As promised ... (SIDS)

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Even primitives know better than this and do get in each other's faces
over socially unacceptable behaviors of all kinds and varieties.

Yes, and force parents to do genital mutilation, foot binding,
head binding and many other socially demanded behaviors.
Not the best logic or example, Kane!

I wasn't passing judgement, just stating a fact about societies.

We have genital mutilation, Michael, we circumcise, we also have
barbaric forced tooth extractions, tonsilectomies and WE drug the
children to do that, and most grotesque of all, we make kids sit in
rows for 4 to six hours per day, for 9 months of the year INDOORS mind
you.

Now THAT is sick. R R R R R R

No wonder they need drugs to control them. (not a joke in that line).

I think none of us should pass judgement on the other societies, but
then, when they come HERE I have this nasty notion they should work to
fit in with this society.

Call me a bigot.... 0:-]

The argument isn't what's right, Michael, but that the process is
powerful, as you and I both just demonstrated. It doesn't need the
force of law for that. Just as I pointed out.

Kane

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
:

Michael© wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in
ps.com:

Michael wrote
If the coroner has determined the cause of
death as SIDS, there is nothing to investigate.
But immedately after death DHS investigative
caseworkers en masse are rushed out.

SIDS is used as a catch all.

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

Has traditionally just meant no scientific explanation,
no sign of foul play.

Up until the brain abnormaility was discovered there
has been absolutely no trace of SIDS to identify in a lab.

In other words, there has never been any way
to decide a baby died of SIDS until this discovery.

The implication of the policy and law about
CPS investigating these is a that a sudden infant
death is inherently suspicious, a probable cause.

If that is the implication, then they may as well stop using coroners
and treat every death not preceded by illness as suspicious. If the
coroner even remotely thinks the death was suspicious, you can bet it
will be ruled suspicious circumstances or undetermined cause, not SIDS.

When SIDS is listed as cause, it is over. No agency has any cause to
interview or collect any information from the grieving family.

I've not looked it up, but an old girlfriend of mine, head of nursing
for the county department of health, and eventually the director of the
department of health told me otherwise.

And I suspect caseworkers are also assigned support services
responsibilities in the state of Iowa, the one brought up.

Don't know if you'll read it, but then I never give up on hope.

http://tinyurl.com/uzamo

I downloaded it and am reading it now. Thanks for the link.

You are welcome.

This is
meat.

Yes, I know.

I also believe it kind of shoots down Greg's claim about workers
decending en mass on poor helpless families though.

You tell him, will you. He seems to take it awfully hard when I do and
falls into either hysterical blindness and can't remember even his own
posts on the subject and keeps demanding I answer.....very
strange....or he goes all sideways on us, sort of weasel like, you see.


It does appear they are tasked with reviewing data where a death
has resulted in an individual up to 17 years of age. From what I gather
to the point I have read is they gather data, not investigate deaths in
any attempt to find fault beyond the coroners ruling.

Yep, pretty much what I said. It's not a fault finding expedition, but
an information gather one.

The teams' responsibilities include:

The "Team" is not the caseworkers. In fact there are only one or two on
this multidisciplinary team that the report came out of.


o Collection, review and analyses of child
death certificates, data and records
concerning the deaths of children ages
birth through 17 years, and preparation of
an annual report summarizing the team's
findings.

Oh, there seems to be a bit of confusion here. I did not offer this as
an example of these folks doing the face to face but in what they
recommended occur vis a vis the worker's face to face. Darn. I guess I
should have been more expliciit.

It's there.

I think I see a reason why CFS workers are tasked, as you see by
recommendation, with some face to face with the parents in child
deaths.

....CDRT Recommendations For Elected Officials:

· Require all child autopsies to be completed and reported to the
state medical examiner's
office within three months of the death. ...

I'd say that one would have a very very cold case after three months of
waiting for SIDS Dx, or any other for that matter.

I suspect that Greg, or his sources, are being very very loose with the
comment, "they are all out on a SIDS case."

I suspect no such diagnosis was in, and receptionists are usually not
conversant in the correct language of various related professions to
child protect, investigations, ME, LEOs, etc. They do the best they can
and if they slip up and aren't exact but doing the best approximation
they can, well it gives Greg a little grist for his busy little mill,
don'tchaknow?

o Formulation of recommendations to the
governor and general assembly about
interventions that could prevent future
child deaths.

Yes.


o Formulation of recommendations to state
agencies represented on the CDRT as to
how they may improve services to
children to prevent future child deaths.

Yep, there's where the CFS worker comes in doing face to face. You'll
get to it if you keep reading.


o Maintenance of confidentiality of all
records that the team reviews.

Yep, they too much comply with HIPAA, but they are themselves one of
the acceptable accessers of the raw records. They simply don't pass any
identification material on.

o Development of protocols and a child
abuse-related death committee.

It doesn't appear they have any authority to interact with the parents.
They appear to want that ability though as far as I can tell from their
recommendations further into the document.

I didn't say this was a report by those that do the face to face, just
about that subject.

I missed where they wanted to interact with parents. I'll review.

Come to think of it they may be suffering, as they read the case
records, a problem with understanding what the workers mean.
Inconsistency is normal from person to person, so I guess from office
to office it might be even worse.

It's real hard to make workers operate, like all other humans won't, in
lockstep.

When I helped one state develop it's "screens" as the tooled up for
going statewide WAN, that was my goal. To make the fields limit input
to standard terms, and no more.

