NV Shortage of Fosters a LIE

Greegor wrote:
Shortage of Foster Care contractors is a lie say licensed Fosters!

Yes we know. That's why I explained some of the truth about grousing
from foster parents. Good foster parents know what it takes to be used
for placement. The one's ****ing and moaning are the ones MOST OFTEN IN
IT FOR THE MONEY, and damned mad they aren't getting the highend
(special needs kids).

Often the workers are so disgusted with them they will NOT use them
because they KNOW they short the kids.

Your accusations about this have always been right, dummy.

And it's been admitted by myself and others here before, dummy.

A few can make a very big noise when given a voice like a "blood
thirsty" media source. No big deal.

There is a shortage of good foster homes. And that is true story, boy.

Emphasis on good.

Their are lots of people that think with their pocketbook out there,
Greg, just as you do, isn't that right?

It's nearly impossible, unless they have a criminal background to refuse
to accept their application and send them through training and certify
them. On what grounds would YOU turn them down before they had a child
in their home for you to see how they treated them?

Or before they made their motives clear?

So there they are, a ****ant crowd of whiners that create their own
problem.

Good foster parents figure out how, for instance, to make it more
possible to communicate with very busy workers. The organize the child's
needs and issues, leave proper messages about specific things, and they
get worker attention for the child.

One of the things I used to tell foster relatives over and over again,
when they complained of not getting worker attention was to NOT call
with a lot of ****ing and moaning about THEIR PROBLEM, but to frame it
in terms of the CHILD'S NEEDS.

Oddly, when they heard me and acted as I suggested, suddenly they got
all kinds of attention, and they could piggyback their issues with the
agency onto those issues.

Usually were naturally attached anyway.

Lots of people only know how to be Gregholes...'scuse, STUPID ASSHOLES,
Greg. I taught them to be assertive and smart.

This is little more than a pack of self concerned ****ants, Greg.

You see anything in here that resonates for you? LIKE THE "FOSTER
PARENTS" NOT MENTIONING THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD?

"These foster parents feel betrayed..." is their entire theme, stupid.
And you, because of your own social dysfunctions, cannot see that.

You identify with them strongly, don't you Greg?

Yet they are obviously of the class YOU AND OTHERS HERE HAVE ACCUSED ALL
FOSTER PARENTS OF BEING.

Man you are stupid.

0:-


Nevada

http://www.klastv.com/Global/story.a...21816&nav=168Y

http://www.klastv.com/global/story.a...Type=Printable

Denise Saunders, Anchor
Foster Parents Speak Out About Broken System

June 12, 2006, 11:10 PM

Overcrowded conditions at Child Haven have county officials stepping up
recruitment efforts for more foster families. But that plea has some
current foster parents angry because they've been waiting more than a
year for a child to be placed in their home.

Eyewitness News has protected their identity -- for fear of retribution
for speaking out -- so they could share their views on the foster care
crisis.

Foster parent: "Everything that we are reading in the paper and seeing
in the media is not black and white. We are a broken system."

These foster parents feel betrayed by a system that is supposed to
bring families together. They all have licenses to foster children, so
they don't understand why they haven't been contacted by the county
about possible placement considering child haven is overflowing.

Foster parent: "They are full of crap. They are full of crap. There are
so many people. I could find probably find a dozen homes for children
in the snap of my finger already licensed."

Their experience has taught them it's all a game of caseworkers and
supervisors playing favorites.

Foster parent: "You're punished constantly. If you speak up to the
wrong worker, they'll just by word of mouth. You won't get kids."

Foster parent: "There are a selected few that they are picking and they
are not picking the one's that can really help and really want to
help."

These foster parents, or potential foster parents, say their calls to
the county constantly go unanswered. Their concerns and questions are
buried in a system that seems riddled with red tape.

Foster parent: "Clean house. Get rid of the slack. Get rid of the
duplication of efforts. I've filled out the same paperwork probably 17
times."

Despite their frustrations, these foster parents say they won't give up
because they believe someone needs to fight for the rights of these
young children.

Foster parent: "I could love another one and there are kids out there
that are looking for love. Sometimes social services doesn't look at
the love that a child needs. And that's what keeps I think most of us
in here. Because we do care and we do want it to happen."

