Habitual Liar....was..... Fosters in TX find out DFPS' agenda. No wonder no one fosters

On 21 Jul 2004 13:53:15 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

....yet another attempt to hide It's lying by breaking the thread and
posting to an off topic newsgroup...so readers could not follow it's
trickery and vicious hatred of children and families.......


http://www.txcfr.org

A former foster family runs across TDPRS' harmful interventions, and
finds his
family is now branded abusers.

And you know for a fact they are NOT abusers?

Fosters can have their own children taken, if they do not heed each
directive
from caseworkers.

LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR.

That's a lie perpetuated by you, and continued by Douggie who had to
resort to manipulating my comments on what foster parents must do to
retain CERTIFICATION into a claim that that I said their children
would be taken for anything less than an abuse allegation against
them. He's a liar and so are you.

They are no more prone to having their children removed than ANY OTHER
FAMILY ALLEDGED TO HAVE ABUSED AND NEGLECTED.

The only difference is one I've claimed for many months here in this
debate....that they are at higher risk of BEING CAUGHT ABUSING OR
NEGLECTING BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER CLOSER SCRUTINY by CPS and all the
parties to the child protection field. They are also at higher risk
of being falsely accused, but that does not equate with them having
their own bio children removed for not heeding every word of a
caseworker.

Prove your claim, asshole.

And given that YOU and the Dung Slinger wish to claim that fosters are
more prone to murder and abuse of foster children, how is it you wish
to have LESS oversight and control of them?

My take is that you wish to terrify people, and drive them away, that
would try, by becoming fosters, to help children at risk of harm from
parents or harmed by them so that you'll continue to have a crippled
system you can play "Heroic Crusader" over when you know the shortage
of funding, and the shortage of foster parents, is the major driving
force behind difficulties CPS has in its foster programs.

You are a pack of liars. And the dangers you promote to families and
children are immense by your bull**** and lies here. You hate children
and you hate families or you wouldn't risk their safety by your
crappola.

Kane

Kane if you can read, instead of just verbally abusing folk you can read bout
the TX fosters story.

DFPS decimated the entire family. Mom, Dad, bios and fosters.

Go to the site instead of mouthing off.....

Kane writes:

LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR.

That's a lie perpetuated by you, and continued by Douggie who had to
resort to manipulating my comments on what foster parents must do to
retain CERTIFICATION into a claim that that I said their children
would be taken for anything less than an abuse allegation against
them. He's a liar and so are you.

Here is what Kane wrote ("DHS Maine is Putting Out Fabrications," Kane,
7-17-04, in ascps):

"Foster homes get no more breaks than bio parents do. They are
required to be MUCH more responsive to worker pressure on ALL matter
than the public is.

"Tell me..do you think a foster parent can tell an abuse investigator
that shows up at the door to go away and get a warrant?

"Do you think a foster parent can require they be visited by a worker
only at certain times and places?

"Do you think a foster parent can refuse further training? Refuse a
background check? Refuse a PsychSoc Eval if ordered?

"Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL.


Kane now writes:

They are no more prone to having their children removed than ANY OTHER
FAMILY ALLEDGED TO HAVE ABUSED AND NEGLECTED.

Kane writes:

I'll leave my entire post, so people can see in context what you just
did. Possibly they'll start to put two and two together and have some
questions about your other claims.....

Hi, Kane!

I will also paste your entire post of 7-17. It will be a bit tedious for
readers, but the relevant phases about search warrants, etc, will be found
intact within it. The relevant section I quoted and replied to was
(verbatim):

"Foster homes get no more breaks than bio parents do. They are
required to be MUCH more responsive to worker pressure on ALL matter
than the public is.

"Tell me..do you think a foster parent can tell an abuse investigator
that shows up at the door to go away and get a warrant? (#1)

"Do you think a foster parent can require they be visited by a worker
only at certain times and places? (#2)

"Do you think a foster parent can refuse further training? Refuse a
background check? Refuse a PsychSoc Eval if ordered? (#'s 3,4,5).

"Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL."

I pasted the same section in the post to which Kane replies below:

Here is what Kane wrote ("DHS Maine is Putting Out Fabrications,"
Kane,
7-17-04, in ascps):

No, Doug. You deliberately, you lying sniviling coward, left off the
most important part of what I actually wrote.

No, Kane I quoted the entire passage down to your summary tag. The
paragraph that follows the tag goes on to something else.

Yes. And you lied about it trying to prove that their children would
be taken with less than an allegation, when all I said was THEY WOULD
BE MADE EX FOSTER PARENTS.

Nope. What you did say, was:

"Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL."

