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.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Maryland, Family ties: A study showing that keeping children athome, even if there are problems, is better than putting them in foster care...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 17th 07, 09:01 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
fx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,848
Default Maryland, Family ties: A study showing that keeping children athome, even if there are problems, is better than putting them in foster care...

Family ties
Originally published July 16, 2007
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...nion-headlines

A study showing that keeping children at home, even if there are
problems, is better than putting them in foster care reinforces the
importance of family ties and the need to view foster care as the
exception, not the norm, when dealing with troubled families. That's a
lesson that Maryland is now trying to apply - and wisely so - after too
many years of bad practices.

The recently released study, by a professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, examined 15,000
cases in Illinois from 1990 to 2002, one of the largest studies of the
effects of foster care. The research showed that in cases on the margin,
where children could have been kept with their families or placed in
foster care, the long-term results were better for those who remained
with their families. As they grew older, they had fewer teen births,
were less likely to become juvenile delinquents and were more likely to
hold jobs as young adults.

Clearly, it is not safe to leave a child with abusive or neglectful
parents. And children who are victims of abuse or neglect are
traumatized whether they stay in their homes or are removed. But child
advocates rightly note the importance of maintaining a child's
connections to familiar people and places. And the study ably bolsters
the principle that those connections should be severed only when
absolutely necessary.

That principle hasn't been followed well in Maryland, where the foster
care population has increased from about 4,300 in 1987 to more than
10,000 today. Failure to recruit and retain enough foster care families
has meant that too many children wind up in group homes, making it
difficult, if not impossible, to maintain meaningful ties to family and
neighborhood.

The system is long overdue for reform, and state Human Resources
Secretary Brenda Donald promises major changes. She is emphasizing the
importance of place to the well-being of children. That's why she wants
to redirect system resources and work with other departments to provide
more services, such as mental health counseling and drug treatment, to
help families stay together in their homes and provide safe care for
children. She would also increase the number of foster and kinship
families in order to keep children who must be separated from their
parents in other family homes instead of group homes.

That is certainly the right vision - but more experienced supervisors
and better technology will be needed to implement it. Ms. Donald should
push for those essential changes sooner rather than later so that she
and her department can move as quickly as possible to strengthen rather
than weaken the family ties that bind.




CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.

BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...
  #2  
Old July 18th 07, 04:49 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,243
Default Maryland, Family ties: A study showing that keeping children at home, even if there are problems, is better than putting them in foster care...

It took an MIT egghead to figure this out?

On Jul 17, 3:01 am, fx wrote:
Family ties
Originally published July 16, 2007http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.foster16jul16,0,94293...

A study showing that keeping children at home, even if there are
problems, is better than putting them in foster care reinforces the
importance of family ties and the need to view foster care as the
exception, not the norm, when dealing with troubled families. That's a
lesson that Maryland is now trying to apply - and wisely so - after too
many years of bad practices.

The recently released study, by a professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, examined 15,000
cases in Illinois from 1990 to 2002, one of the largest studies of the
effects of foster care. The research showed that in cases on the margin,
where children could have been kept with their families or placed in
foster care, the long-term results were better for those who remained
with their families. As they grew older, they had fewer teen births,
were less likely to become juvenile delinquents and were more likely to
hold jobs as young adults.

Clearly, it is not safe to leave a child with abusive or neglectful
parents. And children who are victims of abuse or neglect are
traumatized whether they stay in their homes or are removed. But child
advocates rightly note the importance of maintaining a child's
connections to familiar people and places. And the study ably bolsters
the principle that those connections should be severed only when
absolutely necessary.

That principle hasn't been followed well in Maryland, where the foster
care population has increased from about 4,300 in 1987 to more than
10,000 today. Failure to recruit and retain enough foster care families
has meant that too many children wind up in group homes, making it
difficult, if not impossible, to maintain meaningful ties to family and
neighborhood.

The system is long overdue for reform, and state Human Resources
Secretary Brenda Donald promises major changes. She is emphasizing the
importance of place to the well-being of children. That's why she wants
to redirect system resources and work with other departments to provide
more services, such as mental health counseling and drug treatment, to
help families stay together in their homes and provide safe care for
children. She would also increase the number of foster and kinship
families in order to keep children who must be separated from their
parents in other family homes instead of group homes.

That is certainly the right vision - but more experienced supervisors
and better technology will be needed to implement it. Ms. Donald should
push for those essential changes sooner rather than later so that she
and her department can move as quickly as possible to strengthen rather
than weaken the family ties that bind.

CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.

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



  #3  
Old July 18th 07, 07:04 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
0:]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Maryland, Family ties: A study showing that keeping childrenat home, even if there are problems, is better than putting them in fostercare...

Greegor wrote:
It took an MIT egghead to figure this out?


No, and he didn't figure it out properly. This and studies like it are
under considerable, if polite debate among academics as being seriously
flawed.

Just as I pointed out about the Casey study on the subject of the bad
life experiences of those graduating foster care, the collection of
subjects studies is demographically flawed.

No consideration is given to who will and won't consent to be interviewed.

Let me put it this way, the Gregsquestion tends to skew who will and won't.

Consider, among the population the study must draw from to interview,
they MUST have subjects that consent to be studied.

Whether teen or young adult, how would you find out about their lives
without getting their consent? You would not have a population to study
at all.

So first things first.

Who would consent?

Those with something to gain, of course: the Gregsquestion, of course.
It goes like this: "What's in it for me."

Normally someone that is done with foster care that has had either a
positive or neutral experience would see no particular profit in being a
subject of a study. They would tend to opt out when asked. Not only do
they not see any payoff, but don't care even if there was one. They
don't need it, nor are they of questionable enough character to think
they do.

Now for the other group. The one's that do believe they had a bad deal
in foster care. One of the things they learn about the system is that
sadder their story the more attention and sometimes even perks, as the
media makes clear to them. (The public even writes in, often, and offers
to help the victim).

So the more 'victim' they see and describe themselves as, the better.
They will volunteer. A skewed, badly, demographic.

The reasearchers focused NOT on that issue, but more on, were the
children assigned to foster or home return in a truly random fashion, to
make for a controllable variable.

It came down to, who was the worker assigning the outcome, and what were
their biases and politics.

Hardly a real scientific study. The tipoff is to look at where the study
orginated out of. Sloan School of Management at MIT.

What next, The Greater Seattle Starbucks School for Barristas where a
profession studies and reports on the debate between neurologists and
psychiatrist on the origin and Dx outcomes for folks with narcissistic
behavior disorders?

No, look at the studies by those IN the field of social work that
pertains. Child and family researchers. Some have severely criticized
CPS and foster care, but they do try to do cleaner research than this.

You can, if you can see the actual words, and stay even minimally
abreast of the news, Greg, some obvious holes.

For instance, the mention of a drop in "teen birth rates" (a illogical
nonsensical statement...birth doesn't happen to teens..they were born
long ago, it's pregnancy that matters), by those that return to family
vs those that go to foster care.

Teen birthrates have been dropping for some time now. Kids at home,
Greg, are more likely to get birth control info and use it, and have
sufficient descretionary income for condoms. In fact a recent survey
showed that the major reason for a drop in teenage pregnancy

Now be honest, smirk Greg, wouldn't YOU along with the majority of the
population be screaming your heads off if children in foster care were
given sex education and birth control devices at YOUR expense?

Imagine the Right to Live lobbeists energetic ranting rampage. CPS knows
this so they do not provide condoms, or money to be spent on condoms.
And they do not allow health practitioners to lecture on birth control.

That's because PARENTS would be screaming their heads off, Greg.

See how easy it is to lie with research? You can't do a study like this
in the vacuum you can create for mechanical research study.

Another thing brought up by the academics viewing such studies is the
lack of a baseline for behaviors PRIOR to the study inception.

Do you have any idea how vital a baseline study FIRST is? Do you
understand when and were variables are uncovered so they can be
accounted for in analysis of the collected data later?

Yes, it comes primarily from the "baseline" survey before the study even
begins.

It's questionable if these researchers even LOOKED at any historical
records to from before the study, and as far back as the children's
births to determine some baseline criteria. I can find NO mention of
that, either in this report, nor in the discussions on the professional
listserves for researchers.

Nothing.

So it is a lot of politically slanted, or personally slanted, biased
methodolgy at best.

No doubt they tried, but no doubt they had to have failed.

I'll comment interspersed.

On Jul 17, 3:01 am, fx wrote:
Family ties
Originally published July 16, 2007http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.foster16jul16,0,94293...

A study showing that keeping children at home, even if there are
problems, is better than putting them in foster care reinforces the
importance of family ties and the need to view foster care as the
exception, not the norm, when dealing with troubled families. That's a
lesson that Maryland is now trying to apply - and wisely so - after too
many years of bad practices.


Very sloppy language that researchers would not tolerate in their own
reports, and probably did not. An assumption is made...the word 'better'
is the indicator that the authors don't know, likely, what they are
reading to write about.

