Don's parent hating drivel

On May 30, 12:51 am, "0:-]" wrote:
On 29 May 2007 18:34:33 -0700, Greegor wrote:

Kane did his usual, tried to use this to garner more funding for CPS.
Clearly he thought it was advantageous to do that in another thread.

In other words, you'll use a lie to try and support your lie.

By the way, are you aware that "things" cost money?

You seem to want some from the Iowa citizens, but oddly are unaware,
apparently that if you want services to improve you usually will have
to pay for the expenses involved.

Unless you are a thief.

Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

( I would add,
Even in a case where the caseworker fabricated and
swore to a nonexistant ""sex abuse history"" in order
to "make a case" and get the court to rubber stamp it. )

You accuse me of being a thief for taking a suggestion
from a paid contractor from the agency itself??

The agencies seem to have little trouble getting
laws written to the advantage of the agencies themselves,
yet you whine as if I created the notion that the
agencies should actually offer substantial ASSISTANCE
instead of removing kids.

G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?

On May 30, 9:15 pm, Greegor wrote:
G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?

I don't know about him, but I have a problem with that housing
assistance idea.

There are options for people with housing issues.

There are shelters. Some that you pay nothing to live in, and some in
which you pay a little, and others in which you either pay or work for
your room and board.

Then, there is federal housing for low income. HUD, if you will. HUD
pays for the housing expenses that a family cannot pay for. It's
based on their incomes, so if your income is pretty low you pay very
little for your rent and the government pays for th rest.

After that are housing projects. There is one pretty close to me.
The apartments are nice, clean, and cheaper than dirt, and the tenants
not only get housing for their rent, but utilities as well. A friend
of mine lived there years ago. She paid exactly $130 mo for a four
bedroom apartment and utilities.

There are community programs in some areas that will pay for a
security deposit and last month's rent for low income people, and
more.

There are churches that will do the same. The Salvation army runs a
homeless shelter not far from here at a center they have...the place
looks like a motel. Then the Catholic Church runs another even closer
to my house and I've been there many times as a donor, the place IS a
motel. People there, after a period of time, pay rent to live there
(very little) or are expected to work helping to prepare meals, etc,
or a combination for their upkeep.

Now, with ALL that available to people with low income, could you give
me one good reason why DFS fund should ALSO be spent in securing
appropriate housing?

It would make more sense to me that families in crisis would utilize
those services instead of laying around until DFS took their kids and
then expect the DFS office to pay their way.

It seems as though your answer to every ill is for DFS to 'fix' it,
when the facts are that if a family gets into a huge bind that causes
their child to be removed from their care then all the 'fixing' in the
world won't make things better because the family will end up right
back in the same condition sooner or later.

Let me give you an example.

A family of six lives in a home with two bedrooms. Not enough room
for all the kids...they are sharing one small bedroom. DFS gets a
hotline...what reason doesn't really matter...and the kids must be
removed. The parents are directed to secure a larger living space to
have the children placed back within their home.

Now, if DFS pays for rent for this family to get a larger home, say,
three months, how long do you think it would be before this family
could no longer pay their rent and get evicted?

It's a temporary fix, because if the family lived in a home that was
too small to begin with that indicates to me that their income isn't
sufficient to pay rent for a larger place, and after the DFS payments
end they will be back at square one.

Does that really make sense to you? That DFS should spend money to
help a family move from what they can barely afford to what they
really cannot afford at all?

And another point to this is that you seem to think that DFS is
responsible for fixing the problems that cause removal of a child, but
that is not so. The PARENTS are responsible for the fixing.

Twenty two years ago the city that I lived in had a program like one I
described above. They paid my security deposit so that I could move
into a house I was renting. I was solely responsible for the rent. I
never received any housing assistance since because I knew that if I
didn't pay it, I would be the one out on the street with kids and
jeopardizing the welfare of my children.

That's called being responsible.

I put a hefty sum down on my house a few years ago to ensure that the
payments on my house would be reasonable. However, if something were
to happen that would prevent me from being able to pay the house
payment anymore I would not expect DFS to pay it for me. I would sell
the house and use the equity funds to buy another house outright.

