Prosecutor whipped in *felony spanking* in FL

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Dan Sullivan wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message

How can the intent be determined if the report was made anonymously?
-----------------
The intent of police officials is the only important intent here.

We're talking about CPS.
They remove FAR more children than the police.
Or don't you know that?
-------------
They ARE the police, they have badges.

The majority of people who remove children from families are CPSworkers, NOT
the police.

CPS frequently determines that a parent is a danger to their
children
based
simply on the fact that an (anonymous) allegation was made..
------------------------------
Yep, this is necessary.

So if someone ****es me off in a supermarket and I get the tag number
off
their car and report to CPS that I saw them shaking their child, CPS
should
remove the child for safety's sake?
----------------------
Depends.

On what?

What if people start to make reports like that just to clog up the
system?
-----------------------
They should be beaten to death. Or whatever the customary penalty
for filing false reports.

People who file false reports suffer no penalty at all.

There was ONE a number of years ago in Suffolk County NY where I live.

The woman lost custody of her children to her ex-husband.

She was a CPS worker and he had transferred out of CPS when the marriage
fell apart.

One of his friends who still worked at CPS overheard his ex speaking with
her supervisor about all the false CPS reports she was making about him.

The super's advice to the ex was just to keep the reports anonymous.

But the patient isn't kept in he hospital for months on end if
nothing
is
found to be wrong.
----------------------
Your metaphor is faulty.

Why?
-----------------------
Hospitals interrupt education/career, foster homes don't.

Foster homes interrupt education AND the family life the kids shouldn't be
missing.

Or are you willing to have your family pay that price if there's
nothing
wrong in your family?
---------------------------
If you were arrested and held for a year or more or more without bail
to be tried for a crime you didn't commit, you'd be just as peeved,
but you'd fathom the reasons. It's no different. It's also rare.

"Rare?"
Prove it.
----------------------
Not possible on Usenet, however true it is,
because disingenuous liars won't admit to truth.
Allusions to any "proof" here is irrelevant, even off-topic and
disingenuous.
Usenet is a place of anonymous opinion.

And rampant BS as in your case, Steve.

If we could identify you and either eject or throttle you for lying
it might be a place where proof could be generated, but not here.


What makes you think a faster process would cost MORE?
----------------------------
Gee, faster service always costs more.

No it doesn't.
----------------
Hah! Where the **** do YOU shop!

Not in Family Court.

"Organize for oversight laws?"

Please explain.
-----------------
People who have complaints seek redress, look it up.

What redress are you referring to?
--------------------------------
The right of the people to seek redress, read the Constitution.


The eighteen months is up!!!
----------------------------------------
Change the laws.
Things are tough all over.
Piles of dead kids are worse, in any case.
Or would you like them to die for your convenience?

I don't want any children to die or be maltreated.
--------------------
This system prevents some of it.

And the children who shouldn't be in the system become victims of it.
-------------------------
By definition in a govt of the people:
No one is more a "victim" of a system of laws than anyone else is,
and ANY alternative is SO MUCH WORSE!


How many millions of people do you have to go through to find one?

How many people in a million have their children removed because of
a
false
allegation of maltreatment?
--------------
Not many.

More than the number of children who should have been removed.
--------------------
Irrelevant, there is no "should", or "what if",
there is only due process.


Why would you need their attention if they never maltreated their
children?
--------------------------
You don't know they didn't just because we didn't catch them THIS
time!
Keep 'em honest in case they did.

How 'bout I start to report everyone I see?
---------------------
How about 6 months in prison?

Anonymous reports!

Maybe I'll use your name.

You just want to make them a victim of the system.
----------------------
Now why would I want to do that?? Don't posture like a ****!!!

To save the minority... that's what you said.
--------------------------
Necessary. And they aren't a "victim" of a RESCUE.

Which ones aren't victims?
-----------------------------
The ones protected.


The ones who were rescued and should have been rescued OR the ones who
were
rescued when nothing was wrong???
-------------------------
Rescue does no harm.

Kill yourself now.

"In fact we have a DUTY to remove the child EVEN *IN* error, just to
protect
the minority of children who are actually BEING abused.."
------------------------------
Yup.

Then let's start reporting everyone so we have nothing to worry about.
We'll protect ALL the kids!
-------------------------
I agree.
I'd vote for state mandated and locked cameras in every home to
record child abuse and punish the perps by shooting them through
the head. How's that?


According to the gov's own stats the majority of the children who
were
removed weren't maltreated.
----------------
You misstated. They simply couldn't prove they were mistreated, that's
NOT the same as asserting that they weren't!