The foster parents Eyewitness News spoke with say another problem with
the process is that there are too many licensing categories, which
often limits where children can be placed temporarily or permanently.



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
agency butt than any actual problems.
Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
LICENSED but passed over.

If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
why were they LICENSED?

Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?

WHY license them and then pass them over?

Your accusations that these "complainers" would
short change the kids have what proof exactly?
ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!

Isn't your motivation for smearing these
complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?

Is that a smart PR move Kane?

Greegor wrote:
Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
agency butt than any actual problems.

Yep. It's rather common for those that have problems with authority to
make such claims.

"They wanted me to bring the child in for visitation with their parents,
HAH!" and similar bitches.

Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
LICENSED but passed over.

Yep. And I pointed out why that happens. It's basically impossible if
someone has no background or issues that would patently disqualify them
from applying to be foster parents to turn them down. Hence they get the
full treatment, including training, BG checks (crim, financial, health,
mental health, home) but because they are ****ants that want to do it
THEIR WAY, which often consists of hostility toward BIO PARENTS, you
stupid ****ant, the agency prefers NOT to use them.

They want to testify in court, they want to **** up the system as best
they can, and it would not surprise me if not a few of them were YOUR
cronies, Greg.

If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
why were they LICENSED?

Because they cannot be refused for other than already stated statutory
limits on who can and cannot be a foster parent. If they are clean, they
will be certified.

Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?

No, and that IS the problem. It works exactly as its supposed to. Which
brings in assholes like you. Though I doubt YOU could pass the first
checks, given your DV conviction. Most states will not allow that in an
applicant's past. Though you might talk your way through if you could
convince them of your relative "innocence" that you've claimed here.

WHY license them and then pass them over?

Because they are a hazard to children, you stupid git.

They lack the proper attitude to keep children safe. They will not
commit to NOT using physical punishment, for instance. ON a child that's
already been physically abused? Typical ****heads.

They will not commit to NOT taking the child to the foster parent's
church. They will not commit to making the child available for
visitation with parents.

They have expressed to workers and trainers their distain for bio parents.

They do not have adequate resources to do the job. Personal resources.
Like patience, tolerance for various aspects of the child and his or her
heritage.

One of my pet hates for years was relatives...who I REFUSED TO
HELP...who, when asked by CPS to foster a group of sibs would agree to
foster THE WHITE ONES (Like themselves) but not the brothers and sisters
of color. Such mixed sib groups tend to be common in CPS client families.

I as much as told them to kiss my butt when they asked for my help.

Your accusations that these "complainers" would
short change the kids have what proof exactly?

Lots of familiarity with CPS, and a few years working FOR A FOSTER
PARENT ASSOCIATION doing contract work. I know of which I speak.

ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!

How many were there? Did you notice any number mentioned? Do you know
anything about the media? Any number over two can be, for the desired
effect, 'a group of...'

Man you are stupid.

Isn't your motivation for smearing these
complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?

Well, I sat and looked at that for awhile, and I couldn't find a
motivation of my own beyond my desire for children to NOT be in the
hands of such cretins that I knew with exactly the same kind of hogwash
barely disguised self interested complaints.

Did you see a single instance of them being concerned for the children?

I asked you before. Did you snip it? Of course you did.

Now what would be my "motivation" for my comments about complaining FPs
like this bunch?

Could it be I can smell a rat?

Let me explain. When Ron, or someone of his superior ethics complains
about CPS, I listen. And such people invariably complain about the
shortcomings that WORK AGAINST THE CHILDS best interest from the FPs
point of view.

Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but I respect their
view.

This was a pack of whining ****ants reminiscent of you, Greg.

Is that a smart PR move Kane?

When you ****ed the little girl did her mother help?

0;-





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
agency butt than any actual problems.

Yep. It's rather common for those that have problems with authority to
make such claims.

"They wanted me to bring the child in for visitation with their parents,
HAH!" and similar bitches.

Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
LICENSED but passed over.

Yep. And I pointed out why that happens. It's basically impossible if
someone has no background or issues that would patently disqualify them
from applying to be foster parents to turn them down. Hence they get the
full treatment, including training, BG checks (crim, financial, health,
mental health, home) but because they are ****ants that want to do it
THEIR WAY, which often consists of hostility toward BIO PARENTS, you
stupid ****ant, the agency prefers NOT to use them.