In fact I wrote a very good paper on that in college, as my computer
project, and used Foxbase to develop a test model for grade. Aced it.

The following pull quote from the report seems likely to be involved in
SIDS events from the viewpoint of the state's definition of SIDS as not
always being unknow cause. That is to say that known conditions that
often preceed a SIDS event wouuld be of concern to the state, so if
this recommendation is followed, might apply.
....
Recommendation 10: to the Iowa
Department of Human Services. The Child
Death Review Team recommends removal
of very young children (less than 4 years)
from unsafe family situations while parents
work to improve the home environment.
Close follow up with the family to monitor
its progress should be made for one year
after the child is back in the home, and
frequent visits to the home should be made.
In addition, any caseworker entering a home
should perform a home safety check. The
results should be reviewed with the parents,
and the safety check should be repeated at a
later date to evaluate improvements. ...

Reading further I find:

[[[ This should provide some support and comfort to our esteemed
colleague, Greg the Magnificent Upholder of Parent's Rights. ]]]

.... Undetermined means that investigation
of the circumstances and examination
through autopsy did not clearly identify
the way in which the death occurred.
SIDS is included in this category, since
this cause is determined by the absence
of other signs rather than by a clearly
identified finding. ...

Nevertheless, one will see that SIDS is not completely bounded by a
definition that excludes likely causes. It's that historically
collected data that sorts out to certain pre-conditions being
implicated strongly in SIDS events.

One can see in the following the extraordinary correlations, and wonder
how the data was gathered. My bet? Workers doing face to face
interview, after the death, and likely long before the autopsy that
finally determined a SIDS Dx.

....The majority of 2004 SIDS deaths occurred
while a parent was caring for the infant, and
40 percent occurred during colder months.

Risk factors for SIDS include prenatal
smoking, secondhand smoke exposure
after birth, inappropriate sleep surface,
inappropriate (soft, porous) bedding,
overheating and most especially, prone
or side sleeping position. Bed sharing
is becoming an enormous risk. In
2004, five (25%) of the infants dying
from SIDS were sleeping with at least
one adult or with another child, on an
inappropriate sleep surface, at the time
of death. Note that in previous years,
the rate of SIDS cases where the child
was bed sharing at time of death was
much higher. In review of the 2004
infant deaths, the Iowa CDRT
reclassified the many of these deaths as
overlying or undetermined. If overlying,
SIDS and undetermined deaths
occurring in the sleep environment are
considered as a group, then 12 of 29
(41.3%) infants succumbed while bed
sharing. ...

If nothing else, a worker would call on the family to see if these
conditions existed for any other young children, and to educate and
inform the family.

Do you really see these as intrusions?

Page 19 following my quote above, goes into much more detail and it's
damned alarming. Smoking is a huge factor apparently.

Sleep position, bedding, conditions all have high percentages where a
SIDS occurs.

Face down sleeping is the case in 50% of SIDS.

I note also that many deaths of the type Dx'd as SIDS now are being
listed based on the causal factors. Hence SIDS deaths are, for data
purposes, decreasing, but those that would NOT be excused from further
investigation are still there...new designation.

Asphxyia etc.

And in the case of homicides we have an "oh dear me..." recommendation
for reducing child deaths to relate:

.... 1. Mothers should be cautioned about careful selection of
individuals
who care for their children, most especially paramours. Reports of
criminal history can be obtained at reasonable charge from local police
departments. ...

My eyes must be getting tired, as I could not find where the team
members were pushing for them having direct contact with the parents in
SIDS, or any cases.

Hope this will be of some help in resolving any questions you have
about SIDS and how Iowa handles, or wishes to handle such cases, vis a
vis caseworker involvement.

I think someone might have been pulling Greg's leg, don' t you, like,
"Mabel, if that nutso calls one more time with his threatening nonsense
just tell him we're all out on a SIDS death, that should cool his
jets:"

Waddayahthink, maybe?

I know in their position I would.

And record his call at that. R R R R R R

0:-

--
Michael© Is listening to: Lamb of God - Break You

What is yours is mine, and all mine is yours.
Plautus. (c. 254-184 B.C.) Trinummus. Act ii. Sc. 2, 48. (329.)

Michael wrote
When SIDS is listed as cause, it is over. No agency has any cause to
interview or collect any information from the grieving family.

Don wrote
You base this opinion on what statute?

Michael wrote
I don't believe there is a statute that states it. One is not required.
When the coroner signs off on a death certificate it is over. If facts
come to light later, an investigation would probably ensue. No agency runs
after deaths investigating what has been declared natural causes.

Michael: If you are criminally charged with child abuse and
found INNOCENT in a criminal court, MANY families are still
dragged through JUVENILE COURT and can have their kids
removed for child abuse, completely ignoring the ruling of the
criminal court. This is why I would NOT doubt that DHS would
ignore a death certificate stating a medical reason for death.


Michael wrote
Policy can say whatever it wants to say, it
doesn't carry the force of law.

Don/Kane has asserted that policy is law.


Don Kane wrote
Of course there is a cause to interview and collect information.
The family can refuse of course,

DO you think that Iowa DHS tells people they don't need to cooperate?
I just love this game when a CHILD PROTECTION worker actually
DOES tell a family that they don't have to cooperate!