"Tell me..do you think a foster parent can tell an abuse investigator
that shows up at the door to go away and get a warrant?

Not if they wish to continue being a foster parent you know damn well
that is what I meant....BECAUSE I WROTE AND YOU CUT IT OUT OF THIS
POST.

No, I did not cut it out of the post at all. I pasted the section verbatim.
You did not write "not if they wish to continue being a foster parent" and
had me snip it out. Nope. Instead, you wrote that and much more, all of
which I included.

That statement was,

"Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL."

"Do you think a foster parent can require they be visited by a worker
only at certain times and places?

And that is dead on true....that does NOT EQUATE WITH THEM HAVING
THEIR OWN CHILDREN TAKEN on less than an allegation,

That was item #2 in what you refer to is "all these things" in your
statement reprinted twice above.

as The Plant
lies, and you delibertly tried, you ****ing lowlife scumsucker, to
claim I said about a "Warrent" when I made NO mention of a warrent,

You did make mention of a search warrAnt as item #1 in what you refer to as
"all those things in your statement. The statement will appear again below,
with emphasis.

and no mention that the children would be removed for anything other
than an allegation...not for not doing worker requests for
ceritifaction or any other FOSTER PARENT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT,
YOU ****ING LYING PIECE OF SICK ****.

"Well, they CAN refuse all *these things*, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with NOT ONLY the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL."

"Do you think a foster parent can refuse further training? Refuse a
background check? Refuse a PsychSoc Eval if ordered?

These are items #3,4 and 5 of "all these things" you reference in your
statement.

"Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL.

Here is your entire post of 7-17, intact, word by word, including the
section I pasted above:

On 17 Jul 2004 12:51:57 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Augur in Maine, employed by DHS states that cw's are REQUIRED to
enquire if
"CHILDREN ARE AFRAID IN THE FOSTER HOME."

He says Fed policy REQUIRES as such.

Some possibilities for this statement, printed in the Morning
Sentinel, Maine
newspaper.

1. He is simply lying. (Augur)

Or he sould simply be mistaken, as Yew are so often.


2. Reporter inferences

Happens!


3. There is NO POLICY.

There may not be specifically for this item you and he claim.

4. Common sense does NOT prevail within CPS

And it does HERE? R R R R R R R

By the way....if ever there were a more dangerous decision making
method than "common sense" I don't know what it would be. Much of what
we would do in a given situation....automatically...that is according
to "common sense" is very likely to get us and others killed. Read any
of bobber's posts lately?

I just read family of four were all killed in an SUV rollover a bit
north of Sacramento, the state capitol, ...and NONE were wearing
seatbelts. Seems the father had been cited for exactly that offense
before.

Don't I just wish his children had been taken into state custody now.
They would much more likely be alive.

5. This should be administrative policy within each state. "Good
touch, bad
touch" is touted ad nauseum within places children congregate.
PARENTS ARE
SUBJECT TO THESE QUESTION.

It should be a law that we all have two cars, a pool, and a Criscraft
speedboat too, but I understand there is a limit to what is humanly
possible.

And why do you say "ad nauseum?" That usually means "excessively." Do
you wish to claim that children here this message excessively?

6. This must and will be CPS policy.

You are now running CPS?

7. Children are harmed more within foster care, and DSS is trying to
do cost
and publicity containment.

That is a highly questionable claim. I expect even the experts will
start backing off that one some day. It's based on misreading of the
meaning of the avialable data. For instance the wording in ACF charts
on the matter say "in foster care" "BY foster parents."

There is a world of difference.

And the comparisons that are claimed are between the captive
demographic of foster parents, who are folded, spindled, and
mutiliated by CPS supervision and the the bio parents, neighbors, and
every vendor that sees the child, plus the public contacts with the
child, and the general population that is subject to NONE of those
voluntarily...like fosters must sign off to do when the put their mark
to the volunteer contract that is part of their certification.

You folks sure do lie a lot, or are monumentally stupid. I've heard
even people with advanced degrees in related fields have been known to
get it wrong, or WORSE, be misinterpreted to imply what is not true.

8. Fosters should NOT be privy to these sessions where children asked
about if
"anything bad " happens within foster care.

In states with policy on this, and as standard practice, they are not
privy to the interviews with the child....regardless of what is asked.
Contact is private.

In addition the child has many opportunties, even very young ones, to
contact others, and their parents to make complaints. Children old
enough are routinely permitted and even encouraged by workers to call
their parents and stay in contact.

Bio parent visitation can be, and usually is, a frequent as twice a
week, or at least weekly.

Doctors, therapists, respite persons, school teachers, other foster
parents, and the neighbors, all but the latter being mandated
reporters see foster children routinely.

