" krp" wrote in message
news:Vfj0i.8427$Q96.7733@trnddc04...

"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 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? Then it is defended by saying it is "freedom of
association." IMHO a rather warped reading of the Bill of Rights. 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! I can't find
that in the Bill of Rights. Of course one has to believe in some standard
of ethics for public employees.

Gee, kenny's back, how ..... surprising.

1. You can call the law a rationalization if you like kenny, I honestly
don't mind it when you make yourself look like an idiot. It saves me the
effort.

2. No one is telling you what kind of life form you can date, but you
presume that the courts (our nations guardians of freedom) should have the
right to say who can associate with whom because of their job. Nice. Lets
extend it to you for example kenny. Should the courts be able to decide who
you can associate with? Of course, you have admitted to breaking many laws
in your time in Usenet, and SHOULD have a long term relationship with the
criminal justice system, but should the courts tell you that you are not
allowed to associate with parents working with the system just because you
have bilked them time and again of their hard earned money?

3. As a matter of LAW kenny, once again I make an attempt to educate, an
employer cannot extend job expectations beyond hours of duty and into an
individuals personal life, except in very rare and specific circumstances.
Right of Association is NOT one of those areas.

4. I find it totally hilarious that you, given your record here in Usenet,
can even THINK about the term "ethics" much less presume to instruct anyone
else about it. Personally, I'd laugh in your face even if you tried to
explain it to Charles Manson, much less anyone associated with the topic
under discussion.

5. You have no "humble opinions" kenny. Your ego gets in the way.

Ron


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

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

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