CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILYBASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA/CIA WIRETAPINGPROGRAM....

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
fx wrote:
Arizona Senate Bill 1430 ...
It was defeated by one vote!
Sounds like the elected representatives of "we the people" don't buy
your arguments.
some which are currently under investigation for conflict of interest
they own stock in companies that supplies services to CPS/DES..

So? They elected and reelected Bush, too.

NO! Janet Napolitano it's been a disaster for the arizona's children...

Death Watch

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2006-...s/death-watch/

The latest report on child fatalities is in — and it's even worse than
you thought...


But this country is still governed by "we the people" and their
elected representatives, for all their sins, don't agree with you.

NO, you don't agree with me, but that's OK, I love a good debate...

former Maine (CPS)
Supervisor Pat Moore. She was concerned about two children being
adopted
out to a known felon
How many children are born to "known felon"s and not taken away at
birth?
How many children are born to mothers who are not felons and have no
criminal history, only to have their children taken at birth (stolen)
and sold to the highest bidder to the State because they have a CPS
record? ( dirty dishes, clothing on the floor, too a small house.)
Remember! we are not talking about criminals or child abusers.

I dunno. You are the one who claims to do research. Alas, you are
lacking with legitimate citations, as opposed to talk-show hosts.

I don't know what felony he was charged with either, but I do know Pat
Moore consider it serious enough to lose her career CPS with over..

Also alas, I am an adoptive parent, albeit of foreign children, and
thus have a little awareness of the adoption "market". Unfortunately
for you that awareness does not include any examples of baby-selling
by the state or anyone else.

here are a couple of examples, but there are hundreds more...

Ted Gunderson (http://www.TedGunderson.com) FBI Senior Special Agent In
Charge Los Angeles CA, (Ret)
Speech to Congressional Hearing on Child Protection
Ted Gunderson : in regards to Child Protective Services in some areas
and some states, I have been told by a reliable source, that a planeload
of 210 children from CPS was flown out of Denver, Colorado on November
6, 1997 to Paris, France.
Later a second plane of children also under the care of CPS was flown
from Los Angeles to Europe.
[CHILD SEX TRADE INDUSTRY]
I have also developed information through credible and reliable sources
that in the past, children have been taken from Foster Homes,
orphanages, and Boys Town Nebraska, and flown by private jets from Sioux
City Iowa to Washington D.C. for sex orgies with politicians.
http://educate-yourself.org/tg/child...h13mar04.shtml

and


Conspiracy of Silence: The Franklin Case Video.
Children From Foster Homes Used as Sex Slaves by Powerful Politicians
and Others.
http://www.franklincase.org/media.htm

it should say Republican politicians.

P.S. I hope you have a strong stomach, it's truly disturbing...


What specifically was the felony? Had the sentence been served?

No answers I notice.

Screaming won't win her support.
of course it will..

You have an odd idea of how to sway public opinion. Or maybe you
think that screaming in court will sway the judge?

No, But screaming in the town square will...


June 8, 2006, Clayton Tribune “DFCS probe: Violations Rampant” by
Blake
Spurney, “Stories of overzealous Department of Family and Children
Services employees prowling for referrals and using people's
children as
tools of extortion were true, according to the Georgia Department of
Human Resources investigative report.” It states: caseworkers receive
retaliation and suspension for reporting questionable practices to
the
state - evidence being shredded; deputies sent to pick up children
from
schools with no directives and no court orders; former sheriff's DFCS
liaison bragging she broke the record by picking up 28 to 38
children;
proof (CPS) makes case plans virtually impossible to complete;
women's
shelters and even 911 emergency calls used to “process” more children
into the system; directors and supervisors make false statements to
investigators; the office was guilty of numerous conflicts of
interest
that violated DHR's policy for Standards of Conduct and Ethics in
Government; drug testing contractor conflicts and manipulation
criticized by clients, lawyers and law enforcement (federal fraud?);
monies earmarked for “Prevent Unnecessary Placement” funds (typically
used to help people clean or repair their homes) being used to
help pay
for excessive drug screening. Attorney Brian Rickman stated, “This is
DFCS' investigation Š this is what they found, and it appears to
verify
virtually all of the allegations.”
I doubt that any newspaper ever published such poorly-written
gobblety-gook with endless phrases and clauses separated by
semicolons.
DFCS probe: Violations rampant
By Blake Spurney

http://www.theclaytontribune.com/art...ews/news03.txt

At least it is well enough written to understand the allegations. I
see a pattern of local corruption, and some considerable stretching of
the law. It sounds like the DA will have a fair time locating and
charging those who committed wrongdoing.

Unfortunately that pattern is just about nationwide and getting worse.

And yet I see no quantification of how many children that were taken
away from healthy families. I see mention of a report that documents
some cases where kids were removed "without just cause", but that
means only that due process was not followed in those cases, not that
the kids were doing well.

A chunk of the complaint had to due with excessive drug screening, and
taking a refusal as a positive test. Well, duh - if CPS is
investigating you, don't do drugs and don't refuse tests. CPS may
have violated proper procedures, but parents don't have the right to
raise their kids in an illegal-drug-using environment. The net result
may have been some penny-ante corruption - a couple tens of thousands
of dollars for overpriced and excessive drug tests (and the
"excessive" tests were at a judge's order, improperly done by verbal
order, but still done on order and specifically against a particular
illegal drug).

But the bottom line remains unanswered: how many kids were removed
from families, and how many of them were illegitimate, such that they
would not have happened if due process had been carried out to the
fullest extent?

You claim 700 to 1.

