Dimwits claim that parents aren't likely to injure or kill their children

Kane, Do you understand the stats now?

Remember, YOU titled this thread
"Dimwits claim that parents aren't likely to injure or kill their
children"
so who's the dimwit NOW, Kane?

Do you admit you MISINTERPRETED the numbers?

Or should I use harsher language?
Perhaps something more in keeping with your style?
"Dimwits claim that parents aren't likely to injure or kill their
children"

Eh?

Doug wrote:
NCANDS, however, has the one that shows how risk and abuse are reported.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/index.htm

You'll notice this is a US Department of HUMAN SERVICES source.

Yep. NCANDS is maintained by USDHHS.

If you would care to research a bit on your claim you'd do not better than
to look to the central authority that accumulates the data, analysis it
and publishes it. The subject, of course, would be Victimization, Types
of Maltreatment, link on the page referenced in the above link:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...hree.htm#types

That the majority of "substantiated" cases are substantiated on the basis of
risk of abuse/neglect rather than actual abuse/neglect is shown throughout
Child Maltreatment, 2004, that you cite. In context of how cases are
substantiated, the subject, of course, would be Investigation and Findings.

Do a browser page search on "risk of abuse" ...you'll get nothing. Then
try "risk" and you'll see only references to risk of being re-offended.

"Risk" appears hundreds of times throughout the "Child Maltreatment 2004:
Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System"
volume you cite. The word is used repeatedly in reference to substantiation
findings, unsubstantiated findings, foster care abuse, and many, many other
categories. "Risk of" abuse or neglect is in the actual definations of
substantiated and unsubstantiated findings. "Risk" is used to define what a
child "victims" and "non-victims" are (a "victim" is a child who is
substantiated as being "at risk of" maltreatment...a "nonvictim" is a child
who is unsubstantiated because CPS could find no credible evidence to
SUSPECT that the child was at "RISK" of maltreatment).

Then here's the table on types of abuse. Show me where "at risk of abuse"
is lumped in with any one of the abuses listed.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...4/table3_5.htm

Risk of abuse/neglect is lumped together with actual abuse/neglect in all
categories, since substantiated or unsubstantied findings are based on
EITHER risk of maltreatment OR actual maltreatment. The majority of
substantiated findings involve "risk of abuse/neglect."

If you want to be shown, look throughout the Child Maltreatment publication.
Start with investigation findings and the very defination of those findings.

And here is the ONLY chart where "Risk" is mentioned, and it's to show the
Risk Ratio of children that were INDEED re abused.

ALL NCANDS charts that show "victims", "non-victims," "substantiated" and
unsubstantiated findings include determinations made, in the majority, on
the basis of risk.

It's not a count of "at risk." These children WERE at risk in the ratio
seen and they WERE abused.

Nope. These children were either at risk of maltreatment or actually
maltreated. The majority were at risk of maltreatment, which leads to a
substantiated finding and labels the child subject a "victim."

While I'm listing charts for you I thought I'd include this one...the very
one you ****ants are so terrified of because it PROVES that among those
that offend against children PARENTS AND RELATIVES AND ASSOCIATES ARE THE
LARGEST GROUP OF OFFENDERS.

90.9% in fact. And that's without boyfriends. 0:-

Yep, because less than 1% of the child population lives with foster carers
and other substitute providers. If abuse rates were equal, then 99% of
maltreatment would committed by parents and relatives. Since children are
maltreated in foster care at eight to ten times the rate of the general
population, 90% of maltreatment occurs among 99% of the child population.

9% of overall child maltreatment occurring to 1% of the child population is
a telling measurement of how abusive state custody is to children.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_20.htm

And now for another one to **** you ****ants off:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_21.htm
Yep that's right. The percentage of children in foster care abused. (and
we can't even tell if the foster parent did the abuse. Only that they were
in foster care at the time.....Doug's nemesis...R R R R R)

That rate per 1,000 is many times the rate of abuse in families.

Columns are years 2000 through 2004 (from states) with figures as
percentages of the total of children in foster care only on last row.

