A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Plant Prattles HUGE destructive lie against relatives....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 22nd 04, 02:14 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plant Prattles HUGE destructive lie against relatives....

On 21 May 2004 13:59:42 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Note the vicious liar: Plant, why did you confine your post to aps?
Afraid to post where you might be challenged for your dangerous lies
that might discourage kin from trying to foster their own relatives?

Let's start with the truth, so we don't drive away any relatives that
might be asked to foster or adopt...the states want you, will go out
of their way to place with you, and will support the child with not
just a cash subsidy but with rehabilitative and remedial services of
many kinds.

Now on to the lies that The Plant, yet another of the lying pack of
Douggie's hyenas, tries to foist about kinship care. Kane

Begin Fern5827's remarks, and mine following intersperced:

You see, the way the Feds set up funding, Foster Care was one of the

few
options available for abused children.


Few?

So tell us, Tulip, what about the children returned to their parents
under state supervision?

Not only foster care, but STRANGER FOSTER CARE.


Odd, I see figures only as low as 24% and up to 50% or more, going to
relatives for foster care and adoption.

And an aside: those kinship foster caregivers are NOT separated out of
the "foster" demographic when abuse by "fosters" is counted. In other
words, some of those relatives are themselves abusive. So stranger or
kincare, children are abused by caregivers. Try not to lie so much.
Your nose is too long already.

I've also heard, first hand face to face, relatives refuse to take the
children, and also I have witnessed them, by their own mouths, refuse
to adopt those children who had nowhere else to go and insist on long
term fostercare....so they would get the higher rate of monies.

Familiar with that concept, Lavonne?


If she isn't I certainly am.

As it stands today, fewer than 27% of children supposedly abused or

neglected
are placed with kin or blood relatives.


R R R R ..... careful exiting your car. ..you'll stab someone with
that proboscis.

You recently posted something very different about LA county. And I
know you cannot provide proof of your 27% claim.

Let's look at the post and today...and compare not only the past
figures...but the trend to today......starting 6, that's 6 YEARS
AGO....

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/

"The Extent to Which Children in Foster Care Are Placed with Relatives

In 1998, approximately 2.13 million children in the United States, or
just under 3 percent, were living in some type of kinship care
arrangement. In 1997, approximately 200,000 children were in public
kinship care, well below 1 percent of all U.S. children but 29 percent
of all foster children. Available evidence suggests that public
kinship care has increased substantially during the late 1980s and
1990s (see Chapter 1).

(gee, Geranium, it wasn't as low as 27% even 6 years ago)

Three main factors have contributed to this growth. First, the number
of non-kin foster parents has not kept pace with the number of
children requiring placement, creating a greater demand for foster
caregivers. Second, child welfare agencies have developed a more
positive attitude toward the use of kin as foster parents. Today,
extended family members are usually given first priority when children
require placement. Third, a number of Federal and State court rulings
have recognized the rights of relatives to act as foster parents and
to be compensated financially for doing so. "

Notice what it says about "Today?"

(don'tcha just hate it when I do that? R R R R R R E E E E E E O O O O
O R R R ....but you just keep posting lies without checking
first.....)

That was from:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Children's Bureau

June 2000

This report is available on the Internet at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/index.htm

And that was 2,000....probably reporting numbers collected from
1999...and today it's 2004, and the placements with kin have gone
up....so what have we here.....a stupid igorant Cacti, or a liar?

I vote for both...but then you are a protege of Douggie the
Magnificant Liar.

Additionally,

I can also assure you that states are not allowed to place with kin
unless the kin can pass similar constraints as stranger foster
caregivers (child safety being the issue) and even with cutting
corners a bit on that constraint the state cannot find enough that ARE
qualified in even minimal ways. Some have criminal backgrounds that
disqualify...such as violence agianst children, or felony assault
chargess.

Some are druggies, some other kinds of criminals. Some haven't enough
money to support themselves and would use the foster subsidy for
themselves and other children in the home to live on. We tax payers
don't approve of the latter.

Some sickos' like you among "kin" are in deep denial about the
parents, their sons, daughters, neices, nephews, sisters, brothers,
even grandchildren, and the things they did to the children, and
refuse to agree to keep the children well protected from their sick
and dangerous "kin."