NO, Montel Williams Did, remember? Bob.
Montel Williams, recently aired “For the Love of a Child” for the second
time. He stated that for the one child that is actually being abused,
CPS is destroying 700 families in the process.
I just assuming that these were good families, I don't think he would
have commented about bad families...


I see 742 drug screens over the course of a year,
some done multiple times on the same person. I see 28 or 38 children
in a month called a record (how odd to have someone call a number a
"record" but not know whether it was 28 or 38.

But let us say that 38 kids were removed from families in that county
every month for a year. That would be 456 kids. You would have me
believe that at most ONE of those families had a parent who was
actually using drugs, or maintaining an unfit habitat, or guilty of
child abuse, and all the rest were perfectly innocent and perfect
law-abiding parents.

Bull****.

And no evidence that kids were being sold for the state to make money,
either. Indeed, CPS was dipping into other funds to pay for doing
paperwork, and for respite care because there weren't enough foster
homes. The drug-test contractor may have made some money of the
petty-corruption sort by overpricing - a couple tens of thousands of
dollars - a fraction of the cost of even one social worker's salary.

I don't approve of rogue bureaucracies, but this is only cause for
better oversight, not for significant changes in CPS policies.

Your Definitely on a Roll, Bob
The overly used excuse that CPS is “short staffed, over burdened with
heavy caseloads, and doesn't have enough funding” is an affront to
human
dignity and decency.
So? Maybe we need to hike taxes in order to pay for the job to be
done better.
Maybe we should just Stop CPS from destroying Good families

I'm still waiting for all these "good families" that are being
destroyed. That news article didn't name a single one. It identified
overzealous drug-law enforcement to get kids out of homes where drug
use was suspected.

[ please
note the word GOOD! families as opposed to Bad families.]
and selling their children into Slavery!

Oh, Puhleeze.

then forcing what's left of their family into bankruptcie..
Over a kitchen sink with a few dirty Dishes..

You mean over failed drug tests.

NO! Dirty Dishes, Bob, dirty Dishes!

Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition of Child
Protection Reform,
Now there is an unbiased observer. Not!
Snip
Richard Wexler is, indeed, biased. He is biased by his close personal
examination of hundreds of cases. He is biased by his strong belief
that
WE, the people, in our rush to save the chilluns, are KILLING them.
He is biased by FACTS. IF you have marginal reading and observation
ability, and you investigate a few of those families who are screaming
that they were falsely accused and stripped of their children, you will
discover at LEAST 50% of those children WERE stolen, not saved, and
that
at least 50% of those children "suffered" mild neglect in their own
homes,

Hay! where is the rest of my snip
wait I found It..

easily remedied by HELP, but in FOSTER Care they found REAL Abuse. Not
all abused foster children die. Most of them just grow up with
psychological damage that they cannot overcome, and many grow up with
sexual abuse tucked away in their psyche somewhere, forever terrified of
revealing it. It's a self-sustaining BUSINESS, this child protection
agenda. Those former foster children,when THEIR kids are reported as
neglected, are PRESUMED to be bad parents if they admit having been a
foster child. Evidently Arizona KNOWS that the state can't raise a child
to be a good parent.
Facts that you AZ taxpayers should realize.. DES gets more money every
time they ask. Sure, legislators balk and posture, but in the end, they
give in. DES NEVER has to account for the money, just has to point to
the most recent dead child who SHOULD have been removed, and cry, "We
just don't ahve the money for the staff, we're over worked, METH is
creating more cases, " or whatever the excuse of the day is, and the
public, who never wants to confront this problem, throws a few more
bucks at it, pats themselves on the back that they helped the poor, and
forgets it. Then it's back to business as usual. SAY you checked on the
kids in taht foster home, who cares anyway? They are legal orphans, no
one will miss them if they disappear. They are LOST children, lost in
YOUR state system, destroyed with YOUR money and YOUR apathy.
IT is time that AZ got a grip. Your children are being stolen for MONEY.
There is a huge federal payment in the theft and termination of rights,
and another large one in the adoptions.
Arizona has one of the worst track records in the country for HONESTLY
protecting endangered kids. WHY? because the investigators have no clue
HOW to investigate, and the machinery is so clogged with messy house
cases, in cases where HELP was needed, destruction came from your tax
dollar instead. When a truly abused child is reported, its a crap shoot.
Regardless of the needs of the child and family, the fact is that DES
will probably miss the mark. That could be made right,if only some
EDUCATED public opinions would start to emerge.
Foster care review? You mean the people who think that social workers
are always right? That they never lie, so their reports are reliable?
Foster care review is only as valid as the information given to review.
Same for judicial determinations. Sadly, with the dregs being appointed
for attorneys, the court and the foster care review board RARELY hear
the facts. You only get the justice you can afford to PAY for. These
officials don't get the whole story, they only the talking points.
You have to talk to the FAMILY to get the real picture. And no, they are
NOT all perfect. But compared to being raped and shuffled from one home
to the next, where NO one really cares, living in poverty isn't so bad.
Maybe we might spend a few bucks to HELP them instead of destroying what
good they have in their lives. No one ever wants to hear THE FAMILIES,
they just want to hang onto their prejudices and sleep well. IF you
really looked closer, you would lose some sleep... trust me.
Wexler is 100% right. And it will STAY that way until the court of
public opinion wakes up. That won't happen til some Senator's grandchild
is taken into DES custody.
I can't believe a population so completely under siege is so totally
unaware of it.Snip

Sorry about the Snip Bob
it's from By Christine K. of (COFRAI)
I just had to cut and paste it.


