"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser
May 4, 2007 04:57 PM

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035

Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child
protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a
confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients.

The client is a convicted child abuser.

The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that
month of a 4 year old by his father.

Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his
right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and
an
investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to
child abuse.

But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a
romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months
before the abuse occurred.

And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the
family's
case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002.

The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are
just some of the details:

* In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his
daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing."
* September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking
for
food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids
were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002.
* August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's
daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the
right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated
report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with
their father.

Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was
questioned
about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged
abuse,
and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the
children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the
children in her presence."

We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She
said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this.

Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A
CPS
spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in
which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional
relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation
of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing
on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case
has ended, relationships are discouraged."

State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that
was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker
could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one
who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of
CPS.

It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association
barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts
if need be.

Why did you stop there, after leaving everything else, and remove what
showed that I was not defending the agency or the supervisor?
Hmmmm....kenny?

Could have fooled me Kane. Sure as hell seemed like you were grasping at
EXCUSES.

Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a
CPS
supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least
find
it troublesome?

"Killer?" You will provide proof of my having killed anyone immediately,
Ken.

A nickname for the Internet's BADDEST badass at debate.

And how do you know what I find troublesome or not, liar?

Do you find it troublesome for a CPS SUPERVISOR to be GEWTTING IT ON
with a SEX OFFENDER??? Huh, Kane, DO YA?

Why did you snip the rest of my post that more clearly showed my
position?

There is a special place in Hell (well you're a believer aren't you?)
for those that will take a portion of what someone says, and base a
false accusation or claim about the person or his views on the portion
alone.

I will only wade in bull**** so deep Kane.

You make a habit of this, and have paid dearly for it when caught. You
ran when I caught you.

On your WETTEST of all possible dreams pantywaist.

Then it is defended by saying it is "freedom of
association."

No it isn't. I am defending freedom of association, not the actions of
this person in particular. I am explaining why the state cannot stop
this person from hanging with who she wishes.


Yes master... Now take your bull**** elsewhere.