They want to testify in court, they want to **** up the system as best
they can, and it would not surprise me if not a few of them were YOUR
cronies, Greg.

If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
why were they LICENSED?

Because they cannot be refused for other than already stated statutory
limits on who can and cannot be a foster parent. If they are clean, they
will be certified.

Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?

No, and that IS the problem. It works exactly as its supposed to. Which
brings in assholes like you. Though I doubt YOU could pass the first
checks, given your DV conviction. Most states will not allow that in an
applicant's past. Though you might talk your way through if you could
convince them of your relative "innocence" that you've claimed here.

WHY license them and then pass them over?

Because they are a hazard to children, you stupid git.

They lack the proper attitude to keep children safe. They will not
commit to NOT using physical punishment, for instance. ON a child that's
already been physically abused? Typical ****heads.

They will not commit to NOT taking the child to the foster parent's
church. They will not commit to making the child available for
visitation with parents.

They have expressed to workers and trainers their distain for bio parents.

They do not have adequate resources to do the job. Personal resources.
Like patience, tolerance for various aspects of the child and his or her
heritage.

One of my pet hates for years was relatives...who I REFUSED TO
HELP...who, when asked by CPS to foster a group of sibs would agree to
foster THE WHITE ONES (Like themselves) but not the brothers and sisters
of color. Such mixed sib groups tend to be common in CPS client families.

I as much as told them to kiss my butt when they asked for my help.

Your accusations that these "complainers" would
short change the kids have what proof exactly?

Lots of familiarity with CPS, and a few years working FOR A FOSTER
PARENT ASSOCIATION doing contract work. I know of which I speak.

ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!

How many were there? Did you notice any number mentioned? Do you know
anything about the media? Any number over two can be, for the desired
effect, 'a group of...'

Man you are stupid.

Isn't your motivation for smearing these
complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?

Well, I sat and looked at that for awhile, and I couldn't find a
motivation of my own beyond my desire for children to NOT be in the
hands of such cretins that I knew with exactly the same kind of hogwash
barely disguised self interested complaints.

Did you see a single instance of them being concerned for the children?

I asked you before. Did you snip it? Of course you did.

Now what would be my "motivation" for my comments about complaining FPs
like this bunch?

Could it be I can smell a rat?

Let me explain. When Ron, or someone of his superior ethics complains
about CPS, I listen. And such people invariably complain about the
shortcomings that WORK AGAINST THE CHILDS best interest from the FPs
point of view.

Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but I respect their
view.

This was a pack of whining ****ants reminiscent of you, Greg.

Is that a smart PR move Kane?

When you ****ed the little girl did her mother help?

Being a PR flack is viewed as so LOW that you
respond with a false accusation of sexual abuse?

Man, you must hate YOURSELF a lot, Kane!

Greegor wrote:
0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
agency butt than any actual problems.
Yep. It's rather common for those that have problems with authority to
make such claims.

"They wanted me to bring the child in for visitation with their parents,
HAH!" and similar bitches.

Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
LICENSED but passed over.
Yep. And I pointed out why that happens. It's basically impossible if
someone has no background or issues that would patently disqualify them
from applying to be foster parents to turn them down. Hence they get the
full treatment, including training, BG checks (crim, financial, health,
mental health, home) but because they are ****ants that want to do it
THEIR WAY, which often consists of hostility toward BIO PARENTS, you
stupid ****ant, the agency prefers NOT to use them.

They want to testify in court, they want to **** up the system as best
they can, and it would not surprise me if not a few of them were YOUR
cronies, Greg.

If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
why were they LICENSED?
Because they cannot be refused for other than already stated statutory
limits on who can and cannot be a foster parent. If they are clean, they
will be certified.

Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?
No, and that IS the problem. It works exactly as its supposed to. Which
brings in assholes like you. Though I doubt YOU could pass the first
checks, given your DV conviction. Most states will not allow that in an
applicant's past. Though you might talk your way through if you could
convince them of your relative "innocence" that you've claimed here.

WHY license them and then pass them over?
Because they are a hazard to children, you stupid git.

They lack the proper attitude to keep children safe. They will not
commit to NOT using physical punishment, for instance. ON a child that's
already been physically abused? Typical ****heads.

They will not commit to NOT taking the child to the foster parent's
church. They will not commit to making the child available for
visitation with parents.