Oh, really? I thought you said that there were 700 kids being raised
in perfect homes for every child being raised in somewhat less perfect
conditions. Now you say that half the kids suffered "mild neglect".

easily remedied by HELP,

If they wait to seek help until CPS is called in, they probably waited
too long.

but in FOSTER Care they found REAL Abuse.
Not all abused foster children die. Most of them just grow up with
psychological damage that they cannot overcome, and many grow up with
sexual abuse tucked away in their psyche somewhere, forever
terrified of
revealing it.

Grow up. Your overblown rhetoric isn't convincing anyone. Let's see
real numbers supported by evidence.

Facts that you AZ taxpayers should realize..

I'm not in AZ - you are broadcasting to the whole world. And the
newspaper article you cited was from Georgia and hence says nothing at
all about AZ.

I can't believe a population so completely under siege is so totally
unaware of it.

Maybe the population is more aware than you think.

People now fear calling 911;
They do? Only if they've done something wrong. I wouldn't be afraid
to.

isn't it amazing that in 90 percent of the cases where people lose
their children to CPS, No criminal charges are ever filed, not one!

You keep throwing around numbers without any reputable cites. I don't
believe you.

If one needs to go into a shelter, then it is already questionable
whether one is capable of taking care of a child.

So we finally being POOR a crime?

No, but it may mean being unfit to parent.

One shouldn;t bring a kid into the world unless one has some
reasonable likelihood of being able to support that kid.

calling authorities when their spouse is abusing their child.
What are they afraid of? That the government might protect the child
from the spouse by removing it from the abusive home? A parent who
would not call authorities in such a situation should not be a parent.
Most of the children in foster care right now, were removed from their
home for ( Minor neglect) ( if left in a messy home they might get
Sick.)

I don't believe you. Provide a reputable source.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rthree.htm#mal

During FFY 2005, 62.8 percent of victims experienced neglect, 16.6
percent were physically abused, 9.3 percent were sexually abused, 7.1
percent were psychologically maltreated, and 2.0 percent were medically
neglected.7 In addition, 14.3 percent of victims experienced such
"other" types of maltreatment as "abandonment," "threats of harm to the
child," or "congenital drug addiction." States may code any condition
that does not fall into one of the main categories—physical abuse,
neglect, medical neglect, sexual abuse, and psychological or emotional
maltreatment—as "other." These maltreatment type percentages total more
than 100 percent because children who were victims of more than one type
of maltreatment were counted for each maltreatment.

The data for victims of specific types of maltreatment were analyzed in
terms of the report sources. Of victims of physical abuse, 24.3 percent
were reported by teachers, 23.0 percent were reported by police officers
or lawyers, and 11.6 percent were reported by medical staff.8 Overall,
74.8 percent were reported by professionals and 25.2 percent were
reported by nonprofessionals. The patterns of reporting of neglect and
sexual abuse victims were similar—police officers or lawyers accounted
for the largest report source percentage of neglect victims (26.6%) and
the largest percentage of sexual abuse victims (28.3%).



Strange drug addiction or threats of harm to the child accounts for only
14.3 percent?

where are all these Terrible drug addict parents CPS keeps blaming
everything on?


actually this is the report that really troubles me!


Maltreatment in Foster Care

Through the CFSR, the Children's Bureau established a national standard
for the incidence of child abuse or neglect in foster care as 99.68
percent, defined as:

"Absence of Maltreatment in Foster Care. Of all children in foster care
during the reporting period, what percent were not victims of a
substantiated or indicated maltreatment by foster parents or facility
staff members?"20

The number of States in compliance has decreased from 16 States that met
this standard for FFY 2004 to 15 States for FFY 2005.21 During FFY 2005,
9 States were unable to provide the data needed to compute this measure
using the Child File.

child abuse or neglect in foster care as 99.68 percent, Bob, Bob?


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rthree.htm#mal

this is the government's own statistics. BOB? still here?




http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/s...r/report10.htm
520,000 kids in foster care. About a quarter of them placed with
relatives. Half with a case goal of reunification. 180,000 kids
reunified with their families or with a relative every year

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...tertwo2003.htm
An average 7% of kids that were victims of maltreatment becoming
victims again within 6 months. The average percentage for foster
parents, 0.44%.


Arizona does a better job that most states - about 3%
and 0.1% for recurring maltreatment and foster care maltreatment.

The latest report on child fatalities is in — and it's even worse than
you thought...

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2006-...s/death-watch/


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/s...ends.htm#child
Of child victims in 1998, almost 54 percent experienced neglect, while
23 percent were physically abused. Almost 12 percent were sexual
abuse victims, 6 percent had been psychologically abused, and about 2
percent had suffered from medical neglect. Other forms of
maltreatment were found for 25 percent of child victims in 1998, with
some children falling into more than one of these categories.
According to NCANDS data, the number of children who died in 1998 as
a result of substantiated abuse or neglect was about 1,100, which was
virtually unchanged from 1997 and 1996, although below the peak of
1,240 in 1994. However, in 1995, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child
Abuse and Neglect estimated that 2,000 children under age 18 are
actually killed by parents or caretakers each year, and suggested
that this might be a low estimate (U.S. Advisory Board, 1995).

23% physical abuse and 12% sexual abuse. You call these "good
families"? 700 good families for every one bad one?

From a survey of women who gave birth during 1992-93, the National
Institute on Drug Abuse estimated that 221,000 women who gave birth
during that period used illegal drugs while pregnant (5.5 percent of
a total of 4 million women).

