View Single Post
  #8  
Old September 13th 03, 10:59 PM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

Fern had written in a previous post:

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of

child
deaths in the
US.


To which, Kane had responded:

In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
course, increased tremendously.


Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.


I then replied that the RATE of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect
has NOT gone down, as Kane claims. His claim that occurance has remained
steady while rates have gone down because of population growth is incorrect.

Fern's statement, which Kane refutes, is correct. In fact, the rate of
fatalities slightly increased. So, both occurance and rate slightly
increased in 2001.

My point was that Fern's initial comment that fatalities have NOT gone down
was correct -- both in terms of rates and occurances -- Kane's refutation
was incorrect.

Secondily, I asked Kane in my post for a source to his claim that fatality
rates normally go up and down in correlation with the economy. While he
did not respond to that request, Kane switches in his next post from calling
Fern names for posting facts that he wrongly disputes to wrongly challenging
my comments.

You should call the cops, Doug. Someone has been posting under your
addy and refuting your claims. Tsk.


To pull off this awkward attempt, Kane digs back and retrieves a post I
wrote more than a year ago -- 8 months BEFORE data on 2001 fatalities were
published.


Subject: New Child Welfare Head in Florida Is Drawing Fire
From: "Doug"
Date: 8/19/2002 1:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: nk.net


Note the date of my post: 8/19/2002.
........................

In cases of serious child abuse, the argument is moot. Police are
already actively involved in investigating (and DA's prosecuting)
child abuse and neglect. Most states require that CPS agencies notify
police of child abuse reports they receive and specially trained
detectives conduct independent or collateral investigations.
Naturallly, CPS caseworkers have no authority over police or the
prosecutors who use the fruits of the investigation to bring child
abusers to trial. Criminal investigation and prosecution requires
that caregivers be afforded due process of law and, of course, the
jury trials are open to the public.

The involvement of police has not impacted the fatality rate of
children who are abused/neglected. The per capita rate of child
fatalities due to abuse/neglect has remained relatively constant for
decades.

..........................................

Not your words, Doug?


Yes, my words, Kane. I appreciate you republishing them. They were all
factual and accurate a year ago and they still are for that reporting
period. At that time, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System was
reporting on child fatalities through 2000.

In April, 2003, the US Department of Health and Human Services published the
NCANDS data on child fatalities for 2001. In the September, 2003 post to
which you respond, I wrote that there was an increase in child fatalities
due to abuse and neglect from 2000 to 2001, citing that very source. Here
is my exact quote:

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

Can't have it both ways, Doug, or can you?


LOL!

Well, yes we can, Kane. You see, in 2000, the child fatality rate was
relatively steady and, in 2001, there was an increase in child fatality rate
..

Did you think you were fooling someone? You reached back for a post I made
more than a year ago citing an entirely different source for an entirely
different year of occurances.

My suggestion would be that, in the future, you consider citing the sources
of your claims when you refute someone or quote them, as you have done
above. If you do so, instead of "shooting from the hip" in your zeal to
attack another member of this group, you may discover in looking for the
source that what you are about to claim is incorrect. Secondily, my
suggestion would be that you check my citations. If you had done so, you
would have realized that two different sources (and reporting years) were
involved in my post of a year ago and the present one.

My point wasn't that there was no change, or even that there was, but
that The Plant, and you to follow, seem to be extremely careful to
create an impression that the fault lies with CPS.


No, your point, based upon the false assumption that fatality rates had gone
down, was that CPS had something to do with those statistics. You asked
Fern whether she credited the "decrease" to organizations she supports or to
CPS.

Now that we have learned that those rates did NOT go down, my question of
you would be do you think CPS or this other organizations are to blame for
that situation?

You don't know that, and neither does It.


What do you wish to accomplish by attempting to dehumanize another human
being by using the word "it" instead of "she?" How does such uncooth,
childish language reflect upon anyone else but who uses it? Come on. You
disagree with another member of this forum. No problem. In this particular
case, she happens to be right in a dispute over some numbers. Big deal.
You have been right on other issues. Why not stick to those issues...or
numbers...rather than personal attacks?

It's like your old argument that foster parents cause more fatalities
of children than bio parents, when the data is clearly labeled as IN
foster care NOT by foster caregivers. But BY bio parents, not IN the
care of the bio parents.