9. The child abuse industry brooks no accountability or oversight.

Nonsense. They live in a fishbowl except for the confidentiality
issues for clients. They cannot hide the child, nor can they stop a
legislative committee investigation...as some would claim. The cannot
carry two sets of books as it were and get away with it either
fosters, or parents. All records are open to the authorities and
considerable open to the public. I can get the payrecords and
background and job descriptions of any worker, or even upper
administrator.

I may though, not even get, legally, even the names clients from an
official CPS source. I like that.

10. ASFA can and should be reflected in administrative policy in each
state.
However, this question should be broached.

Which question are you referring to? The "anything bad happen"
question? Of course it "should" and that's why it usually is.

You are going, in the one instance you HAVE NO EVIDENCE IT WASN'T
ASKED and speechifying as though it doesn't.

YEW ARE A LOONIETOON.

11. If CPS uses SDM with families, the same SDM matrix must be
applied to
FOSTERS.

Sweetgum, NO FAMILY IN AMERICA...NOT AT ANY LEVEL OF SOCIETY...could
stand up long to the "SDM matrix" applied to foster parents.

The lie here is that CPS has some vested interest in lying about abuse
in foster homes AND BREAKING THE LAW BY NOT ACTING in cases of abuse.

Foster homes get no more breaks than bio parents do. They are
required to be MUCH more responsive to worker pressure on ALL matter
than the public is.

Tell me..do you think a foster parent can tell an abuse investigator
that shows up at the door to go away and get a warrant?

Do you think a foster parent can require they be visited by a worker
only at certain times and places?

Do you think a foster parent can refuse further training? Refuse a
background check? Refuse a PsychSoc Eval if ordered?

Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL.

You people are Sooooo full of Manure. You must be setting Fruit
bigtime.

12. Augur is a lackey who either CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW what is going on
within
CPS in Maine, and thus has *plausible deniability.", or ACS is simply
a
disorganized mess.

Let me see now....Augur said something YOU wish to agree with, but you
now suggest he's a "lackey."

This is consitent with the dichotomy you twits insist upon to further
your insane ranting about CPS. They are bad no matter what they do,
even when it's good and you agree with it.

Have you had your Sap check lately?

There is enough real systemic, and individual reforms need in CPS,
just as all government agencies of any age or size, that you do NOT
need to wallow in the muck of lies and misleading you vicious thugs
indulge in.

You are a barrier to and detractor from actual reform of CPS...because
you create an atmosphere of outrageous claims that are often
impossible to defend even by "common sense" logic the public would
normally employ.

IN other words, you are destroying families by your lying.

I notice you recently tried to lead someone astray into destruction of
family and possible injury AGAIN.

You gave legal advice....dangerous legal advice, if followed.

And STUPID ADVICE AT THAT.

You are a certified "Christine Family" Helper, are you?

Kane

-------------------------

(Kane) wrote in message . com...
On 21 Jul 2004 13:53:15 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

.....an advertisement attract others so they would clearly see what a
liar it is, followed up by a post from Douggie doing the exactly same
thing....gotcha this time Dungslinger.

I'll leave my entire post, so people can see in context what you just
did. Possibly they'll start to put two and two together and have some
questions about your other claims.....


On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:24:40 -0400, "Doug" wrote:

Kane writes:

LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR.

That's a lie perpetuated by you, and continued by Douggie who had
to
resort to manipulating my comments on what foster parents must do
to
retain CERTIFICATION into a claim that that I said their children
would be taken for anything less than an abuse allegation against
them. He's a liar and so are you.

Here is what Kane wrote ("DHS Maine is Putting Out Fabrications,"
Kane,
7-17-04, in ascps):

No, Doug. You deliberately, you lying sniviling coward, left off the
most important part of what I actually wrote.

"Foster homes get no more breaks than bio parents do. They are
required to be MUCH more responsive to worker pressure on ALL matter
than the public is.

Yes. And you lied about it trying to prove that their children would
be taken with less than an allegation, when all I said was THEY WOULD
BE MADE EX FOSTER PARENTS.

"Tell me..do you think a foster parent can tell an abuse investigator
that shows up at the door to go away and get a warrant?

Not if they wish to continue being a foster parent you know damn well
that is what I meant....BECAUSE I WROTE AND YOU CUT IT OUT OF THIS
POST.

"Do you think a foster parent can require they be visited by a worker
only at certain times and places?

And that is dead on true....that does NOT EQUATE WITH THEM HAVING
THEIR OWN CHILDREN TAKEN on less than an allegation, as The Plant
lies, and you delibertly tried, you ****ing lowlife scumsucker, to
claim I said about a "Warrent" when I made NO mention of a warrent,
and no mention that the children would be removed for anything other
than an allegation...not for not doing worker requests for
ceritifaction or any other FOSTER PARENT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT,
YOU ****ING LYING PIECE OF SICK ****.