Your expectations of DFS are too high, and of parents far too low.
You cannot expect the state to be responsible for the personal needs
of families. The parents are supposed to be responsible for their
children and it's not the state's job to pay for rent, food, clothing,
shelter. If parents can't accomplish taking care of these things
BEFORE DFS intervention, how can we reasonably expect that they will
take care of them once DFS is out of the picture?

PARENTS must demonstrate that the condition that caused, or
contributed to the removal of their children no longer exists and
there is reasonable proof that the condition will not arise in the
future.

Dragon's Girl wrote:
On May 30, 9:15 pm, Greegor wrote:
G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?

I don't know about him, but I have a problem with that housing
assistance idea.

There are options for people with housing issues.

There are shelters. Some that you pay nothing to live in, and some in
which you pay a little, and others in which you either pay or work for
your room and board.

Then, there is federal housing for low income. HUD, if you will. HUD
pays for the housing expenses that a family cannot pay for. It's
based on their incomes, so if your income is pretty low you pay very
little for your rent and the government pays for th rest.

After that are housing projects. There is one pretty close to me.
The apartments are nice, clean, and cheaper than dirt, and the tenants
not only get housing for their rent, but utilities as well. A friend
of mine lived there years ago. She paid exactly $130 mo for a four
bedroom apartment and utilities.

There are community programs in some areas that will pay for a
security deposit and last month's rent for low income people, and
more.

There are churches that will do the same. The Salvation army runs a
homeless shelter not far from here at a center they have...the place
looks like a motel. Then the Catholic Church runs another even closer
to my house and I've been there many times as a donor, the place IS a
motel. People there, after a period of time, pay rent to live there
(very little) or are expected to work helping to prepare meals, etc,
or a combination for their upkeep.

Now, with ALL that available to people with low income, could you give
me one good reason why DFS fund should ALSO be spent in securing
appropriate housing?

Because taking the kids destroys the children amd family and costs 10x
as much ??

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

On May 31, 5:45 am, Dragon's Girl wrote:
On May 30, 9:15 pm, Greegor wrote:





G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?

I don't know about him, but I have a problem with that housing
assistance idea.

There are options for people with housing issues.

There are shelters. Some that you pay nothing to live in, and some in
which you pay a little, and others in which you either pay or work for
your room and board.

I've heard of agencies removing kids BECAUSE
the family is in a homeless shelter.

Then, there is federal housing for low income. HUD, if you will. HUD
pays for the housing expenses that a family cannot pay for. It's
based on their incomes, so if your income is pretty low you pay very
little for your rent and the government pays for th rest.

Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance
Long waiting list, most landlords won't take it (stigma)
and many landlords who do take it fix nothing
between yearly inspections. In 1994 my then family
was approved for a three bedroom house with a
maximum monthly rent of $500. After a LONG hard search
I did the impossible and talked a landlord into taking 500
for a place that reasonably rented for $550.
We were absolutely NOT allowed to pay the extra
$50 under the table or otherwise.

How motivated do you think the landlord was to fix things?

After that are housing projects. There is one pretty close to me.
The apartments are nice, clean, and cheaper than dirt, and the tenants
not only get housing for their rent, but utilities as well. A friend
of mine lived there years ago. She paid exactly $130 mo for a four
bedroom apartment and utilities.

Those aren't so cheap here!
This area had one that charged considerably more than that
and became so notorious for being a crime zone ghetto
that even poor people would not rent there.
They actually changed the name of the whole string
of apartments, changed the street name, and gave absolutely
everybody in it advance notice to move out.
Maybe they went condo or something...

There are community programs in some areas that will pay for a
security deposit and last month's rent for low income people, and
more.

There are churches that will do the same. The Salvation army runs a
homeless shelter not far from here at a center they have...the place
looks like a motel.

They shut down a big drug and alcohol treatment residence here in
1996.