CPS doesn't need PROOF that the child was maltreated.
-----------------
Precisely.


All they need is SOME credible evidence.
-------------------
Isn't any, means we have to err on the side of protection
when there's a doubt.


If they weren't maltreated there were no bruises caused by their
parents.
----------------------------
Maltreatment doesn't always cause bruises, dummy,

YOU brought up bruises, Steve.
--------------------
For one thing, and you misused it for another.


It's just their tough luck?
-------------------------
No, that's only what an abused child might say.
They WANT their father to beat them AGAIN!

I'm speaking of the children who were determined after an
investigation
NOT
to have been maltreated.
-------------------------
NO such determination is possible.

That determination is made in approx 70% of the screened in CPS reports.
---------------------------
No, they determine that they couldn't prove it in court, that's all.
It's not that they are found "innocent", it's "not guilty".


NOT a BIT of credible evidence.
--------------------
Don't need any. Same as with a woman who is abused, you don't need
bruises or any other physical evidence to justofy ejecting the
possible perp and requiring him to lodge elsewhere.
It's because the alternative is much much worse!


CPS doesn't need proof.
Just SOME credible evidence.
--------------
Nope, not even that, just reason for suspicion.


That can be determined in retrospect by a court process.
But clearly someone saw smoke.

"Clearly?"
-----------------
CPS don't go where they aren't required to.
Why make work?


No one has ever made a false allegation of abuse?
---------------
Clearly refers to the officer whom someone misled. Firemen also
accept reports of smoke and act on them with full equipment.


40% of the calls made to a child abuse hotline are screened OUT
because
they
don't even rise to the level required for an investigation.
------------------
They involve things not provable or impressions that are unspecific
as to acts.

And you know this how?
------------------------------------
They don't need proof, just suspicion, anyone knows what that is.


Please kill yourself ASAP.
-------------------------
You have become a true-believer ****. You believe whining perps.

I have been founded by CPS five times for multiple offenses of
maltreatment.
------------------------
Why were you that stupid that many times?

Actually I've been investigated more than 15 times.
-------------------
What did you do to bring this on yourself??


And brought to Fam CT on child abuse petitions twice.

I was TOTALLY CLEARED every time.

Petitions thrown ourt of court or withdrawn.

And the five CPS founded determinations were reversed.

And I've helped many other people get their CPS founded determinations
reversed too.
---------------
What are you doing, you ass, calling them on YOURSELF
from a ****ing PAYPHONE???


Which means there was no maltreatment EVER!!!!
------------------
No, it means they couldn't prove it.
Why were you reported that many times, smoke=fire.

I have a relative with a mental illness.
-------------------------
Ship them off if your children are endangered, otherwise expect
the People to wonder why you don't!


They claimed to be able to determine who was a child abuser from the
look on
their face.
--------------------------
You can acquire reasonable suspicion that way, and with children
you err with caution.


They also claimed that incest happened because the child wanted to have
sex
with the parent, NOT because the parent wanted to have sex with the
child.
--------------------------
Wonder who called THAT one in, eh?


This was one of the allegations I was brought to fam ct on.

CPS' own expert determined that there was NO evidence that any
inappropriate
behavior had taken place between me and my child.
-------------------
And so you mean the child said yes, but you lied?

If the child had said "yes" then there would have been some evidence.

Or what?


And they recommended that CPS go after my accuser.
And that's what the Judge ordered CPS to do.
------------------
How would THEY know whether the fact that your child tells the
neighbors that they want to **** you means nothing??

We are speaking of a toddler.

MY kids are bright enough that if they HAD wanted to ****
us, they'd AT LEAST have had the good sense not to TELL anyone!
You see, this is what I mean by smoke=fire. If you run a chaotic
family you'll attract attention!!


And all their "founded" determinations were reversed.

Clearly they know what they're doing is against their own rules,
regulations, policies and procedures.
--------------------------
No, it means they couldn't prove it. Not that they didn't think it.

You mean it's enough that CPS thinks of an allegation?
--------------------
You lying ****, you mis-configured that sentence intentionally.
Not "thinks of an allegation, you mean gets an impression.
And Absolutely!


CPS thought I slapped my son in the face on a weekend I was denied
visitation... and I had a police report to prove it.
----------
Ambiguous. Prove what? That you did or didn't? And how could
they prove ANY such thing with a report, they couldn't!

If I had no visitation with my son how then did I slap him in the face?

Is that acceptable to you, Steve?

Dan Sullivan
----------------------
For them to be wrong more often than right and still empowered?
Hell yes.
Steve

Kill yerself, Steve.
----------------
Eat **** and die, you irrational liar.

I win!

Dan