We don need no steenkin' CPS.

After all of the complaining about how they lumped
Child Abuse and Neglect together (CAN) to try to
exaggerate the numbers, now I notice that the reports
use "maltreatement" more. Is that the trend, that
rather than separate the two numbers and be truthful
they will simply use different terminology for the
amalgam number?

Greegor wrote:
Considering that Foster Care is like 10 times
more dangerous than parental homes,

Ever thought about why there is more risk in a foster home? Is it the
foster parent?

Could it be the condition of the child?

and
that masses of kids are removed where the
agencies themselves admit they had NOTHING,

Same old bs. "Masses" is a blatant exageration based on factors that do
not figure into the equation. There are many reason children are
removed, some at the request of the parents themselves.

Some children's condition is such the parent can't handle it.

Recently watched, on a hotel TV (I don't have a TV, thanks) while at a
conference, a story of a women fostering disabled children. Many with
both physical and psychological problems. One of the children she
adopted was from a mother than had 8 children, a number of them with
cystic fibrosis. She was a meth addict. All her children had been removed.

Others of the children had birth defects, some horrendously burned, some
few not visibly but obviously abused.

it doesn't take much to figure out that
CPS agencies are NOT making things better.

The hell you say. YOU can't figure it out, and YOU are Doug's dupe.

AND all of this assumes the agencies are
not telling LIES favorable to their position.

They aren't.

That's a rediculous assumption since they
have gotten caught telling lies in their stats.

Lies or mistakes?

If they really wanted to lie, you could not catch them, Greg. Fact is
they report their own data errors, or submit their raw records to audit
without trying to hide a damn thing, because they KNOW humans are human
and will make errors.

Even the counters tabulating make errors.

Of you lived somewhere besides your delusional world you would know that
and suddenly NOT have much of an arguement though.

Now and then, Greg, and it's not often, a state employee in CPS is
caught doing something illegal.

You and your deceptive cronies do all you can to try and blow that up
into the majority of employees being the same and or supporting the same
of all conspiring to "cover-up."

In criminal cases the very FIRST thing that happens is an official
notice from the involved state's AG, (just like your lawyer would tell
YOU if you were involved as the accused in a legal action) that orders
all to NOT discuss this case with anyone but them.

YOU want to turn the same standards YOU are allowed by law to NOT be
extended to others just because they are government employees.

When I say someone has the mentality of a criminal mind I am referring
to just this kind of denial or rights for others that you want for
yourself.

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

Doug wrote:
The three main categories of maltreatment related to fatalities were
neglect (35.5%), combinations of maltreatments (30.2%), and physical abuse
(28.3%), (figure 4-3).7 Medical neglect accounted for 1.4 percent of
fatalities."
USDHHS does not break out the fatalities by cause -- abuse or neglect.
The hell they didn't and right on the page YOU CITED.

Hi, Kane,

The 30.2% of fatalities due to a combination of maltreatments do not break
out whether it was abuse or neglect. It lists them in combination.

Picky picky. Minimizing again, Doug?

Don't tell me your are going to try and run another NCIC ignorance number
on us when the information you claim doesn't exist YOU cited.

As your latest example proved, the FBI only allows law enforcement access to
its NCIC data base, as I said.

No, you said they would not provide the data. 1

The data I cited has a category that
includes both neglect and abuse, so fatalities in that category cannot be
separated out abuse or neglect. Obviously.

Picky picky, little deluded propagandist. We can split hairs for every,
but the truth is an appreciable and sad number of children are
"disciplined" to death, and that IS the business of CPS and the police.

Keep showing us your sterling character.

Kane





--
"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

Greegor wrote:
After all of the complaining about how they lumped
Child Abuse and Neglect together (CAN) to try to
exaggerate the numbers, now I notice that the reports
use "maltreatement" more. Is that the trend, that
rather than separate the two numbers and be truthful
they will simply use different terminology for the
amalgam number?