And then there are the "kin" that are simply terrified of their
monsterous relative and won't have the children and risk retaliation
and more horror from the folks they wish they weren't related to by
blood or inlaw status.

You are just another one of Doug's lying crew, Coriopsis.


Source: http://www.childrensrights.org


R R R R .....really now. You present this as an objective reasonable
source?

Please.

Here are some useful and less biased sources to study this very
complex and difficult problem that CPS faces:

http://www.futureofchildren.org/info...?doc_id=210484

http://www.childwelfare.com/kids/CYSR24/cysr241and2.htm

http://library.adoption.com/Resource...le/3743/2.html

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_kinshi.cfm do a find on "barriers to"
to see why relatives sometimes turn down placements of kin with them.

I've hesitated to post direct sources for these things in the past
because I am a strong advocate, and have been since 1994, for kin
placement, and this information could be discouraging to relatives.

I trust they will, if reading these sources, overcome their reluctance
and do what needs to be done.

Pay no mind to fern, The Plant, as the states welcome you if you are
able, willing, and not disqualified...and they cut you lots of slack
as a relative....go for it...you've nothing to lose and a great deal
to gain in keeping children with their family.

Best of luck,

But not to Yew, Yew liar Yew .

Kane
  #2  
Old May 22nd 04, 03:15 AM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plant Prattles HUGE destructive lie against relatives....

Kane writes:

Now on to the lies that The Plant, yet another of the lying pack of
Douggie's hyenas, tries to foist about kinship care. Kane

Begin Fern5827's remarks, and mine following intersperced:


Begin Fern5827's remarks, Kane replies, and my responses:

Odd, I see figures only as low as 24% and up to 50% or more, going to
relatives for foster care and adoption.


In 2001, the average was 24% -- suggesting that there must be some states
reporting in with less that the mean and some reporting more.

Fern:

As it stands today, fewer than 27% of children supposedly abused or

neglected
are placed with kin or blood relatives.


R R R R ..... careful exiting your car. ..you'll stab someone with
that proboscis.

You recently posted something very different about LA county. And I
know you cannot provide proof of your 27% claim.


The basis of you doubting Fern's current figure may be your assumption that
the percentage of foster children in kinship care is increasing. Let's
stick to USDHHS statistics to double check Fern's figures.

Kane:

Let's look at the post and today...and compare not only the past
figures...but the trend to today......starting 6, that's 6 YEARS
AGO....

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/


I went to this URL. This report was published and submitted to Congress in
2000 -- four years ago. It does not reflect the trend TODAY.

"The Extent to Which Children in Foster Care Are Placed with Relatives

In 1998, approximately 2.13 million children in the United States, or
just under 3 percent, were living in some type of kinship care
arrangement. In 1997, approximately 200,000 children were in public
kinship care, well below 1 percent of all U.S. children but 29 percent
of all foster children. Available evidence suggests that public
kinship care has increased substantially during the late 1980s and
1990s (see Chapter 1).


(gee, Geranium, it wasn't as low as 27% even 6 years ago)


A year later, in 1999, only 26% of foster children were in kinship care.
That is lower than 27%, even 5 years ago.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...s/june2001.htm

In 2001, three years ago, only 24% of foster children were in kinship care.
That is lower than 27%, even three years ago ago. And lower than in 1999,
when it was 26%.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rs/report8.htm

Oh, and in 2000 -- the year in between? Well, 25% of foster children were
in the care of kin during that year. That's lower than 27%, even 5 years
ago.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rs/apr2001.htm

Your source claims 29% of foster children were in kinship care in 1998. To
get an idea of trends, let's look at a breakdown of the years we have
covered. These are the percentages of foster children in kinship care
nationwide.

1998 29%
1999 26%
2000 25%
2001 24%

Three main factors have contributed to this growth. First, the number
of non-kin foster parents has not kept pace with the number of
children requiring placement, creating a greater demand for foster
caregivers. Second, child welfare agencies have developed a more
positive attitude toward the use of kin as foster parents. Today,
extended family members are usually given first priority when children
require placement. Third, a number of Federal and State court rulings
have recognized the rights of relatives to act as foster parents and
to be compensated financially for doing so. "

Notice what it says about "Today?"