221,000 babies born to druggies in one year. That alone would account
for more than 3/4 of the cases that CPS handles. If you think that a
mother who uses drugs while pregnant is a good mother, I feel sorry
for you.

For children with substantiated reports of abuse or neglect, DHHS
found that substance abuse is a factor in between one-third and
two-thirds of cases, and is a factor in two-thirds of the cases of
children in foster care.

700 good families for every one bad one, you claim? Doesn't look like
it.

Instead of physical abuse, or do you consider a few dishes in the
kitchen sink or too many socks on the children's bedroom floor to be
dangerous?

Illegal drugs in the house is dangerous. Drugs in mommy during
pregnancy is extremely dangerous.

“Confidentiality” or secret agreements appear to be the
government's
excuse for its continued impotence in protecting America's liberty
interests. FYI: CPS is under the auspices of Homeland Security!

CPS is a state level agency. Homeland Security is a national cabinet
department.

BTW, national involvement in CPS is through Health and Human Services,
who also handle welfare.

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES is, and if you take the time to research it
you will find most of our politicians are technically guilty of
"Treason
against United States"

The Constitution specifically identifies what it takes to be guilty of
treason. One cannot be merely "technically guilty" - if you can't
follow due process, you have no case.

by knowingly allowing CPS to violate the
Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedoms and Civil rights of thousands of
Americans

Alas, you haven't provided evidence of "thousands".

Where are the people of valor?

They are standing up against your nonsense.

Wrong, they are standing up against a 30-year-old mistaken that needs
to be fixed, and badly SO!.

Are you 30 years old? And a mistake? What - a broken condom?


actually no I am 51, and the mistake is "CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES"



CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA/CIA
WIRETAPING PROGRAM.

And you know how many civil rights are violated daily by the NSA/CIA
using what clearance?

The NSA recently told Congress it may have been as many as 5000 people
who had their Civil rights violated, which makes them amateurs
compared to CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES...

You believe NSA, but you don't believe CPS?

P.S. don't take my word for it Bob or anyone's, researcher it for
yourself...

I just did. The data doesn't seem to support you in the least.

lojbab


All five minutes of research? Bob, I'm honored! Fx



CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA/CIA
WIRETAPING PROGRAM....

BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEIR
"FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...

0:-] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:16:12 -0700, "0:-]"
wrote:
... how about getting your facts straight.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#child

...Number of Child Fatalities

During FFY 2005, an estimated 1,460 children (compared to 1,490
children for FFY 2004) died from abuse or neglect—at a rate of 1.96
deaths per 100,000 children.3 The national estimate was based on data
from State child welfare information systems, as well as other data
sources available to the States. The rate of 1.96 is a decrease from
the rate for FFY 2004 of 2.03 per 100,000 children.4 Whether this
decrease in the rate of child abuse fatalities will continue cannot be
determined at this point, but the rate will be monitored closely.

While most fatality data were obtained from State child welfare
agencies, many of these agencies also received data from additional
sources. For FFY 2005, nearly one-fifth (18.5%) of fatalities were
reported through the Agency File, which includes fatalities reported
by health departments and fatality review boards. The coordination of
data collection with other agencies contributes to a fuller
understanding of the size of the phenomenon, as well as to better
estimation. ...


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...our.htm#status

... Perpetrator Relationships of Child Fatalities

Three-quarters (76.6%) of child fatalities were caused by one or more
parents (figure 4-2).7 More than one-quarter (28.5%) of fatalities
were perpetrated by the mother acting alone.8 Nonparental perpetrators
(e.g., other relative, foster parent, residential facility staff,
"other," and legal guardian) were responsible for 13.0 percent of
fatalities. ...

Every time one of you hysterical "Saviors" pops up with all those
"neglect" cases outnumbering "real abuse," I'm reminded of this...the
question I asked you earlier and by now you have looked up and KNOW
the following:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rfour.htm#type

... Maltreatment Types of Child Fatalities

The three main categories of maltreatment related to fatalities were
neglect (42.2%), combinations of maltreatments (27.3%), and physical
abuse (24.1%) (figure 4-3).9 Medical neglect accounted for 2.5 percent
of fatalities. ...

In other words, stupid, Neglect is almost TWICE as likely to be the
cause of a child fatality as 'real abuse.'


Expecially if you include 'medical neglect,' which is of course,
NEGLECT.

And what follows is your reading lesson for today. Watch yourself jump
to the conclusion that 2.7 percent of deaths of children who had
repeats after being returned to children were done to them by foster
parents. Then read it OVER AGAIN for comprehension, bright boy.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#prior

... Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities

Some children who died from maltreatment were already known to CPS
agencies. Children whose families had received family preservation
services in the past 5 years accounted for 11.7 percent of child
fatalities. Nearly 3 percent (2.7%) of the child fatalities had been
in foster care and were reunited with their families in the past 5
years.10 ...

They DIED with their parents AFTER foster care. And were killed by
their parents.


And my favorite bit of data from ACFHHS tables:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p....htm#character

... Characteristics of Perpetrators

For FFY 2005, 57.8 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.2
percent were men.2

Women typically were younger than men. The median age of women was 31
years and 34 years for men. Of the women who were perpetrators, more
than 40 percent (45.3%) were younger than 30 years of age, compared
with one-third of the men (34.7%) (figure 5-1).

