If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:37:49 GMT, "Doug"
wrote: Kane writes: And watch Doug try despritely to diverge from the actual point of my reply and posts do avoid the truth. That he and his are a flock of ****ty little crappers that haven't an honest bone in their useless bodies. So far, Doug, you have stuck to your story of fatalies in foster care being the same as fatalities caused by foster caregivers. No such information is available. The chart in question said clearly, By Bio parents, and IN foster care. They were not being COMPARED, yet you continually, along with other fools use data that does not say what you claim it does to make a claim that foster caregivers have a higher rate of killing children than bio families do. Hi, Kane! My statement and the cited reference distinctly DID NOT say BY bio-parents. And they are charts that are NOT about who killed who but WHERE IT TOOK PLACE. Watch this develop folks. Those of you that have been down this road may want to kick back with a brewski and watch some TV. This is the usual crap from Doug, and his refusal to see the OTHER CHARTS THAT SHOW WHO THE PERPS ACTUALLY ARE. The references I cited provided data for fatalities due to abuse/neglect occurring overall in the general population (including foster care) and fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care. Yes, and that is relevant to the issue of who kills the most children in what way again? Did you miss the word "IN" yet AGAIN? Parse your last phrase carefully. Even YOU are agreeing with me once again. Children that die in foster care from abuse and neglect may well be dying, as I've pointed out so many times before, from the affects of injury or neglect received before going into foster care, that is from their own parents, or even from others. That particular chart is very carefully worded to NOT say foster carers are the perp. If you want the "identity of PERP data" you have to go to the chart that gives that information specifically "identity of PERP", not this chart that avoids naming the perp but serves your duplicitious purposes so nicely. IN care does NOT equate 1 to 1 that the death is caused BY the carer. It's a locale, not a perp by title. In Foster Care does not equate directly with by Foster Carer. But, think on this. Parent, with out saying "in family" means the parent was the perp, by any normal logical means of deducing the wording of the chart. Let's take a look at my now thrice-repeated statement with its citations. The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per 100,000. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child What it actually says, unless the page has a hidden portion only you know of is: "Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective services (CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care. Of these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the coroner's office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the States occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting." "Egregious" just means bad or offensive, (no argument there) and does not pertain to the numbers of, rates, or percentages. It's fluff, but we'll indulge the author by pointing out: It's also "egregious" that natural parents kill their children, no? More importantly: Notice, "1.5 percent in out of home placement." That means that parents, relatives and others, somebody other than foster parents, killed children how many percent of the occurances, Doug? How many? I think that 1.5% from 100% is 98.5 ****ing Percent DOUG. And out of home placement includes NON FOSTER CARERS. Do you consider this of no relevance? The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma But it does NOT say the foster carers killed the children. Some did, but not all, by far. Actually, what the citation also says, oh duplicitious one that hopes and prays no one will actually go look is: Percentage of Child Fatalities that Occurred in Foster Care 1.5 for 48 states reporting. Notice it says IN foster care, not by foster caregivers. This is not a perp chart. It is a locale chart. It isn't a chart of who killed who, this is a mortality chart...by ANY CAUSE AT ALL...with locales named not perps. Here is how the compilers, researchers I presume, comment on their own data chart, from the tiny URL you listed: "Percentage of fatalities that occurred in foster care is based on total fatalities in States that reported on fatalities in foster care. A "fatality" is not a murder. It can be, but it can be other causes of death. Hospitals have boards that review hospital fatalities. There are studies on traffic fatalities. There are charts of gun fatalities. The presumption that each of these restricts themselves to murder only is nonsense. They include accidents, acts of God (so called), negligence, AND murder. States that did not provide perpetrator relationship data are not included in this analysis I cited above. This table compares the number of child fatalities associated with foster care to all child fatalities. The first column lists all of the States and the second column lists the total number of fatalities. The third column reports the number of child fatalities from foster care according to CPS and the fourth reports child fatalities from other agencies for a grand total of foster care deaths in the fifth column. The last column gives a percentage of fatalities that occurred in foster care as compared to the total number of fatalities. Among the 48 States reporting, the percentage of fatalities in foster care was calculated to be 1.5 percent. " First sentence, "...fatalities occured in..." Not murders, not perps and victims, just deaths in a location. It would undoubtedly include those victims killed BY foster parents, but it is NOT exclusive to that population. Note that last line. " ...the percentage of fatalities in foster care..." still doesn't make the foster CARER the perp. This is a weep and wail chart, not useful for anything but to draw attention to the need to do MORE generally about children at risk from all causes, including foster care, but not exclusive of parental care failings as well. And finally, what's the percentage again of children who die IN foster care? Only 1.5 of all fatalities? Right? Asshole. 98.5% percent die OUTSIDE foster care. Let's look at the first reference for the mention of "by bio-parents" you insist is there. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child Okay, asshole, let's look at that page, and I'll paste a quote from it: "Parental Status of Perpetrators (Child File) Most child fatalities, 82.8 percent, were maltreated by their parent or parents (figure 5-2).4 Almost one-third (32.4%) of fatalities were perpetrated just by their mother.5 These percentages are consistent with the findings reported in previous years. " This is consistent with the chart I'm going to post for you, that I've posted before that IS what you claim, but not what you wish....the calculation of the estimated actual PERPS....foster and other caregivers vs PARENTS AND THOSE IN CAHOOTS WITH THEM. Looking down the USDHHS page referenced above, we come to the pertinent passage, which I quote exactly. And watch me pick it apart along the way: "For 2001, a national estimate of 1,300 child deaths at a rate of 1.81 children of every 100,000 children in the population died from abuse or neglect. Many States were able to supplement the automated data from the child welfare agency with statistics from other agencies in their States. Included in the reported 1,300 fatalities were 150 fatalities reported from such agencies as health departments and fatality review boards. "Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the child welfare agency are especially egregious. It does not say CAUSED BY THE STATE