Number states Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
Nat Ave % victims 0.64 0.51 0.49 0.38 0.36

Notice that while the number of states reporting has gone UP, the number
meeting the standard has skyrocketed. And the average percentage of
abuse...down down down down, from .64 to .36.

You can dodge, but you can't hide, Greg. That is you and the other
propaganda peddling pusillanimous ****ants. And that, child, was
"alliteration."

The rate of "acceptable" child abuse in foster care has gone down.
Interestingly, the ideal rate (acceptable rate) is much higher than the rate
of actual maltreatment in the general population. In short, foster care is
being measured by standards much lower than families.

Greegor wrote:
Kane, Do you understand the stats now?

Remember, YOU titled this thread
"Dimwits claim that parents aren't likely to injure or kill their
children"
so who's the dimwit NOW, Kane?

Do you admit you MISINTERPRETED the numbers?

Or should I use harsher language?
Perhaps something more in keeping with your style?
"Dimwits claim that parents aren't likely to injure or kill their
children"

Eh?

You hapless twits having proven anything but that you lie.

As for parents that kill and injure their children and the claim that
all you folks want is to enforce YOUR beliefs that parents should raise
the children and government has no business interfering, try this on for
size.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...page=swan_19_1




Doug wrote:
NCANDS, however, has the one that shows how risk and abuse are reported.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/index.htm

You'll notice this is a US Department of HUMAN SERVICES source.
Yep. NCANDS is maintained by USDHHS.

If you would care to research a bit on your claim you'd do not better than
to look to the central authority that accumulates the data, analysis it
and publishes it. The subject, of course, would be Victimization, Types
of Maltreatment, link on the page referenced in the above link:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...hree.htm#types
That the majority of "substantiated" cases are substantiated on the basis of
risk of abuse/neglect rather than actual abuse/neglect is shown throughout
Child Maltreatment, 2004, that you cite. In context of how cases are
substantiated, the subject, of course, would be Investigation and Findings.

Do a browser page search on "risk of abuse" ...you'll get nothing. Then
try "risk" and you'll see only references to risk of being re-offended.
"Risk" appears hundreds of times throughout the "Child Maltreatment 2004:
Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System"
volume you cite. The word is used repeatedly in reference to substantiation
findings, unsubstantiated findings, foster care abuse, and many, many other
categories. "Risk of" abuse or neglect is in the actual definations of
substantiated and unsubstantiated findings. "Risk" is used to define what a
child "victims" and "non-victims" are (a "victim" is a child who is
substantiated as being "at risk of" maltreatment...a "nonvictim" is a child
who is unsubstantiated because CPS could find no credible evidence to
SUSPECT that the child was at "RISK" of maltreatment).

Then here's the table on types of abuse. Show me where "at risk of abuse"
is lumped in with any one of the abuses listed.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...4/table3_5.htm
Risk of abuse/neglect is lumped together with actual abuse/neglect in all
categories, since substantiated or unsubstantied findings are based on
EITHER risk of maltreatment OR actual maltreatment. The majority of
substantiated findings involve "risk of abuse/neglect."

If you want to be shown, look throughout the Child Maltreatment publication.
Start with investigation findings and the very defination of those findings.

And here is the ONLY chart where "Risk" is mentioned, and it's to show the
Risk Ratio of children that were INDEED re abused.
ALL NCANDS charts that show "victims", "non-victims," "substantiated" and
unsubstantiated findings include determinations made, in the majority, on
the basis of risk.

It's not a count of "at risk." These children WERE at risk in the ratio
seen and they WERE abused.
Nope. These children were either at risk of maltreatment or actually
maltreated. The majority were at risk of maltreatment, which leads to a
substantiated finding and labels the child subject a "victim."

While I'm listing charts for you I thought I'd include this one...the very
one you ****ants are so terrified of because it PROVES that among those
that offend against children PARENTS AND RELATIVES AND ASSOCIATES ARE THE
LARGEST GROUP OF OFFENDERS.