(don'tcha just hate it when I do that? R R R R R R E E E E E E O O O O
O R R R ....but you just keep posting lies without checking
first.....)

That was from:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Children's Bureau

June 2000

This report is available on the Internet at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/index.htm

And that was 2,000....probably reporting numbers collected from
1999...and today it's 2004, and the placements with kin have gone
up....so what have we here.....a stupid igorant Cacti, or a liar?


No, the report clearly states in the paragraph you cut and pasted that it is
talking about 1998. In 1999, it was 26%. In 2000, 25%. In 2001, 24%.
What source of information do you draw upon to conclude that placements with
kin have gone up?

I vote for both...but then you are a protege of Douggie the
Magnificant Liar.


Well, what basis do you have for your vote? The USDHHS data supports Fern's
estimate -- in fact, the AFCARS data report lesser percentages that 27% for
1999, 2000, and 2001. This evidence contradicts your contention that Fern
is "lying."

There is no evidence of your claim that the trend of kinship care is an
increase. You provide no evidence of current kinship care numbers. In
fact, all you did provide was 1998 data and the percentage of foster
children in kinship care decreased after that during 1999 -- 2001.

Have a cool evening.

Doug


  #3  
Old May 22nd 04, 03:49 AM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oppps....Correction

In reviewing my post in this thread, I discovered I made a mistake. I will
correct that error in this post.

My sincere apologies to all.

Referring to Kane's cut and paste of data, I wrote that the reference to 29%
of foster children being in kinship care involved the year 1998. I was in
error. Those figures were from 1997, as his source clearly states.

The following corrections should be made (IN CAPS AND PARENTHESIS)

"Doug" wrote in message
...
Kane writes:

Now on to the lies that The Plant, yet another of the lying pack of
Douggie's hyenas, tries to foist about kinship care. Kane

Begin Fern5827's remarks, and mine following intersperced:


Begin Fern5827's remarks, Kane replies, and my responses:

Odd, I see figures only as low as 24% and up to 50% or more, going to
relatives for foster care and adoption.


In 2001, the average was 24% -- suggesting that there must be some states
reporting in with less that the mean and some reporting more.

Fern:

As it stands today, fewer than 27% of children supposedly abused or

neglected
are placed with kin or blood relatives.


R R R R ..... careful exiting your car. ..you'll stab someone with
that proboscis.

You recently posted something very different about LA county. And I
know you cannot provide proof of your 27% claim.


The basis of you doubting Fern's current figure may be your assumption

that
the percentage of foster children in kinship care is increasing. Let's
stick to USDHHS statistics to double check Fern's figures.

Kane:

Let's look at the post and today...and compare not only the past
figures...but the trend to today......starting 6, that's 6 YEARS
AGO....

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/


I went to this URL. This report was published and submitted to Congress

in
2000 -- four years ago. It does not reflect the trend TODAY.

"The Extent to Which Children in Foster Care Are Placed with Relatives

In 1998, approximately 2.13 million children in the United States, or
just under 3 percent, were living in some type of kinship care
arrangement. In 1997, approximately 200,000 children were in public
kinship care, well below 1 percent of all U.S. children but 29 percent
of all foster children. Available evidence suggests that public
kinship care has increased substantially during the late 1980s and
1990s (see Chapter 1).


(gee, Geranium, it wasn't as low as 27% even 6 years ago)


(TWO YEARS LATER) A year later, in 1999, only 26% of foster children were

in kinship care.
That is lower than 27%, even 5 years ago.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...s/june2001.htm

In 2001, three years ago, only 24% of foster children were in kinship

care.
That is lower than 27%, even three years ago ago. And lower than in 1999,
when it was 26%.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rs/report8.htm

Oh, and in 2000 -- the year in between? Well, 25% of foster children were
in the care of kin during that year. That's lower than 27%, even 5 years
ago.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rs/apr2001.htm

Your source claims 29% of foster children were in kinship care in 1998

(1997). To
get an idea of trends, let's look at a breakdown of the years we have
covered. These are the percentages of foster children in kinship care
nationwide.