They have expressed to workers and trainers their distain for bio parents.

They do not have adequate resources to do the job. Personal resources.
Like patience, tolerance for various aspects of the child and his or her
heritage.

One of my pet hates for years was relatives...who I REFUSED TO
HELP...who, when asked by CPS to foster a group of sibs would agree to
foster THE WHITE ONES (Like themselves) but not the brothers and sisters
of color. Such mixed sib groups tend to be common in CPS client families.

I as much as told them to kiss my butt when they asked for my help.

Your accusations that these "complainers" would
short change the kids have what proof exactly?
Lots of familiarity with CPS, and a few years working FOR A FOSTER
PARENT ASSOCIATION doing contract work. I know of which I speak.

ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!
How many were there? Did you notice any number mentioned? Do you know
anything about the media? Any number over two can be, for the desired
effect, 'a group of...'

Man you are stupid.

Isn't your motivation for smearing these
complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?
Well, I sat and looked at that for awhile, and I couldn't find a
motivation of my own beyond my desire for children to NOT be in the
hands of such cretins that I knew with exactly the same kind of hogwash
barely disguised self interested complaints.

Did you see a single instance of them being concerned for the children?

I asked you before. Did you snip it? Of course you did.

Now what would be my "motivation" for my comments about complaining FPs
like this bunch?

Could it be I can smell a rat?

Let me explain. When Ron, or someone of his superior ethics complains
about CPS, I listen. And such people invariably complain about the
shortcomings that WORK AGAINST THE CHILDS best interest from the FPs
point of view.

Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but I respect their
view.

This was a pack of whining ****ants reminiscent of you, Greg.
Is that a smart PR move Kane?

When you ****ed the little girl did her mother help?

Being a PR flack is viewed as so LOW that you
respond with a false accusation of sexual abuse?

Man, you must hate YOURSELF a lot, Kane!

Still can't answer the question, I see.

Odd, too. Since I had no trouble in answering yours. Yet you repeat your
question and now state as fact something that is not true, and you do
not offer any proof.

A nice exposure of what you are.

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
agency butt than any actual problems.

Kane wrote
Yep. It's rather common for those that have problems
with authority to make such claims.

"They wanted me to bring the child in for visitation with their parents,
HAH!" and similar bitches.

Greg wrote
Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
LICENSED but passed over.

Kane wrote
Yep. And I pointed out why that happens. It's basically impossible if
someone has no background or issues that would patently disqualify them
from applying to be foster parents to turn them down. Hence they get the
full treatment, including training, BG checks (crim, financial, health,
mental health, home) but because they are ****ants that want to do it
THEIR WAY, which often consists of hostility toward BIO PARENTS, you
stupid ****ant, the agency prefers NOT to use them.
They want to testify in court, they want to **** up the system as best
they can, and it would not surprise me if not a few of them were YOUR
cronies, Greg.

Greg wrote
If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
why were they LICENSED?

Kane wrote
Because they cannot be refused for other than already stated statutory
limits on who can and cannot be a foster parent. If they are clean, they
will be certified.

Major conflicts arise. You're saying they can't be refused except
for statutory requirements, yet you are confirming that they
are being refused nonetheless for things that ARE
outside of statutory requirements. This would seem to
be a violation of law and grounds for a civil rights law suit
under US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1985
violation of civil rights and conspiracy to violate same.

Greg wrote
Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?

Kane wrote
No, and that IS the problem. It works exactly as its supposed to. Which
brings in assholes like you. Though I doubt YOU could pass the first
checks, given your DV conviction. Most states will not allow that in an
applicant's past. Though you might talk your way through if you could
convince them of your relative "innocence" that you've claimed here.

You're saying that to conform to the license they must meet
statutory requirement, but then you describe how the
agencies OVERRIDE those statutory requirements to
turn people down AFTER THEY'RE LICENSED
based on personality or personal judgements.

WHO exactly gets to "play God" in this way?

Kane wrote snip!
They lack the proper attitude to keep children safe. They will not
commit to NOT using physical punishment, for instance. ON a child that's
already been physically abused? Typical ****heads.

Isn't that an ABSOLUTE requirement for foster contractors?