90.9% in fact. And that's without boyfriends. 0:-
Yep, because less than 1% of the child population lives with foster carers
and other substitute providers. If abuse rates were equal, then 99% of
maltreatment would committed by parents and relatives. Since children are
maltreated in foster care at eight to ten times the rate of the general
population, 90% of maltreatment occurs among 99% of the child population.

9% of overall child maltreatment occurring to 1% of the child population is
a telling measurement of how abusive state custody is to children.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_20.htm

And now for another one to **** you ****ants off:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_21.htm
Yep that's right. The percentage of children in foster care abused. (and
we can't even tell if the foster parent did the abuse. Only that they were
in foster care at the time.....Doug's nemesis...R R R R R)
That rate per 1,000 is many times the rate of abuse in families.

Columns are years 2000 through 2004 (from states) with figures as
percentages of the total of children in foster care only on last row.

Number states Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
Nat Ave % victims 0.64 0.51 0.49 0.38 0.36

Notice that while the number of states reporting has gone UP, the number
meeting the standard has skyrocketed. And the average percentage of
abuse...down down down down, from .64 to .36.

You can dodge, but you can't hide, Greg. That is you and the other
propaganda peddling pusillanimous ****ants. And that, child, was
"alliteration."
The rate of "acceptable" child abuse in foster care has gone down.
Interestingly, the ideal rate (acceptable rate) is much higher than the rate
of actual maltreatment in the general population. In short, foster care is
being measured by standards much lower than families.



--
"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:
Can't you stick to the subject, Kane?

All of these years I never noticed that the
stats included "at risk of abuse" kids
inseperably from kids who were actually abused.

Come on Kane, ADMIT IT! You didn't catch
that until recently YOURSELF!

It's already apparent from your reactions.

It's printed right IN the stats report itself!
Check it out and admit to the huge
difference that the word "OR" makes
in that context.

I strongly suggest that you jump on
this bandwagon about the power and meaning
of the word "OR" in those reports, or else
most of what you say is built on
an unstable geological substrata.

You can write up page after page of stuff
but it will all be brought to its knees by
a simple two letter word "OR".

Greegor wrote:
Kane:
Can't you stick to the subject, Kane?

The subject of "Dimwits claim that parents aren't likely to injure or
kill their children" or one that you or Doug wants to drag the argument
away to?

0:-

All of these years I never noticed that the
stats included "at risk of abuse" kids
inseperably from kids who were actually abused.

That's funny. I can find separate stats for both. Why can't you?




Come on Kane, ADMIT IT! You didn't catch
that until recently YOURSELF!

You are wrong. I have argued what at risk means and posted the actual
circumstances involved in such judicial findings in cases.

I and others, including YOU ****ants, have argued this many times.
Remember the Maine case? You folks thought things were fine with
"clutter." We pointed out the risks inherent.

Because the kids hadn't been SERIOUSLY injured yet you minimized A Chain
Saw NEXT TO A WOOD STOVE IN WINTER, as well as a broken glass top coffee
table with toddlers in the house.

It's already apparent from your reactions.

You are lying. Nothing is "apparent" because you are lying. What is true
is that this is very old subject matter, Greg. Try a google search on
the ascps newsgroup. We have discussed it many times.

It's printed right IN the stats report itself!

You must have just awakened.

Check it out and admit to the huge
difference that the word "OR" makes
in that context.

You are, as Doug was, grasping at straws. You have NO understanding of
how cases are defined as at risk.

http://www.de.state.az.us/dcyf/cps/guide.asp
"Neglect exists when parents, guardians or custodians place children at
substantial risk of harm by not providing children with adequate food,
clothing, shelter, supervision or medical care. Neglect includes:
- parents leaving a child with no one to care for them or leaving a
child with a caretaker and not returning or making other arrangements
for their care.
- Allowing children to live in a hazardous environments.
- Using a child for material gain including forcing a child to
panhandle, steal or perform other illegal activities."

Tell us, Greg, that you'd leave children in such circumstances without
an investigation and a determination the child was at risk of harm. Go
ahead.