"Do you think a foster parent can refuse further training? Refuse a
background check? Refuse a PsychSoc Eval if ordered?

"Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL.


Kane now writes:

They are no more prone to having their children removed than ANY
OTHER
FAMILY ALLEDGED TO HAVE ABUSED AND NEGLECTED.

After which you snipped the caveat......

Except for being under more scrutiny therefore more likey caught.

Here, you lying asshole child and family hating piece of pig **** is
what I said in full:

Here is what I wrote:

They are no more prone to having their children removed than ANY
OTHER
FAMILY ALLEDGED TO HAVE ABUSED AND NEGLECTED.


Here is what I wrote that you snipped, you dishonest piece of tripe;

The only difference is one I've claimed for many months here in this
debate....that they are at higher risk of BEING CAUGHT ABUSING OR
NEGLECTING BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER CLOSER SCRUTINY by CPS and all the
parties to the child protection field. They are also at higher risk
of being falsely accused, but that does not equate with them having
their own bio children removed for not heeding every word of a
caseworker.

How can you live with yourself, you prick? I made no claim they could
have their children removed for trifling worker directives.

This is so typical of your misleading and lying to the readers here.

If they don't check for themselves, or I miss your lying post and
don't correct it, people could believe these lies about me, and ABOUT
CPS THAT YOU SPOUT HERE.

You are scum.

Readers, ....the the entire post, in full context, Dungslinger
responds to is left below so that you can discover what a baldfaced
liar and manipulator he is.

Those of you that are honest can see his lying, clearly. It's
obviously not even a mistake or oversight...it is a deliberate attempt
to change my meaning by artful snipping, the worst kind of unethical
posting on usenet.

As for those of you that let yourself be buggered up the ass by him,
smiling all the while as he compliments you on your bigotry,
ignorance, and stupidity, you are proper prey for such as he. Eat his
****, the lot of you. And keep smiling.

K.



...yet another attempt to hide It's lying by breaking the thread and
posting to an off topic newsgroup...so readers could not follow it's
trickery and vicious hatred of children and families.......


http://www.txcfr.org

A former foster family runs across TDPRS' harmful interventions, and
finds his
family is now branded abusers.

And yo.u know for a fact they are NOT abusers?

Fosters can have their own children taken, if they do not heed each
directive
from caseworkers.

LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR.

That's a lie perpetuated by you, and continued by Douggie who had to
resort to manipulating my comments on what foster parents must do to
retain CERTIFICATION into a claim that that I said their children
would be taken for anything less than an abuse allegation against
them. He's a liar and so are you.

They are no more prone to having their children removed than ANY OTHER
FAMILY ALLEDGED TO HAVE ABUSED AND NEGLECTED.

The only difference is one I've claimed for many months here in this
debate....that they are at higher risk of BEING CAUGHT ABUSING OR
NEGLECTING BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER CLOSER SCRUTINY by CPS and all the
parties to the child protection field. They are also at higher risk
of being falsely accused, but that does not equate with them having
their own bio children removed for not heeding every word of a
caseworker.

Prove your claim, asshole.

And given that YOU and the Dung Slinger wish to claim that fosters are
more prone to murder and abuse of foster children, how is it you wish
to have LESS oversight and control of them?

My take is that you wish to terrify people, and drive them away, that
would try, by becoming fosters, to help children at risk of harm from
parents or harmed by them so that you'll continue to have a crippled
system you can play "Heroic Crusader" over when you know the shortage
of funding, and the shortage of foster parents, is the major driving
force behind difficulties CPS has in its foster programs.

You are a pack of liars. And the dangers you promote to families and
children are immense by your bull**** and lies here. You hate children
and you hate families or you wouldn't risk their safety by your
crappola.

Kane

On 21 Jul 2004 23:31:31 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Kane if you can read, instead of just verbally abusing folk

I have been verbally abused by Doug, by his manipulating my posts to
change the meaning, and claiming I said things I did not, even having
the balls to repost my statements and STILL claim I said something I
didn't.

I made NO MENTION OF FOSTERS LOSING THEIR CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY ASKED
FOR A WARRANT. I did not USE the warrant. I used, "warrants" as in
something being serious enough to warrant attention. He's a liar or he
would have immediately have immediatly acknowledged his error...he did
not, he pressed on with it still as though I had mented asking for a
WARRANT.

you can read bout
the TX fosters story.