And what does bad practices mean, other than it's circular logic. The
assumption is made that the outcomes are the result of bad practices in
decision making as to placing children in foster care, or sending them
home.

It might be bad politics, Greg...and probably is. We know that pressures
to place are a major variable from political concerns. And CPS has
complained quietly for years about this. In essence they say, give us
well trained workers to make these decisions, and stop influencing them
to make decisions based on public opinion.

Greg, YOU are one of the faults in this 'error,' because you, one of the
public, are just absolutely sure you are the better judge of how
casework practice should be done. And you are nearly as ignorant and
mis, that's MIS informed, and full of nonsense and bias that has NOTHING
to do with reality in the Child Protection 'Industry' as you call CPS.

This alone shows your ignorance, but you will lobby, you and other fools
just like yourself, who know nothing but your own biases.

The recently released study, by a professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, examined 15,000
cases in Illinois from 1990 to 2002, one of the largest studies of the
effects of foster care.


The can do that up to the point of departure from the system. And
outcomes, good or bad, if the child has returned to parents, or
graduated from the system and is an adult, or simply grown up and left
home are NOT available without consent to be interviewed and studied.

The research showed that in cases on the margin,
where children could have been kept with their families or placed in
foster care,


Excuse me. What IS this 'margin' and how was it defined much more
precisely than what amounts to opinion above? Exactly what did they find
in case records that it could have gone either way but for the choice of
a worker and CPS?

No items being compared are mentioned. Did they, for instance, make such
a claim based on the infamous, to you and to Doug, evaluation forms?

You'd accept those as indicative of research level precision, would you?

the long-term results were better for those who remained
with their families. As they grew older, they had fewer teen births,
were less likely to become juvenile delinquents and were more likely to
hold jobs as young adults.


Look at the language. Why not say, by 'age 19,' rather than the
nonspecific "as they grew older?" Someone is fudging the assumptions.

And that TOO in the listserve of researchers was brought up. Acceptance
of most of the methods (how they missed the giving consent part I don't
know...0:]), but serious questions about the conclusions drawn, like
that above I'd presume.

Clearly, it is not safe to leave a child with abusive or neglectful
parents. And children who are victims of abuse or neglect are
traumatized whether they stay in their homes or are removed. But child
advocates


Opps...WHICH child advocates. We KNOW, because they have been richly
cited here, with links and quotes, that there is not actually a
consensus by all such groups. Not on this question above, that's for sure.

The article authors are either not being honest, or they just took the
word of the researcher that that claim represented all or a majority of
child advocates.

rightly note the importance of maintaining a child's
connections to familiar people and places.


Where programs are funded adequately for this (which the Casey study
made pretty clear they were lobbying for) effort to keep children in
their own familiar neighborhoods, (Enough foster homes so that children
could be placed closer to home, and in their home community) yes, that
is correct.

And the study ably bolsters
the principle that those connections should be severed only when
absolutely necessary.


So does CPS. Give them money, enough of it, to recruit and retain foster
families in sufficient supply in neighborhoods kids come from and even
if removed, such connections would NOT be totally severed.

Problem: A great many of the children come from neighborhoods so devoid
of infrastructure and so crime ridden they ARE the problem that got the
children removed. Poverty, drugs, alcoholism, criminality, all likely
contributed.

I'll let you and the authors in on a little secret....there isn't a
surplus of foster family material to draw from in those communities.

They are pointing, though they seem unaware of it, to one of the major
components of family failure to protect, and the solution isn't in ivory
tower missing the point research, but in the communities and the society
they exist within.

CPS cannot stop crime and poverty.

That principle hasn't been followed well in Maryland, where the foster
care population has increased from about 4,300 in 1987 to more than
10,000 today. Failure to recruit and retain enough foster care families
has meant that too many children wind up in group homes, making it
difficult, if not impossible, to maintain meaningful ties to family and
neighborhood.


So, Greg, tell me. Do you think that Maryland had a surplus of money to
spend on recruiting and retaining enough foster care families, but
simply failed out of a lack of will, or malice?

I once criticized CPS in my own special little way, that they were not
doing enough to recruit, train, and certify enough qualified families.
Then they introduced me to the three recruiters...FOR THE WHOLE ****ING
STATE.

I can blush, but you seem unable to when you are so dead ass wrong.

Then they introduced me to the trainers. ONE foster training for entire
largest metro area in the state. ONE FOSTER TRAINER who also did all the
ADOPTION training. ONE person, Greg.