All "risk of harm" means you stupid patronized Doug victim is that
ACTUAL CONDITIONS have or can harm the child.

http://hss.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/d...se/default.htm
"Physical Neglect is defined, as the failure to provide for a child's
physical survival needs to the extent that there is harm or risk of harm
to the child's health or safety. This may include, but is not limited to
abandonment, lack of supervision, life endangering physical hygiene,
lack of adequate nutrition that places the child below the normal growth
curve, lack of shelter, lack of medical or dental that results in health
threatening conditions, and the inability to meet basic clothing needs
of a child. In its most severe form, physical neglect may result in
great bodily harm or death."

He's got you by the semantics, you stupid little twit.

And you are buying.

Look at that list. If a child is injured as a result of those things
then it's also a "risk" case. If he has not been injure YET, it is still
a risk case, stupid.

Would you say that if a child is not being fed, there is a risk of
malnutrition? Lack of medical care, risk of health and life? Lack of
clothing, a risk of freezing death in winter? Lack of supervision risk
of being taken by others and abused or killed? (Please refer to the Wal
Mart parking lot thread)? Lack of shelter not risk?

And it is extremely rare a child is found to be 'at risk' without them
already NOT having been injured in some way.

You have been lied to stupid, and you love it.

I strongly suggest that you jump on
this bandwagon about the power and meaning
of the word "OR" in those reports, or else
most of what you say is built on
an unstable geological substrata.

Nonsense. Define what that "OR" means in terms of the citation above?

He is pretending that "risk" is not real. It is, of course.

He pretends that if a child is judged at risk then no harm has occurred
so no action should be taken. The same Doug that has criticized CPS for
NOT taking action when a child was at risk.

Take finding a child in a setting where a convicted sex abuser is
present and has access to the child.

The child may not have been proven to have been sexually abused, and may
even not have been. Do you feel that the child should be left there and
no investigation lodged, and no data collected defining the child as
being at risk of harm?

Just how stupid ARE you, Greg, and just how desperate that you'd swallow
Doug's hogwash yet again?

Stop pretending that risk of harm isn't really risk of very real harm.

It is ABUSIVE TO LEAVE A CHILD IN SITUATIONS WHERE THEY ARE AT RISK OF
THE ABOVE ENDANGERMENTS, STUPID.

That is one reason to count them together.

YOU have screamed about, or should have, children being sexually abused
by people YOU think create a risk to the child just by their sexual
orientation or being a foster parent.

Yet there is no evidence that either condition predisposes people to
abuse children.

There IS FOR THE CONDITIONS LISTED AT RISK OF HARM.

Are you aware, for instance, that a child that has been abused, or is a
family where child abuse occurs, even if that child is unharmed NOW, but
has been harmed in the past is judged AT RISK OF HARM? Too complicated
for you?

You are, as usual, trying to have things both ways, as long as it serves
YOUR sick purposes.

You can write up page after page of stuff
but it will all be brought to its knees by
a simple two letter word "OR".

Oh? The OR is what sinks it when one looks at the facts BEHIND the
subject being discussed.

Doug HIDES the content by avoidance.

As him, you stupid little twit if HE WOULD LEAVE CHILDREN IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN IF AT THE MOMENT THEY HAD NOT BEEN HARMED.

Go ahead, ask, stupid.

I want YOU TWO to complete your sick little dance in public.

Together.

0:-

REF: (before you ask me to prove my statements above, READ THE ****ING
PROOFS PROVIDED BY THE CITATIONS BELOW INSTEAD OF SNIPPING THEM, YOU
****WIT.)

