A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Foster Parents
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 16th 03, 11:59 AM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

"Kane" writes:

And watch Doug try despritely to diverge from the actual point of my
reply and posts do avoid the truth. That he and his are a flock of
****ty little crappers that haven't an honest bone in their useless
bodies.


Hi, Kane!

What does a dishonest bone look like?

The chart in question said clearly, By Bio parents, and IN foster
care. They were not being COMPARED, yet you continually, along with
other fools use data that does not say what you claim it does to

make
a claim that foster caregivers have a higher rate of killing

children
than bio families do.



My statement and the cited reference distinctly DID NOT say BY
bio-parents.

And they are charts that are NOT about who killed who but WHERE IT
TOOK PLACE.


Watch this develop folks. Those of you that have been down this road
may want to kick back with a brewski and watch some TV. This is the
usual crap from Doug, and his refusal to see the OTHER CHARTS THAT
SHOW WHO THE PERPS ACTUALLY ARE.

The references I cited provided data for fatalities due to
abuse/neglect occurring overall in the general population (including foster
care)
and fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care.

Yes, and that is relevant to the issue of who kills the most children
in what way again? Did you miss the word "IN" yet AGAIN?


Yet again, the comparison I made was between all fatalities due to abuse and
neglect in the entire population (including foster care) and fatalities due
to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care. The information I cited
(this will be the fourth time) clearly makes the distinction.

Children that die in foster care from abuse and neglect may well be
dying, as I've pointed out so many times before, from the affects of
injury or neglect received before going into foster care, that is from
their own parents, or even from others.


In 2001, 528 children died in foster care -- a rate of 97.4 per 100,000
children. http://tinyurl.com/hoei 18 of those children died as the result
of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

That particular chart is very carefully worded to NOT say foster
carers are the perp.

If you want the "identity of PERP data" you have to go to the chart
that gives that information specifically "identity of PERP", not this
chart that avoids naming the perp but serves your duplicitious
purposes so nicely.


Here is my exact quotation, along with the citations of relevant data, to
which you respond.

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

IN care does NOT equate 1 to 1 that the death is caused BY the carer.

It's a locale, not a perp by title.


Yet again, the comparison is between child fatalities as the result of abuse
and neglect in the entire US population (including foster care) and
fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care. The rates
are, respectively, 1.81 per 100,000 children and 3.40 per 100,000 children.

In Foster Care does not equate directly with by Foster Carer.


But, think on this. Parent, with out saying "in family" means the
parent was the perp, by any normal logical means of deducing the
wording of the chart.


My statement and the sources I stated said nothing about "parents." Yet
again, it was a comparison between child fatalities as the result of abuse
and neglect in the entire US population (including foster care) and child
fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care. Please read
the source material again.

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81

per
100,000.


http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child

What it actually says, unless the page has a hidden portion only you
know of is:

"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision
of the child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective
services (CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster
care. Of these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the
coroner's office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities
reported by the States occurred in some type of out-of-home placement
setting."


I cut and pasted in my post what it actually said. You snipped the first
part. Here it is again.

"For 2001, a national estimate of 1,300 child deaths at a rate of 1.81
children of every 100,000 children in the population died from abuse or
neglect. Many States were able to supplement the automated data from the
child welfare agency with statistics from other agencies in their States.
Included in the reported 1,300 fatalities were 150 fatalities reported from
such agencies as health departments and fatality review boards.

"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the
child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective services
(CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care. Of
these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the coroner's
office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the States
occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting."

"Egregious" just means bad or offensive, (no argument there) and does
not pertain to the numbers of, rates, or percentages. It's fluff, but
we'll indulge the author by pointing out: It's also "egregious" that
natural parents kill their children, no?


The quote was "ESPECIALLY egregious." The meaning is very clear -- while
all fatalities due to abuse or neglect are egregious, fatalities occurring
as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care is especially egregious.

More importantly:

Notice, "1.5 percent in out of home placement." That means that
parents, relatives and others, somebody other than foster parents,
killed children how many percent of the occurances, Doug? How many? I
think that 1.5% from 100% is 98.5 ****ing Percent DOUG.