Kane wrote
They will not commit to NOT taking the child to the foster parent's
church. They will not commit to making the child available for
visitation with parents.
They have expressed to workers and trainers their distain for bio parents.
They do not have adequate resources to do the job. Personal resources.
Like patience, tolerance for various aspects of the child and his or her
heritage.
One of my pet hates for years was relatives...who I REFUSED TO
HELP...who, when asked by CPS to foster a group of sibs would agree to
foster THE WHITE ONES (Like themselves) but not the brothers and sisters
of color. Such mixed sib groups tend to be common in CPS client families.
I as much as told them to kiss my butt when they asked for my help.

Greg wrote
Your accusations that these "complainers" would
short change the kids have what proof exactly?

Kane wrote
Lots of familiarity with CPS, and a few years working FOR A FOSTER
PARENT ASSOCIATION doing contract work. I know of which I speak.

In other words you don't know diddly squat.

Greg wrote
ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!

Kane wrote
How many were there? Did you notice any number mentioned? Do you know
anything about the media? Any number over two can be, for the desired
effect, 'a group of...' Man you are stupid.

Greg wrote
Isn't your motivation for smearing these
complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?

Kane wrote
Well, I sat and looked at that for awhile, and I couldn't find a
motivation of my own beyond my desire for children to NOT be in the
hands of such cretins that I knew with exactly the same kind of hogwash
barely disguised self interested complaints.
Did you see a single instance of them being concerned for the children?
snip!
Now what would be my "motivation" for my comments about complaining FPs
like this bunch?
Could it be I can smell a rat?
Let me explain. When Ron, or someone of his superior ethics complains
about CPS, I listen. And such people invariably complain about the
shortcomings that WORK AGAINST THE CHILDS best interest from the FPs
point of view. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but I respect their
view. This was a pack of whining ****ants reminiscent of you, Greg.

Greg wrote
Is that a smart PR move Kane?

Kane wrote
When you [e.d.]ed the little girl did her mother help?
snip!

You filibuster, grandstand and lobby, yet
when somebody calls you a PR guy you
are so offended you make false accusations
of child molestation?

Being a PR guy is THAT onerous??

Greegor wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
agency butt than any actual problems.

Kane wrote
Yep. It's rather common for those that have problems
with authority to make such claims.

"They wanted me to bring the child in for visitation with their parents,
HAH!" and similar bitches.

Greg wrote
Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
LICENSED but passed over.

Kane wrote
Yep. And I pointed out why that happens. It's basically impossible if
someone has no background or issues that would patently disqualify them
from applying to be foster parents to turn them down. Hence they get the
full treatment, including training, BG checks (crim, financial, health,
mental health, home) but because they are ****ants that want to do it
THEIR WAY, which often consists of hostility toward BIO PARENTS, you
stupid ****ant, the agency prefers NOT to use them.
They want to testify in court, they want to **** up the system as best
they can, and it would not surprise me if not a few of them were YOUR
cronies, Greg.

Greg wrote
If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
why were they LICENSED?

Kane wrote
Because they cannot be refused for other than already stated statutory
limits on who can and cannot be a foster parent. If they are clean, they
will be certified.

Major conflicts arise.

Because you are simple minded.

You're saying they can't be refused except
for statutory requirements,

Roughly, yes. You have got it.

yet you are confirming that they
are being refused nonetheless for things that ARE
outside of statutory requirements.

No. The state is given the right to use or not use someone's services.
They cannot refuse someone REQUESTING TO BE CONSIDERED.

And that is ALL I've said. You are trying to add more.

This would seem to
be a violation of law and grounds for a civil rights law suit
under US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1985
violation of civil rights and conspiracy to violate same.

Nope.

If you apply for a driver's license, unless you cannot pass the tests
and requirements you cannot be refused.

A police officer can remove your right to drive pretty easily, and it's
legal.

You can apply for foster certification, and if you pass all the tests
and requirements, you will be certified.

If the state does not want to USE your services, they are within the law
to refuse to place children with you. And they actually do NOT have to
even state a reason. In fact, to avoid suit, they usually will NOT.

Greg wrote
Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?

Kane wrote
No, and that IS the problem. It works exactly as its supposed to. Which
brings in assholes like you. Though I doubt YOU could pass the first
checks, given your DV conviction. Most states will not allow that in an
applicant's past. Though you might talk your way through if you could
convince them of your relative "innocence" that you've claimed here.

