I had written:

Services are usually provided families whose children have not been
removed.

To which, Kane replies:

"Usually?" More equivocating language, Doug? That's how you get started
with a lie.

Yep, usually. Specifically, 352,469 of the 518,000 child victims who
received services stayed in their homes before, during and after the
investigation. 68% of the substantiated families who received services
involved child victims who remained in the home.
http://tinyurl.com/h24ht

Almost 41% of the child victims in substantiated families received no
services at all and remained in the home before, during and after the
investigation. http://tinyurl.com/h24ht
Yet a whopping 718,000 non-victim children in unsubstantiated families were
forced into services. And 102,609 of those non-victim children received the
"service" of being forcibly removed from their unsubstantiated families.

The vast majority of reports screened in for investigation or assessment are
unfounded.

2,631,000 of the 3.4 million children investigated by CPS in 2004 were
subjects of unsubstantiated findings by CPS. Yet 718,000 of these
non-victim children received services. 102,609 of these non-victims were
removed from their unsubstantiated families. That means that 615,391
non-victim children who received services remained in their homes before,
during and after the investigation. In other words, 86% of
the non-victims who received services remained in the home.
http://tinyurl.com/h24ht

Specifically, 68% of child victims who received services remained in the
home before, during and after the investigation and 86% of child non-victims
who received services remained in the home.

Some are, and some aren't, Doug. Claiming I'm "incorrect" is more of your
bull**** spinning.

Your statement which I have proven was incorrect was:

"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."

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.

Some are, some are not. Aren't you ashamed of yourself for reading that
one of the circumstances IS, just as I've said in the past, removal during
investigations? You should be.

Specifically, 68% of child victims receiving services and 86% of child
non-victims receiving services remain in their homes before, during and
after 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.

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. And we've discussed this many
times. How would YOU get a family to accept "services," Doug. Get down on
your knees and beg?

The court says deliver services. That's what CPS is required to do.

Court proceedings to determine temporary custody of the victim, guardianship
of the victim, or disposition of State dependency petitions were reported as
being initiated to 16.7 percent of child victims in substantiated families.
Court-appointed representatives were assigned for less than 13% of the child
victims. http://tinyurl.com/h24ht

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).

Let's see the data, Doug.

I have shown you the data repeatedly. Go take a look at it again.

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.

We know you are lying now, Doug, because I've posted a clear explanation,
with citation, just what a "non-victim," is and is not. And it does NOT
mean in all cases, or even the majority (quite the contrary) that the
child was in fact not victimized.

Actually, "non-victim" means precisely that -- not victimized. In fact, a
non-victim is a child subject of a report CPS workers have unsubstantiated.
A clear explanation, with citation, of just what an unsubstantiated finding
is follows:

"Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines that
there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect
that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated."
http://tinyurl.com/gaksr

The defination of substantiated and unsubstantiated is also found in state
statutes in all 50 states and published in the desposition given the
subjects of an investigation. When a family receives notice of the finding
in their case, the defination of each finding is published in the notice.
The statutory language of these guidelines CPS must follow, by law, is
identical or very similar to the federal defination cited above.

In states that use a dual-track approach that includes either investigation
or assessment, non-victim children are subject to CPS concluding that "the
child was not identified as a victim when a response other than
investigation was provided." http://tinyurl.com/gaksr

In fact, the majority of non-victims are not removed during the
investigation at all.

Now you want it both ways? Interesting.

Never said it any other way than the above. The vast majority of non-victim
children are not removed during the investigation at all.

When are they removed? After the unsubstantiated finding.

Yes.

And back to yet another long resolved issue. "Unsubstantiated" does not
mean the child was not a victim. This is a long standing problem in child
protection...just what constitutes that label, and what it actually means.

Actually, that is precisely what it means. Moreover, it means that the CPS
workers themselves found no credible evidence to SUSPECT that the non-victim
was at risk of maltreatment or actually maltreated.

Just how long are you going to lie about this, Doug?

During the investigation, parents relunctantly agree to "services" under
threat of removal of their children.

Some services are no more than having their child evaluated. And most
cases are in fact valid reports of abuse and neglect, substantiated or
not.

The vast majority of reports investigated or assessed by CPS are found by
the caseworkers themselves to be unsubstantiated. 2,631,000 of the 3.4
million children subject to investigations or assessments by CPS were
unsubstantiated in 2004.

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?

Sure do. And prove that statement, please.

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.

Depends on what "the stick," is, Doug. And you know it. It isn't failure
to brush the child's hair, Doug. It's more often a dirty UA, or failing to
show for visitations with the child that was a "victim" and was removed
and is in foster care. Or more criminal activity. I love how you portray
the bio parents as poor helpless victims of the system, Doug.

I was talking about the non-victim children of unsubstantiated families.
Where has it be shown that the unsubstantiated parents had a drug problem to
begin with, or was ever involved in criminal activity. I made reference in
my statement to unsubstantiated families who were forced to jump through
hoops under the threat to remove their non-victim children. Again, in such
cases, the hoop would not involve failing to visit children in foster care
since they have not been removed but under the threat of removal.

It's a lie.

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.

Depends on what the hoop was and is, Doug.

The hoops usually come from the cookie cutter -- parenting classes, therapy.
Regardless, the family was unsubstantiated and the children found by CPS to
be non-victims. But before the family learns of the disposition of the case
(in a letter 30 days later, which also defines all of the findings) the
parents signed a safety plan mandating services.

Months later, the non-victim child is forcibly removed from her
unsubstantiated parents because the parent(s) did not complete services
(hoops) they did not need in the first place.

Again, the removal is done after the unsubstantiated finding and has nothing
to do with abuse or neglect, but the failure of the parent to jump through
hoops they committed to under the threat of their children being removed.

If you need a stick to force services, sooner or later you have to use the
stick.