I can't read it if you don't post it. I don't visit websites that can
log my IP so your ****ing puter hacker buddies can trace back to me.
Go **** up a rope, you ****ing creep.

Post it. I know perfectly well how to read. That's how I catch you
****ing liars at your games.

DFPS decimated the entire family. Mom, Dad, bios and fosters.

I don't see the story here, and no, I'm not going to read it off an
antiCPS thug website that lies like you do, and you shill and pimp
for.

Provide a credible source.

I wish to see if there were any circumstances that showed there WAS
guilt on the part of the foster family....and I KNOW the phony balony
CPS reformers websites won't give THAT part of the story, just as you
and your buddies here so frequently avoid.

Go to the site.

Nope. You are an habitual liar. I've no reason to believe there IS any
story at that website.

instead of mouthing off....

**** you, asshole. I don't take orders from you or Dungslinger.

YOU post the story, or be known, even more, as a liar. And provide a
credible web accessible source.

Kane

On 22 Jul 2004 16:34:17 GMT, (Chrisbranin) wrote:

Kane, stop manipulating.

Your target should be, if you actually bothered to read his posting
history, Doug.

Warrant is a verb.

It is also a noun.

Doug is correct as in warrants attention.

That is means "serve a warrant?"

I am the one that used "warrant" the noun to point out a foster parent
can no more refuse a served warrant than anyone else, but that asking
for one, is absolutely the fastest way to be decertified as a foster
parent...on the spot.

It had zero to do with his claim that I said asking for a warrant, or
being noncompliant in all the other ways I listed, would result in
removal of the foster parents own bio children.

I did NOT say that until I prefaced that claim with a statement that
it would likely happen IF THE SERIOUSNESS OF AN ALLEGATION
INVESTIGATION "WARRANTS" IT.

How much does Cain (intentional misspelling)

My name, limp flamer, isn't even pronounced that way.

drink

Rarely.

when he attempt to SLANDER
FOLK.

Bull****. As a flamer you are washout. Now let's see if you are just
another simple minded troll.

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On 22 Jul 2004 16:34:17 GMT, (Chrisbranin) wrote:

Kane, stop manipulating.

Your target should be, if you actually bothered to read his posting
history, Doug.

Warrant is a verb.

It is also a noun.

Doug is correct as in warrants attention.

That is means "serve a warrant?"

I am the one that used "warrant" the noun to point out a foster parent
can no more refuse a served warrant than anyone else, but that asking
for one, is absolutely the fastest way to be decertified as a foster
parent...on the spot.

It had zero to do with his claim that I said asking for a warrant, or
being noncompliant in all the other ways I listed, would result in
removal of the foster parents own bio children.

I did NOT say that until I prefaced that claim with a statement that
it would likely happen IF THE SERIOUSNESS OF AN ALLEGATION
INVESTIGATION "WARRANTS" IT.

How much does Cain (intentional misspelling)

My name, limp flamer, isn't even pronounced that way.

drink

Rarely.

when he attempt to SLANDER
FOLK.

Bull****. As a flamer you are washout. Now let's see if you are just
another simple minded troll.

Kane

IT is the fungus among us. One in the same. Posting from Best Buy.

Sherman.

No, Kane! You are once a again caught with a LIE and are backpedaling.
This is nothing new. You are quick at calling other people liar but
you are the LIAR. I have caught you lying about the Embry Study and
now Doug caught you lying too. Remember, google has the archive of
your post. Doug even posted your ENTIRE post! :-)

Doan

On 22 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

On 22 Jul 2004 16:34:17 GMT, (Chrisbranin) wrote:

Kane, stop manipulating.

Your target should be, if you actually bothered to read his posting
history, Doug.

Warrant is a verb.

It is also a noun.

Doug is correct as in warrants attention.

That is means "serve a warrant?"

I am the one that used "warrant" the noun to point out a foster parent
can no more refuse a served warrant than anyone else, but that asking
for one, is absolutely the fastest way to be decertified as a foster
parent...on the spot.

It had zero to do with his claim that I said asking for a warrant, or
being noncompliant in all the other ways I listed, would result in
removal of the foster parents own bio children.

I did NOT say that until I prefaced that claim with a statement that
it would likely happen IF THE SERIOUSNESS OF AN ALLEGATION
INVESTIGATION "WARRANTS" IT.

How much does Cain (intentional misspelling)

My name, limp flamer, isn't even pronounced that way.

drink

Rarely.

when he attempt to SLANDER
FOLK.

Bull****. As a flamer you are washout. Now let's see if you are just
another simple minded troll.

Kane

Liar. Doug's post to me where he finally posts my entire msg. did NOT
come before I complained he had cut and pasted all too artfully.