Of course, because the number of children in the entire population
(72,941,000) is 134 times the number of children in foster care (541,000).
That is why the source I quoted and my statement expresses the fatalities in
rates per 100,000. Certainly, you must know that you cannot compare
disparate populations without using per capita rates.

If the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in the general population
were equal to the rates of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect in
foster care, then the total number of fatalities for 2001 would have been
2,480 instead of 1,300.
Or, vis versa, if the rate of child abuse and neglect in foster care was the
same as in the overall population, 10 children rather than 18 would have
perished.

This is why social science always uses rates expressed in "per 1,000" or
"per 100,000" figures.

It is absurdly misleading to take a grand total of incidents occurring in
two disparate populations and divide it by the number of incidents in the
smaller population to arrive at a "percentage." Let me give you an example.
Let's say there were 10,000 homicides in the US in 2001. Let's say 100 of
those murders happened in Rhode Island. Since only 99% of the murders
happened in states other than Rhode Island, does that make the other 49
states more dangerous?

The rate of child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in the
overall US child population was 1.81 per 100,000 children. The rate of
child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care was 3.40
per 100,000 children.

And out of home placement includes NON FOSTER CARERS.

Do you consider this of no relevance?


Yet again, the comparison was between fatalities as the result of abuse and
neglect in the entire population and fatalities as the result of abuse and
neglect in foster care. All 18 children were in state care. Here is the
USDHHS quote again:

"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the
child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective services
(CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care."

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in

foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma


But it does NOT say the foster carers killed the children. Some did,
but not all, by far.


Actually, what the citation also says, oh duplicitious one that hopes
and prays no one will actually go look is:

Percentage of Child Fatalities that
Occurred in Foster Care
1.5
for 48 states
reporting.


Yes. Note also that the statement says the other fatalities occurred due to
abuse and neglect in the general population.

Notice it says IN foster care, not by foster caregivers. This is not a
perp chart. It is a locale chart.


Notice it also says in the general population. Yet again, the comparison is
between child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in the general
population and child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster
care.

It isn't a chart of who killed who, this is a mortality chart...by ANY
CAUSE AT ALL...with locales named not perps.


No, it concerns only those fatalities due to abuse and neglect. As
mentioned previously in this post, 528 children died in foster care in 2001.
If the foster children died of causes other than child abuse or neglect
occurring in foster care, they would be among those 528 children but not
among the 18 we are discussing. The information I shared was NOT mortality
rates. The mortality rate in foster care for 2001 was 97.4 per 100,000
children. The rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in foster care
was, as said before, 3.40 per 100,000 children.

Here is how the compilers, researchers I presume, comment on their own
data chart, from the tiny URL you listed:

"Percentage of fatalities that occurred in foster care is based on
total fatalities in States that reported on fatalities in foster care.

A "fatality" is not a murder. It can be, but it can be other causes of
death. Hospitals have boards that review hospital fatalities. There
are studies on traffic fatalities. There are charts of gun fatalities.
The presumption that each of these restricts themselves to murder only
is nonsense. They include accidents, acts of God (so called),
negligence, AND murder.


No, these statistics included only child fatalities as the result of child
abuse and neglect, as I have made abundantly clear in the statement
(repeated now for the fifth time). Many times more than 1,300 children died
during 2001. Many times more foster children died in foster care during
2001 than 18. As stated, 528 foster children died in foster care that year.

This table compares the number of child fatalities associated with
foster care to all child fatalities. The first column lists all of the
States and the second column lists the total number of fatalities. The
third column reports the number of child fatalities from foster care
according to CPS and the fourth reports child fatalities from other
agencies for a grand total of foster care deaths in the fifth column.
The last column gives a percentage of fatalities that occurred in
foster care as compared to the total number of fatalities. Among the
48 States reporting, the percentage of fatalities in foster care was
calculated to be 1.5 percent.
"
First sentence, "...fatalities occured in..." Not murders, not perps
and victims, just deaths in a location. It would undoubtedly include
those victims killed BY foster parents, but it is NOT exclusive to
that population.


They were fatalities exclusively due to abuse and neglect. If you don't
want to call them murders, I don't know what to say.