The racial distribution of perpetrators was similar to the race of
their victims. During FFY 2005, more than one-half (55.1%) of
perpetrators were White and one-fifth (20.9%) were African-American.
Approximately 18 percent (17.6%) of perpetrators were Hispanic.3

Nearly 80 percent (79.4%) of perpetrators were parents.4 Of the
parents who were perpetrators, more than 90 percent (90.5%) were
biological parents, 4.3 percent were stepparents, and 0.7 percent were
adoptive parents.5 Other relatives accounted for an additional 6.8
percent. Unmarried partners of parents accounted for 3.8 percent
(figure 5-2).

More than one-half (61.0%) of all perpetrators were found to have
neglected children.6 Slightly more than 10 percent (10.9%) of
perpetrators physically abused children, and 7.7 percent sexually
abused children. More than 10 percent (10.8%) of all perpetrators were
associated with more than one type of maltreatment. ...

Now do YOU understand what you just read? Make sure, because I might
just throw a pop quiz at you, bright boy.

Just to help you study for the test, I'll quote and comment for
instructional purposes:

"For FFY 2005, 57.8 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.2
percent were men.2"

The above does NOT mean that women are more vicious than men, but
rather that they had, by far higher rates of proximity to the victims.
more opportunity to kill. And keep in mind the "neglect" issue
here...nearly twice the kill rate as "abuse."


... The racial distribution of perpetrators was similar to the race of
their victims. During FFY 2005, more than one-half (55.1%) of
perpetrators were White and one-fifth (20.9%) were African-American.
Approximately 18 percent (17.6%) of perpetrators were Hispanic.3 ...

While I see a lot of racist claptrap from vicious little ****ants I
note that in fact the perp racial distribution is much more like the
distribution in the general population. Fancy that, eh?

And now for the coup d'gras, bright boy:

... Nearly 80 percent (79.4%) of perpetrators were parents.4 Of the
parents who were perpetrators, more than 90 percent (90.5%) were
biological parents, 4.3 percent were stepparents, and 0.7 percent were
adoptive parents.5 Other relatives accounted for an additional 6.8
percent. Unmarried partners of parents accounted for 3.8 percent
(figure 5-2).

More than one-half (61.0%) of all perpetrators were found to have
neglected children.6 Slightly more than 10 percent (10.9%) of
perpetrators physically abused children, and 7.7 percent sexually
abused children. More than 10 percent (10.8%) of all perpetrators were
associated with more than one type of maltreatment. ...

Did you notice what I noticed? Not a SINGLE mention of foster parents.

Could be so small a figure that in fact it defies statistical
significance.

Too small a percentage becomes statistically (not in human life moral
terms of course) unreliable for analytic purposes.

ONE such death BY foster parent could be shown in a year where NONE
were in the prior year, a "100%" increase.

Such problems in statistical analysis are not uncommon.

So what DO the charts say? About foster parent perps of child
fatalities?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_5.htm

.....................................number....per cent
Female Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 5 0.5
Male Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 1 0.1

Read the rest of the chart for some sense of proportion and get back
to me with your argument about the percentage of CPS CAUSED DEATHS of
children, directly, is greater than in the population of parents.

And here's the answer to the question I had for you in a prior post:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_6.htm


And if CPS is supposed to be doing such a horrible job at protecting
children please explain the odd anomoly of rates not going steadily
up, but in fact pretty much holding even.

Year...Number of Child...Rate per
........Fatalities....100,000 Children
2001.....1,373............1.96
2002 1,397 1.99
2003 1,317 1.92
2004 1,386 2.03
2005 1,371 1.96

Any light bulbs lighting up for you, bright one?

Please show where CPS and foster parents have "failed."

Thanks, 0:]

Kane







Female Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 5 0.5
Male Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 1 0.1

Kane: Are you trying to tell me that only six children died in foster
care in 2005 in the entire United States?

fx wrote:
0:-] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:16:12 -0700, "0:-]"
wrote:
... how about getting your facts straight.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#child

...Number of Child Fatalities

During FFY 2005, an estimated 1,460 children (compared to 1,490
children for FFY 2004) died from abuse or neglect—at a rate of 1.96
deaths per 100,000 children.3 The national estimate was based on data
from State child welfare information systems, as well as other data
sources available to the States. The rate of 1.96 is a decrease from
the rate for FFY 2004 of 2.03 per 100,000 children.4 Whether this
decrease in the rate of child abuse fatalities will continue cannot be
determined at this point, but the rate will be monitored closely.

While most fatality data were obtained from State child welfare
agencies, many of these agencies also received data from additional
sources. For FFY 2005, nearly one-fifth (18.5%) of fatalities were
reported through the Agency File, which includes fatalities reported
by health departments and fatality review boards. The coordination of
data collection with other agencies contributes to a fuller
understanding of the size of the phenomenon, as well as to better
estimation. ...


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...our.htm#status

... Perpetrator Relationships of Child Fatalities

Three-quarters (76.6%) of child fatalities were caused by one or more
parents (figure 4-2).7 More than one-quarter (28.5%) of fatalities
were perpetrated by the mother acting alone.8 Nonparental perpetrators
(e.g., other relative, foster parent, residential facility staff,
"other," and legal guardian) were responsible for 13.0 percent of
fatalities. ...

Every time one of you hysterical "Saviors" pops up with all those
"neglect" cases outnumbering "real abuse," I'm reminded of this...the
question I asked you earlier and by now you have looked up and KNOW
the following:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rfour.htm#type

... Maltreatment Types of Child Fatalities

The three main categories of maltreatment related to fatalities were
neglect (42.2%), combinations of maltreatments (27.3%), and physical
abuse (24.1%) (figure 4-3).9 Medical neglect accounted for 2.5 percent
of fatalities. ...

In other words, stupid, Neglect is almost TWICE as likely to be the
cause of a child fatality as 'real abuse.'