1998 (1997) 29%
1999 26%
2000 25%
2001 24%

Three main factors have contributed to this growth. First, the number
of non-kin foster parents has not kept pace with the number of
children requiring placement, creating a greater demand for foster
caregivers. Second, child welfare agencies have developed a more
positive attitude toward the use of kin as foster parents. Today,
extended family members are usually given first priority when children
require placement. Third, a number of Federal and State court rulings
have recognized the rights of relatives to act as foster parents and
to be compensated financially for doing so. "

Notice what it says about "Today?"

(don'tcha just hate it when I do that? R R R R R R E E E E E E O O O O
O R R R ....but you just keep posting lies without checking
first.....)

That was from:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Children's Bureau

June 2000

This report is available on the Internet at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/index.htm

And that was 2,000....probably reporting numbers collected from
1999...and today it's 2004, and the placements with kin have gone
up....so what have we here.....a stupid igorant Cacti, or a liar?


No, the report clearly states in the paragraph you cut and pasted that it

is
talking about 1998 (1997). In 1999, it was 26%. In 2000, 25%. In 2001,

24%.
What source of information do you draw upon to conclude that placements

with
kin have gone up?

I vote for both...but then you are a protege of Douggie the
Magnificant Liar.


Well, what basis do you have for your vote? The USDHHS data supports

Fern's
estimate -- in fact, the AFCARS data report lesser percentages that 27%

for
1999, 2000, and 2001. This evidence contradicts your contention that Fern
is "lying."

There is no evidence of your claim that the trend of kinship care is an
increase. You provide no evidence of current kinship care numbers. In
fact, all you did provide was 1998 (1997) data and the percentage of

foster
children in kinship care decreased after that during 1999 -- 2001.

Have a cool evening.

Doug




  #4  
Old May 22nd 04, 04:00 AM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oppps....Correction

Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of foster
care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers for
1998 were the same as 1997.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm

1997 29%
1998 29%
1999 26%
2000 25%
2001 24%



  #5  
Old May 22nd 04, 04:49 PM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plant Prattles HUGE destructive lie against relatives....

Kane wrote refering to Fern:

So tell us, Tulip, what about the children returned to their parents under

state supervision?

This an interesting aside. What is the percentage (or number) of children
returned to parents under state supervison vice those returned absent
supervision?

bobb




  #6  
Old May 22nd 04, 05:03 PM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oppps....Correction


"Doug" wrote in message
...
Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of

foster
care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers for
1998 were the same as 1997.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm

1997 29%
1998 29%
1999 26%
2000 25%
2001 24%



Kinship care has taken a beating because CPS fears it cannot control family
associations and has set unrealistic barriers to prevent licensing. Even a
marijuana bust 15 years ago will prevent and aunt or uncle, now with
children of their own, from caring for their neice or nephew.

I'm willng to be 99.9 percent of all foster kids try to reestablish
relationship with their families or relatives, prior to, and after
emancipation... however, depending on how long they've been wards of the
state.. they become strangers. Kinship care should not be viewed simply as
having a biological connection but I'd suggest friends of the family (or
child) should also be considered and sought out prior to foster care with a
stranger.

Many years ago.. I sought a foster kid who was known to me.. but because I
was known to the family I, too, was ineligible even thought I was licensed
and avaibable.

bobb



  #7  
Old May 23rd 04, 04:34 PM
Beth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oppps....Correction

"bobb" wrote in message ...
"Doug" wrote in message
...
Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of

foster
care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers for
1998 were the same as 1997.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm

1997 29%
1998 29%
1999 26%
2000 25%
2001 24%



Kinship care has taken a beating because CPS fears it cannot control family
associations and has set unrealistic barriers to prevent licensing. Even a
marijuana bust 15 years ago will prevent and aunt or uncle, now with
children of their own, from caring for their neice or nephew.

I'm willng to be 99.9 percent of all foster kids try to reestablish
relationship with their families or relatives, prior to, and after
emancipation... however, depending on how long they've been wards of the
state.. they become strangers. Kinship care should not be viewed simply as
having a biological connection but I'd suggest friends of the family (or
child) should also be considered and sought out prior to foster care with a
stranger.