You know, Greegor, this would be such a significant question IF neglect
were not the cause of MORE child fatalities than other kind so abuse.

Neglect that injures IS abusive, and that is how it is viewed in child
protection and in schools of social work where such things are
researched, and teaching goes on.

So again, why would YOU try to claim some kind of malfeasance or
deception on the part of the agencies that simply report using categories?

The researchers outside the sources you must be referring to get into it
much deeper when the data is available.

Guidelines for reporting are NOT set by the agencies doing the field
work, ie CPS.

They send what's asked for. If an aggregate is requested, that is what
they send.

Now if you are claiming the USDHHS and it's agencies are trying to
deceive, why don't you come out and say so, and what makes you say that,
rather than this sophomoric and childish whining insinuation question
formulation?

Or are YOU doing research and if so when can we expect to see it publish
in a journal after peer review?

If you really are, Greg, I recommend you go to more sources. The DOJ/FBI
systems report some data that would answer some of the questions you
ask, and the CDC others.

The pediatric community is also a great source. Look at their peer
reviewed journals. In fact, even medical journals, I recommend NEJM, not
limited to child issues, has some great references for all kinds of
related things to your questions.

Or don't you wish to be more than a sidewalk superintendent? Which by
the way, you do rather badly.

Stop screaming questions at the workmen and at least try to be honest
and say what YOU would do.

Everyone is incompetent, to you, but YOU don't say what you think would
fix it, in any detail. And YOU won't even do what you claim will
work...sue them.

You just whine.

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

Neglect kills more kids than abuse?
Not too far fetched since for CPS agencies, abuse is
like the gold in a shotgun shell back when
when scam artists use to "salt a mine".

It's all about exaggeration and
self justification of an entire INDUSTRY.

Aren't even MORE KIDS killed by homicide in
families where the agencies were NEVER
ever involved?

In other words, the population that the
agencies are not watching?

When those happen do the CPS agencies rush
in and score them on their statistics?

Or do they just "chum the waters" when CPS
agencies seek funding?

Have CPS agencies proven any actual
results?

Greegor wrote:
Neglect kills more kids than abuse?

Greegor, I've lost count of the number of times this has been quoted,
and carefully linked for citation checking. Even Doug has posted this,
Greg. So I KNOW you aren't confused.

Not too far fetched since for CPS agencies, abuse is
like the gold in a shotgun shell back when
when scam artists use to "salt a mine".

What ARE you babbling about now? We were discussing the relation between
parental and CPS abuse and neglect, and now you are off on yet another
tangent.

It's all about exaggeration and
self justification of an entire INDUSTRY.

What exaggeration? If it kills the child what difference if it's called
"abuse" or "neglect." It is by definition ALL abuse if it injures the
child.

Aren't even MORE KIDS killed by homicide in
families where the agencies were NEVER
ever involved?

Now there is the point, Greg. You sure you wanted to bring that up?

I'd have to agree with you. It's simple logic. CPS is NOT called on all
instances of abuse, even that seen by others, Greg.

And when you have a society that so deeply values citizen privacy as
ours does to even put it in it's founding documents ("secure in its
letter and papers, etc.")

Millions upon millions of families have NO contact with government
agents. Those that don't want to especially, can set up ways of
avoidance of ANY.

Just don't record the birth of the child to start. I'm not going to
share more...I don't want to coach people on how to do it.

In other words, the population that the
agencies are not watching?

Interesting choice of words. And after all these years of posting here
you STILL haven't gotten it that CPS does NOT watch families.

Not non-client families. CPS ONLY takes complaints...it does NOT patrol
like the police. It can encourage people to report. State legislation
can make it mandatory to report (not CPS writing or enforcing those laws).

But "the agencies" do not watch families not reported to them. They have
no time, and they have NO mandate by law to do so, or even by practice.

We do not teach in our schools of social work the "watching" of
families. Not individuals. We do watch the data. Civil societies must to
manage their responsibilities assigned to "agencies."