Expecially if you include 'medical neglect,' which is of course,
NEGLECT.
And what follows is your reading lesson for today. Watch yourself jump
to the conclusion that 2.7 percent of deaths of children who had
repeats after being returned to children were done to them by foster
parents. Then read it OVER AGAIN for comprehension, bright boy.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#prior

... Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities

Some children who died from maltreatment were already known to CPS
agencies. Children whose families had received family preservation
services in the past 5 years accounted for 11.7 percent of child
fatalities. Nearly 3 percent (2.7%) of the child fatalities had been
in foster care and were reunited with their families in the past 5
years.10 ...

They DIED with their parents AFTER foster care. And were killed by
their parents.

And my favorite bit of data from ACFHHS tables:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p....htm#character

... Characteristics of Perpetrators

For FFY 2005, 57.8 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.2
percent were men.2

Women typically were younger than men. The median age of women was 31
years and 34 years for men. Of the women who were perpetrators, more
than 40 percent (45.3%) were younger than 30 years of age, compared
with one-third of the men (34.7%) (figure 5-1).

The racial distribution of perpetrators was similar to the race of
their victims. During FFY 2005, more than one-half (55.1%) of
perpetrators were White and one-fifth (20.9%) were African-American.
Approximately 18 percent (17.6%) of perpetrators were Hispanic.3

Nearly 80 percent (79.4%) of perpetrators were parents.4 Of the
parents who were perpetrators, more than 90 percent (90.5%) were
biological parents, 4.3 percent were stepparents, and 0.7 percent were
adoptive parents.5 Other relatives accounted for an additional 6.8
percent. Unmarried partners of parents accounted for 3.8 percent
(figure 5-2).

More than one-half (61.0%) of all perpetrators were found to have
neglected children.6 Slightly more than 10 percent (10.9%) of
perpetrators physically abused children, and 7.7 percent sexually
abused children. More than 10 percent (10.8%) of all perpetrators were
associated with more than one type of maltreatment. ...

Now do YOU understand what you just read? Make sure, because I might
just throw a pop quiz at you, bright boy.
Just to help you study for the test, I'll quote and comment for
instructional purposes:

"For FFY 2005, 57.8 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.2
percent were men.2"

The above does NOT mean that women are more vicious than men, but
rather that they had, by far higher rates of proximity to the victims.
more opportunity to kill. And keep in mind the "neglect" issue
here...nearly twice the kill rate as "abuse."


... The racial distribution of perpetrators was similar to the race of
their victims. During FFY 2005, more than one-half (55.1%) of
perpetrators were White and one-fifth (20.9%) were African-American.
Approximately 18 percent (17.6%) of perpetrators were Hispanic.3 ...

While I see a lot of racist claptrap from vicious little ****ants I
note that in fact the perp racial distribution is much more like the
distribution in the general population. Fancy that, eh?
And now for the coup d'gras, bright boy:

... Nearly 80 percent (79.4%) of perpetrators were parents.4 Of the
parents who were perpetrators, more than 90 percent (90.5%) were
biological parents, 4.3 percent were stepparents, and 0.7 percent were
adoptive parents.5 Other relatives accounted for an additional 6.8
percent. Unmarried partners of parents accounted for 3.8 percent
(figure 5-2).

More than one-half (61.0%) of all perpetrators were found to have
neglected children.6 Slightly more than 10 percent (10.9%) of
perpetrators physically abused children, and 7.7 percent sexually
abused children. More than 10 percent (10.8%) of all perpetrators were
associated with more than one type of maltreatment. ...

Did you notice what I noticed? Not a SINGLE mention of foster parents.

Could be so small a figure that in fact it defies statistical
significance.
Too small a percentage becomes statistically (not in human life moral
terms of course) unreliable for analytic purposes.
ONE such death BY foster parent could be shown in a year where NONE
were in the prior year, a "100%" increase.
Such problems in statistical analysis are not uncommon.
So what DO the charts say? About foster parent perps of child
fatalities?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_5.htm

.....................................number....per cent
Female Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 5 0.5
Male Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 1 0.1

Read the rest of the chart for some sense of proportion and get back
to me with your argument about the percentage of CPS CAUSED DEATHS of
children, directly, is greater than in the population of parents.
And here's the answer to the question I had for you in a prior post:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_6.htm


And if CPS is supposed to be doing such a horrible job at protecting
children please explain the odd anomoly of rates not going steadily
up, but in fact pretty much holding even.
Year...Number of Child...Rate per ........Fatalities....100,000 Children
2001.....1,373............1.96
2002 1,397 1.99
2003 1,317 1.92
2004 1,386 2.03
2005 1,371 1.96

Any light bulbs lighting up for you, bright one?

Please show where CPS and foster parents have "failed."
Thanks, 0:]
Kane







Female Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 5 0.5
Male Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 1 0.1

Kane: Are you trying to tell me that only six children died in foster
care in 2005 in the entire United States?

This is Don's standard fare. Doug has explained the statistics quite
clearly for 6 years - Don uses the same 'defense' each time - post reams
of irrelevant do-do - change the subject - call you a liar - then
declare victory.

You fight a losing battle - Don won't debate - he knows what the numbers
are and what they mean - it's his job to bury the truth in kb's of crap.

Don is a CPS scummer who spammed his states most vulnerable children to
usenet - telling the perverts 'they're younger' 'we do out-of-state' and
'butt****ers make great parents'. And you want an honest debate from
this mentally challenged egotistical nutter.

