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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
"dragonsgirl" wrote in message t... "The stance of the individual who wrote the post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with." http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...4?dmode=source Which would be a yes. Hardly. The poster didn't make it very clear what they meant, as I tried to point out. Betty I disagree. Eric made himself VERY clear. Don't defend Ron. Eric was/is as subtle as a 50 megaton bomb. He's hard to miss, he straight forward with what he believes, even if he doesn't always see it in its most simple ramifications. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
On Nov 12, 9:58 am, " krp" wrote:
"Bearic" wrote in message ps.com... I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might be dead. Better to be safe than sorry. But you are wrong. Oh? So you believe that when there is a reported possibility of danger or abuse, it is better to leave the kid in the situation where he can get killed rather than ruffle the feathers of the parents and maybe cause them some humiliation if the charges are false? Me, I'd rather see the child safe. Out of all the people concerned, the children are the ones who do not have a choice in the matter. Since 66% prove out to be "unfounded" (according to US HHS) I feel the "possibility" needs to me more than an ANONYMOUS REPORT. I think the anonymous report should send out a TRAINED case worker. However - at that point unless they SEE something or come across some evidence to suggest something more than the "mere possibility" of abuse, that you shouldn't just yank the kid just because of some remote possibility of abuse. IF we yanked the children from their parents on just the thinnest "possibility" that they might be abused, than we should get ALL children rounded up and placed in state crèches because it might be possible that the parents some day might abuse them, even if we have no evidence they actually have been. You just seem incapable of understanding that it is the CHILDREN who are harmed by yanking them away from their families. You are obviously without a clue on child development. You'd make a good case worker. I appeal to you one more time. I want to see a source for that 66% figure. It is not on the US HHS web site so where did you get it? I want to read the data analysis on that and assuming it is true (which I don't) tell me what you would do with the other percentage, the ones who played out as actually being in danger. The children 4 or 5 of them of the drunk father or the crack whore mother who don't have a sista to pawn them off of, the kids whose throats would be slashed if they stayed. Are your spare rooms full of needy children? I doubt it. I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might be dead. Sounds like that's fine by you, that the kids die. E.B. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
On Nov 12, 9:59 am, " krp" wrote:
"Bearic" wrote in message oups.com... Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting up in the morning and going to work way. All I'm saying is that if there is reason to suspect abuse, get the child out of the environment until it can be determined one way or the other. Respectfully, E.B. And to you an ANONYMOUS call to the hot line is sufficient "reason" to yank a child from its family? A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place, yes. Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful. Things happen in families. You'd have easily made promotion in the Gestapo to the rank of "groupenfuehrer!" I don't care what you think. If doing this saves the life of even one kid, it is worth it, at least to me, it is and to a lot of the foster parents it is too. You seem more concerned with being "right" or at least giving the appearance of being "right" than you seem to care anything about kids. My ego isn't that big. I care more about the kids. I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might be dead, and I did say TEMPORARILY and I did say IF THERE IS REASON TO THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
On Nov 12, 9:59 am, "LK" wrote:
"Bearic" wrote in message oups.com... On Nov 12, 4:43 am, " krp" wrote: "Bearic" wrote in message groups.com... Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting up in the morning and going to work way. All I'm saying is that if there is reason to suspect abuse, get the child out of the environment until it can be determined one way or the other. Respectfully, E.B. And to you an ANONYMOUS call to the hot line is sufficient "reason" to yank a child from its family? A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place, yes. Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful. Things happen in families. Do you have any understanding of the harm caused to the child by the removal? I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might be dead. Do you know that most reports of child abuse or neglect are unsubstantiated? Yeah I know that some abusive parents cover their trails fairly well after they abuse their kids, because they don't want to be caught. Where would they keep all the kids that they remove until they could prove otherwise? Isn't there already a shortage of GOOD foster homes? No thanks to people like you who do all the bashing. Did you ever stop to think that being a foster parent might attract more good foster parents if people like you didn't campaign against it so much. It is YOU who are hurting these kids as much as their abusers. Do you think that innocent parents would stand for having their children removed from their care and placed with strangers while a babystealer determines the safety levels of the children in their care? Innocent parents should be cleared quickly, because abused kids are obvious about their abuse even when they don't speak it. There are signs and trained experts can tell. How much would that number increase from what there already is? IF what? Who would pay for it? Your ideas aren't even idealistic, just ignorantly self-righteous. How are they "self" righteous? I advocate for the kids. There isn't one thing in this for me, liar. My kids have never been abused and I am self-assured enough about my parenting skills to know I won't ever be reported as an abuser. I can say the same for my wife. There isn't any smoke. We are good parents. Our kids know it. Our friends know it. Our community knows it, because we put our family first. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
On Nov 12, 10:00 am, " krp" wrote:
"ASSmonkey" wrote in message oups.com... Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting up in the morning and going to work way. All I'm saying is that if there is reason to suspect abuse, get the child out of the environment until it can be determined one way or the other. Respectfully, E.B. And to you an ANONYMOUS call to the hot line is sufficient "reason" to yank a child from its family? A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place, yes. Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful. Things happen in families. I think intake workers need to be well trained in culling out false reports. What he's saying is that an anonymous accusation is enough to TAKE the kids until you PROVE you did NOT abuse your child! I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might be dead. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
"Bearic" wrote in message