Many years ago.. I sought a foster kid who was known to me.. but because I
was known to the family I, too, was ineligible even thought I was licensed
and avaibable.

bobb



A few years ago, I saw that in one state, I think it was either
Washington or Oregon, had set up a special program to recruit friends
and family members of black children to step forward and provide homes
for black children when they were taken into the system. This was
apparently in response to heavy criticism from the black community
regarding the disproportionate number of black children in the foster
care system. Essentially, the black community asked CPS if they
thought that black parents were "three times as abusive" as white
parents, since black children were three times more likely to be in
foster care.

Anyway, they had a separate website set up extolling the virtues of
maintaining children's bonds to the community, and they were
specifically assuring people who had a long-term bond with black
children, whether they were actual relatives by birth or marriage or
not, to step forward, and promising them a streamlined approval
process. In the meantime, over at the main website, the "standard"
rule was clearly laid out -- preference for placement was only offered
to grandparents, aunts, uncles, and adult siblings.

I have heard that when young, adoptable children are involved, local
grandparents who ask to take the children are told that they are "too
close" and can't be counted on to keep the children away from the bio
parents, while out-of-state grandparents are "too far away," and can't
be given the children because that would interfere with the stated
goal of reunification. As far as background checks go, this seems to
be all over the place. "Rilya" was given to grifters who claimed to
be blood relatives of some sort or another, while, as you say, some
people asking to have young relatives placed with them are turned down
for "ancient history" which would NOT have prevented them from
becoming foster parents to children who were unknown to them.

Even in cases in which CPS knows that it will be forced to turn the
children over to the grandparents at some point, they will often drag
their feet for as long as possible.
  #8  
Old May 23rd 04, 06:36 PM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oppps....Correction


"Beth" wrote in message
om...
"bobb" wrote in message

...
"Doug" wrote in message
...
Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of

foster
care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers

for
1998 were the same as 1997.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm

1997 29%
1998 29%
1999 26%
2000 25%
2001 24%



Kinship care has taken a beating because CPS fears it cannot control

family
associations and has set unrealistic barriers to prevent licensing.

Even a
marijuana bust 15 years ago will prevent and aunt or uncle, now with
children of their own, from caring for their neice or nephew.

I'm willng to be 99.9 percent of all foster kids try to reestablish
relationship with their families or relatives, prior to, and after
emancipation... however, depending on how long they've been wards of the
state.. they become strangers. Kinship care should not be viewed simply

as
having a biological connection but I'd suggest friends of the family

(or
child) should also be considered and sought out prior to foster care

with a
stranger.

Many years ago.. I sought a foster kid who was known to me.. but because

I
was known to the family I, too, was ineligible even thought I was

licensed
and avaibable.

bobb



A few years ago, I saw that in one state, I think it was either
Washington or Oregon, had set up a special program to recruit friends
and family members of black children to step forward and provide homes
for black children when they were taken into the system. This was
apparently in response to heavy criticism from the black community
regarding the disproportionate number of black children in the foster
care system. Essentially, the black community asked CPS if they
thought that black parents were "three times as abusive" as white
parents, since black children were three times more likely to be in
foster care.

Anyway, they had a separate website set up extolling the virtues of
maintaining children's bonds to the community, and they were
specifically assuring people who had a long-term bond with black
children, whether they were actual relatives by birth or marriage or
not, to step forward, and promising them a streamlined approval
process. In the meantime, over at the main website, the "standard"
rule was clearly laid out -- preference for placement was only offered
to grandparents, aunts, uncles, and adult siblings.

I have heard that when young, adoptable children are involved, local
grandparents who ask to take the children are told that they are "too
close" and can't be counted on to keep the children away from the bio
parents, while out-of-state grandparents are "too far away," and can't
be given the children because that would interfere with the stated
goal of reunification. As far as background checks go, this seems to
be all over the place. "Rilya" was given to grifters who claimed to
be blood relatives of some sort or another, while, as you say, some
people asking to have young relatives placed with them are turned down
for "ancient history" which would NOT have prevented them from
becoming foster parents to children who were unknown to them.