" I will also paste your entire post of 7-17."

He STILL lies and manipulates my post by replying to out of context
parts interpersersed. The key is in the word "if," which is MY word
that separates the two things he so desperately tried to link.....

Or maybe you missed it and aren't a liar this time after all?

And he still insisted on an erroneous interpretation of my
meaning...all too evident to anyone that can read and understand
english...I'll go into it below in my full reply to you, and below
that, the message from Dungslinger establishing that YOU are wrong,
again, and he is a misleading asshole:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:13:00 -0700, Doan wrote:


No, Kane! You are once a again caught with a LIE and are
backpedaling.

Nope. Never happened.

This is nothing new.

It would be had I done it. I do not lie. Or mislead.

You are quick at calling other people liar but
you are the LIAR.

I am quick IF they show that they are. I usually don't call anyone a
liar unless they have shown, by their posting, that they are.

I have caught you lying about the Embry Study

Really? I pointed out, from what you asked, YOU obviously had a
different study report than I. You forgot, I guess.

A difference in information is not a lie, last I checked. You made a
habit over the years of calling anyone that DISAGREED WITH YOU, a
liar.

And, about the Embry study, YOU would not answer a single question to
establish that we had the same report, or a different one. I asked at
least two times for info from specific pages. Actually about a dozen
times in all, but a couple of different items:

The name that was the same of a well known poster here and on what
page, and as I recall some bit of trivia with a page number. YOU STILL
WOULDN'T ANSWER.

You just went off calling me a liar, because I disagreed with Embry on
one of his points....and again, your wording was NOT the wording from
my copy.

You could NOT come up with the same demographics of the study group
that I had.

Now why wouldn't you answer those simple questions, other than because
YOU are an habitual liar?

and
now Doug caught you lying too.

Nope. We disagreed on an issue. He never accused me of lying.

He simply claimed I said something I said I didn't....an
interpretation of language useage, as in:

Did I claim that foster parents could lose their bio children for
defying caseworkers, or simply lose their certification, or did I
claim that they could lose their children if the seriousness of an
allegation investigation warranted?

See the difference?

Remember, google has the archive of
your post.

Tell you what, YOU pull up my post, not his manipulated copy, and
we'll go through it and I'll give you yet another lesson in english
language usage.

Doug even posted your ENTIRE post! :-)

Finally. We had at least ONE exchange where he had not, where he
posted only the selected out of context bit he thought he could use.
Nasty little man, rather like you. He has done that snippage trick a
few times in the past.

And you, one that constantly mangles the meaning of the language of
other's posts, and can't even sort out your own correctly, are hardly
one to judge the argument. He may not be honest but he does understand
english well enough to twist words and meanings. He watches for slips
and capitolizes on them, rather like you.

You related to the Dungslinger?

Dungslinger PRESUMED a meaning not evident by the language I used:

A list of reasons a foster parent would likely LOSE their FOSTER
CERTIFICATION, which I made clear, and later a single item pointing
out how they might lose their own children....by the seriousness of
the subject of the investigation, were clearly separated by the word
"if."

The connection could be made if I had used "and." I didn't.

If he missed that "if" then the problem isn't mine. After I pointed it
out to him and he has not responded on that point, then again, the
problem isn't mine.....it's his, and he has to live with his ethics.

Just as you do with yours.

A sad little thinking error prone spanked child, that has obviously
undergone some serious developmental retardation from his childhood
experiences. .

I wonder if the Dungslinger was spanked as a child.

Try reading the last exchange I had on this subject with the
Dungslinger, out loud, or have someone read it for you, and tell me if
they too have your language handicaps.

Doan

Kane



On 22 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

On 22 Jul 2004 16:34:17 GMT, (Chrisbranin)
wrote:

Kane, stop manipulating.

Your target should be, if you actually bothered to read his posting
history, Doug.

Warrant is a verb.

It is also a noun.

Doug is correct as in warrants attention.

That is means "serve a warrant?"

I am the one that used "warrant" the noun to point out a foster
parent
can no more refuse a served warrant than anyone else, but that
asking
for one, is absolutely the fastest way to be decertified as a
foster
parent...on the spot.

It had zero to do with his claim that I said asking for a warrant,
or
being noncompliant in all the other ways I listed, would result in
removal of the foster parents own bio children.

I did NOT say that until I prefaced that claim with a statement
that
it would likely happen IF THE SERIOUSNESS OF AN ALLEGATION
INVESTIGATION "WARRANTS" IT.

How much does Cain (intentional misspelling)

My name, limp flamer, isn't even pronounced that way.

drink

Rarely.

when he attempt to SLANDER
FOLK.