Good luck with that. lol.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"0:-]" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:04:11 -0700, fx wrote:

0:-] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:16:12 -0700, "0:-]"
wrote:
... how about getting your facts straight.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#child

...Number of Child Fatalities

During FFY 2005, an estimated 1,460 children (compared to 1,490
children for FFY 2004) died from abuse or neglect-at a rate of 1.96
deaths per 100,000 children.3 The national estimate was based on data
from State child welfare information systems, as well as other data
sources available to the States. The rate of 1.96 is a decrease from
the rate for FFY 2004 of 2.03 per 100,000 children.4 Whether this
decrease in the rate of child abuse fatalities will continue cannot be
determined at this point, but the rate will be monitored closely.

While most fatality data were obtained from State child welfare
agencies, many of these agencies also received data from additional
sources. For FFY 2005, nearly one-fifth (18.5%) of fatalities were
reported through the Agency File, which includes fatalities reported
by health departments and fatality review boards. The coordination of
data collection with other agencies contributes to a fuller
understanding of the size of the phenomenon, as well as to better
estimation. ...


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...our.htm#status

... Perpetrator Relationships of Child Fatalities

Three-quarters (76.6%) of child fatalities were caused by one or more
parents (figure 4-2).7 More than one-quarter (28.5%) of fatalities
were perpetrated by the mother acting alone.8 Nonparental perpetrators
(e.g., other relative, foster parent, residential facility staff,
"other," and legal guardian) were responsible for 13.0 percent of
fatalities. ...

Every time one of you hysterical "Saviors" pops up with all those
"neglect" cases outnumbering "real abuse," I'm reminded of this...the
question I asked you earlier and by now you have looked up and KNOW
the following:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rfour.htm#type

... Maltreatment Types of Child Fatalities

The three main categories of maltreatment related to fatalities were
neglect (42.2%), combinations of maltreatments (27.3%), and physical
abuse (24.1%) (figure 4-3).9 Medical neglect accounted for 2.5 percent
of fatalities. ...

In other words, stupid, Neglect is almost TWICE as likely to be the
cause of a child fatality as 'real abuse.'


Expecially if you include 'medical neglect,' which is of course,
NEGLECT.

And what follows is your reading lesson for today. Watch yourself jump
to the conclusion that 2.7 percent of deaths of children who had
repeats after being returned to children were done to them by foster
parents. Then read it OVER AGAIN for comprehension, bright boy.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#prior

... Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities

Some children who died from maltreatment were already known to CPS
agencies. Children whose families had received family preservation
services in the past 5 years accounted for 11.7 percent of child
fatalities. Nearly 3 percent (2.7%) of the child fatalities had been
in foster care and were reunited with their families in the past 5
years.10 ...

They DIED with their parents AFTER foster care. And were killed by
their parents.


And my favorite bit of data from ACFHHS tables:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p....htm#character

... Characteristics of Perpetrators

For FFY 2005, 57.8 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.2
percent were men.2

Women typically were younger than men. The median age of women was 31
years and 34 years for men. Of the women who were perpetrators, more
than 40 percent (45.3%) were younger than 30 years of age, compared
with one-third of the men (34.7%) (figure 5-1).

The racial distribution of perpetrators was similar to the race of
their victims. During FFY 2005, more than one-half (55.1%) of
perpetrators were White and one-fifth (20.9%) were African-American.
Approximately 18 percent (17.6%) of perpetrators were Hispanic.3

Nearly 80 percent (79.4%) of perpetrators were parents.4 Of the
parents who were perpetrators, more than 90 percent (90.5%) were
biological parents, 4.3 percent were stepparents, and 0.7 percent were
adoptive parents.5 Other relatives accounted for an additional 6.8
percent. Unmarried partners of parents accounted for 3.8 percent
(figure 5-2).

More than one-half (61.0%) of all perpetrators were found to have
neglected children.6 Slightly more than 10 percent (10.9%) of
perpetrators physically abused children, and 7.7 percent sexually
abused children. More than 10 percent (10.8%) of all perpetrators were
associated with more than one type of maltreatment. ...

Now do YOU understand what you just read? Make sure, because I might
just throw a pop quiz at you, bright boy.

Just to help you study for the test, I'll quote and comment for
instructional purposes:

"For FFY 2005, 57.8 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.2
percent were men.2"

The above does NOT mean that women are more vicious than men, but
rather that they had, by far higher rates of proximity to the victims.
more opportunity to kill. And keep in mind the "neglect" issue
here...nearly twice the kill rate as "abuse."


... The racial distribution of perpetrators was similar to the race of
their victims. During FFY 2005, more than one-half (55.1%) of
perpetrators were White and one-fifth (20.9%) were African-American.
Approximately 18 percent (17.6%) of perpetrators were Hispanic.3 ...

While I see a lot of racist claptrap from vicious little ****ants I
note that in fact the perp racial distribution is much more like the
distribution in the general population. Fancy that, eh?

And now for the coup d'gras, bright boy:

... Nearly 80 percent (79.4%) of perpetrators were parents.4 Of the
parents who were perpetrators, more than 90 percent (90.5%) were
biological parents, 4.3 percent were stepparents, and 0.7 percent were
adoptive parents.5 Other relatives accounted for an additional 6.8
percent. Unmarried partners of parents accounted for 3.8 percent
(figure 5-2).

More than one-half (61.0%) of all perpetrators were found to have
neglected children.6 Slightly more than 10 percent (10.9%) of
perpetrators physically abused children, and 7.7 percent sexually
abused children. More than 10 percent (10.8%) of all perpetrators were
associated with more than one type of maltreatment. ...