Don/Kane wrote
but collecting information on
circumstances, since SIDS is known to happen in certain circumstances
more often...like in homes where there are smokers, where the mother is
a smoker during pregnancy, where the child slept with other children and
adults.

Michael wrote
There may be a desire to collect this information, but no requirements as
I understand the term 'cause' to be applied in this form.

Don/Kane wrote
There's good reason to visit and offer them information as well as to
see if such conditions exist still.

Michael wrote
Reason, desire, fine but no legal means intrude.

Remember, you don't have to cooperate!
(Watch them go get a court order for removal!)

Kane/Don wrote
Do you have some idea that it's okay for a child to die because it's
just SIDS, something we know we have a line on from historical data, and
we know there are ways to reduce such risks?

Michael wrote
It IS okay as far as the law is concerned, and it happens. It is a death
that has no known cause at the moment. Unfortunate, but it does happen.
Nature is like that.

Kane wrote
Even primitives know better than this and do get in each other's faces
over socially unacceptable behaviors of all kinds and varieties.

Michael wrote
A natural death is socially unacceptable or that there is no law that
requires agencies to intrude into families that are grieving to gather
data?

Kane wrote
Child rearing is not the isolated event some wish it were. It is an
institution of society. For a reason.

Michael wrote
Care to post a law from anywhere in any society that says a parent is not
permitted to raise their offspring in isolation?

Michael: Look up old posts about "Structured Decision Making".
There are groups which make up forms I call "idiot sheets" that
are used for "Risk Assessment". Several companies, confederations
and non-profit concerns have created these.

When I first looked at the web site for "Structured Decision Making"
their web site had a disclaimer saying the forms are not to be
used for decision making. Isn't that funny?

The idea is that by using a checkoff form the workers would
be making more OBJECTIVE decisions rather than subjective
ones. The big problem is that most of the forms have
many sections called "overrides" which can be used to
overrule any objectivity the forms might have brought about.

Another problem is that even though they are NOT supposed
to use these forms to decide to "found" an investigation, but
it actually IS.

Doug and others looked over the Michigan form and discovered
that a single Mom, with three kids, living in a farm house is
scored as AT HIGH RISK by the form before the worker even
knocks on the door.

Living in the country is called ISOLATION and a point.

Hunting or slaughtering farm livestock is a risk point.

Two or more kids? a risk point.

Single mom? risk point.

I suspect that Homeschooling is a point.

SO, Michael, in answer to your comment about isolation,
that is actually used as part of the basis for CPS cases.

Part of the reason that the Home School Legal Defense
Association has had to fight off CPS cases so much is
that having kids in PUBLIC SCHOOL is heavily used to
watch or keep tabs on kids and families. BOTH in regard
to CPS sniffing for LEADS and for access the parents
can't stop once a case is started.

Kane wrote
I also believe it kind of shoots down Greg's claim about workers
decending en mass on poor helpless families though.

Please explain how this theory disproves what the receptionist said!

Assuming, that is, that caseworkers follow all the rules (yeah right!).

You tell him, will you. He seems to take it awfully hard when I do and
falls into either hysterical blindness and can't remember even his own
posts on the subject and keeps demanding I answer.....very
strange....or he goes all sideways on us, sort of weasel like, you see.


It does appear they are tasked with reviewing data where a death
has resulted in an individual up to 17 years of age. From what I gather
to the point I have read is they gather data, not investigate deaths in
any attempt to find fault beyond the coroners ruling.

I saw where they now go up to 2 or 3 but want to extend that to age 6
for mandatory autopsies.

If your kid dies of Leukemia or something they'd need to
do a full autopsy by law? I think autopsies can be so useful
that I'm for them, but I could understand some people
being against such a thing.

But then I think there are many more inconclusive autopsies
than Kane believes.

In fact every SIDS death marked on a death certificate
up to now has been fraudulent really.
(It will take a while before they look for the brain anomoly as
part of the official procedures and practices.)

AND if a kid dies and doesn't have the brain anomoly,
that DOES NOT indicate child abuse necessarily, but
you just KNOW they'll be treating it that way once
the anomoly becomes better known in practice.

Yep, pretty much what I said. It's not a fault finding expedition, but
an information gather one.

The teams' responsibilities include:

The "Team" is not the caseworkers. In fact there are only one or two on
this multidisciplinary team that the report came out of.

Don't they say 2 for the CPC exams too though?
Yet there were at least 4 I can name, plus a contractor, plus CPS
people.
It sure felt like a swarm to my SO.
She was ****ed that her "public defender" would not even go with her!

And results that VINDICATED US were not enough, they still
presumed guilt, because the child could have been fondled
externally. They routinely LIE about CPC exams vindicating families.
There is NO WAY for a CPC exam to vindicate a family, period.

They break rules, laws and policies constantly.

· Require all child autopsies to be completed and reported to the
state medical examiner's
office within three months of the death. ...

I'd say that one would have a very very cold case after three months of
waiting for SIDS Dx, or any other for that matter.

I suspect that Greg, or his sources, are being very very loose with the
comment, "they are all out on a SIDS case."

I suspect no such diagnosis was in, and receptionists are usually not
conversant in the correct language

The language regarding SIDS is lax for everybody since there
was absolutely NO TEST or medical explanation until now.
In a sense, every time over the last 50 years anybody ruled
on a SIDS death they were basically telling a LIE since
there was absolutely no way to tell any were SIDS at all!