Then I asked to meet their retention people. None anywhere in the state
but that one very large metro area. And how many were there? Two.

I learned, over time, they all did yoeman work though. Very good at
their jobs.

And I got to meet folks who were applying for certification, right at
the start of their introduction. I attended some of the introduction
talks, and the training with relatives that were going through it too.

I can't tell you the shock I got at how few people that could qualify,
but Greg, all that powerful work they did....THEY WERE REQUIRED TO NOT
DISQUALIFY ANYONE...and train them all, and only when the people were in
the homestudy period could they be disqualified.

Why waste all that energy (and money)?

CIVIL RIGHTS, Greg. Is someone wanted to be a foster parent or adopt you
could NOT throw them out at first meeting. They had to show you evidence
(and you were NOT allowed to do the homestudy before the recruitment and
training...an obvious fact) they were not fit.

Now I know YOU have all the answers, Greg, but you'd be wrong.

The system is long overdue for reform, and state Human Resources
Secretary Brenda Donald promises major changes.


She is NOT going to be able to do it. She will move into the job and
begin to learn the barriers. They will be both political and LEGAL ones.
Things common sense would tell one you must do them, only to learn from
managers and administrators, holding the statute in their hand, that the
LAW says you cannot do that.

And she will say to then go to the legislature and ask for it to be
chance so she can, and they'll hold out the notes from all the times
that's been tried before, and blocked by two things...the AG, who must
do THEIR best practice too, for the state's citizens, and politics.

The legislators will give them their ear, and their finger,
metaphorically, promising that it will be "studied." And it will be,
unto death. Junior staffers will do it for practice.

Seen it, fought it, struggled with it. And you are wrong, Greg. Your
simple minded solutions out of the muck and slime of your anti-CPS
rights groups do not even begin to touch on the truth. Not even close.

She is emphasizing the
importance of place to the well-being of children.


Heard that in 1976, the first contact time I had with CPS. And I joined
the county commissioner's advisory committee, and later chaired it for a
couple of years.

They knew then, and tried then, to get the citizen's informed, and the
citizen's representatives to operate on that principle. No dice, kiddo.
Not then, and no time up to now. And of course, not now. She'll fail.
And another political appointee will be cycled through and what this one
will have in place of her job, is a line on her resume rephrasing here
tenure so that it looks like success, when it's failure of the usual kind.

That's why she wants
to redirect system resources and work with other departments to provide
more services, such as mental health counseling and drug treatment, to
help families stay together in their homes and provide safe care for
children.


Damn that look hot. What she "wants," and what she'll have to concede to
is the truth. That the pressures on the system are far greater than the
resources at her control, and you cannot leave a child in extreme danger
to spend money on up front services. There really IS such a thing as a
budget.

And it has line items. And they have real numbers in them...and one of
those numbers is "in the time period under consideration, how many
children at risk or harmed were served?"

And there IS a formula based on accounting principles, that will tell
you the cost per child. In real taxpayers dollars.

And it will be far too high, and the budget line for those services,
more of those services will reflect reality. We either let some children
at risk and harm NOT be served, or we cut back on those services.

This fact of life, Greg, is one of the prime ways in which your cronies
get to come up with their bull****. They can point to the "failures" of
CPS because there will always be some where humans are involved, and
there will always be some where resources are in carefully rationed
SHORTAGE mode at all times.

Never has CPS anywhere in the puckering country EVER had the funding
that would meet the demands being made of it.

And the naive statement about her getting something she wants to do is
sad to see, after 30 some years nothing has really changed in society on
the issue of child protection.

She would also increase the number of foster and kinship
families in order to keep children who must be separated from their
parents in other family homes instead of group homes.


And do it for free? Kinship families, my 'relatives' I helped, are
usually poor. Even at that they have not had the same subsidy level
regular foster parents get per child. That is changing. They are getting
more now, and if the trend has reached fruition, they are, in some
states, getting the same, exactly now.

What is that stuff we refer to when we say, "subsidy," Greg?

So unless she has an increase, and even then it would be a time struggle
as well, she is not going to get what she wants.

Greg, one of the things that surprised me as I became more and more
experienced with relatives involved in the lives of CPS clients, is how
long it took for them to make up their minds to take the children or NOT.

I know, YOU and the assholes that think that as advocates they know what
is going on, believe that all relatives want the kids.

Not TRUE. Most in fact, have to be sold on the idea. You ****ants forget
the pressures and circumstances. Children they are NOT even related to
by blood in the sibling group. Severe rehabilitation challenges for the
children. Behavioral challenges NOTHING like children that have not been
abused and neglect exhibit. Even younger trained people have to work
very hard, and they have 8 hour shifts, to work with this population.