When those happen do the CPS agencies rush
in and score them on their statistics?

Score? Do you mean collect, tabulate, and report? Yes, they are supposed
to. That is were the data comes from that is reported BY the sources
that both Doug and I, and of course many others over the years, have
cited here.

Or do they just "chum the waters" when CPS
agencies seek funding?

Chumming means throwing hook free bits of bait out to attract fish. How
would CPS attract reports, or clients? I know of no such programs. I've
known of some by other agencies, and I've been very outspoken in two
states of the few I've lived again, against them.

I do not approve of public health officials (nurses) going door knocking
based on recent birth announcements. I made a permanent enemy of one
state governor because of how outspoken I was on this subject.

I don't even like the words, "early intervention" because if they are
NOT voluntary, as they have been proposed to be requires, I believe them
to be unconstitutional.

Have CPS agencies proven any actual
results?

CPS has no such mandate, nor effort. They report to others what the data
is. Other's examine that data and analyze it and apply it to public
policy decisions by debate...usually in the state legislatures, and for
some issues, at the federal level.

CPS then practices under the statutes developed and interpreted into
practice (policy is what they call it at that level).

It's the "how to" part, based on the "what to" part that is the statute.

This is where you have your major difficulty in understanding, Greg. You
see a law, and you presume HOW it's to be applied, with apparently NO
practical experience in interpretation from blueprint to cutting and
nailing.

You can TELL and agency to do something, such as set up Citizen Review
Board offices in a state, but HOW has to be very much under their control.

Especially if limited by funding.

This is the reality between law and application.

You experienced what I am describing the hard way. You thought that the
courts were to set up CRBs (it's a court district function as written)
in every county or some division I've never quite figured out. In fact
they fell under the funding limit to set up only a certain NUMBER.

Kind of makes sense in the real world. X dollars = X agencies.

You reported, or complained to the HWMC that they had not done as YOU
thought they were supposed to. I SHOWED YOU, and you never responded,
the funding limitations that they HAD met BY SETTING up the required
number properly distributed.

You have such hubris and bitter gall spilling that you could not
acknowledge you were wrong and they were right.

This seems to extend to things like arguing caseworker caseload. And
that YOU think it's a vacation to handle so "little" work.

But you are basing your claim on ignorance as surely as Doug bases his
on spun data and commentary.

Best wishes, Kane


--
"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

Where is my CRB and why did Jerry Foxhoven say that
IFCRB does not review cases that are not Foster Care?
Where is the CRB function for kinship care?

heeeeeere's where the boogieman lives..................the abuse or
neglect argument is the tip of the iceberg......................the
real killer is something called structural violence............it is
neglect on a grand scale and it is built into the
system................a big component is lack of affordable
healthcare..............it kills at least 10 times as many children as
parents.................for a comparison, check out how france handles
healthcare for its children..................the debate over unfit
parents draws semiskilled labor because there is money to be made from
having some people declared to be unfit..............it is a little
like being a trustee for bankruptcies without having to be a
lawyer.............those in the loop get to say what needs to be done
and taxpayers foot the bill..............providing adequate healthcare,
which would actually save more children's lives, would cost the same
people money instead of putting them on the gov'ment
payroll..............that is why they will fight you tooth and nail for
cps and claim you hate children if you don't jump on the
bandwagon...............this thing is not about
children..............it's about money........................

gregory says neglect kills more than abuse.................

just take their word for it...................then divide that number
by the number of children in the united
states........................see what fraction of 1 percent it
is...............then consider that five out of every 1.000 infants
born in the united states dies from lack of healthcare............dive
five by 1,000 and see what the percent is...........or see how many
children are born each year and see how may die of five out of each
thousand die from lack of healthcare..............the numbers really
are quite staggering..............

Greegor 1490 from abuse or neglect................

nooooooooo, all you did was teach the cats what you had a nasty
disposition and they avoided you...............

]:^ runs around her dog lot barking that she conditioned
cats.................