There still is no definitive autopsy procedure or test for the
brain anomoly, and not all such anomolies result in the
respiratory arrest, just the ones not exposed to the mattress toxins.

How many years will it take before every last M.E. is
aware and competent to find this in the cranial exam?

of various related professions to
child protect, investigations, ME, LEOs, etc. They do the best they can
and if they slip up and aren't exact but doing the best approximation
they can, well it gives Greg a little grist for his busy little mill,
don'tchaknow?

I'll remind you that my Dad has called a Medical Examiner
who got "skunked" to report that he found what they could not.
A good Mortician can find vascular blockages that
the Medical Examiner can't even after making a hell of
a mess.

There's also the pair of hemostats that came in a body.

Apparently it gristed somebody's mill!


...The majority of 2004 SIDS deaths occurred
while a parent was caring for the infant, and
40 percent occurred during colder months.

Risk factors for SIDS include prenatal
smoking, secondhand smoke exposure
after birth, inappropriate sleep surface,
inappropriate (soft, porous) bedding,
overheating and most especially, prone
or side sleeping position. Bed sharing
is becoming an enormous risk. In
2004, five (25%) of the infants dying
from SIDS were sleeping with at least
one adult or with another child, on an
inappropriate sleep surface, at the time
of death. Note that in previous years,
the rate of SIDS cases where the child
was bed sharing at time of death was
much higher. In review of the 2004
infant deaths, the Iowa CDRT
reclassified the many of these deaths as
overlying or undetermined. If overlying,
SIDS and undetermined deaths
occurring in the sleep environment are
considered as a group, then 12 of 29
(41.3%) infants succumbed while bed
sharing. ...

If nothing else, a worker would call on the family to see if these
conditions existed for any other young children, and to educate and
inform the family.

Do you really see these as intrusions?

Soon smoking will justify child removals.
CPS and Child Death Teams have "mission creep".


Kane wrote
... 1. Mothers should be cautioned about careful selection of
individuals who care for their children, most especially paramours.
Reports of criminal history can be obtained at reasonable charge
from local police departments. ...

It's $50.00 to obtain one in Iowa.

The "evil boyfriend" thing has an interesting history in Iowa.

Why don't you explain that Kane? I'll watch.


Kane wrote
I think someone might have been pulling Greg's leg, don' t you, like,
"Mabel, if that nutso calls one more time with his threatening nonsense
just tell him we're all out on a SIDS death, that should cool his
jets:"

Cute idea, except I almost never called, and did not give my
name to the receptionist.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
I also believe it kind of shoots down Greg's claim about workers
decending en mass on poor helpless families though.

Please explain how this theory disproves what the receptionist said!

Greg, if the receptionist said, "It's hotter than hell in here" would
that be proof the temp was 2000 degrees?

snip

In fact every SIDS death marked on a death certificate
up to now has been fraudulent really.

snip

In a sense, every time over the last 50 years anybody ruled
on a SIDS death they were basically telling a LIE since
there was absolutely no way to tell any were SIDS at all!

snip

Kane wrote
... 1. Mothers should be cautioned about careful selection of
individuals who care for their children, most especially paramours.
Reports of criminal history can be obtained at reasonable charge
from local police departments. ...

It's $50.00 to obtain one in Iowa.

Didn't I see your criminal record posted for free on FightCPS, Greg?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
I also believe it kind of shoots down Greg's claim about workers
decending en mass on poor helpless families though.

Please explain how this theory disproves what the receptionist said!

What "theory?"

Assuming, that is, that caseworkers follow all the rules (yeah right!).

What are you talking about?

You tell him, will you. He seems to take it awfully hard when I do and
falls into either hysterical blindness and can't remember even his own
posts on the subject and keeps demanding I answer.....very
strange....or he goes all sideways on us, sort of weasel like, you see.


It does appear they are tasked with reviewing data where a death
has resulted in an individual up to 17 years of age. From what I gather
to the point I have read is they gather data, not investigate deaths in
any attempt to find fault beyond the coroners ruling.

I saw where they now go up to 2 or 3 but want to extend that to age 6
for mandatory autopsies.

Any death, age aside, where there is a question as to cause should be
assigned to the ME. Or we can stop being concerned about them
altogether. Which do you think more socially responsible and acceptable?

If your kid dies of Leukemia or something they'd need to
do a full autopsy by law?

Probably not. If the attending physician, however, thinks the death is
not typical for a Leukemia victim, then yes, autopsy.

The point, Greg, as has been said repeatedly, is UNATTENDED DEATHS, are
of course usually deaths that require close inspection. If a child is in
a physicians care it's usually not an unattended death.

I think autopsies can be so useful
that I'm for them, but I could understand some people
being against such a thing.

If we conducted all our social intercourse based on what individuals
were for or against, Greg, we'd refer to that as "chaos" and "law of the
jungle."

Civil society requires we accommodate each other, and we do that by
developing a set of rules. Do you know what we call those "rules?"

But then I think there are many more inconclusive autopsies
than Kane believes.

What you think and what I KNOW tend to be miles apart, Greg. I hardly am
impress by a comparison of what you think and what I believe is much of
a comparison.

What you think you think, most of the times, Greg, is emotion driven,
and a "belief." I tend to test my beliefs constantly. Hence they earn
the right to be called, "what Kane THINKS." As thinking was part of the
process.

Can you honestly say that you "think?"