http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/EA/GovRel/leg1002/RAR.pdf
"Step 5 - Investigative Risk Assessment
The investigative risk assessment answers the question, “What is the
risk of future
abuse and neglect based on information collected during the
investigation?” The
Legislative Risk Assessment Report for FY 2002 Page 7
November 1, 2002
investigative risk assessment again examines the 16 risk factors that
practice and
research have shown are most predictive of future abuse and neglect without
intervention into the current situation. The 16 factors are the same as
those
examined in the intake risk assessment. Those factors include:
1. history of child abuse and neglect
2. child’s vulnerability/self-protection
3. child’s special needs/behavior problems
4. substance abuse
5. mental, emotional, intellectual or physical impairments
6. parenting skills/expectations of child
7. empathy, nurturing, bonding
8. history of violence or sexual assault
9. protection of child by non-abusive caregiver
10. recognition of problem/motivation to change
11. level of cooperation with intervention
12. stress on family
13. social support for family
14. economic resources of family
15. domestic violence
16. history of CA/N as a child"

http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/fam...rotection.html
"NEGLECT
Child neglect is the chronic failure of a parent, guardian or custodian
to provide a child under 18 with adequate food, clothing, medical care,
shelter and supervision that creates a substantial risk of harm to the
child.

Behavioral indicators of neglect

* Begging or stealing food
* Falling asleep in school, lethargic
* Poor school attendance, frequent tardiness
* Chronic hunger
* Dull, apathetic appearance
* Running away from home
* Repeated acts of vandalism
* Reports no caretaker in the home
* Assumes adult responsibilities
* Habit disorders, such as biting, rocking, head banging, thumb
sucking in an older child
* Poor peer relationships
* Behavioral extremes, overly demanding; withdrawn or aggressive
* Self-destructive behavior, remaining oblivious to hazards and risks
* Chronic academic underachievement
"

http://www.state.tn.us/youth/policie...eci sions.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/DH...e_121787_7.pdf
"Risk, Needs, and Safety Assessment
Safety Assessment
· Caretaker (CT) caused or threatened serious harm to children currently.
· CT previously maltreated children in care and severity of previous
maltreatment
or CT previous response and current circumstances suggest child safety is a
concern.
· CT violent or out of control with children.
· CT has negative or unrealistic expectations of child.
· CT did not protect child.
· Explanation of injuries not probable/credible.
· CT refuses access to child, family flight risk, children’s whereabouts
unknown.
· Child is fearful of CT or people in or having access to home.
· CT does not provide adequate supervision of child.
· Child’s need for food, clothing, shelter, and/or medical or mental
health care not
being met.
· Living conditions hazardous based on child’s age and functioning.
· CT’s substance abuse affects how child is cared for.
· Sexual abuse is suspected and child is unsafe in circumstances.
· CT’s emotional stability affects how child is cared for."




--
"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:
If the Mother or Father sinks in the pond they aren't witches.

That would be your abuser apologist opinion then?

Why did you snip the following, eh? A little embarrassment for child
abusers and your defense of them?

Which of the following indicators of abuse or risk would you say amounts
to prosecuting supposed witches (non abusers)?



http://www.de.state.az.us/dcyf/cps/guide.asp
"Neglect exists when parents, guardians or custodians place children at
substantial risk of harm by not providing children with adequate food,
clothing, shelter, supervision or medical care. Neglect includes:
- parents leaving a child with no one to care for them or leaving a
child with a caretaker and not returning or making other arrangements
for their care.
- Allowing children to live in a hazardous environments.
- Using a child for material gain including forcing a child to
panhandle, steal or perform other illegal activities."

Tell us, Greg, that you'd leave children in such circumstances without
an investigation and a determination the child was at risk of harm. Go
ahead.

All "risk of harm" means you stupid patronized Doug victim is that
ACTUAL CONDITIONS have or can harm the child.

http://hss.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/d...se/default.htm
"Physical Neglect is defined, as the failure to provide for a child's
physical survival needs to the extent that there is harm or risk of harm
to the child's health or safety. This may include, but is not limited to
abandonment, lack of supervision, life endangering physical hygiene,
lack of adequate nutrition that places the child below the normal growth
curve, lack of shelter, lack of medical or dental that results in health
threatening conditions, and the inability to meet basic clothing needs
of a child. In its most severe form, physical neglect may result in
great bodily harm or death."

He's got you by the semantics, you stupid little twit.