SUPERVISION, just in state supervision. While I no more forgive the state for being so negligent as to allow a child to die while in their care, I am aware some deaths are simply not preventable and I cut natural parents the same slack, but you wish to use this figure to somehow blame foster parents and or the state for killing children. Asshole. Child protective services (CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care. Of these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the coroner's office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the States occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting." Notice the "some type of out-of-home placement setting?" A setting, not a perp. Out-of-home, not exclusively foster placement. That does NOT establish the perp. In fact, if we are going to cut it to a truly fine point, to try to use this figures to find blame is pointless, for either parents or foster parents. Now crawfish and go back to "I'm just reporting the figures and leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions" or some similar bullhockey you like to pull on the unwary. Kane, where in this reference is there any mention of "by bio-parents"? I did not cite this particular chart in our most recent exchange. I simply pointed out the truth, this is NOT a perp identity chart and there IS such a chart that you have run around the end of countless time's in our debates and my challenges to you and your nonsense. THERE it is By Bio Parent, and lists ALL THE PERPS, not the locales. And for those that care I now offer the truth, not His Duplicitiousness' Bull****. The Perp Chart: (URL below) Table 4-4: Maltreatment Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship, 1999 DCDC Relationship of Number of Percentage Perpetrator to Victim Fatality Victims of Fatality Victims Male Parent and Other 5 1.1% * Unknown 12 2.7% Family Relative 20 4.5% * Other 25 5.7% Substitute Care- Provider(s) 27 6.1% Male Parent Only 47 10.7% * Female Parent- and Other 72 16.3% * Both Parents 94 21.3% * Female Parent Only 139 31.5% * --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 441 100.0% Kane: Note that of all perps only sub-care providers, which would include some foster parents but not only FPs, such as day care, is 6.1 percent. Notice that the percentage of fatalities by perp that are partners or parents or relatives that I've marked with *, totals 89.2% while the only possible categories, and that is stretching it a bit, that could include foster parents is Unknown, Other, and Sub care providers (the latter having to include all sub care providers NOT fosters such as day care providers, and inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment centers) comes to 10.8%. The results: Related and other with related: 89.2% Foster and all nonrelated unaffiliated with parents: 10.2% This was the clear indictation to me the charts you are touting as reason to indict foster parents as murderous thugs who kill children was not what you claimed it was. They still aren't. You still are a liar by misdirection, manipulation, and avoidance. . Learn to read and tell the truth at this URL from one of your favorite sources: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...99/table4d.htm There is no problems with differentiation between "in" and "by" because both populations are defined by "in." And that shows who murdered the child how again? Most especially pay attention to the fact fatalities are not exclusively killings by intent or neglect. Unproven and you won't admit it. ALL your claims are poisoned by that stubborn refusal to differentiate between IN an BY. The chart cited was not posted for such comparisions and you know it. The narrative cited does make a comparision. The exact breakdown in foster care among the 48 states reporting is provided in my second citation. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma And it is NOT a perp identity cite. The citations you offer and have always offered are not only weak for the premise you give but they are NOT even close to the issue at hand: are children safer with foster parents or with natural parents who are shown to be, by CPS, creating risk to the child? Comparing foster parents to all parents (and in fact the census figures used by the chart authors include "families" that have NO children) ALL children aren't put in foster care. The majority in foster care come from parents that CPS claims would have harmed them had they been left there, and the perp chart makes it damn clear that IS the case. If only CPS were omnipotent as you and cronies claim it should be. If CPS were omnipotent and prescent it would totally stop all child fatalities, and you prey on that impossibility and pretend that CPS needs reform in areas were it does not...in fact it needs MORE power in some areas, precisely the ones you want stripped from CPS, to be able to reduce child fatalities. You want to give to the police exclusive investigative powers and strip CPS of any power to persuade parents to reform. Police do not reduce child fatalities any more than they reduce drug use through The War on Drugs. The same principles that have proven to reduce drug use apply in improving the parenting abuse and neglect situation. Pursuasion with a stick and carrot approach. One can't offer the carrot and its benefits, in this instance, without using the stick to get the person to take a bite and see just how good it can be, and good for you. Considering that 60% or so of the families that meet with the stick, take a bite of the carrot, and get their kids back (the service plan, dummy, the service plan), I'd say it's working rather well, dispite some failures. It is CPS and CPS alone, barring changing demographics for other reasons, that is charged with reducing child abuse, neglect and fatalities, and given the barriers in their way, budget, assholes like you and your cronies that lie lie lie about it, they do a tremendous job YOU CAN'T DO AND FAILED AT, didn't you Doug? Didn't you? You couldn't deal with the reality of the messiness. Could you? You are a classic prissyassed overcontrolling ****up that left CPS to "expose" by pointing to things CPS cannot deal with for many valid acceptable reasons, and is not mandated to deal with by logic, but is forced to by statute. You are just another lowlife kneebreaker, but with a conman's smiling ingratiating slyness. You make me wanta puke. And in this instance we are discussing, the claim isn't even what you say it is. We aren't discussing up or down, but what The Plant's intent it. We most certainly were discussing up or down. Blah blah blah. YOU and A Plant are attempting to do that to divert from the truth. There are murderous parents out there, and there are far fewer murderous foster parents. It is EASY to spot a murderous foster parent, as they are under state scrutiny specifically because they are foster parents and known and listed with their agency. No such oversight exists for natural parents. Hence natural parents can and do kill more children by number and percentage. RATES tells us near to nothing as long as they are confined to LOCUS rather than identified PERPS. When you have a perp RATE let me know. And even then it's not going to be of much use because generally FOSTERS can't get away with murder and natural parents CAN. Difference in strength of oversight. That means, as the researchers surely know as indicated in their unwilliness to try and produce the numbers, that lots of parents kill and aren't caught, hence are not reflected accurately in the numbers reported. Fern's initial statement beginning the thread was that occurances of fatalities due to abuse and neglect had not gone down. Who gives a ****? It's Its endless intent to discredit and lie lie lie that I'm concerned with. A stupid