You often simply spout the jargon that best fits your biases, and drop
out when challenged to logically and factually support what you think
you "think."

In fact every SIDS death marked on a death certificate
up to now has been fraudulent really.

Oh dear. The logic of that overwhelms me. LMAO.

(It will take a while before they look for the brain anomoly as
part of the official procedures and practices.)

I have a buddy that ranks in the high genius range. MENSA and all that
crap. BUT, he is in fact very intelligent and insightful.

His response, with a grin, "things take time."

AND if a kid dies and doesn't have the brain anomoly,
that DOES NOT indicate child abuse necessarily,

And how are they to rule out child abuse? What is that process called?

Last I heard it was "investigation." You seem to want society to give up
its rules and not investigate unless the investigation would be
unnecessary...as in someone strangled the kid with a bevy of witnesses.

Very strange, Greg. Kind of a weird, "yah ain't got nuthin' on me,
copper," Jame Cagney kind of mindset.

but
you just KNOW they'll be treating it that way once
the anomoly becomes better known in practice.

What way? That if the kid dies without that brain anomaly and no other
cause is obvious, and it was an unattended death, it will be investigated?

Why is it, Greg, as it appears to me, that you believe that an
investigation equates with an automatic assumption the investigation has
already been decided and the person found guilty?

Being suspicious does not equate with a trail already held and guilt
decided.

But perhaps you have a solution to your delusion and can figure out how
to find investigators that are totally objective...by your standards.

Can you tell us what that might be?



Yep, pretty much what I said. It's not a fault finding expedition, but
an information gather one.
The teams' responsibilities include:
The "Team" is not the caseworkers. In fact there are only one or two on
this multidisciplinary team that the report came out of.

Don't they say 2 for the CPC exams too though?

What ARE you talking about?

A bit of posting and writing protocol for you Greg. Do NOT refer to
uncommon acronyms without them being spelled out in full somewhere
nearby in the document being read, thanks. It's both a courtesy and an
editorial given to do so.

Yet there were at least 4 I can name, plus a contractor, plus CPS
people.

I presume you are talking about the 'swarm' that descended on some poor
recently bereaved family, right?

And you know that all these went to interview the family, at once?

It sure felt like a swarm to my SO.

Yes, it often does.

Two is a swarm when one is on the hotseat, Greg. It's natural to feel
that way.

On the other hand YOU have more witnesses to what was said and done.
Kind of works both ways. And who say she couldn't take anyone with her?

She was ****ed that her "public defender" would not even go with her!

I should think.

Do you think possibly that YOU and YOUR contribution to the chaos might
have been a tad off putting to any or everyone involved? You are an
arrogant little pushy ****ant, after all.

I sure wouldn't want you, since YOU were not a member of the family,
anywhere near and official activities. You tend to muck things up,
factually, and logically, even sometimes in one short sentence.

And results that VINDICATED US were not enough, they still
presumed guilt, because the child could have been fondled
externally.

Hmmmm....and that seems illogical or unfair to you? The activities you
describe as happening in that household, long workdays where mom is
gone, you quite willing to lay hand on the child and spank her, towel
boy duties, shampoo girl efforts....those don't bring up any suspicion
at all if you knew others were doing such things?

Hell, weren't you one of those cackling jackasses that tried to make
something out of my showering with my own toddlers...not SIX year old kids?

YOU weren't related to the child, Greg. A prime candidate.

They routinely LIE about CPC exams vindicating families.

Proof they lied about you, is the question, Greg, not what you believe
to be "routine." Which is also unproven...just an accusation.

There is NO WAY for a CPC exam to vindicate a family, period.

So?

Have you wondered what I mean when I speak of "fundamentalist thinking?"

Part of it is thinking OUT OF CONTEXT. No one part of a process
necessarily can provide us with conclusions that are valid, like
"clutter." Put that together with other things though, and a picture
emerges that does support valid conclusions.

Removed the "clutter" however, and you still may have ABUSE or NEGLECT
from those things that remain.

This capacity to lie by fundy thinkers always amazes me. It's like a
murderer claiming they didn't kill the strangled person because there
was no gun found.

They break rules, laws and policies constantly.

That's your perception. And those that think like you.

The fact is EVERY DOES. But of course not each person can do so constantly.

You are indulging yourself in hyperbole...a common occurrence in those
that strongly suspect they are wrong.

· Require all child autopsies to be completed and reported to the
state medical examiner's
office within three months of the death. ...

I'd say that one would have a very very cold case after three months of
waiting for SIDS Dx, or any other for that matter.

I suspect that Greg, or his sources, are being very very loose with the
comment, "they are all out on a SIDS case."

I suspect no such diagnosis was in, and receptionists are usually not
conversant in the correct language

The language regarding SIDS is lax for everybody since there
was absolutely NO TEST or medical explanation until now.

There was no "test" or verifiable scientific explanation for electricity
even after we began using it to power and light society, Greg. That
went on for some time.

What we have known about SIDS for a very long time from empirical study
is that certain conditions existing in the child's environment,
including his or her own body, contributes to the rate of SIDS in the
population.

In a sense, every time over the last 50 years anybody ruled
on a SIDS death they were basically telling a LIE since
there was absolutely no way to tell any were SIDS at all!

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Greg. It's not a lie. It's an admission
that all other recognizable causes have been ruled out.

Did you read that report out of Iowa, or just skim for bits that you
might take from context?