Did you notice what I noticed? Not a SINGLE mention of foster parents.

Could be so small a figure that in fact it defies statistical
significance.

Too small a percentage becomes statistically (not in human life moral
terms of course) unreliable for analytic purposes.

ONE such death BY foster parent could be shown in a year where NONE
were in the prior year, a "100%" increase.

Such problems in statistical analysis are not uncommon.

So what DO the charts say? About foster parent perps of child
fatalities?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_5.htm

.....................................number....per cent
Female Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 5 0.5
Male Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 1 0.1

Read the rest of the chart for some sense of proportion and get back
to me with your argument about the percentage of CPS CAUSED DEATHS of
children, directly, is greater than in the population of parents.

And here's the answer to the question I had for you in a prior post:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_6.htm


And if CPS is supposed to be doing such a horrible job at protecting
children please explain the odd anomoly of rates not going steadily
up, but in fact pretty much holding even.

Year...Number of Child...Rate per
........Fatalities....100,000 Children
2001.....1,373............1.96
2002 1,397 1.99
2003 1,317 1.92
2004 1,386 2.03
2005 1,371 1.96

Any light bulbs lighting up for you, bright one?

Please show where CPS and foster parents have "failed."

Thanks, 0:]

Kane







Female Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 5 0.5
Male Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 1 0.1

Kane: Are you trying to tell me that only six children died in foster
care in 2005 in the entire United States?

fx, are YOU trying to tell me you are still reading impaired?

This argument has come up in this newsgroup (ascps) before, fx. Not
with you, but with myself and other posters.

They seem, as you are, convinced that if a child dies IN foster care
it MUST mean that the foster family killed him or her.

The discussion was NOT about where a child dies, but by YOUR own
emphasis and claims, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE.

You are scapegoating. It's always CPS and foster parents fault. Yet
you've read, just as I have, the information YOU cite by quote and
link, do you not? And in it it says that in fact children die in
foster care NOT by the hand of the foster parent, or because of CPS
involvement, but because of the condition they were in when they
entered care.

The data I provided by cite from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_5.htm

is not on WHERE a child died, but from whose HAND the cause came.

Read this carefully, out loud.

Female Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 5 0.5
Male Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 1 0.1

Does that say this is the total number of children who died IN foster
care?

The data makes plain, just as other citations of data in the past,
including those quoted by the news media, that the CAUSE of death may
well be OTHER than foster care.

Children die, for instance, as a result of health issues from prior
neglect and abuse...such as organic damage in utero.

In fact there are enough of those that specially trained foster
parents, colloquially referred to as "Medical Moms," have been in
place for years to care for them.

Do YOU blame the medical foster parents for the deaths of the
children, often tiny infants, in their care at the end?

Well they ARE counted as having died in foster care, fx.

They are in the data.

But the foster parent likely did NOT kill them.

And in fact may well have given them a longer life than they would
have had in the care of the birth parents.

So, no, fx, I am not "... trying to tell," you "that only six children
died in foster care in 2005 in the entire United States."

I'm telling you just what the data shows...that "only six" were killed
by foster parents. Though to me, "only" is inappropriate. NO child
should be killed by anyone.

And I AM telling you that "During FFY 2005, an estimated 1,460
children ... died from abuse or neglect" and that about 1,454 of them
by the hand off or caused by the actions of OTHER THAN non-related
foster parents. Mostly parents.

Kind of shoots in the ass the claim that CPS doesn't do a good job of
selecting, training, and monitoring foster parents, now doesn't it?

Finally, it is so difficult for a foster parent to hide the death of a
child in their care that only ONE case has occurred in recent years
AND THEY DIDN'T GET AWAY WITH IT AND WERE CAUGHT. The Rilya case in
Florida, used repeatedly to try and claim that it's foster parents
that kill at a higher rate then the bio parent population.

We can't count the true number of deaths, and certainly not the abuse
rate for the general population because they are so very difficult to
catch at it, while foster's are EASY to catch at it. Murder or abuse.

There are very real problems that CPS has in operations and practice,
fx.

And they are tied to funding and resource issues.

And of course the social aspects...the kind of culture we are.

It's axiomatic that when social problems, say crime, have attention
that directs resources more fully to the agents of government
responsible...the police, the judicial...crime rates drop.

NY proved it.

The same is true of CPS. The problem there is that the funding has
been so disproportionately low for so long (like forever), there is
little data to base my presumption on.

That is why child abuse and death rates stay locked in. CPS is the
state's step-sister. Always has been.

In the overall scheme of politics and the body politic, you and I,
child abuse is very small potatoes.

Because it is actually a very small rate of people that neglect or
abuse their children out of the whole population.

Hire a well educated and then well trained cadre of workers, keep
their caseloads low....about 12 to 15 families, as per
recommendations, and you'll see child abuse drop.

Professionalize foster care...that is HIRE foster parents, who are
trained and closely supervised, and you'll see those "6" deaths go
away as well.

Such programs exist NOW. But are more expensive and so they are not
expanded.

Have a great day. And work in that reading comprehension thing.

Kane

PS

Here's an interesting thread for you to read. Just a few posts about
caring for chemically compromised premies between four posters that
KNOW. (And you can search on "Medical Moms" and "foster" together to
find more, if you are inclined).

http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forum.as...to-foster-care

That should give you some idea of reality, rather than the propaganda
you seem to enjoy spoon feeding others as it was fed to you,
apparently.

k

Yeah, what HE said.

Quit drinking the coolaid, you'd be amazed what the facts prove false about
your assumptions.

Ron