View Single Post
  #5  
Old February 11th 08, 07:39 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
dragonsgirl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 369
Default DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks


"Greegor" wrote in message
...
DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500
employees,
looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November
2006,
when a policy change required that all new employees go through
background screening.


The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who
are
victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough
without
having to fear someone in the system.


DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially
dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental
agencies that deal with children that background checks are
necessary
for all employees.


From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations
for them to root out their own perverts?


If they find some raging perverts inside their agency
will they announce it publicly? I doubt it.


So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family"
with all of the pervs they find internally, right?


How are they going to test hard enough to
find the perves within their agency?


If some slip through won't it prove that they
don't know their head from their heiney?


If they can't even accurately screen
their own people, how do they pretend
any credibility screening parents?


BW They don't screen parents.

LK Maybe they don't call it that.

BW They take parent's behaviors into account
BW when determining their ability to parent.

They're not qualified to "determine" any such thing.


I think you are wrong.
I think that they are very well qualified to determine when parents lack the
ability.
There are indicators, as you very well know.
Heavy drug use, perisistent physical abuse and neglect, mental instability,
etc.
You can't argue those points Greg, because you, yourself, point to them many
times when it suits you.
And yet, you are no more qualified than a social worker is.
You point to the mental status of Lisa's daughter's grandmother as reason
for the child not to be placed in her home, as an example.
If, in your case, that is, indeed, a reason for the child not to be placed
there, then do tell how you can determine that, and how DFS is not qualified
to make that determination in the case of others.



LK And everything else they can find.

BW ***Such as?

"Mowing the lawn with a broken lawnmower"
was one of their complaints in our case.


If DFS cited that as a reason for removal, then it was wrong. No two ways
about it.
That has nothing to do with the ability of the parents to effectively raise
a child, and I would agree with you that it was absurd for them to bring
that up for any reason.



The child was forced to watch some Babylonian movie.
(Babylon 5, a sci fi show akin to Star Trek)


Again, that is no indicator of ability to parent...though I really don't see
any reason why someone would 'force' a child to watch a movie, and think
it's nuts to do so, it still has nothig to do with ability to parent.



The morons from CPS will write up anything
they hope will "score" for them.


Those above are very invalid points.
What about the valid ones?