Then the Catholic Church runs another even closer
to my house and I've been there many times as a donor, the place IS a
motel. People there, after a period of time, pay rent to live there
(very little) or are expected to work helping to prepare meals, etc,
or a combination for their upkeep.

Now, with ALL that available to people with low income, could you give
me one good reason why DFS fund should ALSO be spent in securing
appropriate housing?

Not ALSO, INSTEAD OF!
It's VASTLY cheaper than $100K per year Foster Contracting!
It avoids harming kids by needless damaging removal from parents.

Just one year of $100K Foster Contracting could pay THIRTEEN YEARS
RENT!

It would make more sense to me that families in crisis would utilize
those services instead of laying around until DFS took their kids and
then expect the DFS office to pay their way.

It seems as though your answer to every ill is for DFS to 'fix' it,
when the facts are that if a family gets into a huge bind that causes
their child to be removed from their care then all the 'fixing' in the
world won't make things better because the family will end up right
back in the same condition sooner or later.

In other words the kids are in imminent danger of being poor.

Let me give you an example.

A family of six lives in a home with two bedrooms. Not enough room
for all the kids...they are sharing one small bedroom. DFS gets a
hotline...what reason doesn't really matter...and the kids must be
removed. The parents are directed to secure a larger living space to
have the children placed back within their home.

Illegal removal. No Imminent danger of serious bodily harm.

Now, if DFS pays for rent for this family to get a larger home, say,
three months, how long do you think it would be before this family
could no longer pay their rent and get evicted?

One kid in Foster system costs $100K per year!
The agency could pay THIRTEEN YEARS of rent for that!

Or they could help the family get a jump on the huge waiting list
for Leased Housing (HUD?) or BUY them a home for less!

Rather than $100K per year, *and* the damage of child removal
and the huge potential for law suits, the state can afford
to be more creative where HOUSING is the issue.

It's a temporary fix, because if the family lived in a home that was
too small to begin with that indicates to me that their income isn't
sufficient to pay rent for a larger place, and after the DFS payments
end they will be back at square one.

Foster Care is a temporary fix and removal causes damage to kids.
The built in "Concurrent Planning" for adoption takes on a truly evil
dimension in a case like this where a kid is removed because of
HOUSING!

Does that really make sense to you? That DFS should spend money to
help a family move from what they can barely afford to what they
really cannot afford at all?

What they spend for just one year in Foster system would pay
THIRTEEN YEARS of rent for the family!

And another point to this is that you seem to think that DFS is
responsible for fixing the problems that cause removal of a child, but
that is not so. The PARENTS are responsible for the fixing.

REASONABLE EFFORTS is a requirement the agencies have TWISTED
to be more of a profit center $ than efforts in good faith.
Is it reasonable to spend $100K per year to keep a kid in Foster
system
when that amount would pay for THIRTEEN YEARS of rent for that family?

Twenty two years ago the city that I lived in had a program like one I
described above. They paid my security deposit so that I could move
into a house I was renting. I was solely responsible for the rent. I
never received any housing assistance since because I knew that if I
didn't pay it, I would be the one out on the street with kids and
jeopardizing the welfare of my children.

That's called being responsible.

Twenty two years ago? Those sorts of things do change Betty.
Programs get cut, jobs are exported, mergers and aquisitions
cause people with mortgaged 300K homes to become homeless.

Just like most other areas we had those Enron like
corporate disasters/mergers/aquisitions/sales overseas.
One person I know here was riding high at MCI until the
huge collapse/mergers/aquisitions at MCI a few years
back. Donating plasma for $30 after that.

Was he not responsible?
How could he guarantee that wouldn't happen again?

I put a hefty sum down on my house a few years ago to ensure that the
payments on my house would be reasonable. However, if something were
to happen that would prevent me from being able to pay the house
payment anymore I would not expect DFS to pay it for me. I would sell
the house and use the equity funds to buy another house outright.

Bank foreclosures are taking place at an exploding rate.
Most people in such distress can't sell before the foreclosure.