Note that last line. " ...the percentage of fatalities in foster
care..." still doesn't make the foster CARER the perp. This is a weep
and wail chart, not useful for anything but to draw attention to the
need to do MORE generally about children at risk from all causes,
including foster care, but not exclusive of parental care failings as
well.


The information provides ample reason to weep and wail. 1,300 child
fatalities as the result of abuse and negect is a terrifying figure. The
rates of child abuse fatalities in BOTH populations (1.81 per 100,000 in the
general population and 3.40 per 100,000 in foster care) is reason to cry.

And finally, what's the percentage again of children who die IN foster
care? Only 1.5 of all fatalities? Right? Asshole.


The rate of children who die as the result of child abuse and neglect in
foster care is 3.40 per hundred thousand -- considerably less than 1%. This
rate is higher than the rate child fatalities as the result of abuse and
neglect in the general population (1.81 per 100,000).

98.5% percent die OUTSIDE foster care.


Yes. Because 99.3% of children live outside of foster care.

Let's look at the first reference for the mention of "by bio-parents"

you
insist is there.



http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child

Okay, asshole, let's look at that page, and I'll paste a quote from
it:

"Parental Status of Perpetrators (Child File)
Most child fatalities, 82.8 percent, were maltreated by their parent
or parents (figure 5-2).4 Almost one-third (32.4%) of fatalities were
perpetrated just by their mother.5 These percentages are consistent
with the findings reported in previous years.
"

This is consistent with the chart I'm going to post for you, that I've
posted before that IS what you claim, but not what you wish....the
calculation of the estimated actual PERPS....foster and other
caregivers vs PARENTS AND THOSE IN CAHOOTS WITH THEM.

Looking down the USDHHS page referenced above, we come to the

pertinent
passage, which I quote exactly.


And watch me pick it apart along the way:

"For 2001, a national estimate of 1,300 child deaths at a rate of

1.81
children of every 100,000 children in the population died from abuse

or
neglect. Many States were able to supplement the automated data from

the
child welfare agency with statistics from other agencies in their

States.
Included in the reported 1,300 fatalities were 150 fatalities

reported from
such agencies as health departments and fatality review boards.

"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision

of the
child welfare agency are especially egregious.


It does not say CAUSED BY THE STATE SUPERVISION, just in state
supervision. While I no more forgive the state for being so negligent
as to allow a child to die while in their care, I am aware some deaths
are simply not preventable and I cut natural parents the same slack,
but you wish to use this figure to somehow blame foster parents and or
the state for killing children. Asshole.


Yet again, the comparison was between two populations who were cut the same
slack. The comparison was between child fatalities due to abuse and neglect
in the general population to fatalities due to abuse and neglect in foster
care.

Child protective services
(CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care.

Of
these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the

coroner's
office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the

States
occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting."


Notice the "some type of out-of-home placement setting?"


Notice also "in the general population." What's your point? All 18
children who died as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care were in
state custody or supervision.

A setting, not a perp. Out-of-home, not exclusively foster placement.


Both comparative populations were fatalities due to abuse and neglect
occurring in settings. In one case, the general population. In the other,
foster care.

That does NOT establish the perp. In fact, if we are going to cut it
to a truly fine point, to try to use this figures to find blame is
pointless, for either parents or foster parents.


You're right, its pointless to use these figures to find blame. But it is
you that repeatedly brings up the blame issue. Who to blame or not to blame
seems to be your point. Mine was that the rate of fatalities due to abuse
and neglect in state care (3.40) is higher than the rate of fatalities due
to abuse and neglect in the general population (1.81).

Now crawfish and go back to "I'm just reporting the figures and
leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions" or some similar
bullhockey you like to pull on the unwary.


Kane, where in this reference is there any mention of "by

bio-parents"?

I did not cite this particular chart in our most recent exchange. I
simply pointed out the truth, this is NOT a perp identity chart and
there IS such a chart that you have run around the end of countless
time's in our debates and my challenges to you and your nonsense.


THERE it is By Bio Parent, and lists ALL THE PERPS, not the locales.


I don't recall any "By Bio Parent" charts. It seems to be strange language
for social science researchers to use.

