Every state CPS failed Fed report cards-16 FAILED ALL AREAS

Not only are mostly totally innocent families subject to invasive, intrusive
CPS investigations, but if children are to be removed they are removed to an
admittedly FAILED SYSTEM.

Not one state has an even passable CPS entity.

16 states failed on EVERY MEASURE OF CPS interventions.

Who would trust their child to a totally bereft system. Even the social work
theorists and policymakers admit that CPS is deficient.

http://www.familyrightsassociation.com Network there--and with state
contacts in your state.

DESCRIPTORS; DFS, DHS, CYS,CYF, ACS, DYFS,DCYF, DCS, DCF, DSS, DFCS,TDPRS, SCF,
DSHS, DPSS, DHR, DFYS, DFS, DHS, FIA,ACF, DHHS, CAPTA, ASFA, CHILD ABUSE, CHILD
NEGLECT, SPANKING, CSB

Fern5827 wrote:

Not only are mostly totally innocent families

How exactly does one become "mostly totally innocent?" I understand
innocent or guilty but I'm having a little difficulty with mostly
innocent. How much of one's behavior must be innocent in order to be
mostly innocent?

And then one has to deal with "mostly totally innocent." What
percentage of innocent could a "mostly totally innocent" person be?

LaVonne
subject to invasive, intrusive
CPS investigations, but if children are to be removed they are removed to an
admittedly FAILED SYSTEM.

Not one state has an even passable CPS entity.

16 states failed on EVERY MEASURE OF CPS interventions.

Who would trust their child to a totally bereft system. Even the social work
theorists and policymakers admit that CPS is deficient.

http://www.familyrightsassociation.com Network there--and with state
contacts in your state.

DESCRIPTORS; DFS, DHS, CYS,CYF, ACS, DYFS,DCYF, DCS, DCF, DSS, DFCS,TDPRS, SCF,
DSHS, DPSS, DHR, DFYS, DFS, DHS, FIA,ACF, DHHS, CAPTA, ASFA, CHILD ABUSE, CHILD
NEGLECT, SPANKING, CSB

Carlson LaVonne wrote in message ...
Fern5827 wrote:

Not only are mostly totally innocent families

How exactly does one become "mostly totally innocent?" I understand
innocent or guilty but I'm having a little difficulty with mostly
innocent. How much of one's behavior must be innocent in order to be
mostly innocent?

And then one has to deal with "mostly totally innocent." What
percentage of innocent could a "mostly totally innocent" person be?

LaVonne

While this could have been phrased better, it doesn't seem that hard
to understand to me. I would presume the original author meant that
most of the families were totally innocent. That's the only
interpretation that makes sense to me.

On 15 May 2004 10:23:11 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

Carlson LaVonne wrote in message ...
Fern5827 wrote:

Not only are mostly totally innocent families

How exactly does one become "mostly totally innocent?" I
understand
innocent or guilty but I'm having a little difficulty with mostly
innocent. How much of one's behavior must be innocent in order to
be
mostly innocent?

And then one has to deal with "mostly totally innocent." What
percentage of innocent could a "mostly totally innocent" person be?

LaVonne

While this could have been phrased better, it doesn't seem that hard
to understand to me.

Uuunnhhh...you have to have some history with The Plant to get the
referrance. Obscure utterances with the objective of denigrating CPS,
child protection, good and innocent parents, and stopping the guilty
poorly performing parents is derigor for this individual Vegetation.

I would presume the original author meant that
most of the families were totally innocent.

Well, It might, and It might not have. If you knew the orginal
poster's history you wouldn't make such speculations lightly.

It has been known to excuse and minimize the murder of chidlren by
their parents using drugs, with the comment that "in the 1800's giving
optiates to children to quiet them was common." or words to that
effect.

This and other abuses of the language, logic, and the rights of
children to be free of deliberate parental pain and injury, even
death, at their hands is common for The Plant. It seems to be making a
hobby of it.

That's the only
interpretation that makes sense to me.

Well, then. How about seeking context outside this single post and
reply? It would make sense had the poster, A Plant, been a normal,
honest, thoughtful person.

That is NOT the case here.

But thanks for attempting to bring some light to the issue.

The issue that LaVonne is somewhat lightly addressing in a jocular
vein (it can get heavy discussing the pain, injury and deaths of
children at the hands of their own parents) is that The Plant doesn't
know who is innocent and who is guilty, but is happy tripping along in
a haze defending the right of parents to be wrong, very wrong, without
appropriate consequences.

Part of that happy hobby is to do everything it can, as insipid as
those efforts may be, to disable CPS.

Best wishes,

Kane