There still is no definitive autopsy procedure or test for the
brain anomoly,

Mmmm....and?

and not all such anomolies result in the
respiratory arrest, just the ones not exposed to the mattress toxins.

I can't make heads nor tails of that comment. Can you clarify?

Run a spell checker. It's "anomalies," and "anomaly."

It's not rude to make the occasional spelling error, but it is to repeat
it throughout a document.

How many years will it take before every last M.E. is
aware and competent to find this in the cranial exam?

Less than one.

of various related professions to
child protect, investigations, ME, LEOs, etc. They do the best they can
and if they slip up and aren't exact but doing the best approximation
they can, well it gives Greg a little grist for his busy little mill,
don'tchaknow?

I'll remind you that my Dad has called a Medical Examiner
who got "skunked" to report that he found what they could not.

I don't recall you telling us about this before? If you didn't, how can
you remind us of it?

A good Mortician can find vascular blockages that
the Medical Examiner can't even after making a hell of
a mess.

If you have a problem with competencies, and your Dad was a Mortician or
ME, then you and he need to work on the problem.

There's also the pair of hemostats that came in a body.

If you have ever observed the madhouse that hospital ORs can be during a
busy day you'd understand how even the most thorough procedures can go
ass up at times. Humans are humans, not automatons.


Apparently it gristed somebody's mill!


A quaint colloquialism I'm unfamiliar with. Elucidate please.

...The majority of 2004 SIDS deaths occurred
while a parent was caring for the infant, and
40 percent occurred during colder months.

Risk factors for SIDS include prenatal
smoking, secondhand smoke exposure
after birth, inappropriate sleep surface,
inappropriate (soft, porous) bedding,
overheating and most especially, prone
or side sleeping position. Bed sharing
is becoming an enormous risk. In
2004, five (25%) of the infants dying
from SIDS were sleeping with at least
one adult or with another child, on an
inappropriate sleep surface, at the time
of death. Note that in previous years,
the rate of SIDS cases where the child
was bed sharing at time of death was
much higher. In review of the 2004
infant deaths, the Iowa CDRT
reclassified the many of these deaths as
overlying or undetermined. If overlying,
SIDS and undetermined deaths
occurring in the sleep environment are
considered as a group, then 12 of 29
(41.3%) infants succumbed while bed
sharing. ...

If nothing else, a worker would call on the family to see if these
conditions existed for any other young children, and to educate and
inform the family.

Do you really see these as intrusions?

Soon smoking will justify child removals.
CPS and Child Death Teams have "mission creep".

I'm just thrilled that you once again contextually ****ted, Greg.

Under some circumstance the argument of removal might well fly. A
respiratory compromised child...say and asthmatic, where the smoker is
careless of the condition and triggers a few life threatening runs for
the hospital emergency room might do it.

Or, you could not care and let the child die.

My question, by the way, was plural. Do you see THESE as intrusions?

Smoking is singular.

Which would not be intrusions, Greg?


Kane wrote
... 1. Mothers should be cautioned about careful selection of
individuals who care for their children, most especially paramours.
Reports of criminal history can be obtained at reasonable charge
from local police departments. ...

It's $50.00 to obtain one in Iowa.

Mmmm...and if I were a mother, or father, planning on leaving my
children alone with this person for 8 or more hours during the work day,
would $50 be too much to spend?

Not to me it wouldn't.

The "evil boyfriend" thing has an interesting history in Iowa.

Why don't you explain that Kane? I'll watch.

Other than your personal story I'm not up to speed on this in Iowa.

Why don't you explain your obtuse childish meandering questions, Greg?

Kane wrote
I think someone might have been pulling Greg's leg, don' t you, like,
"Mabel, if that nutso calls one more time with his threatening nonsense
just tell him we're all out on a SIDS death, that should cool his
jets:"

Cute idea, except I almost never called, and did not give my
name to the receptionist.

Greg, you can be sure, just like here, you don't go unnoticed for long.

I believe that to be a central trait.

0:-

Greegor wrote:
Michael wrote
When SIDS is listed as cause, it is over. No agency has any cause to
interview or collect any information from the grieving family.

Don wrote
You base this opinion on what statute?

No he didn't. He doesn't post here. I said that.

Michael wrote
I don't believe there is a statute that states it. One is not required.
When the coroner signs off on a death certificate it is over. If facts
come to light later, an investigation would probably ensue. No agency runs
after deaths investigating what has been declared natural causes.

Michael is wrong of course, but it's a technicality of chronology. The
"investigation" cannot wait for the ME or coroner to sign off when there
is an unexplained death.

Evidence is seen as hot or cold. Old is cold. Useless, often obliterated
by perps, or 'managed,' in some way...like time to threaten witnesses,
removed crime scene evidence.

Michael: If you are criminally charged with child abuse and
found INNOCENT in a criminal court, MANY families are still
dragged through JUVENILE COURT and can have their kids
removed for child abuse, completely ignoring the ruling of the
criminal court.

It's the O.J. syndrome. We know the truth, and civil court is where the
truth was told.

Again and again I have explained to you how criminal court works. A
finding of non-guilty doesn't mean conclusively the act was not
performed. Only that there is insufficient evidence under the rules of
criminal proceedings to find guilty and punish.

This is why I would NOT doubt that DHS would
ignore a death certificate stating a medical reason for death.

In the case of SIDS that IS somewhat more common. Or any other death of
a child that could have been avoided by simply "cleaning house."