My statement, reprinted yet again above with citation, was a comparison
between to fatalities due to abuse/neglect occurring in the general
population and fatalities due to abuse/neglect occuring in foster care.

The language in the source cited decidedly DOES NOT say "But by bio parents"
as you, again, falsely claim. On the one side, the data measures ALL
fatalities in the general population, which includes abuse neglect committed
by ALL caregivers, INCLUDING foster caregivers -- NOT just parents. The
data on the other side measures fatalities occurring as the result of abuse
and neglect in foster care.

Here is my exact quote yet again, complete with citations.

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

Such careful wording by reporters is noteworthy, and makes it rather
clear that they aren't counting convictions of fosters, but they very
likely ARE of bio parents.


Nope. The NCANDS data does not count *convictions* in either of the
categories. It does not even consider criminal charges. NCANDS data is
based upon data submitted by state CPS agencies and their civil findings.

Your claim is yet again false.

The reporting and harvesting of data isn't quite as simple as you'd
like folks to believe.


Who are you talking to here, Kane? It is good thing for you to keep in
mind.

Your assumptive attempts to isolate bits and pieces of data and con
the reader is duly noted.


Please review the thread again. As we have seen above, it has been your
inaccurate assumptions that have been problematic. You attempted to dispute
valid data offered by another poster with a false assumption and then went
on to make charges against what she had written based upon your false
assumption. You go further still to isolate one of my posts made to this
newsgroup in August of last year to attempt to discredit my statement based
on current data made available 8 months after the post you selectively
pasted.

Who is attempting to con who?

This is a field with massive amounts of data and many varying opinions
and analyses of such. It makes it fertile ground for grow nonsense
Trees. Like yours and The Plants.


Yes. Massive pools of data. Please feel free to post your claims based
upon the data and cite that data so that we can all see the basis of your
point. Thus far, all you have done is shoot from the hip with assumptions.
These assumptions have been proven to be incorrect.

I agree with you that the available data can lead to a writer to reach many
conclusions. I try to cite the source of the data I draw upon to make my
conclusions. If you do the same, I will be able to see where you are coming
from. Your attempt to challenge the comparative data in this post fails
because, as pointed out, you assumed language that was not in the source
material cited. You *assumed* the categories and sources of the data had
something to do with criminal *convictions* when the data in both categories
(foster care and general population) has nothing to do with criminal
charges, let alone convictions.

Though it's terribly heavy going I recommend a visit to

http://tinyurl.com/n44h

if for no other reason than to see the enormity of this field of
interest.


I will go there. Are you citing any specific information from this source
to support claims that you have made? If so, please restate the those
positions you have taken here that are supported by this source.

And for those with a bent to research I'm sure they'll find you are
full of ****. At least part of the time and from place to place,
source to source, analyst to analyst.


I am certain that I will make mistakes from time to time. I am a human
being, so mistakes can be a birth defect. If I do, I would hope a reader
would dispute my conclusions based upon cited sources of information or data
that challenges my conclusions, rather than shooting from the hip with
assumptions that have no basis in fact. I would rather spend time here
discussing the issues than disproving your assumptions.

It isn't that data can't be found that you quote...but that data can
be found to support many points of view, all peer reviewed, and nicely
packaged.


Where is it?

Please...share it with us in the same way that I share the data I have
found. I would be overjoyed to review data that challenges the data that I
have cited. It's the only way I can learn more about child welfare. A
discussion that draws upon multiple sources of data would be enlightening
for all of us in this forum.

In other words, YOU, gentle reader, just as Doug, can find something
to support your position no matter how much you change it from time to
time. R R R R.


As clearly documented above, I have not in any way changed my position
regarding child fatalities due to abuse and neglect. I have, however, drawn
upon new data as it has become available, citing each source separately. In
April of 2003, data on the year 2001 became available and I cited it in
making a comparision to 2000.

A favorite hobby of mine, when reading such data sources is to note
things about collection and source, and what is missing. Some of the
data you and I have gone over before had massive amounts of missing
reportage from various states but you insisted that the data had
validity for your point of view, but not mine. Consistency is a
continuing and unsolved challenge.


What data are you talking about, Kane? The data for the immediate issue --
child fatalities due to abuse and neglect -- is not missing "massive amounts
of reportage from various states." If you could specify what positions I
have taken based upon missing data and cite sources of that data, I will be
able to respond. It is impossible to respond to shoot from the hip
generalities.