And you are buying.

Look at that list. If a child is injured as a result of those things
then it's also a "risk" case. If he has not been injure YET, it is still
a risk case, stupid.

Would you say that if a child is not being fed, there is a risk of
malnutrition? Lack of medical care, risk of health and life? Lack of
clothing, a risk of freezing death in winter? Lack of supervision risk
of being taken by others and abused or killed? (Please refer to the Wal
Mart parking lot thread)? Lack of shelter not risk?

And it is extremely rare a child is found to be 'at risk' without them
already NOT having been injured in some way.

You have been lied to stupid, and you love it.

I strongly suggest that you jump on
this bandwagon about the power and meaning
of the word "OR" in those reports, or else
most of what you say is built on
an unstable geological substrata.

Nonsense. Define what that "OR" means in terms of the citation above?

He is pretending that "risk" is not real. It is, of course.

He pretends that if a child is judged at risk then no harm has occurred
so no action should be taken. The same Doug that has criticized CPS for
NOT taking action when a child was at risk.

Take finding a child in a setting where a convicted sex abuser is
present and has access to the child.

The child may not have been proven to have been sexually abused, and may
even not have been. Do you feel that the child should be left there and
no investigation lodged, and no data collected defining the child as
being at risk of harm?

Just how stupid ARE you, Greg, and just how desperate that you'd swallow
Doug's hogwash yet again?

Stop pretending that risk of harm isn't really risk of very real harm.

It is ABUSIVE TO LEAVE A CHILD IN SITUATIONS WHERE THEY ARE AT RISK OF
THE ABOVE ENDANGERMENTS, STUPID.

That is one reason to count them together.

YOU have screamed about, or should have, children being sexually abused
by people YOU think create a risk to the child just by their sexual
orientation or being a foster parent.

Yet there is no evidence that either condition predisposes people to
abuse children.

There IS FOR THE CONDITIONS LISTED AT RISK OF HARM.

Are you aware, for instance, that a child that has been abused, or is a
family where child abuse occurs, even if that child is unharmed NOW, but
has been harmed in the past is judged AT RISK OF HARM? Too complicated
for you?

You are, as usual, trying to have things both ways, as long as it serves
YOUR sick purposes.

You can write up page after page of stuff
but it will all be brought to its knees by
a simple two letter word "OR".

Oh? The OR is what sinks it when one looks at the facts BEHIND the
subject being discussed.

Doug HIDES the content by avoidance.

As him, you stupid little twit if HE WOULD LEAVE CHILDREN IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN IF AT THE MOMENT THEY HAD NOT BEEN HARMED.

Go ahead, ask, stupid.

I want YOU TWO to complete your sick little dance in public.

Together.

0:-

REF: (before you ask me to prove my statements above, READ THE ****ING
PROOFS PROVIDED BY THE CITATIONS BELOW INSTEAD OF SNIPPING THEM, YOU
****WIT.)

http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/EA/GovRel/leg1002/RAR.pdf
"Step 5 - Investigative Risk Assessment
The investigative risk assessment answers the question, “What is the
risk of future
abuse and neglect based on information collected during the
investigation?” The
Legislative Risk Assessment Report for FY 2002 Page 7
November 1, 2002
investigative risk assessment again examines the 16 risk factors that
practice and
research have shown are most predictive of future abuse and neglect without
intervention into the current situation. The 16 factors are the same as
those
examined in the intake risk assessment. Those factors include:
1. history of child abuse and neglect
2. child’s vulnerability/self-protection
3. child’s special needs/behavior problems
4. substance abuse
5. mental, emotional, intellectual or physical impairments
6. parenting skills/expectations of child
7. empathy, nurturing, bonding
8. history of violence or sexual assault
9. protection of child by non-abusive caregiver
10. recognition of problem/motivation to change
11. level of cooperation with intervention
12. stress on family
13. social support for family
14. economic resources of family
15. domestic violence
16. history of CA/N as a child"

http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/fam...rotection.html
"NEGLECT
Child neglect is the chronic failure of a parent, guardian or custodian
to provide a child under 18 with adequate food, clothing, medical care,
shelter and supervision that creates a substantial risk of harm to the
child.