Your expectations of DFS are too high, and of parents far too low.
You cannot expect the state to be responsible for the personal needs
of families. The parents are supposed to be responsible for their
children and it's not the state's job to pay for rent, food, clothing,
shelter. If parents can't accomplish taking care of these things
BEFORE DFS intervention, how can we reasonably expect that they will
take care of them once DFS is out of the picture?

PARENTS must demonstrate that the condition that caused, or
contributed to the removal of their children

HOUSING?
That is not imminent danger of serious bodily harm!

no longer exists and there is reasonable proof that
the condition will not arise in the future.

Again, this is not imminent danger of serious bodily harm!

NOBODY can make such guarantees.
Most people in the USA are only two paychecks
away from the homeless shelter.

I am an economic conservative and I don't really
LIKE advocating government handouts.

Welfare dependancy can be a debilitating addiction.

But, with Foster kids costing THIRTEEN TIMES
or more what paying rent would, with all
of the bitching about not enough Foster homes, and
with the damage child removal causes, suddenly
paying big housing subsidies looks very attractive!

It's the lesser evil, hands down!

If a family has more than one kid the taxpayer
savings and humanitarian motivation would be greater.

Yes, I have concerns about people taking advantage
of it, abusing the help, etc.

But I have even MORE concern about the agency
administering it to death with paperwork and
bureaucratic costs built in.

On May 31, 9:31 am, Greegor wrote:
On May 31, 5:45 am, Dragon's Girl wrote:





On May 30, 9:15 pm, Greegor wrote:

G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?

I don't know about him, but I have a problem with that housing
assistance idea.

There are options for people with housing issues.

There are shelters. Some that you pay nothing to live in, and some in
which you pay a little, and others in which you either pay or work for
your room and board.

I've heard of agencies removing kids BECAUSE
the family is in a homeless shelter.

"I've heard of... I've seen... I've met... "

The usual Greg BS statements.

Then, there is federal housing for low income. HUD, if you will. HUD
pays for the housing expenses that a family cannot pay for. It's
based on their incomes, so if your income is pretty low you pay very
little for your rent and the government pays for th rest.

Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance
Long waiting list, most landlords won't take it (stigma)
and many landlords who do take it fix nothing
between yearly inspections. In 1994 my then family
was approved for a three bedroom house with a
maximum monthly rent of $500. After a LONG hard search
I did the impossible and talked a landlord into taking 500
for a place that reasonably rented for $550.
We were absolutely NOT allowed to pay the extra
$50 under the table or otherwise.

How motivated do you think the landlord was to fix things?

Greg, if you wanted the landlord to get what the apt was worth... and
you weren't allowed to pay the extra $50 under the table or otherwise,
why didn't you use the $50 per month to upgrade the apt and fix things
yourself?

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 31, 9:31 am, Greegor wrote:
On May 31, 5:45 am, Dragon's Girl wrote:





On May 30, 9:15 pm, Greegor wrote:

G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in
this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's
more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?

I don't know about him, but I have a problem with that housing
assistance idea.

There are options for people with housing issues.

There are shelters. Some that you pay nothing to live in, and some in
which you pay a little, and others in which you either pay or work for
your room and board.

I've heard of agencies removing kids BECAUSE
the family is in a homeless shelter.

"I've heard of... I've seen... I've met... "

The usual Greg BS statements.

Actually Dan, I have seen this myself. The difference is that I know why it
happens, gregg just refuses to use his head to figure it out.

Most homeless shelters are not equipped to handle families with children.
The kids have to go somewhere, cant just leave them on the street while the
parents are all nice and warm in a shelter somewhere. Foster care is a
reasonable alternative to street life. Not that gregg would ever
acknowledge that fact.

Then, there is federal housing for low income. HUD, if you will. HUD
pays for the housing expenses that a family cannot pay for. It's
based on their incomes, so if your income is pretty low you pay very
little for your rent and the government pays for th rest.

Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance
Long waiting list, most landlords won't take it (stigma)
and many landlords who do take it fix nothing
between yearly inspections. In 1994 my then family
was approved for a three bedroom house with a
maximum monthly rent of $500. After a LONG hard search
I did the impossible and talked a landlord into taking 500
for a place that reasonably rented for $550.
We were absolutely NOT allowed to pay the extra
$50 under the table or otherwise.

How motivated do you think the landlord was to fix things?

Greg, if you wanted the landlord to get what the apt was worth... and
you weren't allowed to pay the extra $50 under the table or otherwise,
why didn't you use the $50 per month to upgrade the apt and fix things
yourself?

Hmmm, I've been doing upgrades to me home for some time now, and I know that
$50 a month isnt going to get much done. Not repairs. Simple stuff, paint
and the like, yes, but replacing things like toilets or other fixtures?

Then again I know the market in Iowa. $500 a month can get on a fairly nice
place.

Ron

Low income housing for people like Greg, who have violent criminal
histories, is mute anyway, this population is not allowed into these
programs.
Firemonkey

On May 31, 7:05 am, "Ron" wrote:
"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message

ups.com...





On May 31, 9:31 am, Greegor wrote:
On May 31, 5:45 am, Dragon's Girl wrote:

On May 30, 9:15 pm, Greegor wrote:

G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in
this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's
more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?

I don't know about him, but I have a problem with that housing
assistance idea.

There are options for people with housing issues.

There are shelters. Some that you pay nothing to live in, and some in
which you pay a little, and others in which you either pay or work for
your room and board.

I've heard of agencies removing kids BECAUSE
the family is in a homeless shelter.

"I've heard of... I've seen... I've met... "

The usual Greg BS statements.

Actually Dan, I have seen this myself. The difference is that I know why it
happens, gregg just refuses to use his head to figure it out.

Most homeless shelters are not equipped to handle families with children.
The kids have to go somewhere, cant just leave them on the street while the
parents are all nice and warm in a shelter somewhere. Foster care is a
reasonable alternative to street life. Not that gregg would ever
acknowledge that fact.





Then, there is federal housing for low income. HUD, if you will. HUD
pays for the housing expenses that a family cannot pay for. It's
based on their incomes, so if your income is pretty low you pay very
little for your rent and the government pays for th rest.

Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance
Long waiting list, most landlords won't take it (stigma)
and many landlords who do take it fix nothing
between yearly inspections. In 1994 my then family
was approved for a three bedroom house with a
maximum monthly rent of $500. After a LONG hard search
I did the impossible and talked a landlord into taking 500
for a place that reasonably rented for $550.
We were absolutely NOT allowed to pay the extra
$50 under the table or otherwise.

How motivated do you think the landlord was to fix things?

Greg, if you wanted the landlord to get what the apt was worth... and
you weren't allowed to pay the extra $50 under the table or otherwise,
why didn't you use the $50 per month to upgrade the apt and fix things
yourself?

Hmmm, I've been doing upgrades to me home for some time now, and I know that
$50 a month isnt going to get much done. Not repairs. Simple stuff, paint
and the like, yes, but replacing things like toilets or other fixtures?

Then again I know the market in Iowa. $500 a month can get on a fairly nice
place.

Ron- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 31, 8:31 am, Greegor wrote:
On May 31, 5:45 am, Dragon's Girl wrote:



On May 30, 9:15 pm, Greegor wrote:

G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?

I don't know about him, but I have a problem with that housing
assistance idea.

There are options for people with housing issues.

There are shelters. Some that you pay nothing to live in, and some in
which you pay a little, and others in which you either pay or work for
your room and board.

I've heard of agencies removing kids BECAUSE
the family is in a homeless shelter.

Then, there is federal housing for low income. HUD, if you will. HUD
pays for the housing expenses that a family cannot pay for. It's
based on their incomes, so if your income is pretty low you pay very
little for your rent and the government pays for th rest.

Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance
Long waiting list, most landlords won't take it (stigma)
and many landlords who do take it fix nothing
between yearly inspections. In 1994 my then family
was approved for a three bedroom house with a
maximum monthly rent of $500. After a LONG hard search
I did the impossible and talked a landlord into taking 500
for a place that reasonably rented for $550.
We were absolutely NOT allowed to pay the extra
$50 under the table or otherwise.

How motivated do you think the landlord was to fix things?

How motivated were you to pay your own rent instead of living on
assistance?
You live in Iowa, tell me that housing there is outrageous, but you
aren't motivated to find a less expensive place to live?
I used to live in Chicago.
My rent at a crappy two bedroom apartment was over $500 mo.
I came down here and rented a fair two bedroom HOUSE for $250.
Why stay where you can't live?



After that are housing projects. There is one pretty close to me.
The apartments are nice, clean, and cheaper than dirt, and the tenants
not only get housing for their rent, but utilities as well. A friend
of mine lived there years ago. She paid exactly $130 mo for a four
bedroom apartment and utilities.

Those aren't so cheap here!
This area had one that charged considerably more than that
and became so notorious for being a crime zone ghetto
that even poor people would not rent there.
They actually changed the name of the whole string
of apartments, changed the street name, and gave absolutely
everybody in it advance notice to move out.
Maybe they went condo or something...

Again, high cost of living and you stay there?


There are community programs in some areas that will pay for a
security deposit and last month's rent for low income people, and
more.
There are churches that will do the same. The Salvation army runs a
homeless shelter not far from here at a center they have...the place
looks like a motel.

They shut down a big drug and alcohol treatment residence here in
1996.

So? That's not the same thing as a homeless shelter.


Then the Catholic Church runs another even closer
to my house and I've been there many times as a donor, the place IS a
motel. People there, after a period of time, pay rent to live there
(very little) or are expected to work helping to prepare meals, etc,
or a combination for their upkeep.

Now, with ALL that available to people with low income, could you give
me one good reason why DFS fund should ALSO be spent in securing
appropriate housing?

Not ALSO, INSTEAD OF!
It's VASTLY cheaper than $100K per year Foster Contracting!
It avoids harming kids by needless damaging removal from parents.

Can you please provide proof of your 100K claims.
It's my understanding that it costs around 30k per year here.
Not 100k.


Just one year of $100K Foster Contracting could pay THIRTEEN YEARS
RENT!

Yipppppeeeee! Don't take care of your kids and you can get rewarded
with 13 years free rent!
I like that idea.



It would make more sense to me that families in crisis would utilize
those services instead of laying around until DFS took their kids and
then expect the DFS office to pay their way.

It seems as though your answer to every ill is for DFS to 'fix' it,
when the facts are that if a family gets into a huge bind that causes
their child to be removed from their care then all the 'fixing' in the
world won't make things better because the family will end up right
back in the same condition sooner or later.

In other words the kids are in imminent danger of being poor.

Do you think all (that's ALLL) cases of families who cannot pay
certain amounts for rent is because they are poor?
Greg, some people just don't know how to budget their money. Some
people live in places that they can't afford. Some people have the
money, just aren't responsible with it.
And still some others just don't give a rip.


Let me give you an example.

A family of six lives in a home with two bedrooms. Not enough room
for all the kids...they are sharing one small bedroom. DFS gets a
hotline...what reason doesn't really matter...and the kids must be
removed. The parents are directed to secure a larger living space to
have the children placed back within their home.

Illegal removal. No Imminent danger of serious bodily harm.

How? I never stated what the reason was for the removal.



Now, if DFS pays for rent for this family to get a larger home, say,
three months, how long do you think it would be before this family
could no longer pay their rent and get evicted?

One kid in Foster system costs $100K per year!
The agency could pay THIRTEEN YEARS of rent for that!

Again, can you prove that?


Or they could help the family get a jump on the huge waiting list
for Leased Housing (HUD?) or BUY them a home for less!

Oh dear lord. BUY them a home? You have got to be kidding!
That's not what MY tax money is for.
You think I want the state to use my tax money to buy a home for a
family involved with DFS and NOT pay the remainder of the mortgage on
mine?