Ask me, I'll give you first hand information what a day in the life of a
caretaker is like for those working with injured children.

The amount of money to carry off what she wants is tremendous. A worker
an spend weeks, even months, with just ONE such relative helping them
make up their mind, and even then, lose them.

Or have siblings still in the system that relative will NOT take.

My pet peeve, and why I am so angry at bigots, is that they will turn
down children of color, if they are white, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE A BLOOD
RELATION. That's more than sad. Much more.

But then the demands on them include changing their lifestyle. Learning
to be IN the culture/ethnicity the child is from. Rather hard for older
people.

Are you starting to get some grasp of the complexity of these issues you
simpletons try to simplify out of ignorance?

I've seen old black ladies, and old white ladies crying in each other's
arms trying to sort out their various relative children, so it isn't
just 'bad ol' bigots,' but real people trying to work out real problems.

And in the end, one or the other of those old ladies had to give up and
walk away, while the other old grandma took all the kids. Why?

Because just as this argument says, and very correctly so in this
instance, the breaking up of children from the familiar, and who is
moreso than one's brother or sister, is so frowned upon by CPS they will
try to get people to keep them together in the face of terrible strain
and stress on the adopting relative.

I've also seen old ladies like this crying together because they both
got what they wanted, too.

One didn't want the responsibility and didn't feel she could do it,
while the other would have give a limb for just ONE of the four children
involved rather than have them parted from each other.

I've seen families agree to MOVE CLOSER TO EACH OTHER, with big sibling
groups, so they could all live kind of next door to each other, in three
households. That was EIGHT kids. It worked to, the last I heard.

But man oh man the expense. I don't know if CPS could have legally
funded that or not, or did or not.

But what happens if it can't and the families can't?

That is certainly the right vision - but more experienced supervisors
and better technology will be needed to implement it.


But they have to take a funding cut, right, Greg, to do that, because
Greg Hanson, that hero crusader has decided they have too MUCH funding now.

Ms. Donald should
push for those essential changes sooner rather than later so that she
and her department can move as quickly as possible to strengthen rather
than weaken the family ties that bind.


Well well, even the author hints strongly at the truth. How refreshing.

If Ms. Donald is too slow, Greg, even if it's politics that slows her,
the game may well be lost, and still children will languish in the
system with fewer services to allow for reunification, or initial
placement in the home.

Just like all the states. She has a job to do that by any sane
definition is impossible.

My personal estimate, just off the top of my head, is that on average
every state's CPS is underfunded by three...it would take at least three
times the current funding to get anywhere close to what is needed to
meet the goals the feds set, and you and your stupid cronies, like Fern,
gloated about them missing the goals...when in fact they met many of them.

And Michael is lying through his teeth below.

They do no such thing. You are liar, and a fool. And what makes you lie
is your ignorance. You make claims that when shown you are wrong, you
continue to make regardless. You do it in nearly every subject you
participate in here.

You and ken are clones, apparently.

Go do some volunteer work at CPS, so you get an inside view of things as
I did in the early 80's. THEN get back to me and debate me on these
matters.

You make a fool of me when I am baited into debating a public
masturbator such as you.

I don't like being made fool of, but I also am willing rather than let
you peddle your sick **** here unchallenged.

But then, I'm not alone in seeing how utterly unethical you are, and
showing you.

See, I'm not a megalomaniac after all. I can't do that when Dan, Betty,
Fire, Lost, LaMar, and all the others that have pointed out what at
mindless prick you are are still here.

0:]


CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.

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



 




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
New Study: Troubled homes better than foster ca Children whostay in troubled families fare better than those put into foster care. fx Spanking 0 July 3rd 07 07:33 PM
New Study: Troubled homes better than foster ca Children whostay in troubled families fare better than those put into foster care. fx Foster Parents 0 July 3rd 07 07:33 PM
Black Children in Texas’ Foster Care Fare Worse than Others, Study Says,,Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2006,By: Michael H. Cottman ,,Black social workers said last week that a new study about black children and foster care is troubling and raises seriou wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 January 18th 06 04:33 PM
Foster Care Month Spotlights Year-Round Needs of 523,000 U. S. Children; Public Urged to Help Change a Lifetime for Children in Foster Care wexwimpy Foster Parents 1 April 27th 05 09:34 PM
Md. Foster Care Study Lists Problems wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 April 5th 05 09:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 PM.


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.