oups.com... Since 66% prove out to be "unfounded" (according to US HHS) I feel the "possibility" needs to me more than an ANONYMOUS REPORT. Start right there with this claim. I'd like for you to substantiate that claim because I don't believe the US HHS makes it. Give some citation or method of verifying this because I suspect there is more to this 66% number than you are stating. Let's start with this Eric. The things you do NOT know would fill the Library of Alexxandria. START HERE!!!!! www.hhs.state.ne.us/jus/memos/HdbkPnts.pdf www.hhs.state.ne.us/cha/2004Report.pdf http://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/article...article_id=234 www.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/H8050/A001-2004.pdf state.nj.us/.../Final Child Abuse Neglect Statistical Report CY04.pdf hhs.csus.edu/homepages/sw/title-ive/Division_31_CWS_Regulations_II.pdf However - at that point unless they SEE something or come across some evidence to suggest something more than the "mere possibility" of abuse, that you shouldn't just yank the kid just because of some remote possibility of abuse. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Abusive parents can sometimes fake their way out of a situation like that, show no signs that they are abusive and fool everyone around them. You seem NOT to understand what country you live in. You'd have really fit in in Nazi Germany or today in Venezuela. The concept of our legal system is that it is better that a thousand guilty walk free than even ONE innocent lose their liberty wrongly. Now somewhere between ideals is where we need to be, and that is that an anonymous call is not enough to grab kids. There has to be SOME indication on the investigator's visit to base removal on. Bruises, the child saying "mommy hits me" something more than an anonymous report.! |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
"Bearic" wrote in message ups.com... A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place, yes. Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful. Things happen in families. Tell me. What would YOU do with the four abused kids of the crack whore, all dirty and diseased and illiterate,maybe not English speaking, with no one who is willing to take them in? So all mothers are crack whores because "somebody" calls and claims they are? Statistics on false reporting indicate otherwise. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
"Bearic" wrote in message ups.com... I was raised by two parents who had foster kids from the time I was two years old until I reached adulthood, padre gordo. They were good to those kids and good to their bio kids. That's wonderful. Many faster families are not so good. And many times the biological parents did nothing wrong. You simply don't understand the consequences of yanking children when it wasn't necessary. When it IS - fine. But I am speaking of when it ISN'T! |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
"LK" wrote in message ... "Bearic" wrote in message ups.com... krp wrote: "LK" wrote in message ... I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might be dead. Better to be safe than sorry. But you are wrong. Oh? So you believe that when there is a reported possibility of danger or abuse, it is better to leave the kid in the situation where he can get killed rather than ruffle the feathers of the parents and maybe cause them some humiliation if the charges are false? Me, I'd rather see the child safe. Out of all the people concerned, the children are the ones who do not have a choice in the matter. I'm glad you weren't my parent. You are so sugar coating the issue. And you really have no ****ing clue what you're talking about. You and your perfect little life view. It's because of idiots like you that the system is in the sorry assed state that it is in. It's because of idiots like you that innocent families are destroyed for being poor. No he's right he should be glad I'm not his parent. I'd have sent him to his room to do some reading to learn how FOS he is. He'd rather do Play Station 3. I was raised by two parents who had foster kids from the time I was two years old until I reached adulthood, padre gordo. They were good to those kids and good to their bio kids. I had every Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving and Fourth of July with families where foster kids lived. I know from first hand experience that I am right and I also know that pricks like you are too selfish to do anything for kids besides sit there on your fat tushes and shoot off your big mouths on subjects you don't understand. You are ignorant. It is your attitude, padre gordo ,and the lies you have already told about this all. You are the crazy man that all of those posts say you are. I wouldn't be surprised to hear you were a child beater yoursef. You would probably get some kind of sexual satisfaction from that, prick. So judgemental. Sanctimonious boor! |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
krp wrote: "Ron" wrote in message ... The following paragraph is far more TELLING than Ronny can possible know: CONFESSION TIME: The system is specifically designed to provide us with a level of reimbursement that meets only 90% of the needs of the child on our care. IOW, we loose 10% each and every month with each and every child. I have made that very same point many times. Amazing that kenny and I actually agree on something. OTOH, there comes a point where removal IS necessary, for the health and wellbeing of the child. CPS workers are trained to know where that point is, not kenny or yourself. I disagree CPS workers RARELY have ANY "training" that would prepare them to make such evaluations. Nationally few CPS caseworkers actually have a degree that is related to such decisions. Most have educations in completely unrelated fields. As to training, in most places, new CPS case workers are shoved out on the streets with little or no real training. Some is OJT, some is laughable "in-service" training. An hour or maybe a few hours. The notion of well trained case workers is a joke. Which is why a well schooled lawyer can induce them to implode on the witness stand when asked the right questions. You and I don't agree Ron because we come at the issue from vastly different planes. I'm not a whore for the status quo, you are! You and I have been through this discussion before kenny, and you were proven wrong then quickly and clearly. So if I were you, I'd drop it. No need for you to be embarrassed again, is there? Ron -- Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of ****! Proof at: www.aboutkenpangborn.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ state officials to address the disproportionatelyhigh number of black and Hispanic kids in foster care. | fx | Spanking | 0 | August 13th 07 11:07 PM |
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ state officials to address the disproportionatelyhigh number of black and Hispanic kids in foster care. | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | August 13th 07 11:07 PM |
Child welfare system needs dose of sanity By RICHARD WEXLER | fx | Spanking | 0 | July 19th 07 08:53 AM |
Child welfare system needs dose of sanity By RICHARD WEXLER | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | July 19th 07 08:53 AM |
Statement of Richard Wexler, Executive Director, National Coalitionfor Child Protection Reform, Alexandria, Virginia... | fx | Spanking | 1 | May 31st 07 03:40 AM |