Bull****.


Rather than $100K per year, *and* the damage of child removal
and the huge potential for law suits, the state can afford
to be more creative where HOUSING is the issue.

Let me try this again. I will say it slow so you can understand it:
It's not the state's job.
It's the parent's job.

Doesn't that make any sense to you at all? Is personal responsibility
a foreign concept to you?



It's a temporary fix, because if the family lived in a home that was
too small to begin with that indicates to me that their income isn't
sufficient to pay rent for a larger place, and after the DFS payments
end they will be back at square one.

Foster Care is a temporary fix and removal causes damage to kids.
The built in "Concurrent Planning" for adoption takes on a truly evil
dimension in a case like this where a kid is removed because of
HOUSING!

Foster care is not always a temporary fix.
Foster parents often adopt the children they care for when the
children cannot be returned to their homes. That's not temporary.



Does that really make sense to you? That DFS should spend money to
help a family move from what they can barely afford to what they
really cannot afford at all?

What they spend for just one year in Foster system would pay
THIRTEEN YEARS of rent for the family!

If only housing were the only thing to consider.
Again, my example did not include a reason for removal.
Just that the parents were instructed to secure better housing.



And another point to this is that you seem to think that DFS is
responsible for fixing the problems that cause removal of a child, but
that is not so. The PARENTS are responsible for the fixing.

REASONABLE EFFORTS is a requirement the agencies have TWISTED
to be more of a profit center $ than efforts in good faith.
Is it reasonable to spend $100K per year to keep a kid in Foster
system
when that amount would pay for THIRTEEN YEARS of rent for that family?

You think spending 100k on a house for ANYONE is REASONABLE?

I bet there are a whole lot of tax payers out there who would disagree
with you.


Twenty two years ago the city that I lived in had a program like one I
described above. They paid my security deposit so that I could move
into a house I was renting. I was solely responsible for the rent. I
never received any housing assistance since because I knew that if I
didn't pay it, I would be the one out on the street with kids and
jeopardizing the welfare of my children.

That's called being responsible.

Twenty two years ago? Those sorts of things do change Betty.
Programs get cut, jobs are exported, mergers and aquisitions
cause people with mortgaged 300K homes to become homeless.

Who buys a home that costs that much if they can't afford it through
any scenario?


Just like most other areas we had those Enron like
corporate disasters/mergers/aquisitions/sales overseas.
One person I know here was riding high at MCI until the
huge collapse/mergers/aquisitions at MCI a few years
back. Donating plasma for $30 after that.

Was he not responsible?
How could he guarantee that wouldn't happen again?

Ummm, by getting another job?
Are you going to tell me that this guy didn't have enough experience,
education etc that he could not find another job and HAD to sell
plasma at $30 a go around?
Come on!I can hardly believe that.


I put a hefty sum down on my house a few years ago to ensure that the
payments on my house would be reasonable. However, if something were
to happen that would prevent me from being able to pay the house
payment anymore I would not expect DFS to pay it for me. I would sell
the house and use the equity funds to buy another house outright.

Bank foreclosures are taking place at an exploding rate.
Most people in such distress can't sell before the foreclosure.

And I bet most of them didn't bother to put money in the bank to live
on when things went sour. I bet that instead they maxed out their
credit cards, bought expensive jewelry and cars, and didn't bother to
save for a rainy day.
But since they didn't it's MY tax money that's supposed to buy them a
new 100k house?
Oh ****. I don't think so.


Your expectations of DFS are too high, and of parents far too low.
You cannot expect the state to be responsible for the personal needs
of families. The parents are supposed to be responsible for their
children and it's not the state's job to pay for rent, food, clothing,
shelter. If parents can't accomplish taking care of these things
BEFORE DFS intervention, how can we reasonably expect that they will
take care of them once DFS is out of the picture?

PARENTS must demonstrate that the condition that caused, or
contributed to the removal of their children

HOUSING?
That is not imminent danger of serious bodily harm!