A criminal court is unlikely to find that many of the conditions of
neglect, that kill, are in fact prosecutable as crimes based on statute.

What another could finds, of course, is that negligence of the caregiver
was in fact the mitigating factor in the death.

You keep demanding the one overrule the other, when their standards are
different for a reason.

If you deny one kind of civil court procedure you open the door to
canceling out all of them then.

Might I remind you the Lisa case will be in civil court?

If you cannot find your "alleged perps" guilty in a criminal court, then
by your own logic, you cannot in a civil court.

Is that not correct, Greg?

If you agree, then "your" case must be tried in criminal court. Is it
being done?


Michael wrote
Policy can say whatever it wants to say, it
doesn't carry the force of law.

Don/Kane has asserted that policy is law.

Don said nothing on the subject, but you may quote him if you can find
where he did.

And Kane has never done any such thing.

What is derived is not "law," but what is founded on statute.

You shat once again on the rules of debate. Fact matter, Greg. When you
misled by such obvious mistakes as that, given that I have posted so
many times regarding the origins of "policy," you are obviously either
mentally compromised in some way, memory problems perhaps, or simply lying.


Don Kane wrote
Of course there is a cause to interview and collect information.
The family can refuse of course,

DO you think that Iowa DHS tells people they don't need to cooperate?

You tell us, with some facts to back it up please.

I just love this game when a CHILD PROTECTION worker actually
DOES tell a family that they don't have to cooperate!

Well, since I didn't make that claim, you now have blatantly lied again,
Greg. Don't you ever get sick of yourself?

I said "The family can refuse of course."

Where does it say that I said the worker must tell them they can?

Don/Kane wrote

No Don didn't. You are lying.

but collecting information on
circumstances, since SIDS is known to happen in certain circumstances
more often...like in homes where there are smokers, where the mother is
a smoker during pregnancy, where the child slept with other children and
adults.

Michael wrote
There may be a desire to collect this information, but no requirements as
I understand the term 'cause' to be applied in this form.

The report from the Death Review Team to the Governor was filled with
recommendations. And some data that had to be collected by someone
actually interviewing someone else, and even likely reviewing the scene
of the death as to conditions.

That would indicate someone did a face to face and are likely mandated
to do so. I suspect Child and Family Services people, what we call,
caseworkers, or investigators out of that division of DHS.

You know, the one Doug says doesn't exist simply because it's workers
say they work for the umbrella agency, DHS.

If you look on the TO that I linked to recently for Iowa DHS you will
see, under a division, a "bureau." That bureau appears to be the one
that would be in the "protection" racket....R R R R and most likely to
be sending out investigators, to meet the mandate of the Division, as
stated in the Organization Report from Kevin Concannon on what each
division and bureau is responsible for.

[Are you following this, Greg?]

Someone has to go and investigate. And as I read the Death Review Team's
report it indicated that police and DHS cooperate. Who "works" for DHS i
Iowa on things related to the protection of children? Why "caseworkers"
of course. Obviously some assigned to investigate with the cops.

Don/Kane wrote
There's good reason to visit and offer them information as well as to
see if such conditions exist still.

Michael wrote
Reason, desire, fine but no legal means intrude.

Remember, you don't have to cooperate!
(Watch them go get a court order for removal!)

That would be equivalent to a warrant, Greg. You have some problem with
court orders when they go against you, but love them when the are for
you, isn't that right?

You're human after all, Greg. We all feel that way, but in debate, we
try to be objective, if we are honest, Greg.

Kane/Don wrote
Do you have some idea that it's okay for a child to die because it's
just SIDS, something we know we have a line on from historical data, and
we know there are ways to reduce such risks?

Michael wrote
It IS okay as far as the law is concerned, and it happens. It is a death
that has no known cause at the moment. Unfortunate, but it does happen.
Nature is like that.

Which is why society rules that an investigation must take place if the
cause unknown. AFTER the investigation we can say, "we don't know," and
move on. Or, there were mitigating circumstances that support acts of
negligence on the part of the caregiver.

Kane wrote
Even primitives know better than this and do get in each other's faces
over socially unacceptable behaviors of all kinds and varieties.

Michael wrote
A natural death is socially unacceptable or that there is no law that
requires agencies to intrude into families that are grieving to gather
data?

Kane wrote
Child rearing is not the isolated event some wish it were. It is an
institution of society. For a reason.

Michael wrote
Care to post a law from anywhere in any society that says a parent is not
permitted to raise their offspring in isolation?

Michael: Look up old posts about "Structured Decision Making".
There are groups which make up forms I call "idiot sheets" that
are used for "Risk Assessment". Several companies, confederations
and non-profit concerns have created these.

What methods do you know of for investigation that you would prefer, Greg?

And try not to weasel by going sideways on us. Just answer the ****ing
question as asked, okay, liar?

When I first looked at the web site for "Structured Decision Making"
their web site had a disclaimer saying the forms are not to be
used for decision making. Isn't that funny?

No, they are NOT used for decision make, Greg. That IS the point. They
are used as only part...and hiding that, ignoring that, weasel talking
around that constitute a lie perpetrated. My opponent went to great
trouble to misled on that issue.

I spent considerable time pointing out that other factors beyond the
form and even within the form, had to be use as one more step in the
assessment for a decision to be made.