You're saying that to conform to the license they must meet
statutory requirement,

Yes. Just as you do to get a driver's license. That does not mean a
dealer has to sell you a car, if he does not wish to.

but then you describe how the
agencies OVERRIDE those statutory requirements to
turn people down AFTER THEY'RE LICENSED
based on personality or personal judgements.

No, they are not overriding anything. The certification says one MAY
foster, not that one CAN foster. The choice is entirely the state's.

Society awards you a license to cut hair. You meet all the requirements.
You have opened shop.

No one from society is required to come to you for a haircut NO MATTER
HOW QUALIFIED YOU THINK YOU ARE.

WHO exactly gets to "play God" in this way?

The people that have to live with the decision. Sort of like the rest of
us.

Kane wrote snip!
They lack the proper attitude to keep children safe. They will not
commit to NOT using physical punishment, for instance. ON a child that's
already been physically abused? Typical ****heads.

Isn't that an ABSOLUTE requirement for foster contractors?

Yes, they must commit to not using physical discipline. So?

You still don't get it?

Kane wrote
They will not commit to NOT taking the child to the foster parent's
church. They will not commit to making the child available for
visitation with parents.
They have expressed to workers and trainers their distain for bio parents.
They do not have adequate resources to do the job. Personal resources.
Like patience, tolerance for various aspects of the child and his or her
heritage.
One of my pet hates for years was relatives...who I REFUSED TO
HELP...who, when asked by CPS to foster a group of sibs would agree to
foster THE WHITE ONES (Like themselves) but not the brothers and sisters
of color. Such mixed sib groups tend to be common in CPS client families.
I as much as told them to kiss my butt when they asked for my help.

Greg wrote
Your accusations that these "complainers" would
short change the kids have what proof exactly?

Kane wrote
Lots of familiarity with CPS, and a few years working FOR A FOSTER
PARENT ASSOCIATION doing contract work. I know of which I speak.

In other words you don't know diddly squat.

On the contrary. You don't understand "diddly squat."

Greg wrote
ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!

Kane wrote
How many were there? Did you notice any number mentioned? Do you know
anything about the media? Any number over two can be, for the desired
effect, 'a group of...' Man you are stupid.

Greg wrote
Isn't your motivation for smearing these
complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?

Kane wrote
Well, I sat and looked at that for awhile, and I couldn't find a
motivation of my own beyond my desire for children to NOT be in the
hands of such cretins that I knew with exactly the same kind of hogwash
barely disguised self interested complaints.
Did you see a single instance of them being concerned for the children?
snip!
Now what would be my "motivation" for my comments about complaining FPs
like this bunch?
Could it be I can smell a rat?
Let me explain. When Ron, or someone of his superior ethics complains
about CPS, I listen. And such people invariably complain about the
shortcomings that WORK AGAINST THE CHILDS best interest from the FPs
point of view. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but I respect their
view. This was a pack of whining ****ants reminiscent of you, Greg.

Greg wrote
Is that a smart PR move Kane?

Kane wrote
When you [e.d.]ed the little girl did her mother help?
snip!

You filibuster,

How can I filibuster in writing?

grandstand and lobby,

Here?

yet
when somebody calls you a PR guy you
are so offended

I'm not offended. Should I be?

You simply asked a question.

I answered in the negative a couple times already but you ignore that to
keep your hapless argument going.

you make false accusations
of child molestation?

I didn't claim that you made false accusations by asking a question. Why
are you claiming I am doing so by asking a question?

Being a PR guy is THAT onerous??

I don't think so, but I would not know for sure, not being one.

But thanks for asking.

When you ****ed the little girl did her mother help?

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

You're saying they can't be refused except
for statutory requirements,

Roughly, yes. You have got it.

yet you are confirming that they
are being refused nonetheless for things that ARE
outside of statutory requirements.

No. The state is given the right to use or not use someone's services.
They cannot refuse someone REQUESTING TO BE CONSIDERED.

And that is ALL I've said. You are trying to add more.

This would seem to
be a violation of law and grounds for a civil rights law suit
under US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1985
violation of civil rights and conspiracy to violate same.

Nope.

Yup, Agency short circuiting of a statutory process
is blatantly a due process violation.

