force parents to accept services.
A simple check of Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS) annually shows that a very small percentage of non-victim
children are returned to their homes within the time frame of an
investigation (60 days). So it is immediately obvious that the vast
majority of the nonvictims who were removed from their homes spent much,
much longer in foster care.
In fact, the majority of non-victims are not removed during the
investigation at all.
When are they removed? After the unsubstantiated finding.
During the investigation, parents relunctantly agree to "services" under
threat of removal of their children. The children stay in the home, and a
safety plan is signed by the parents. As NCANDS reports, most "services"
begin at this point. 30 to 60 days later the investigation is completed
with a finding of unsubstantiated. And, sometime during the months that
follow, the parents miss a hoop in their "safety plans" that mandated the
"services." Remember the stick?
Well, a stick is not effective unless it is used. Since the parents
messed up on one "service" or another, CPS now makes good on its threat
and removes the non-victim children many months after the investigation
concluded with an unsubstantiated finding. Children who were found by CPS
itself not to be at risk of or actually maltreated are now forcibly
removed from their families because mom or dad missed a hoop.
That is why Dan advised members of this group never to sign a safety plan
that provides "services" or remedies for transgressions the parents are
not guilty of.
BTW, whatever happened to your claim that the 69,000 to 109,000 non-victim
children removed their unsubstantiated families annually were "siblings"
of children substantiated as victims? (Which was proven false.) And
whatever happened to your claim that these nonvictims removed from their
homes are really children who were substantiated for some forms of risk or
abuse/neglect and unsubstantiated for others? NCANDS data disproves this
immediately because the sum of non-victims and victims add up to the total
number of children subject to investigations or assessments.
You repeatedly try shots in the dark to explain this glaring statistic --
that tens of thousands of nonvictim children are forcibly removed from
their unsubstantiated families each year. Obviously, the causal variable
to removal is often not the maltreatment of the child or even that the
child is at risk.
And then, of course, there is Ron's claim that all of these non-victims
were removed from their homes voluntarily upon the wishes of their
parents.
You have taken three shots at an explanation. All three have been proven
incorrect. Do you want to give it another shot?