manipulator, where you are only a tiny bit smarter. You and IT have to be called on your malicious gossip method of "reform." You inaccurately challenged her assertion by stating that, since population had gone up, the RATE of fatalities had gone down. You called her names for that. I call It names for many things. In this case for one more of IT's lying bits of misconstrued bull****, just like the other crap she cuts and pastes that are lies in themselves, like the unconstitutional ruling that in fact isn't quoted in the article that claims it. You and they are fit comrades. I replied that, in fact, the RATE of fatalities had not gone down . . . that you were wrong. You may well be right AND I DON'T ****ING CARE, ASSHOLE. The point is that your intent is to pretend that state care is more dangerous than parental care by those identified as likely perps. A piece of blathering crap. I pointed that out to you and you are now crawfishing once again. The up or down rate is damn near irrelevant for support of your position of CPS needing reform. Just as, and you have just failed again to support your position, on the rate of fatalities IN foster care, as opposed to the rate of fatalities BY foster carers. None of the charts or statements you point to shows that, as they do NOT list who the perp is. My chart DOES, and you are running from it. And yours. Your campaign to turn child welfare into a fascist exercise has been well documented here, by you. How is reporting the accurate number of child fatalities due to abuse or neglect a "fascist exercise?" I didn't say that and you know it. I said YOUR CAMPAIGN is a fascist exercise, asshole. In other words this crap of yours along with all the other nonsense you post is a CAMPAIGN. And I said turn "child welfare into a fascist exercise" not that what you posted on child fatalities was a fascist exercise...though now that you mention it....r r r r It's just one small part of your goal. Your support of the obviously right wing fundy-christian ridden HSLDA is a clear indication of your politics. Most of us do NOT want a fundy christian interpretation of what is and isn't acceptable parenting, but you championed the involvement of HSLDA with the feds to do exactly that...start the ball rolling on deciding by the FEDS, and of course HSLDA through their influence, what is and isn't acceptable parenting. And........... Your pointing to federal control of child welfare as a solution to CPS reform and MORE police involvement in child protection (as though they don't do so already), and the removal of CPS in an enforcement role, is clearly a fascist solution. YOU want, or are too stupid to see the danger of, the Feds beginning to define what is and isn't appropriate parenting. YOU want, or are too stupid to see the danger of, the millions of families that lack information and skill being either arrested, or simply turned loose on their innocent children with NO attempts, other than volunteering...r r r r...to help them learn to do better and safer parenting of their children. YOU ARE A ****ING FASCIST ASSHOLE. And a danger to children to and families. Are you saying that if rates of fatalities have not gone down, as you inaccurately claimed, then child welfare practice is fascist? No, asshole. I'm simply pointing out, once again, the measure of your morals and ethics and that of The Plant and your other co-conspiritors. You lie and manipulate. You selectively cut and paste. You ignore things that refute your little sick belief system. Or are you saying that the claim that child welfare agencies have been unsuccessful in reducing child fatalities is the same as calling those agencies fascist? Are you saying that you are a lying asshole? The bottom line is you are pushing for a police state. LOL! I'm not diverted. Try again. Holding CPS agencies accountable for protecting children against lethal child abuse That isn't what you are doing. You are trying to make them accountable for things they have little to NO control over. That is what you are doing. You isolate or inflate the meaning of data to fit your agenda. I just caught you at it again and proved it right here. You were stupid enough to post an URL that included OTHER information that proved you wrong. is a call for a police state? Yes, as you do it, yes, yes, yes. That IS what you want, isn't it? What would you call not giving a family that ****ed up a chance to reform? That's what you have repeatedly said you want. They must be criminally charged and all OTHERS CUT LOOSE. Am I correct in my summation of your beliefs in this? Post again for us your solutions. You know, like the one where you think all child abuse and neglect complaints should go directly to the police for investigation and action. NO CPS involvement with families except by voluntary seeking out by the families. I can just see the lines winding around the block now. Or are you willing to have the police simply do what CPS does, and refer the families under threat of removal to learn how to better parent? What point would that prove? It would be an exact dulicate of what we have now, with the need for current CPS workers to go to work for the police so evaluations by trained personnel could be undertaken. You don't really want the police doing psych evals, do you? Expecting that children placed in the care of state agencies will not be killed by their caretakers is pushing for a police state? Are you bucking for Asshole of the Year? You know I did not say that. You know what I said. Reframing it as you do is simply more lying on your part. I think the thrust of the discussion in this thread has been reportage of the number of children who die at the hands of a police state. You don't "think." You lie, cleverly, consistently, and repeatedly. The thrust of this discussion, as I made clear in a prior response, is the lying you do, and The Plant does. Look again at the deaths in FC vs by Foster Carers again. One chart vs another, not a NON PERP ID chart against itself. You lied back when we first discussed it and you just did again. Go **** up a rope. I would be willing to give it a try if such an action would bring back any of these children. Liar. You, just as The Plant, love it when a child dies, no matter at whose hands because you can blame CPS if the child was in state care, and you can blame CPS if the child was in the care of their parents because CPS didn't foresee and intervene adequately, all the while screaming with and supporting others that scream that CPS intervenes TOO much. And you don't even properly differentiate between a death and a murder. ****ing Blood Dancers is what you are. But it won't. All we can collectively do is work toward reform of the child welfare system so that increasing numbers of children do not perish in the future. When has that NOT been the case? Stating the obvious as though it's you and your little coterie's wonderful new discovery, you big bad Crusaders you, is a crock. Reform came with and as a part of CPS the day it came into being. It's always underway, from within and without, by honest, hardworking people from many disciplines. You people lie about that continually. I sit on boards and committees that do that work and I know the truth, and the truth is you lie. Stop your silly pretense. You take a personal ride on the smallest or most difficult to avoid failings of both parents and the state and you love those failings for that ride it gives you. You get to pretend you are a REFORMER, when you are little more than a nagging flea biting at the ankle of society. A ****ant. Actual reform would defeat you. The only reform you want is the reform of MORE state, that is higher levels of the state, the Feds, to have control because it will serve you more. Things will be far worse. You'll have lots more to do. Bloodsucker. Asshole. What I hope for, in this exchange, for those reading it (and I thank them for their patience) is to go to that page you cite. Read it from top to bottom. It reveals a good deal of the truth. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child It shows, for instance, the lie you assholes perpetrate when you quote the media on all the times CPS is involved with a family that kills their children...blaming CPS for the family killing, pretending it's a huge problem when it is one of the small but nagging difficulties common to beaurocracies of ALL kinds...no one has successfully defeated it, only held it at bay : Here's some truth: "Fatalities by Prior Contact with CPS Less than 10 percent (8.8%) of the families of 2001 child fatality victims had received family preservation services in the 5 years prior to the death of victims. Less than 1 percent (0.9%) of child fatality victims had been returned to their families prior to their deaths.7 For 2000, those percentages were 14.9 and 2.6, respectively. " Think about all the familes that DID have family preservation services that DIDN'T KILL THEIR CHILDREN, and try to pass off your nonsense that CPS needs top to bottom reform. Think about the success, likely way ahead of other government agencies, of only a 10% failure rate. People in CPS, the courts, the legislature, are working their asses off to make that success happen and against overwhelming odds they keep doing it. Have you ever noticed that I support some AntiCPS people in this ng and not others? Do you understand the difference between them that I apply to make that determination of who I support and who I don't. It's really simple. Some lie, and some do not. Some are mistaken, but they don't lie. They get my support even when I disagree. Liars get my middle finger. | n|n Enjoy. or this: "Parental Status of Perpetrators (Child File) Most child fatalities, 82.8 percent, were maltreated by their parent or parents (figure 5-2).4 Almost one-third (32.4%) of fatalities were perpetrated just by their mother.5 These percentages are consistent with the findings reported in previous years. " And they haven't changed much since. Read it and weep, creep. If there were an equal number of foster families and natural families with children, both subject to the same scrutiny and oversight of CPS, you'd find out soon enough who endangers children the most. And if the police state, federal and law enforcement, solution ever comes into place fully I'll look you up and stand outside with a sign, changed daily, to enumerate the children it's killed and the families destroyed that could have been saved. I'll remind you of what YOU wanted and what you got. But it won't come to that if I have my way, and I will. Kane |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed
"Kane" writes:
And watch Doug try despritely to diverge from the actual point of my reply and posts do avoid the truth. That he and his are a flock of ****ty little crappers that haven't an honest bone in their useless bodies. Hi, Kane! What does a dishonest bone look like? The chart in question said clearly, By Bio parents, and IN foster care. They were not being COMPARED, yet you continually, along with other fools use data that does not say what you claim it does to make a claim that foster caregivers have a higher rate of killing children than bio families do. My statement and the cited reference distinctly DID NOT say BY bio-parents. And they are charts that are NOT about who killed who but WHERE IT TOOK PLACE. Watch this develop folks. Those of you that have been down this road may want to kick back with a brewski and watch some TV. This is the usual crap from Doug, and his refusal to see the OTHER CHARTS THAT SHOW WHO THE PERPS ACTUALLY ARE. The references I cited provided data for fatalities due to abuse/neglect occurring overall in the general population (including foster care) and fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care. Yes, and that is relevant to the issue of who kills the most children in what way again? Did you miss the word "IN" yet AGAIN? Yet again, the comparison I made was between all fatalities due to abuse and neglect in the entire population (including foster care) and fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care. The information I cited (this will be the fourth time) clearly makes the distinction. Children that die in foster care from abuse and neglect may well be dying, as I've pointed out so many times before, from the affects of injury or neglect received before going into foster care, that is from their own parents, or even from others. In 2001, 528 children died in foster care -- a rate of 97.4 per 100,000 children. http://tinyurl.com/hoei 18 of those children died as the result of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma That particular chart is very carefully worded to NOT say foster carers are the perp. If you want the "identity of PERP data" you have to go to the chart that gives that information specifically "identity of PERP", not this chart that avoids naming the perp but serves your duplicitious purposes so nicely. Here is my exact quotation, along with the citations of relevant data, to which you respond. The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per 100,000. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma IN care does NOT equate 1 to 1 that the death is caused BY the carer. It's a locale, not a perp by title. Yet again, the comparison is between child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in the entire US population (including foster care) and fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care. The rates are, respectively, 1.81 per 100,000 children and 3.40 per 100,000 children. In Foster Care does not equate directly with by Foster Carer. But, think on this. Parent, with out saying "in family" means the parent was the perp, by any normal logical means of deducing the wording of the chart. My statement and the sources I stated said nothing about "parents." Yet again, it was a comparison between child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in the entire US population (including foster care) and child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care. Please read the source material again. The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per 100,000. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child What it actually says, unless the page has a hidden portion only you know of is: "Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective services (CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care. Of these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the coroner's office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the States occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting." I cut and pasted in my post what it actually said. You snipped the first part. Here it is again. "For 2001, a national estimate of 1,300 child deaths at a rate of 1.81 children of every 100,000 children in the population died from abuse or neglect. Many States were able to supplement the automated data from the child welfare agency with statistics from other agencies in their States. Included in the reported 1,300 fatalities were 150 fatalities reported from such agencies as health departments and fatality review boards. "Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective services (CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care. Of these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the coroner's office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the States occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting." "Egregious" just means bad or offensive, (no argument there) and does not pertain to the numbers of, rates, or percentages. It's fluff, but