Behavioral indicators of neglect

* Begging or stealing food
* Falling asleep in school, lethargic
* Poor school attendance, frequent tardiness
* Chronic hunger
* Dull, apathetic appearance
* Running away from home
* Repeated acts of vandalism
* Reports no caretaker in the home
* Assumes adult responsibilities
* Habit disorders, such as biting, rocking, head banging, thumb
sucking in an older child
* Poor peer relationships
* Behavioral extremes, overly demanding; withdrawn or aggressive
* Self-destructive behavior, remaining oblivious to hazards and risks
* Chronic academic underachievement
"

http://www.state.tn.us/youth/policie...eci sions.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/DH...e_121787_7.pdf
"Risk, Needs, and Safety Assessment
Safety Assessment
· Caretaker (CT) caused or threatened serious harm to children currently.
· CT previously maltreated children in care and severity of previous
maltreatment
or CT previous response and current circumstances suggest child safety is a
concern.
· CT violent or out of control with children.
· CT has negative or unrealistic expectations of child.
· CT did not protect child.
· Explanation of injuries not probable/credible.
· CT refuses access to child, family flight risk, children’s whereabouts
unknown.
· Child is fearful of CT or people in or having access to home.
· CT does not provide adequate supervision of child.
· Child’s need for food, clothing, shelter, and/or medical or mental
health care not
being met.
· Living conditions hazardous based on child’s age and functioning.
· CT’s substance abuse affects how child is cared for.
· Sexual abuse is suspected and child is unsafe in circumstances.
· CT’s emotional stability affects how child is cared for."


--
"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 wrote
That would be your abuser apologist opinion then?

Huh?

Don't you mean parents "at risk of abusing"?

Is it apologizing to point out that you encourage
pre-emptive prosecution of non-criminals
for non-crime?

Isn't that UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Am I the apologist, or is the U.S. CONSTITUTION?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
That would be your abuser apologist opinion then?

Huh?

Don't you mean parents "at risk of abusing"?

No, I mean that you actively refuse to recognize abuse and condemn it as
it should be.

You thus encourage abusers. You hang out with abusers and swallow their
lies and continue to even after being shown evidence of their lies.

Is it apologizing to point out that you encourage
pre-emptive prosecution of non-criminals
for non-crime?

Nope. Because I do not. You lie, when you claim that I do.

I support both criminal and civil prosecution for crimes and violation
of civil statutes.

To claim I favor one over the other is YOUR lie, Greg.

But I'll provide you with a little truth about YOU, and your cronies.
YOU apologize for people that have abused their children but have not
done enough damage to them to put them in criminal court.

Isn't that UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Well you seem to be asking a rhetorical question. Is it?

Is it unconstitutional to investigate and prosecute violators civil
statutes, including those that deal with children and their rights to be
free of harm and potential harm?

Am I the apologist, or is the U.S. CONSTITUTION?

No, you.

Or if you prefer, prove otherwise to us.

Where in the Constitution does it discuss children and families?

And where does it give one class of people more rights than another class?

Enjoy the exercise, or run away with your tail, as usual, between you
legs, yipping like the little frightened cowardly puppy 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)

Kane having more fits of Megalomania wrote
Enjoy the exercise, or run away with your tail, as usual, between you
legs, yipping like the little frightened cowardly puppy you are.

Get over yourself.

You're anonymous, I am not.

Greegor wrote:
Kane having more fits of Megalomania wrote
Enjoy the exercise, or run away with your tail, as usual, between you
legs, yipping like the little frightened cowardly puppy you are.

Get over yourself.

You're anonymous, I am not.

I had no idea you were using your lack of anonymity as your excuse for
cowardly behavior. Tsk.

I thought it was one of your few redeeming qualities.

Kinda cute.

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)

No, genius, you are anonymous but calling others cowardly.

Duh?