And for those that care I now offer the truth, not His
Duplicitiousness' Bull****.


The chart below reports on fatalities due to abuse and neglect during 1999.
My statement and sources concerned fatalities due to abuse and neglect in
2001. The chart below comes from an entirely different publication,
published two years before the one I cited. Obviously, the numbers of
fatalities occurring in 1999 are different than numbers of fatalities in
2001. How can we compare the two? Apples and oranges?

Kane, this is the second time within a week that you have reached back two
years to attempt to challenge my statements based on current data (NCANDS
data for 2001 is the latest available). Who do you think you are fooling?

The Perp Chart: (URL below)

Table 4-4: Maltreatment Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship,
1999 DCDC

Relationship of Number of Percentage
Perpetrator to Victim Fatality Victims of Fatality Victims
Male Parent and Other 5 1.1% *
Unknown 12 2.7%
Family Relative 20 4.5% *
Other 25 5.7%
Substitute Care-
Provider(s) 27 6.1%
Male Parent Only 47 10.7% *
Female Parent-
and Other 72 16.3% *
Both Parents 94 21.3% *
Female Parent Only 139 31.5% *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

-
Total 441 100.0%

Kane: Note that of all perps only sub-care providers, which would
include some foster parents but not only FPs, such as day care, is 6.1
percent.


There were only 441 fatalities due to abuse and neglect in 1999? I think
not. If we had a total number of fatalities due to abuse and neglect we
could determine rates of fatalities by perp, controling for population. I
can tell you right now, that given the percentage of the 441 victims cited
(6.1%), the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in substitute care
is going to be many times higher than in the general population. In the
2001 figures we were discussing, 18 children died as the result of abuse and
neglect in foster care. In your 1999 table, 27 children are shown as dying
as the result of abuse and neglect inflicted by substitute care providers.

Notice that the percentage of fatalities by perp that are partners or
parents or relatives that I've marked with *, totals 89.2% while
the only possible categories, and that is stretching it a bit, that
could include foster parents is Unknown, Other, and Sub care providers
(the latter having to include all sub care providers NOT fosters such
as day care providers, and inpatient and outpatient mental health
treatment centers) comes to 10.8%.


That percentage (6.1%) of the 441 child fatalities shown comes out to around
47 children. If the percentages remained constant for the remaining 800 or
so children who died of child abuse and neglect in 1999 and are not shown on
the chart, the number of children who died as the result of abuse and
neglect inflicted by caregivers in the categories you mention could be as
high as 128 children. That is 7 times the 2001 number we were discussing
(18).

You make my point for me.

The results:

Related and other with related: 89.2%
Foster and all nonrelated unaffiliated with parents: 10.2%


Related and other with related concern 99.3 percent of the child population.
Yet a whopping 10.2 percent of those fatalities shown were among .7 of one
percent of the child population. (Although, I agree with your implication
that not all of the perps in those categories are foster caregivers. We
would have to know that number to get an accurate rate per 100,000 and
control for population size.)

This was the clear indictation to me the charts you are touting as
reason to indict foster parents as murderous thugs who kill children
was not what you claimed it was. They still aren't.


First, your 1999 chart does not in the slightest challenge the findings I
reported concerning 2001 data or my conclusions drawn from that data. In
fact, it shows a number of fatalities in alternative care that is many times
higher than the 18 I was talking about. The chart you paste above not only
confirms my statement but goes beyond it to report even higher numbers of
fatalities in alternative care.

Secondily, nowhere in this thread have I "touted" any charts as supporting
your contention that foster caregivers are "murderous thugs." That is your
wording.

You still are a liar by misdirection, manipulation, and avoidance. .


There is no misdirection in the posts to which you respond. No
manipulation. No avoidance. Your response goes beyond merely confirming my
statements to arrive at even a higher number of fatalities due to abuse and
neglect in alternative care.

Learn to read and tell the truth at this URL from one of your
favorite sources:


Good advice to heed, Kane.

There is no problems with differentiation between "in" and "by"

because both
populations are defined by "in."


And that shows who murdered the child how again?


We can go with your numbers from the 1999 data. They measure a much higher
rate of fatalities in foster care.