we'll indulge the author by pointing out: It's also "egregious" that natural parents kill their children, no? The quote was "ESPECIALLY egregious." The meaning is very clear -- while all fatalities due to abuse or neglect are egregious, fatalities occurring as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care is especially egregious. More importantly: Notice, "1.5 percent in out of home placement." That means that parents, relatives and others, somebody other than foster parents, killed children how many percent of the occurances, Doug? How many? I think that 1.5% from 100% is 98.5 ****ing Percent DOUG. Of course, because the number of children in the entire population (72,941,000) is 134 times the number of children in foster care (541,000). That is why the source I quoted and my statement expresses the fatalities in rates per 100,000. Certainly, you must know that you cannot compare disparate populations without using per capita rates. If the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in the general population were equal to the rates of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect in foster care, then the total number of fatalities for 2001 would have been 2,480 instead of 1,300. Or, vis versa, if the rate of child abuse and neglect in foster care was the same as in the overall population, 10 children rather than 18 would have perished. This is why social science always uses rates expressed in "per 1,000" or "per 100,000" figures. It is absurdly misleading to take a grand total of incidents occurring in two disparate populations and divide it by the number of incidents in the smaller population to arrive at a "percentage." Let me give you an example. Let's say there were 10,000 homicides in the US in 2001. Let's say 100 of those murders happened in Rhode Island. Since only 99% of the murders happened in states other than Rhode Island, does that make the other 49 states more dangerous? The rate of child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in the overall US child population was 1.81 per 100,000 children. The rate of child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care was 3.40 per 100,000 children. And out of home placement includes NON FOSTER CARERS. Do you consider this of no relevance? Yet again, the comparison was between fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in the entire population and fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care. All 18 children were in state care. Here is the USDHHS quote again: "Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective services (CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care." The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma But it does NOT say the foster carers killed the children. Some did, but not all, by far. Actually, what the citation also says, oh duplicitious one that hopes and prays no one will actually go look is: Percentage of Child Fatalities that Occurred in Foster Care 1.5 for 48 states reporting. Yes. Note also that the statement says the other fatalities occurred due to abuse and neglect in the general population. Notice it says IN foster care, not by foster caregivers. This is not a perp chart. It is a locale chart. Notice it also says in the general population. Yet again, the comparison is between child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in the general population and child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care. It isn't a chart of who killed who, this is a mortality chart...by ANY CAUSE AT ALL...with locales named not perps. No, it concerns only those fatalities due to abuse and neglect. As mentioned previously in this post, 528 children died in foster care in 2001. If the foster children died of causes other than child abuse or neglect occurring in foster care, they would be among those 528 children but not among the 18 we are discussing. The information I shared was NOT mortality rates. The mortality rate in foster care for 2001 was 97.4 per 100,000 children. The rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in foster care was, as said before, 3.40 per 100,000 children. Here is how the compilers, researchers I presume, comment on their own data chart, from the tiny URL you listed: "Percentage of fatalities that occurred in foster care is based on total fatalities in States that reported on fatalities in foster care. A "fatality" is not a murder. It can be, but it can be other causes of death. Hospitals have boards that review hospital fatalities. There are studies on traffic fatalities. There are charts of gun fatalities. The presumption that each of these restricts themselves to murder only is nonsense. They include accidents, acts of God (so called), negligence, AND murder. No, these statistics included only child fatalities as the result of child abuse and neglect, as I have made abundantly clear in the statement (repeated now for the fifth time). Many times more than 1,300 children died during 2001. Many times more foster children died in foster care during 2001 than 18. As stated, 528 foster children died in foster care that year. This table compares the number of child fatalities associated with foster care to all child fatalities. The first column lists all of the States and the second column lists the total number of fatalities. The third column reports the number of child fatalities from foster care according to CPS and the fourth reports child fatalities from other agencies for a grand total of foster care deaths in the fifth column. The last column gives a percentage of fatalities that occurred in foster care as compared to the total number of fatalities. Among the 48 States reporting, the percentage of fatalities in foster care was calculated to be 1.5 percent. " First sentence, "...fatalities occured in..." Not murders, not perps and victims, just deaths in a location. It would undoubtedly include those victims killed BY foster parents, but it is NOT exclusive to that population. They were fatalities exclusively due to abuse and neglect. If you don't want to call them murders, I don't know what to say. Note that last line. " ...the percentage of fatalities in foster care..." still doesn't make the foster CARER the perp. This is a weep and wail chart, not useful for anything but to draw attention to the need to do MORE generally about children at risk from all causes, including foster care, but not exclusive of parental care failings as well. The information provides ample reason to weep and wail. 1,300 child fatalities as the result of abuse and negect is a terrifying figure. The rates of child abuse fatalities in BOTH populations (1.81 per 100,000 in the general population and 3.40 per 100,000 in foster care) is reason to cry. And finally, what's the percentage again of children who die IN foster care? Only 1.5 of all fatalities? Right? Asshole. The rate of children who die as the result of child abuse and neglect in foster care is 3.40 per hundred thousand -- considerably less than 1%. This rate is higher than the rate child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in the general population (1.81 per 100,000). 98.5% percent die OUTSIDE foster care. Yes. Because 99.3% of children live outside of foster care. Let's look at the first reference for the mention of "by bio-parents" you insist is there. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child Okay, asshole, let's look at that page, and I'll paste a quote from it: "Parental Status of Perpetrators (Child File) Most child fatalities, 82.8 percent, were maltreated by their parent or parents (figure 5-2).4 Almost one-third (32.4%) of fatalities were perpetrated just by their mother.5 These percentages are consistent with the findings reported in previous years. " This is consistent with the chart I'm going to post for you, that I've posted before that IS what you claim, but not what you wish....the calculation of the estimated actual PERPS....foster and other caregivers vs PARENTS AND THOSE IN CAHOOTS WITH THEM. Looking down the USDHHS page referenced above, we come to the pertinent passage, which I quote exactly. And watch me pick it apart along the way: "For 2001, a national estimate of 1,300 child deaths at a rate of 1.81 children of every 100,000 children in the population died from abuse or neglect. Many States were able to supplement the automated data from the child welfare agency with statistics from other agencies in their States. Included in the reported 1,300 fatalities were 150 fatalities reported from such agencies as health departments and fatality review boards. "Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the child welfare agency are especially egregious. It does not say CAUSED BY THE STATE SUPERVISION, just in state supervision. While I no more forgive the state for being so negligent as to allow a child to die while in their care, I am aware some deaths are simply not preventable and I cut natural parents the same slack, but you wish to use this figure to somehow blame foster parents and or the state for killing children. Asshole. Yet again, the comparison was between two populations who were cut the same slack. The comparison was between child fatalities due to abuse and neglect in the general population to fatalities due to abuse and neglect in foster care. Child protective services (CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care. Of these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the coroner's office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the States occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting." Notice the "some type of out-of-home placement setting?" Notice also "in the general population." What's your point? All 18 children who died as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care were in state custody or supervision. A setting, not a perp. Out-of-home, not exclusively foster placement. Both comparative populations were fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in settings. In one case, the general population. In the other, foster care. That does NOT establish the perp. In fact, if we are going to cut it to a truly fine point, to try to use this figures to find blame is pointless, for either parents or foster parents. You're right, its pointless to use these figures to find blame. But it is you that repeatedly brings up the blame issue. Who to blame or not to blame seems to be your point. Mine was that the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in state care (3.40) is higher than the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in the general population (1.81). Now crawfish and go back to "I'm just reporting the figures and leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions" or some similar bullhockey you like to pull on the unwary. Kane, where in this reference is there any mention of "by bio-parents"? I did not cite this particular chart in our most recent exchange. I simply pointed out the truth, this is NOT a perp identity chart and there IS such a chart that you have run around the end of countless time's in our debates and my challenges to you and your nonsense. THERE it is By Bio Parent, and lists ALL THE PERPS, not the locales. I don't recall any "By Bio Parent" charts. It seems to be strange language for social science researchers to use. And for those that care I now offer the truth, not His Duplicitiousness' Bull****. The chart below reports on fatalities due to abuse and neglect during 1999. My statement and sources concerned fatalities due to abuse and neglect in 2001. The chart below comes from an entirely different publication, published two years before the one I cited. Obviously, the numbers of fatalities occurring in 1999 are different than numbers of fatalities in 2001. How can we compare the two? Apples and oranges? Kane, this is the second time within a week that you have reached back two years to attempt to challenge my statements based on current data (NCANDS data for 2001 is the latest available). Who do you think you are fooling? The Perp Chart: (URL below) Table 4-4: Maltreatment Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship, 1999 DCDC Relationship of Number of Percentage Perpetrator to Victim Fatality Victims of Fatality Victims Male Parent and Other 5 1.1% * Unknown 12 2.7% Family Relative 20 4.5% * Other 25 5.7% Substitute Care- Provider(s) 27 6.1% Male Parent Only 47 10.7% * Female Parent- and Other 72 16.3% * Both Parents 94 21.3% * Female Parent Only 139 31.5% * -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Total 441 100.0% Kane: Note that of all perps only sub-care providers, which would include some foster parents but not only FPs, such as day care, is 6.1 percent. There were only 441 fatalities due to abuse and neglect in 1999? I think not. If we had a total number of fatalities due to abuse and neglect we could determine rates of fatalities by perp, controling for population. I can tell you right now, that given the percentage of the 441 victims cited (6.1%), the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in substitute care is going to be many times higher than in the general population. In the 2001 figures we were discussing, 18 children died as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care. In your 1999 table, 27 children are shown as dying as the result of abuse and neglect inflicted by substitute care providers. Notice that the percentage of fatalities by perp that are partners or parents or relatives that I've marked with *, totals 89.2% while the only possible categories, and that is stretching it a bit, that could include foster parents is Unknown, Other, and Sub care providers (the latter having to include all sub care providers NOT fosters such as day care providers, and inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment centers) comes to 10.8%. That percentage (6.1%) of the 441 child fatalities shown comes out to around 47 children. If the percentages remained constant for the remaining 800 or so children who died of child abuse and neglect in 1999 and are not shown on the chart, the number of children who died as the result of abuse and neglect inflicted by caregivers in the categories you mention could be as high as 128 children. That is 7 times the 2001 number we were discussing (18). You make my point for me. The results: Related and other with related: 89.2% Foster and all nonrelated unaffiliated with parents: 10.2% Related and other with related concern 99.3 percent of the child population. Yet a whopping 10.2 percent of those fatalities shown were among .7 of one percent of the child population. (Although, I agree with your implication that not all of the perps in those categories are foster caregivers. We would have to know that number to get an accurate rate per 100,000 and control for population size.) This was the clear indictation to me the charts you are touting as reason to indict foster parents as murderous thugs who kill children was not what you claimed it was. They still aren't. First, your 1999 chart does not in the slightest challenge the findings I reported concerning 2001 data or my conclusions drawn from that data. In fact, it shows a number of fatalities in alternative care that is many times higher than the 18 I was talking about. The chart you paste above not only confirms my statement but goes beyond it to report even higher numbers of fatalities in alternative care. Secondily, nowhere in this thread have I "touted" any charts as supporting your contention that foster caregivers are "murderous thugs." That is your wording. You still are a liar by misdirection, manipulation, and avoidance. . There is no misdirection in the posts to which you respond. No manipulation. No avoidance. Your response goes beyond merely confirming my statements to arrive at even a higher number of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in alternative care. Learn to read and tell the truth at this URL from one of your favorite sources: Good advice to heed, Kane. There is no problems with differentiation between "in" and "by" because both populations are defined by "in." And that shows who murdered the child how again? We can go with your numbers from the 1999 data. They measure a much higher rate of fatalities in foster care. Most especially pay attention to the fact fatalities are not exclusively killings by intent or neglect. No, they are fatalities due to abuse and neglect. Unproven and you won't admit it. ALL your claims are poisoned by that stubborn refusal to differentiate between IN an BY. The chart cited was not posted for such comparisions and you know it. The narrative cited does make a comparision. The exact breakdown in foster care among the 48 states reporting is provided in my second citation. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma And it is NOT a perp identity cite. Your chart was, right? We can go by those numbers if you wish. The citations you offer and have always offered are not only weak for the premise you give but they are NOT even close to the issue at hand: are children safer with foster parents or with natural parents who are shown to be, by CPS, creating risk to the child? Nope. To the contrary, a large percentage of children placed into foster care are unsubstantiated by CPS itself as being at risk of child abuse or neglect. In a couple of states, the majority of children taken into state custody come from families CPS unsubstantiated for creating risk to their children. Comparing foster parents to all parents (and in fact the census figures used by the chart authors include "families" that have NO children) Absolutely not. Geez, Kane, look at the data. The authors used the CHILD POPULATION. They did not measure the number of families, whether they had children or not. ALL children aren't put in foster care. The majority in foster care come from parents that CPS claims would have harmed them had they been left there, and the perp chart makes it damn clear that IS the case. If only CPS were omnipotent as you and cronies claim it should be. If CPS were omnipotent and prescent it would totally stop all child fatalities, and you prey on that impossibility and pretend that CPS needs reform in areas were it does not...in fact it needs MORE power in some areas, precisely the ones you want stripped from CPS, to be able to reduce child fatalities. If CPS were omnipotent and prescent, it would remove more children and more children would die in foster care. You want to give to the police exclusive investigative powers and strip CPS of any power to persuade parents to reform. Are you saying that CPS uses its investigative powers to persuade parents to reform? Shouldn't it be using those powers to determine if parents have done something or failed to do something that indicates they are in need of reform? What about innocent parents? Police do not reduce child fatalities any more than they reduce drug use through The War on Drugs. The same principles that have proven to reduce drug use apply in improving the parenting abuse and neglect situation. Pursuasion with a stick and carrot approach. One can't offer the carrot and its benefits, in this instance, without using the stick to get the person to take a bite and see just how good it can be, and good for you. Sticks don't work well in casework. It's been proven over and over again. Considering that 60% or so of the families that meet with the stick, take a bite of the carrot, and get their kids back (the service plan, dummy, the service plan), I'd say it's working rather well, dispite some failures. It is CPS and CPS alone, barring changing demographics for other reasons, that is charged with reducing child abuse, neglect and fatalities, and given the barriers in their way, budget, assholes like you and your cronies that lie lie lie about it, they do a tremendous job YOU CAN'T DO AND FAILED AT, didn't you Doug? Didn't you? No. You couldn't deal with the reality of the messiness. Could you? I explain the messiness and its reality on a regular basis. I have never had trouble dealing with it. That is not to say that I like what the messiness does to innocent children. You are a classic prissyassed overcontrolling ****up that left CPS to "expose" by pointing to things CPS cannot deal with for many valid acceptable reasons, and is not mandated to deal with by logic, but is forced to by statute. LOL! Discussion of the issues have Gotcha again. Back to the childish name calling? You are just another lowlife kneebreaker, but with a conman's smiling ingratiating slyness. You make me wanta puke. I am delighted. However, your uneasy stomache is more likely a ramification of defeat. If you end up on the short end of the stick in discussing the issues, you resort to name-calling. I would feel a little quesy if I cut and pasted outdated data that supported my opponent's position. They say that the quickest way to a man's ego is through his stomache. And in this instance we are discussing, the claim isn't even what you say it is. We aren't discussing up or down, but what The Plant's intent it. We most certainly were discussing up or down. Blah blah blah. YOU and A Plant are attempting to do that to divert from the truth. There are murderous parents out there, and there are far fewer murderous foster parents. 1) No, you posted that Fern's claim rates of fatalities due to abuse were not going down were false. In fact, she was right and your challenge that they were going down was wrong. 2) There are less murderous foster caregivers than murderous parents because there are far less foster caregivers than there are parents. There are also far less blue-eyed foster caregivers than blue-eyed parents. There are also far less left-handed foster caregivers than there are left-handed parents. There are much less non-murderous, kind foster caregivers than there are non-murderous, kind parents. It is EASY to spot a murderous foster parent, as they are under state scrutiny specifically because they are foster parents and known and listed with their agency. Anyone who murders children comes under rather intense state scrutiny. No such oversight exists for natural parents. Hence natural parents can and do kill more children by number and percentage. No, not by percentage. Parents kill a smaller percentage of their children than foster caregivers kill their wards. RATES tells us near to nothing as long as they are confined to LOCUS rather than identified PERPS. The only way to compare different sized populations is by using rates. You do know that, don't you? When you have a perp RATE let me know. Give me the number of killed children in the chart you posted and I will be happy to calculate the rate. And even then it's not going to be of much use because generally FOSTERS can't get away with murder and natural parents CAN. Difference in strength of oversight. That means, as the researchers surely know as indicated in their unwilliness to try and produce the numbers, that lots of parents kill and aren't caught, hence are not reflected accurately in the numbers reported. Oh. So rates, percentages, numbers are not of any use anyway, because only foster caregivers get caught for child murder? Fern's initial statement beginning the thread was that occurances of fatalities due to abuse and neglect had not gone down. Who gives a ****? It's Its endless intent to discredit and lie lie lie that I'm concerned with. A stupid manipulator, where you are only a tiny