From what you've described, attitude and personal bias
is a pretty big part of whether they get used.
(Agency butt kissing in other words.)
(Do you think agency sicofants don't get priority?)

They'll be sued and have to pay out.
In the meantime they are sure helping their
PR image!

The "shortage of fosters" stuff is exposed!

Greegor wrote:
You're saying they can't be refused except
for statutory requirements,
Roughly, yes. You have got it.

yet you are confirming that they
are being refused nonetheless for things that ARE
outside of statutory requirements.
No. The state is given the right to use or not use someone's services.
They cannot refuse someone REQUESTING TO BE CONSIDERED.

And that is ALL I've said. You are trying to add more.

This would seem to
be a violation of law and grounds for a civil rights law suit
under US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1985
violation of civil rights and conspiracy to violate same.
Nope.

Yup,

Nope. There is no statutory process for requiring the state to place a
child with any particular person that comes to be certified as a foster
parent. It is solely at the discretion of the state.

Agency short circuiting of a statutory process
is blatantly a due process violation.

Nope. The best you could do in such an argument is to go after the state
if they refused to accept an application, and then refused to give a
certification if the person met the standard prerequisites.

The next step, the choice of whether or not to place a child with a
particular person is NOT IN STATUTE.

If you think it is, and you claim it is, then you must produce something
that supports your claim.

You screams and rants are old news, Greg. You've done this for years.

You've claimed the US Constitution says things it doesn't. You've tried
to expand case law to a broader application than the findings provided.

You are either delusional, a liar, or more dedicated to ignorance and
stupidity than even I thought you were if you think you can make this
current lying rant fly.

But, prove me wrong. Provide us with a statute that says a certified
foster parent MUST BE GIVEN A FOSTER CHILD.

And that to not do so is a violation of statute and "due process."

What "due process" is violated by the state deciding not to place a
child with someone?

From what you've described, attitude and personal bias
is a pretty big part of whether they get used.

Or good professional judgment based precisely on what information I
provided and you carefully have left OUT of this post so no one can see
how you are lying and how empty your argument.

(Agency butt kissing in other words.)

In other words, you think that foster parents that fight the agency is
better for the child?

(Do you think agency sicofants don't get priority?)

It's 'sycophants,' Greg. For **** sake get a editor with a spell
checker, at least. They are cheap to free. If you wish I'll point you to
one. And you keep misspelling this same word again and again. What is
effecting your memory?

As to your question, Yes, they get priority, but not for being suck ups.
They get it for doing good work and keeping the child safe.

In fact there are many foster parents that spend a good deal of time
criticizing their agencies' workers, other staff, admin, etc.

Yet they get a long line of children coming to them because they are
good at what they do.

Have you no memory of Ron's comments about CPS? He is not in love with
them. He simply accepts reality about them. And continues to do a good
job fostering.

They'll be sued and have to pay out.

It's been tried. Did not work. No law, no statute exists to my knowledge
that supports your claim that not placing a child is a violation of due
process or the foster parent's rights.

In the meantime they are sure helping their
PR image!

Tells you how much they actually care when it comes to the concern they
have for the best placements possible for children.


The "shortage of fosters" stuff is exposed!


The shortage of foster homes that are acceptable safe places for
children is the issue.

The city, for instance, if filled with plumbers. Are YOU required to
work your way through them all as your plumbing needs repairs over the
years, or are you allowed to, without violating their 'rights," pick and
chose as you think best?

A lot of the FP complainers have had children in their homes, and
presented the very kinds of behaviors YOU and your cronies have
complained about.

They present as being more interested in THEIR issues than the child's
and the child's families.

One of the commonest things I've seen for NOT using a foster parent is
that when they did have foster children they were NOT reliable about
having the child available for visitations with their parents. That will
kill a worker's interest in placement with that foster home very quickly.

The whiners you wish to use to unethically attack CPS for DOING A GOOD
JOB IN PLACEMENT, are if I don't miss my guess, in it for the money.

That suggests they would short the kids.

You have proof otherwise, do you?

Let's see that proof and statutes you refer to, and a clear legal
description of just what due process is owed a volunteer worker with CPS
(which is what the foster contract is, a 'volunteer' contract...UNLESS
THEY ARE RUNNING A GROUP HOME).

Anti up, ****ant.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)