Most especially pay attention to the fact fatalities are not
exclusively killings by intent or neglect.


No, they are fatalities due to abuse and neglect.

Unproven and you won't admit it. ALL your claims are poisoned by

that
stubborn refusal to differentiate between IN an BY.


The chart cited was not posted for such comparisions and you know

it.

The narrative cited does make a comparision. The exact breakdown in

foster
care among the 48 states reporting is provided in my second citation.
http://tinyurl.com/n1ma


And it is NOT a perp identity cite.


Your chart was, right? We can go by those numbers if you wish.

The citations you offer and have always offered are not only weak for
the premise you give but they are NOT even close to the issue at hand:
are children safer with foster parents or with natural parents who are
shown to be, by CPS, creating risk to the child?


Nope. To the contrary, a large percentage of children placed into foster
care are unsubstantiated by CPS itself as being at risk of child abuse or
neglect. In a couple of states, the majority of children taken into state
custody come from families CPS unsubstantiated for creating risk to their
children.

Comparing foster parents to all parents (and in fact the census
figures used by the chart authors include "families" that have NO
children)


Absolutely not. Geez, Kane, look at the data. The authors used the CHILD
POPULATION. They did not measure the number of families, whether they had
children or not.

ALL children aren't put in foster care. The majority in foster care
come from parents that CPS claims would have harmed them had they been
left there, and the perp chart makes it damn clear that IS the case.


If only CPS were omnipotent as you and cronies claim it should be.

If CPS were omnipotent and prescent it would totally stop all child
fatalities, and you prey on that impossibility and pretend that CPS
needs reform in areas were it does not...in fact it needs MORE power
in some areas, precisely the ones you want stripped from CPS, to be
able to reduce child fatalities.


If CPS were omnipotent and prescent, it would remove more children and more
children would die in foster care.

You want to give to the police exclusive investigative powers and
strip CPS of any power to persuade parents to reform.


Are you saying that CPS uses its investigative powers to persuade parents to
reform? Shouldn't it be using those powers to determine if parents have
done something or failed to do something that indicates they are in need of
reform?
What about innocent parents?

Police do not reduce child fatalities any more than they reduce drug

use through The War on Drugs.


The same principles that have proven to reduce drug use apply in
improving the parenting abuse and neglect situation. Pursuasion with a
stick and carrot approach. One can't offer the carrot and its
benefits, in this instance, without using the stick to get the person
to take a bite and see just how good it can be, and good for you.


Sticks don't work well in casework. It's been proven over and over again.

Considering that 60% or so of the families that meet with the stick,
take a bite of the carrot, and get their kids back (the service plan,
dummy, the service plan), I'd say it's working rather well, dispite
some failures.


It is CPS and CPS alone, barring changing demographics for other
reasons, that is charged with reducing child abuse, neglect and
fatalities, and given the barriers in their way, budget, assholes like
you and your cronies that lie lie lie about it, they do a tremendous
job YOU CAN'T DO AND FAILED AT, didn't you Doug? Didn't you?


No.

You couldn't deal with the reality of the messiness. Could you?


I explain the messiness and its reality on a regular basis. I have never
had trouble dealing with it. That is not to say that I like what the
messiness does to innocent children.

You are a classic prissyassed overcontrolling ****up that left CPS to
"expose" by pointing to things CPS cannot deal with for many valid
acceptable reasons, and is not mandated to deal with by logic, but is
forced to by statute.


LOL! Discussion of the issues have Gotcha again. Back to the childish name
calling?

You are just another lowlife kneebreaker, but with a conman's smiling
ingratiating slyness. You make me wanta puke.


I am delighted. However, your uneasy stomache is more likely a ramification
of defeat. If you end up on the short end of the stick in discussing the
issues, you resort to name-calling. I would feel a little quesy if I cut
and pasted outdated data that supported my opponent's position.

They say that the quickest way to a man's ego is through his stomache.

And in this instance we are discussing, the claim isn't even what

you
say it is. We aren't discussing up or down, but what The Plant's
intent it.


We most certainly were discussing up or down.


Blah blah blah. YOU and A Plant are attempting to do that to divert
from the truth. There are murderous parents out there, and there are
far fewer murderous foster parents.