bit smarter. Who cares? Well, those of us who noticed that you called Fern a liar for stating the truth; those of us who noted that you claimed, inaccurately, that the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect had gone down. It is a crediablity thing, Kane. By the way, do you remember your argument that one must use RATES to measure fatalities because the child population varies? You call Fern "stupid" because you inaccurately challenged the truth she told and were caught at it. You and IT have to be called on your malicious gossip method of "reform." You inaccurately challenged her assertion by stating that, since population had gone up, the RATE of fatalities had gone down. You called her names for that. I call It names for many things. In this case for one more of IT's lying bits of misconstrued bull****, just like the other crap she cuts and pastes that are lies in themselves, like the unconstitutional ruling that in fact isn't quoted in the article that claims it. Her statement that child fatalities due to abuse and neglect had not gone down was not a lying bit of misconstrued information, but the truth. You wrongly called it a lie and were caught at it. You and they are fit comrades. I replied that, in fact, the RATE of fatalities had not gone down . . . that you were wrong. You may well be right AND I DON'T ****ING CARE, ASSHOLE. Fern was right. I was right. You were wrong. No biggie. I am sure it works out the other way around sometimes. But, yes, you have made it evident for some time that you don't care. The point is that your intent is to pretend that state care is more dangerous than parental care by those identified as likely perps. My point was that the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in foster care is higher than the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in the general population. A piece of blathering crap. LOL! I pointed that out to you and you are now crawfishing once again. The up or down rate is damn near irrelevant for support of your position of CPS needing reform. It was relevant in pointing out that your supposition that fatality rates decreased was wrong. Just as, and you have just failed again to support your position, on the rate of fatalities IN foster care, as opposed to the rate of fatalities BY foster carers. Well, thanks to your chart, we know that rates of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in substitute care is much higher than fatalities due to abuse and neglect in the general population in 1999. None of the charts or statements you point to shows that, as they do NOT list who the perp is. My chart DOES, and you are running from it. I have explained five times what my statements and respective citations point out. Your campaign to turn child welfare into a fascist exercise has been well documented here, by you. How is reporting the accurate number of child fatalities due to abuse or neglect a "fascist exercise?" I didn't say that and you know it. I said YOUR CAMPAIGN is a fascist exercise, asshole. In other words this crap of yours along with all the other nonsense you post is a CAMPAIGN. And I said turn "child welfare into a fascist exercise" not that what you posted on child fatalities was a fascist exercise...though now that you mention it....r r r r Where's the beef, Kane? Name-calling says a lot about you but does not address child welfare issues we are discussing on this forum. It's just one small part of your goal. What is my goal? Where do you get the idea you can determine such a thing? Your support of the obviously right wing fundy-christian ridden HSLDA is a clear indication of your politics. I whole heartedly support the CAPTA amendment this organization drafted providing families rights to due process. Thanks to this ammendment, CPS workers will now be trained on Constitutional rights and they will be compelled to tell parents what allegations have been made against them. I fully support the exceptional legal representation they have provided parents who encounter wrongful CPS interventions. Most of us do NOT want a fundy christian interpretation of what is and isn't acceptable parenting, but you championed the involvement of HSLDA with the feds to do exactly that...start the ball rolling on deciding by the FEDS, and of course HSLDA through their influence, what is and isn't acceptable parenting. CPS practice is currently driven by federal guidelines of what is and is not acceptable parenting. HSLDA's ammendment toned down that federal push by placing some reasonable, due process requirements on the state. The organization has curtailed federal control, not increased it. Other than its work to protect children and their families, I know little about HSLDA. Your pointing to federal control of child welfare as a solution to CPS reform The feds already have control. CPS practice is driven by CAPTA and ASFA, both federal statutes. A good start for CPS reform would be to repeal both of those federal laws. and MORE police involvement in child protection (as though they don't do so already), and the removal of CPS in an enforcement role, is clearly a fascist solution. YOU want, or are too stupid to see the danger of, the Feds beginning to define what is and isn't appropriate parenting. The feds define what is and is not appropriate parenting currently. I seek to repeal CAPTA and ASFA. YOU want, or are too stupid to see the danger of, the millions of families that lack information and skill being either arrested, or simply turned loose on their innocent children with NO attempts, other than volunteering...r r r r...to help them learn to do better and safer parenting of their children. Nope. I want the practice of forcibly removing children from innocent families to stop. By their own admission, CPS removes thousands of children it has unsubstantiated as being at risk of maltreatment. YOU ARE A ****ING FASCIST ASSHOLE. And a danger to children to and families. I don't think so. But, then again, that's me. Are you saying that if rates of fatalities have not gone down, as you inaccurately claimed, then child welfare practice is fascist? No, asshole. I'm simply pointing out, once again, the measure of your morals and ethics and that of The Plant and your other co-conspiritors. You lie and manipulate. Well, the sum and total of this thread was pointing out your mistatement. You selectively cut and paste. You ignore things that refute your little sick belief system. Or are you saying that the claim that child welfare agencies have been unsuccessful in reducing child fatalities is the same as calling those agencies fascist? Are you saying that you are a lying asshole? No. The bottom line is you are pushing for a police state. LOL! I'm not diverted. Try again. LOL! Holding CPS agencies accountable for protecting children against lethal child abuse That isn't what you are doing. You are trying to make them accountable for things they have little to NO control over. That is what you are doing. You isolate or inflate the meaning of data to fit your agenda. I just caught you at it again and proved it right here. I inflated nothing. We have both posted data proving my contention. You were stupid enough to post an URL that included OTHER information that proved you wrong. Not at all. I was hoping that people would go to the URL and read all the material. You went to a similar URL and brought back a chart from two years ago that proved me right. is a call for a police state? Yes, as you do it, yes, yes, yes. That IS what you want, isn't it? What would you call not giving a family that ****ed up a chance to reform? That's what you have repeatedly said you want. They must be criminally charged and all OTHERS CUT LOOSE. Am I correct in my summation of your beliefs in this? No. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|