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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Waiving a Foster Children’s Bill of Rights: State dislikes foster children being made aware, knowledge is power, and this information would hand foster kids the fuse to the dynamite...
Waiving a Bill of Rights, Dastardly
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=403 Both the House and the Senate got themselves tied up in some long, long debates about two important issues, water and cancer, respectively. As of this writing, SB 3, the water bill, has withstood roughly five dozen proposed amendments (more on that from us later), while the Senate approved a $3 billion investment in cancer research. The Senate’s agreement, which will require voter approval even if it passes the Lege, got pretty tedious, so we took advantage of the time to dramatize our favorite exchange from Monday’s long day of activity. You can watch it yourself; it begins at the 5:18:00 mark and takes a couple minutes to really get going. Scene: Floor of House of Representatives Players: Rep. Michael Villarreal, D-San Antonio; Rep. Stephen Frost, D-Atlanta; Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball Rep. Villarreal strides to the mic, amendment in hand. He’s hoping to attach a “Foster Children’s Bill of Rights” to a bill reforming CPS. The bill’s author offers ominous procedural warnings that he believes the bill of rights should be voted on separately from his dear reforms. Villarreal forges ahead, saying the amendment establishes “A single section where a foster child can turn to discover their protections.” With a curious assist from the back mic, where Rep. Frost is playing fullback to a lurking Rep. Riddle’s linebacker, the debate unfolds… Frost: Does this amendment require foster parents to do anything that they are not required to do under current law? Villarreal: No, it does not. Frost: Does it require a foster parent to provide an allowance to a child? Villarreal: No it does not. Frost: Does it require a foster parent to go out and buy anything for a foster child that current law does not? Villarreal: No. The questions, a bit odd to the uninformed observers in the gallery, wrap up. Riddle moves to the back mic, where she looks down the bridge of her nose over a pair of gold-rimmed spectacles. She asks questions calmly at first, as Villarreal seems to be all but urging her to get to the inevitable point. Riddle: There are things in here that I think would hurt the children of Texas. Villarreal (exasperated): Debbie, if you could tell me which protection we shouldn’t afford foster children– Riddle: It’s not a protection. This is called a bill of rights. This statement perplexes the playwright. Suddenly a great storm of words flow from the Reps at both mics, crashing into each other, creating a din on the floor. It becomes evident that Riddle dislikes foster children being made aware that existing law forbids their parents from physically restraining them. Or that it requires they be given “comparable” clothing to their peers, among other alleged perks. Riddle knows that knowledge is power, and this information would hand foster kids the fuse to the dynamite. Riddle (holding up the amendment text): There’s no discipline here. A foster parent is unable to discipline. Adequate food … uh, healthy food? Does that mean you can’t go to McDonald’s? Comparable clothing of other children in the community. What is that? Is that designer clothes or pants where the crotch is below the knee? … On page 2, it says that a child cannot be restrained. This means that you cannot put a child in time-out. You cannot ground a child. Villarreal: Let’s read the whole section. Riddle: Are you aware that families have to have some kind of control and discipline in their home? Villarreal attempts to rein in the rising voice attacking his amendment by reading the dry text of the section in question. It is a lost cause. Riddle immediately launches into a hypothetical: A foster parent wishes to discipline both his or her own child as well as the foster child… Riddle: The parent decides to put their child in time-out. (She grows angry.) They are not able to put the foster child in time-out. (Angrier.) That is what this says. You will be creating CHAOS in the homes of foster parents! You will be creating chaos … to the degree that people will not want to be foster parents. Villarreal is stunned. Riddle (now referencing the bill again): A child cannot be physically prevented from leaving. So you’ve got a teenager who’s a foster kid, who says, “Screw you, I’m leaving,” and heads for the door. And you can’t even take the child and say, “It’s dangerous. You can’t leave. I need you to stay here at home, and let’s talk.” You can’t do that– Villareal (so very, very tired): That’s not true. Riddle: And so what you’re going to do is you’re going to arm a teenage kid, coming into someone’s loving home, with their family, waiving their bill of rights, saying, “You can’t restrain me! I can come as I want, I can go as I want! You can’t punish me, you can’t ground me, and — by the way — I want the designer clothes that all the kids at school have.” Villareal: There is no reference to designer clothes– Their voices rise again, crashing into each other. Suddenly there is calm. Riddle: This is the worst bill (a gavel bangs) I have ever seen. The droning voice from the chair interrupts: the “point of order is well taken.” Her time is up. Epilogue: This is hardly the first time Riddle’s gone on this rant. A Statesman story from earlier this session recounts a similar exchange, but also includes this bit at the end. Austinite Tristan Whitfield, 19, who was in foster care from 1993 until last year, came to the Capitol on Wednesday to ask lawmakers to support the proposal. Whitfield said that it would have been helpful for him to know what his rights were when he was placed in the homes of people he did not know. He said that although it’s too late for him, a bill of rights could help his younger brother, who is still in foster care. For foster children, “there’s so much in CPS you have no clue about,” Whitfield said, referring to Child Protective Services. CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. every parent should read this .pdf from connecticut dcf watch... http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13 Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12 Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers. BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Texas Waiving a Foster Children’s Bill of Rights: State dislikes foster children being made aware, knowledge is power, and this information would hand foster kids the fuse to the dynamite...