Even in cases in which CPS knows that it will be forced to turn the
children over to the grandparents at some point, they will often drag
their feet for as long as possible.


Very well stated. Perhaps this is an law-makers should be made aware of as
well. There are many rules or policies that go unnoticed.. such as kinship
care... which needs not only a new definiation but a different name to
include non-relatives that may be close to the child. God-parent,perraps?

bobb


  #9  
Old May 24th 04, 04:59 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oppps....Correction

On Sat, 22 May 2004 11:03:25 -0500, "bobb"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage

of
foster
care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the

numbers for
1998 were the same as 1997.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm

1997 29%
1998 29%
1999 26%
2000 25%
2001 24%



Kinship care has taken a beating because CPS fears it cannot control

family
associations and has set unrealistic barriers to prevent licensing.


Lies and bull****. Anyone reading the data and bothering to think can
see that available relatives are being siphoned off to voluntary child
care before CPS intervention, or even afteward, so they are NOT
counted in the lastest data.

Even a
marijuana bust 15 years ago will prevent and aunt or uncle, now with
children of their own, from caring for their neice or nephew.


Crock of ****. I've sat in as an advocate for them on just such
problems and it is NOT the bust that matters, but the aftermath. Did
they get and stay clean? Have they left "the life?"

Out of string of them over the years I've never seen ONE turned down
for a simple possession charge if they could show they had done as I
say above. In fact they are invited to be evaluated and ****tested,
it's called a drug eval, and if they can pass it and they have not had
any use for the past 3 years they are in like flynn.

You are a ****in' liar. States are crying for more of these folks but
cannot get them because the pool is too small. The fantasy that they
are lined up waiting for the kiddies is a crock as well. Workers spend
month cultivating these folks and working to convince them to take the
children.

You are a ****ing liar.

I'm willng to be 99.9 percent of all foster kids try to reestablish
relationship with their families or relatives, prior to, and after
emancipation...


Like that's a great big discovery.

however, depending on how long they've been wards of the
state.. they become strangers.


Crock. Children separated from parents and sib as AT BIRTH and adopted
reintegrate with their families successfully.

Kinship care should not be viewed simply as
having a biological connection but I'd suggest friends of the family

(or
child) should also be considered and sought out prior to foster care

with a
stranger.


And they are. Get yourself educated. About 30 to 40% of the
"strangers" doing foster care were never fosters before the one child
their own kids brought home, or they knew through school or church
connections came into their home. In some states it's referred to as
"special cert," and is exceedingly common.

You lie, or are ignorant as a stump. YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN A FOSTER
PARENT BECAUSE NO FOSTER PARENT IS UNAWARE OF THE SPECIAL CERT
SITUATION. And many special certs (and it just means they were
certified to foster that one child) chose to later become a regular
and take other children because of how deperate they see the children
are for a safe home away from thug parents that abused and neglected
them, sometimes to the edge of death.

Many years ago.. I sought a foster kid who was known to me.. but

because I
was known to the family I, too, was ineligible even thought I was

licensed
and avaibable.


Liar. They damn well saw what a twit you were, how twisted your belief
system, as I've discussed here, and any children place with you would
have to fit a certain profile that would be easier to foster without
as much risk of harm. YOUR kind of foster parent is well known to
workers and to other foster parents.

They sneer at you behind you back for your small minded bigotry and
**** thinking.

Not only do you lie. ...even when you tell the truth from your
perspective it's incorrect because they HIDE THINGS FROM YOU knowing
you'd be a threat to children and their parents if you actually knew
the truth about much.

You've blabber and **** up cases where children should be removed
permanently, or vise versa, **** up cases where children should be
returned. You'd screw over bio parents...who you seem to want to
excuse when they are torturing their children, and damn when they
really haven't done anything but be ignorant.

You hate therapy and therapists, and rehab and healing,...one of the
prime resources for teaching parents to understand their own and the
child's inner life adn what is really going on (instead of your insane
twisted thinking error filled crappola) so they parent safely and
successfully, and get their lives together.

You deny the damage done and want people, little childern mind you, to
just pick up and carry on. You're so damned warped I have trouble
believing it even when I read you plainly saying so.