Bull****. As a flamer you are washout. Now let's see if you are
just
another simple minded troll.

Kane



"Doug" wrote in message ...
Kane writes:

I'll leave my entire post, so people can see in context what you just
did. Possibly they'll start to put two and two together and have some
questions about your other claims.....

Hi, Kane!

I will also paste your entire post of 7-17. It will be a bit tedious for
readers, but the relevant phases about search warrants, etc, will be found
intact within it. The relevant section I quoted and replied to was
(verbatim):

"Foster homes get no more breaks than bio parents do. They are
required to be MUCH more responsive to worker pressure on ALL matter
than the public is.

"Tell me..do you think a foster parent can tell an abuse investigator
that shows up at the door to go away and get a warrant? (#1)

"Do you think a foster parent can require they be visited by a worker
only at certain times and places? (#2)

"Do you think a foster parent can refuse further training? Refuse a
background check? Refuse a PsychSoc Eval if ordered? (#'s 3,4,5).

"Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL."

I pasted the same section in the post to which Kane replies below:

Here is what Kane wrote ("DHS Maine is Putting Out Fabrications,"
Kane,
7-17-04, in ascps):

No, Doug. You deliberately, you lying sniviling coward, left off the
most important part of what I actually wrote.

No, Kane I quoted the entire passage down to your summary tag. The
paragraph that follows the tag goes on to something else.

Yes. And you lied about it trying to prove that their children would
be taken with less than an allegation, when all I said was THEY WOULD
BE MADE EX FOSTER PARENTS.

Nope. What you did say, was:

"Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL."

"Tell me..do you think a foster parent can tell an abuse investigator
that shows up at the door to go away and get a warrant?

Not if they wish to continue being a foster parent you know damn well
that is what I meant....BECAUSE I WROTE AND YOU CUT IT OUT OF THIS
POST.

No, I did not cut it out of the post at all. I pasted the section verbatim.
You did not write "not if they wish to continue being a foster parent" and
had me snip it out. Nope. Instead, you wrote that and much more, all of
which I included.

That statement was,

"Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL."

"Do you think a foster parent can require they be visited by a worker
only at certain times and places?

And that is dead on true....that does NOT EQUATE WITH THEM HAVING
THEIR OWN CHILDREN TAKEN on less than an allegation,

That was item #2 in what you refer to is "all these things" in your
statement reprinted twice above.

as The Plant
lies, and you delibertly tried, you ****ing lowlife scumsucker, to
claim I said about a "Warrent" when I made NO mention of a warrent,

You did make mention of a search warrAnt as item #1 in what you refer to as
"all those things in your statement. The statement will appear again below,
with emphasis.

and no mention that the children would be removed for anything other
than an allegation...not for not doing worker requests for
ceritifaction or any other FOSTER PARENT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT,
YOU ****ING LYING PIECE OF SICK ****.

"Well, they CAN refuse all *these things*, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with NOT ONLY the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL."

"Do you think a foster parent can refuse further training? Refuse a
background check? Refuse a PsychSoc Eval if ordered?

These are items #3,4 and 5 of "all these things" you reference in your
statement.

"Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL.

Here is your entire post of 7-17, intact, word by word, including the
section I pasted above:

On 17 Jul 2004 12:51:57 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Augur in Maine, employed by DHS states that cw's are REQUIRED to
enquire if
"CHILDREN ARE AFRAID IN THE FOSTER HOME."

He says Fed policy REQUIRES as such.

Some possibilities for this statement, printed in the Morning
Sentinel, Maine
newspaper.

1. He is simply lying. (Augur)

Or he sould simply be mistaken, as Yew are so often.


2. Reporter inferences

Happens!


3. There is NO POLICY.

There may not be specifically for this item you and he claim.

4. Common sense does NOT prevail within CPS

And it does HERE? R R R R R R R

By the way....if ever there were a more dangerous decision making
method than "common sense" I don't know what it would be. Much of what
we would do in a given situation....automatically...that is according
to "common sense" is very likely to get us and others killed. Read any
of bobber's posts lately?

I just read family of four were all killed in an SUV rollover a bit
north of Sacramento, the state capitol, ...and NONE were wearing
seatbelts. Seems the father had been cited for exactly that offense
before.

Don't I just wish his children had been taken into state custody now.
They would much more likely be alive.

5. This should be administrative policy within each state. "Good
touch, bad
touch" is touted ad nauseum within places children congregate.
PARENTS ARE
SUBJECT TO THESE QUESTION.

It should be a law that we all have two cars, a pool, and a Criscraft
speedboat too, but I understand there is a limit to what is humanly
possible.

