On May 9, 5:37 am, " krp" wrote:
"0:-]" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:04:56 -0700, fx wrote:

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Pointing out a fact, unless I clearly state that it defends the
action, as I did not, is not defending anything but the rights
recognized by our constitution and BOR.

Did you see me say I approved of the supervisors actions? Show us.
Here's my statement:

"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.

Hence, the state lacks statute to prevent it (probably at the
insistence of the state's AG who understands constitutional issues)
and CPS can ONLY control associations with active current clients.

This is yet another bogus attempt of yours, by finding someone in
agreement with illogical and in this case blatantly ILLEGAL attempts
to tell a person who they may associate with.

Yer a real constitutional and "rights" fount of wisdom you are. Just
as the state Rep Paton, who of course is doing a political Hail Mary
play.

He KNOWS that he is standing on thin air, but boy, does it LOOK good
to claim CPS isn't doing what they cannot by law do. He just leaves
out the latter part of that idea.

Like you. " ...

That is it in full..so short that it's more than obvious you chopped
it to make libel.

So, where is the defense of the supervisor, or of CPS, Ken the Liar?

IMHO a rather warped reading of the Bill of Rights.

Your opinion is warped, Ken. We know that about you by now.

Kane
misses that the "people" who employ this individual, CAN, as a "condition of
employment" impose rules and expectations of conduct on the people hired for
a job which is NOT, Kane, to screw the perverts!

Of course they can be so restrained by their employer, as long as it
does NOT violate their rights.

Unless the article is wrong, that would have been the case had they
ordered her not to see someone that was NOT a client at the time she
did associate with him.

You, who claim to be a trial consultant, don't know the BOR. Go ahead
and show me were what I "missed" in the BOR exists, Ken.

In a democratic republic with carefully designed law to maintain the
power of the people over the government and it's agents, sometimes bad
people do bad things that take advantage of those protected rights.

The supervisor is protected by the US Constitution, Ken, and you know
it. We don't have to like it or approve of it to point out a political
and legal fact.

And we cannot blame CPS for not being able to do anything about it, as
long as the supervisor did not "see" him privately while he was her
client.

I can't find that in the
Bill of Rights

Of course you can't. But you can find the part about freedom of
association, if you look. It was so vital to our founders it ended up
in AMENDMENT ONE of the BOR.

Of course one has to believe in some standard of ethics for
public employees.

Yep. Where is that in the law? In fact, CPS stated very much the same
thing. But your 'new' posting buddy seemed to have suggested they
didn't.

And exactly when did it extend to associations with people who are NOT
CLIENTS of CPS at the time of the association?

You aren't very bright but I'd expect you to read the article for
content, Ken, rather than risk being caught again, lying.

Here's your 'opps!' Ken.

"... there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients...."

That is from the first paragraph of the article and I took it from the
attributions of THIS post of yours.

"...there's been," is a contraction and a word meaning "in the past."
You can tell by the word "former."

Now was she seeing him while he was HER client? Then you got her.
Where does it say she was?

Here is what the poster tries to ignore and claim some kind of evil
intent or malpractice concerning:

" 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.""

Oh, "once the case has ENDED..."

They can discourge, Ken, but if they do not want to be criminally
charged, and perforce sued they cannot forbid or punish or otherwise
violate WHAT AMENDMENT KEN?

Hint, it's the First.

The right of assembly is in fact a right, with caselaw supporting it,
for people to associate with who they will, unless for criminal
intent, Ken. How the hell do you make a living doing court
consultation?

You were supposed to learn about the BOR in the Eight Grade.

Now if the supervisor is found to have in any way aided, abetted, or
participated in the abuse of a child there goes that right.

But so far as the news article stated, that has not been established.
So the state cannot legally tell her not to associate, unless he is
HER client. He isn't, so far as we know. He WAS. But is no more.

Tell me again how I am excusing her actions, Ken. I want everyone here
to see what a thoroughgoing liar you are.



I was treated to an interesting quip from one of the users on the Falseacc
list today that I'll share he

It's not a "quip."

And the punch line isn't he least clever. If there were a God she
would not be so impressed with non believers as to make decisions of
this importance based on their acceptance or not.

The truth is that in many instances the reason the shooters, if guns
were used, able to do what they did is because no one was allowed to
be armed to stop them.

In a few instance, in fact, guns were retrieved, or showed up by
someone rushing to the scene and stopping the carnage, using a gun.
"God," or the lack thereof, hadn't a damn thing to do with it.

You just wanted to make some kind of impression on the readers
pretending you couldn't possibly lie or have malevolent motives, Ken.
That in itself is a lie.

0:]


============================================

Dear God:

Why didn't you save the school children at:

Virginia Tech

Amish Country, PA

Columbine High School

Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96

Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97

Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97

West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97

Stam P, Arkansas 12/15/97

Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98

Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98

Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98

Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98

Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98

Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99

Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99

Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99

Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99

Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99

Santee, California 3/ 5/01 and

El Cajon, California 3/22/01?

Sincerely,

Concerned Student

-----------------------------------------------------

Reply:

Dear Concerned Student:

I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,

God