1) No, you posted that Fern's claim rates of fatalities due to abuse were
not going down were false. In fact, she was right and your challenge that
they were going down was wrong.

2) There are less murderous foster caregivers than murderous parents because
there are far less foster caregivers than there are parents. There are also
far less blue-eyed foster caregivers than blue-eyed parents. There are also
far less left-handed foster caregivers than there are left-handed parents.
There are much less non-murderous, kind foster caregivers than there are
non-murderous, kind parents.

It is EASY to spot a murderous foster parent, as they are under state
scrutiny specifically because they are foster parents and known and
listed with their agency.


Anyone who murders children comes under rather intense state scrutiny.

No such oversight exists for natural parents. Hence natural parents
can and do kill more children by number and percentage.


No, not by percentage. Parents kill a smaller percentage of their children
than foster caregivers kill their wards.

RATES tells us
near to nothing as long as they are confined to LOCUS rather than
identified PERPS.


The only way to compare different sized populations is by using rates. You
do know that, don't you?

When you have a perp RATE let me know.


Give me the number of killed children in the chart you posted and I will be
happy to calculate the rate.

And even then
it's not going to be of much use because generally FOSTERS can't get
away with murder and natural parents CAN. Difference in strength of
oversight. That means, as the researchers surely know as indicated in
their unwilliness to try and produce the numbers, that lots of parents
kill and aren't caught, hence are not reflected accurately in the
numbers reported.


Oh. So rates, percentages, numbers are not of any use anyway, because only
foster caregivers get caught for child murder?

Fern's initial statement beginning the thread was that occurances of
fatalities due to abuse and neglect had not gone down.


Who gives a ****? It's Its endless intent to discredit and lie lie lie
that I'm concerned with. A stupid manipulator, where you are only a
tiny bit smarter.


Who cares? Well, those of us who noticed that you called Fern a liar for
stating the truth; those of us who noted that you claimed, inaccurately,
that the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect had gone down. It is a
crediablity thing, Kane.

By the way, do you remember your argument that one must use RATES to measure
fatalities because the child population varies? You call Fern "stupid"
because you inaccurately challenged the truth she told and were caught at
it.

You and IT have to be called on your malicious gossip method of
"reform."


You inaccurately
challenged her assertion by stating that, since population had gone

up, the
RATE of fatalities had gone down. You called her names for that.


I call It names for many things. In this case for one more of IT's
lying bits of misconstrued bull****, just like the other crap she cuts
and pastes that are lies in themselves, like the unconstitutional
ruling that in fact isn't quoted in the article that claims it.


Her statement that child fatalities due to abuse and neglect had not gone
down was not a lying bit of misconstrued information, but the truth. You
wrongly called it a lie and were caught at it.

You and they are fit comrades.

I replied
that, in fact, the RATE of fatalities had not gone down . . . that

you were
wrong.


You may well be right AND I DON'T ****ING CARE, ASSHOLE.


Fern was right. I was right. You were wrong. No biggie. I am sure it
works out the other way around sometimes. But, yes, you have made it
evident for some time that you don't care.

The point is that your intent is to pretend that state care is more
dangerous than parental care by those identified as likely perps.


My point was that the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in foster
care is higher than the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in the
general population.

A piece of blathering crap.


LOL!

I pointed that out to you and you are now crawfishing once again.

The up or down rate is damn near irrelevant for support of your
position of CPS needing reform.


It was relevant in pointing out that your supposition that fatality rates
decreased was wrong.

Just as, and you have just failed again to support your position, on
the rate of fatalities IN foster care, as opposed to the rate of
fatalities BY foster carers.


Well, thanks to your chart, we know that rates of fatalities due to abuse
and neglect in substitute care is much higher than fatalities due to abuse
and neglect in the general population in 1999.

None of the charts or statements you point to shows that, as they do
NOT list who the perp is. My chart DOES, and you are running from it.


I have explained five times what my statements and respective citations
point out.

Your campaign to turn child welfare into a fascist exercise has

been
well documented here, by you.


How is reporting the accurate number of child fatalities due to abuse

or
neglect a "fascist exercise?"