And why do you say "ad nauseum?" That usually means "excessively." Do
you wish to claim that children here this message excessively?

6. This must and will be CPS policy.

You are now running CPS?

7. Children are harmed more within foster care, and DSS is trying to
do cost
and publicity containment.

That is a highly questionable claim. I expect even the experts will
start backing off that one some day. It's based on misreading of the
meaning of the avialable data. For instance the wording in ACF charts
on the matter say "in foster care" "BY foster parents."

There is a world of difference.

And the comparisons that are claimed are between the captive
demographic of foster parents, who are folded, spindled, and
mutiliated by CPS supervision and the the bio parents, neighbors, and
every vendor that sees the child, plus the public contacts with the
child, and the general population that is subject to NONE of those
voluntarily...like fosters must sign off to do when the put their mark
to the volunteer contract that is part of their certification.

You folks sure do lie a lot, or are monumentally stupid. I've heard
even people with advanced degrees in related fields have been known to
get it wrong, or WORSE, be misinterpreted to imply what is not true.

8. Fosters should NOT be privy to these sessions where children asked
about if
"anything bad " happens within foster care.

In states with policy on this, and as standard practice, they are not
privy to the interviews with the child....regardless of what is asked.
Contact is private.

In addition the child has many opportunties, even very young ones, to
contact others, and their parents to make complaints. Children old
enough are routinely permitted and even encouraged by workers to call
their parents and stay in contact.

Bio parent visitation can be, and usually is, a frequent as twice a
week, or at least weekly.

Doctors, therapists, respite persons, school teachers, other foster
parents, and the neighbors, all but the latter being mandated
reporters see foster children routinely.

9. The child abuse industry brooks no accountability or oversight.

Nonsense. They live in a fishbowl except for the confidentiality
issues for clients. They cannot hide the child, nor can they stop a
legislative committee investigation...as some would claim. The cannot
carry two sets of books as it were and get away with it either
fosters, or parents. All records are open to the authorities and
considerable open to the public. I can get the payrecords and
background and job descriptions of any worker, or even upper
administrator.

I may though, not even get, legally, even the names clients from an
official CPS source. I like that.

10. ASFA can and should be reflected in administrative policy in each
state.
However, this question should be broached.

Which question are you referring to? The "anything bad happen"
question? Of course it "should" and that's why it usually is.

You are going, in the one instance you HAVE NO EVIDENCE IT WASN'T
ASKED and speechifying as though it doesn't.

YEW ARE A LOONIETOON.

11. If CPS uses SDM with families, the same SDM matrix must be
applied to
FOSTERS.

Sweetgum, NO FAMILY IN AMERICA...NOT AT ANY LEVEL OF SOCIETY...could
stand up long to the "SDM matrix" applied to foster parents.

The lie here is that CPS has some vested interest in lying about abuse
in foster homes AND BREAKING THE LAW BY NOT ACTING in cases of abuse.

Foster homes get no more breaks than bio parents do. They are
required to be MUCH more responsive to worker pressure on ALL matter
than the public is.

Tell me..do you think a foster parent can tell an abuse investigator
that shows up at the door to go away and get a warrant?

Do you think a foster parent can require they be visited by a worker
only at certain times and places?

Do you think a foster parent can refuse further training? Refuse a
background check? Refuse a PsychSoc Eval if ordered?

Well, they CAN refuse all these things, and become an EX foster
parent, on the spot...with not only the foster children removed, if
the reason for an investigation warrants, but THEIR OWN CHILDREN
REMOVED AS WELL.

You people are Sooooo full of Manure. You must be setting Fruit
bigtime.

12. Augur is a lackey who either CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW what is going on
within
CPS in Maine, and thus has *plausible deniability.", or ACS is simply
a
disorganized mess.

Let me see now....Augur said something YOU wish to agree with, but you
now suggest he's a "lackey."

This is consitent with the dichotomy you twits insist upon to further
your insane ranting about CPS. They are bad no matter what they do,
even when it's good and you agree with it.

Have you had your Sap check lately?

There is enough real systemic, and individual reforms need in CPS,
just as all government agencies of any age or size, that you do NOT
need to wallow in the muck of lies and misleading you vicious thugs
indulge in.

You are a barrier to and detractor from actual reform of CPS...because
you create an atmosphere of outrageous claims that are often
impossible to defend even by "common sense" logic the public would
normally employ.

IN other words, you are destroying families by your lying.

I notice you recently tried to lead someone astray into destruction of
family and possible injury AGAIN.

You gave legal advice....dangerous legal advice, if followed.

And STUPID ADVICE AT THAT.

You are a certified "Christine Family" Helper, are you?

Kane

-------------------------