Removal decisions are not made by one person, Greg. Even if only one
shows up, and decides to remove. They must justify their removal with
their supervisor, who must justify it with the manager over them in
every state I know of. Standard procedure.

And finally, there must be a shelter hearing to determine IN COURT by a
judge, if the removal and placement are justified given the circumstances.

The idea is that by using a checkoff form the workers would
be making more OBJECTIVE decisions rather than subjective
ones.

Yes, it does tend to not let their minds wander too much upon
contemplating the conditions and injuries they've been witnessing.

The big problem is that most of the forms have
many sections called "overrides" which can be used to
overrule any objectivity the forms might have brought about.

Let me see now. You don't approve of the form, but you don't want
anything to effect the form as to decision making. I see.

Another problem is that even though they are NOT supposed
to use these forms to decide to "found" an investigation, but
it actually IS.

It is part of the decision process, and submitted to the court, as well
as to supervisors and managers of those supervisors. Each signs off.

Each can ask questions, and often do if they see things that are not
consistent with practice standards, and policy.

Doug and others looked over the Michigan form and discovered
that a single Mom, with three kids, living in a farm house is
scored as AT HIGH RISK by the form before the worker even
knocks on the door.

But you don't want 'overrides' to exist. I see.

Living in the country is called ISOLATION and a point.

Yep.

Hunting or slaughtering farm livestock is a risk point.

Yep. Kids are more at risk in those situations.

I lost a little friend many years ago who parents lived and worked on a
commercial hog farm. I was among the searchers trying to find him when
he went missing.

His body was found in the bottom of a 3000 gal drain tank fed by the
farrowing house clean out gutters. Pig ****. No safety rail.

I was the contractor that installed that tank, ground level according to
spec, and the owner refused to put a few bucks into a guard rail I had
recommended. For over three years that tank risked every kid on that
farm. Skinflint killed the child.

Farm life is a risk. Why deny it?

I grew up in ranch and farm country. I know.

Two or more kids? a risk point.

Of course. While one little Greggie is vying for your attention over
here, the other is sticking his finger in the light-socket over there.

Single mom? risk point.

So two people can't provide better supervision that one?

Just by virtue of two being around more?

I suspect that Homeschooling is a point.

I did not see it on the form in question, and of course, I did look for it.

Since Homeschoolers have a much lower rate of abuse and neglect, and
that is well known in CPS circles (with a little help from me in a
couple of states) they don't consider HSing a risk factor, but quite the
opposite.

SO, Michael, in answer to your comment about isolation,
that is actually used as part of the basis for CPS cases.

So now it's "part of the basis."

Even YOU can slip and tell the truth from time to time, Greg.

The problem with your little rant here is that you attack a process that
has no better means to accomplish the task.

If you think there is, tell us. Design a way of assessing families and I
will personally lobby, if it has any merit over prior methods, the state
to adopt your design.

Any fool can stand around and criticize, Greg, but it takes brains to
come up with better alternatives.

Part of the reason that the Home School Legal Defense
Association has had to fight off CPS cases so much is
that having kids in PUBLIC SCHOOL is heavily used to
watch or keep tabs on kids and families. BOTH in regard
to CPS sniffing for LEADS and for access the parents
can't stop once a case is started.

Total blather.

HSLDA has managed to collect a huge pile of money by "membership" with
the promise "THAT WE CANNOT PROMISE" to defend you in court. They get a
hundred bucks a family last I heard. You look up their membership
number, do the math, and look up the size of their staff.

We are talking something in the 6 million dollars a year range, Greg.
And a staff of less than a dozen at last count.

They have carefully cherry picked cases to build the "CPS bogeyman" when
in fact CPS is more UNLIKELY to go after HS families than others.

You need to go to the HSLDA website and have a 12 year old read and
explain to you what they say they actually do.

They are a bunch of Right Wing Christian blow hards with those involved
being heavily into attempting to violate the separation of church and
state. They have an affiliation with a Christian College set up to
provide our next generation of government officials, and are well on
their way. I see it as infiltration as dangerous as any Muslim extremist
groups similar attempts.

Were they 'Christians' I have little to bitch about, but tracing their
antecedents takes you to some very weird fringey extremist groups.

Wildly old Testament stuff.

The majority of homeschoolers one might refer to as
run-of-the-mill-Christians or secular homeschoolers can't stand HSLDA
because they KNOW the lies perpetrated to suck money out of folks and
deliver little.

Posters here have featured cases...but they fail to note really how few
cases there actually are in total.

HSLDA plainly state that they do NOT make themselves available for court
proceedings UNLESS they are directly home education related...that is
the family is being taken to court for not educating their children or
similar school items.

In other words if a family is accused of abuse, don't count on HSLDA.

Now, before we go. Tell us the value of "one point" in the survey
assessment tool Greg.

Wake up, little Suzy.

Donald wrote
The fines for violating HIPAA vary from 5k to 100k and or time in jail,
up to a year, as I recall.

Really? That gossippy lady from Lutheran Social Services will
probably wet her pants when she find out about that.

Greegor wrote:
Donald wrote

No he didn't. I did, Gagg.

The fines for violating HIPAA vary from 5k to 100k and or time in jail,
up to a year, as I recall.

Really?

Last I checked.

That gossippy lady from Lutheran Social Services will
probably wet her pants when she find out about that.

Why don't you tell her?

Why didn't you complain at the time?

0;-]

Don: Aren't you glad I didn't accuse you of being a child molester?