And once more, I tell you that I did not say that housing was the
reason for removal.


no longer exists and there is reasonable proof that
the condition will not arise in the future.

Again, this is not imminent danger of serious bodily harm!

Do I have to say it again?
Just because DFS instructs them to do so does not mean it would be the
only blocker to return.


NOBODY can make such guarantees.
Most people in the USA are only two paychecks
away from the homeless shelter.

Yep.
And that's the state's fault how?


I am an economic conservative and I don't really
LIKE advocating government handouts.

Well jesus you sure do pound it pretty hard, and your theories sound
outrageous to me.


Welfare dependancy can be a debilitating addiction.

No ****.



But, with Foster kids costing THIRTEEN TIMES
or more what paying rent would, with all
of the bitching about not enough Foster homes, and
with the damage child removal causes, suddenly
paying big housing subsidies looks very attractive!

It's the lesser evil, hands down!

If a family has more than one kid the taxpayer
savings and humanitarian motivation would be greater.

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow. I don't believe you really justify
this whole notion.


Yes, I have concerns about people taking ...

read more »

On May 31, 9:05 am, "Ron" wrote:
"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message

ups.com...



On May 31, 9:31 am, Greegor wrote:
On May 31, 5:45 am, Dragon's Girl wrote:

On May 30, 9:15 pm, Greegor wrote:

G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in
this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's
more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?

I don't know about him, but I have a problem with that housing
assistance idea.

There are options for people with housing issues.

There are shelters. Some that you pay nothing to live in, and some in
which you pay a little, and others in which you either pay or work for
your room and board.

I've heard of agencies removing kids BECAUSE
the family is in a homeless shelter.

"I've heard of... I've seen... I've met... "

The usual Greg BS statements.

Actually Dan, I have seen this myself. The difference is that I know why it
happens, gregg just refuses to use his head to figure it out.

Most homeless shelters are not equipped to handle families with children.
The kids have to go somewhere, cant just leave them on the street while the
parents are all nice and warm in a shelter somewhere. Foster care is a
reasonable alternative to street life. Not that gregg would ever
acknowledge that fact.



Then, there is federal housing for low income. HUD, if you will. HUD
pays for the housing expenses that a family cannot pay for. It's
based on their incomes, so if your income is pretty low you pay very
little for your rent and the government pays for th rest.

Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance
Long waiting list, most landlords won't take it (stigma)
and many landlords who do take it fix nothing
between yearly inspections. In 1994 my then family
was approved for a three bedroom house with a
maximum monthly rent of $500. After a LONG hard search
I did the impossible and talked a landlord into taking 500
for a place that reasonably rented for $550.
We were absolutely NOT allowed to pay the extra
$50 under the table or otherwise.

How motivated do you think the landlord was to fix things?

Greg, if you wanted the landlord to get what the apt was worth... and
you weren't allowed to pay the extra $50 under the table or otherwise,
why didn't you use the $50 per month to upgrade the apt and fix things
yourself?

Hmmm, I've been doing upgrades to me home for some time now, and I know that
$50 a month isnt going to get much done. Not repairs. Simple stuff, paint
and the like, yes, but replacing things like toilets or other fixtures?

Then again I know the market in Iowa. $500 a month can get on a fairly nice
place.

Ron

Ron, I've been doing upgrades on my house as well, since 2004.
I buy materials from a discount lumber place nearby.
I also pick up materials on sale.
Sometimes I pick up things that are on clearance.
I wanted canvas roman shades for the kitchen, so I looked for about a
year until I found two...originally $90 each for $15 each.
Not only that, but I take advantage of credit card sales...no
interest, a year to pay on big ticket items like stoves and
refrigerators.
Then there is the habitat for humanity store....I go there last year
saw two awesome toilet and bidet sets. Perfect condition and they
were $60 for the set. They have sinks for almost nothing, etc.
Heck, I didn't want to cut holes all over to put in pipe for a washer
so I just ran thin rubber hose instead. The next owner will have the
option of washer upstairs or down.
I don't think it's all that hard OR expensive.