0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:57:05 -0700, fx wrote: Waiving a Bill of Rights, Dastardly Dear me, fx, you seem to have things backward. At least according to many posters here in the past, you under another nym, by the way. You seem to think it is an intrusion into bio families for CPS to inform children of their rights. How is it you don't take offense at this attempt to inform children in foster care of their rights? By the way, stupid. Foster kids old enough, as are being discussed below already know their rights. How many teens don't know who to do a google search, stupid, on policy and statute? You are showing just how stupid you are. 0:] yawn only 3 stupid's?, Come on!, you have to be able to do better than that... May 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=403 Both the House and the Senate got themselves tied up in some long, long debates about two important issues, water and cancer, respectively. As of this writing, SB 3, the water bill, has withstood roughly five dozen proposed amendments (more on that from us later), while the Senate approved a $3 billion investment in cancer research. The Senate’s agreement, which will require voter approval even if it passes the Lege, got pretty tedious, so we took advantage of the time to dramatize our favorite exchange from Monday’s long day of activity. You can watch it yourself; it begins at the 5:18:00 mark and takes a couple minutes to really get going. Scene: Floor of House of Representatives Players: Rep. Michael Villarreal, D-San Antonio; Rep. Stephen Frost, D-Atlanta; Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball Rep. Villarreal strides to the mic, amendment in hand. He’s hoping to attach a “Foster Children’s Bill of Rights” to a bill reforming CPS. The bill’s author offers ominous procedural warnings that he believes the bill of rights should be voted on separately from his dear reforms. Villarreal forges ahead, saying the amendment establishes “A single section where a foster child can turn to discover their protections.” With a curious assist from the back mic, where Rep. Frost is playing fullback to a lurking Rep. Riddle’s linebacker, the debate unfolds… Frost: Does this amendment require foster parents to do anything that they are not required to do under current law? Villarreal: No, it does not. Frost: Does it require a foster parent to provide an allowance to a child? Villarreal: No it does not. Frost: Does it require a foster parent to go out and buy anything for a foster child that current law does not? Villarreal: No. The questions, a bit odd to the uninformed observers in the gallery, wrap up. Riddle moves to the back mic, where she looks down the bridge of her nose over a pair of gold-rimmed spectacles. She asks questions calmly at first, as Villarreal seems to be all but urging her to get to the inevitable point. Riddle: There are things in here that I think would hurt the children of Texas. Villarreal (exasperated): Debbie, if you could tell me which protection we shouldn’t afford foster children– Riddle: It’s not a protection. This is called a bill of rights. This statement perplexes the playwright. Suddenly a great storm of words flow from the Reps at both mics, crashing into each other, creating a din on the floor. It becomes evident that Riddle dislikes foster children being made aware that existing law forbids their parents from physically restraining them. Or that it requires they be given “comparable” clothing to their peers, among other alleged perks. Riddle knows that knowledge is power, and this information would hand foster kids the fuse to the dynamite. Riddle (holding up the amendment text): There’s no discipline here. A foster parent is unable to discipline. Adequate food … uh, healthy food? Does that mean you can’t go to McDonald’s? Comparable clothing of other children in the community. What is that? Is that designer clothes or pants where the crotch is below the knee? … On page 2, it says that a child cannot be restrained. This means that you cannot put a child in time-out. You cannot ground a child. Villarreal: Let’s read the whole section. Riddle: Are you aware that families have to have some kind of control and discipline in their home? Villarreal attempts to rein in the rising voice attacking his amendment by reading the dry text of the section in question. It is a lost cause. Riddle immediately launches into a hypothetical: A foster parent wishes to discipline both his or her own child as well as the foster child… Riddle: The parent decides to put their child in time-out. (She grows angry.) They are not able to put the foster child in time-out. (Angrier.) That is what this says. You will be creating CHAOS in the homes of foster parents! You will be creating chaos … to the degree that people will not want to be foster parents. Villarreal is stunned. Riddle (now referencing the bill again): A child cannot be physically prevented from leaving. So you’ve got a teenager who’s a foster kid, who says, “Screw you, I’m leaving,” and heads for the door. And you can’t even take the child and say, “It’s dangerous. You can’t leave. I need you to stay here at home, and let’s talk.” You can’t do that– Villareal (so very, very tired): That’s not true. Riddle: And so what you’re going to do is you’re going to arm a teenage kid, coming into someone’s loving home, with their family, waiving their bill of rights, saying, “You can’t restrain me! I can come as I want, I can go as I want! You can’t punish me, you can’t ground me, and — by the way — I want the designer clothes that all the kids at school have.” Villareal: There is no reference to designer clothes– Their voices rise again, crashing into each other. Suddenly there is calm. Riddle: This is the worst bill (a gavel bangs) I have ever seen. The droning voice from the chair interrupts: the “point of order is well taken.” Her time is up. Epilogue: This is hardly the first time Riddle’s gone on this rant. A Statesman story from earlier this session recounts a similar exchange, but also includes this bit at the end. Austinite Tristan Whitfield, 19, who was in foster care from 1993 until last year, came to the Capitol on Wednesday to ask lawmakers to support the proposal. Whitfield said that it would have been helpful for him to know what his rights were when he was placed in the homes of people he did not know. He said that although it’s too late for him, a bill of rights could help his younger brother, who is still in foster care. For foster children, “there’s so much in CPS you have no clue about,” Whitfield said, referring to Child Protective Services. CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. every parent should read this .pdf from connecticut dcf watch... http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13 Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12 Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers. BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|