I didn't say that and you know it. I said YOUR CAMPAIGN is a fascist
exercise, asshole.


In other words this crap of yours along with all the other nonsense
you post is a CAMPAIGN. And I said turn "child welfare into a fascist
exercise" not that what you posted on child fatalities was a fascist
exercise...though now that you mention it....r r r r


Where's the beef, Kane? Name-calling says a lot about you but does not
address child welfare issues we are discussing on this forum.

It's just one small part of your goal.


What is my goal? Where do you get the idea you can determine such a thing?

Your support of the obviously right wing fundy-christian ridden HSLDA
is a clear indication of your politics.


I whole heartedly support the CAPTA amendment this organization drafted
providing families rights to due process. Thanks to this ammendment, CPS
workers will now be trained on Constitutional rights and they will be
compelled to tell parents what allegations have been made against them. I
fully support the exceptional legal representation they have provided
parents who encounter wrongful CPS interventions.

Most of us do NOT want a fundy christian interpretation of what is and
isn't acceptable parenting, but you championed the involvement of
HSLDA with the feds to do exactly that...start the ball rolling on
deciding by the FEDS, and of course HSLDA through their influence,
what is and isn't acceptable parenting.


CPS practice is currently driven by federal guidelines of what is and is not
acceptable parenting. HSLDA's ammendment toned down that federal push by
placing some reasonable, due process requirements on the state. The
organization has curtailed federal control, not increased it.

Other than its work to protect children and their families, I know little
about HSLDA.


Your pointing to federal control of child welfare as a solution to CPS
reform


The feds already have control. CPS practice is driven by CAPTA and ASFA,
both federal statutes. A good start for CPS reform would be to repeal both
of those federal laws.

and MORE police involvement in child protection (as though they
don't do so already), and the removal of CPS in an enforcement role,
is clearly a fascist solution.


YOU want, or are too stupid to see the danger of, the Feds beginning
to define what is and isn't appropriate parenting.


The feds define what is and is not appropriate parenting currently. I seek
to repeal CAPTA and ASFA.

YOU want, or are too stupid to see the danger of, the millions of
families that lack information and skill being either arrested, or
simply turned loose on their innocent children with NO attempts, other
than volunteering...r r r r...to help them learn to do better and
safer parenting of their children.


Nope. I want the practice of forcibly removing children from innocent
families to stop. By their own admission, CPS removes thousands of children
it has unsubstantiated as being at risk of maltreatment.

YOU ARE A ****ING FASCIST ASSHOLE. And a danger to children to and
families.


I don't think so. But, then again, that's me.

Are you saying that if rates of fatalities
have not gone down, as you inaccurately claimed, then child welfare

practice
is fascist?


No, asshole. I'm simply pointing out, once again, the measure of your
morals and ethics and that of The Plant and your other
co-conspiritors. You lie and manipulate.


Well, the sum and total of this thread was pointing out your mistatement.

You selectively cut and paste. You ignore things that refute your
little sick belief system.


Or are you saying that the claim that child welfare agencies
have been unsuccessful in reducing child fatalities is the same as

calling
those agencies fascist?


Are you saying that you are a lying asshole?


No.


The bottom line is you are pushing for a police state.


LOL!


I'm not diverted. Try again.


LOL!


Holding CPS agencies accountable for protecting children against
lethal child abuse


That isn't what you are doing. You are trying to make them accountable
for things they have little to NO control over. That is what you are
doing. You isolate or inflate the meaning of data to fit your agenda.
I just caught you at it again and proved it right here.


I inflated nothing. We have both posted data proving my contention.

You were stupid enough to post an URL that included OTHER information
that proved you wrong.


Not at all. I was hoping that people would go to the URL and read all the
material. You went to a similar URL and brought back a chart from two years
ago that proved me right.

is a call for a police state?

Yes, as you do it, yes, yes, yes. That IS what you want, isn't it?

What would you call not giving a family that ****ed up a chance to
reform? That's what you have repeatedly said you want. They must be
criminally charged and all OTHERS CUT LOOSE. Am I correct in my
summation of your beliefs in this?


No.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed Kane Spanking 11 September 16th 03 11:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.