Yer a menace bobb. Sadly. And you actually would like to help, I can
tell, but you won't listen to anyone that doesn feed your biases. You
deserve the ****in' Doug gives you.

And you lead other borderline folks along with you and spoil THEIR
lives. **** you, bobb.

bobb


Kane
  #10  
Old May 24th 04, 05:38 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oppps....Correction

(Beth) wrote in message . com...
"bobb" wrote in message ...
"Doug" wrote in message
...
Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of

foster
care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers for
1998 were the same as 1997.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm

1997 29%
1998 29%
1999 26%
2000 25%
2001 24%



Kinship care has taken a beating because CPS fears it cannot control family
associations and has set unrealistic barriers to prevent licensing. Even a
marijuana bust 15 years ago will prevent and aunt or uncle, now with
children of their own, from caring for their neice or nephew.

I'm willng to be 99.9 percent of all foster kids try to reestablish
relationship with their families or relatives, prior to, and after
emancipation... however, depending on how long they've been wards of the
state.. they become strangers. Kinship care should not be viewed simply as
having a biological connection but I'd suggest friends of the family (or
child) should also be considered and sought out prior to foster care with a
stranger.

Many years ago.. I sought a foster kid who was known to me.. but because I
was known to the family I, too, was ineligible even thought I was licensed
and avaibable.

bobb



A few years ago, I saw that in one state, I think it was either
Washington or Oregon, had set up a special program to recruit friends
and family members of black children to step forward and provide homes
for black children when they were taken into the system.


It was in a number of states. It was called One Church One Child.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...h+one+child%22

This was
apparently in response to heavy criticism from the black community
regarding the disproportionate number of black children in the foster
care system.


Almost, but not quite a bullseye. If anyone knows the problems in the
black community with the causes of child abuse and neglect it is black
community members.

Their beef was black children placed with white families. Blacks in
America, if I may be so bold, according to what I've observed and was
told when I was involved with OCOC, had been for some years attempting
to recover their children...ethnically.

And just plain common sense should have told workers that whites are
completely incapable by knownledge or experience to KNOW what a black
child needs to know culturally to thrive and survive. I agree...and
saw many examples of alienated black kids in lockup and mental
facilities that could not operate in black or white society very well.

Essentially, the black community asked CPS if they
thought that black parents were "three times as abusive" as white
parents, since black children were three times more likely to be in
foster care.


You are claiming that the black community is saying that CPS is wrong
to remove the children at all....and you are either misled, or
misleading. In five years of monthly or more often interaction with
the black community on this issue I never ONCE heard any such
complaint or question...only that CPS workers had been insensitive to
the special needs of the black child, culturally and specifically.
Hell, whites, for the most part, haven't the faintest idea of what
hair care is about for black kids, and they though the kids with
darker skin had a disease, when all they needed was the simple skin
care black mothers know to give there children as the normal
exfoliation we ALL experience shows up on the child's skin as "ashey."
The flakes do not carry melonine, the dark color, with them and unless
they are removed and a light application of oil is applied the child
looks ashy again in a few hours...as we all would if the flakes could
be seen on our skin against a dark background.

This makes the cared for darker skinned black child MORE cared for
then white kids, when it comes to careful cleanliness.

Black children are more likely to have allergic reactions to dairy
products than white kids.

Black kids are more likely to devalue themselves and other blacks
because of the media and the long history of bigotry they run into so
often.

How often does a white kid get called derogatory names related to his
race or color? Black kids aren't likely to go more than the first few
years of life without it.

Black parents know how to deal with these things. White parents give
platitudes and sympathy...neither of much use, as far as I can see.


Anyway, they had a separate website set up extolling the virtues of
maintaining children's bonds to the community,


Yep, and it's very true. Just as white kids naturally have bonds to
their community.

and they were
specifically assuring people who had a long-term bond with black
children, whether they were actual relatives by birth or marriage or
not, to step forward, and promising them a streamlined approval
process.


Yep, and they delivered. Training was separate and a bit shorter. 4 or
five weekly sessions instead of the more standard 6 to eight weeks.
Usually 3 hours sessions.

In the meantime, over at the main website, the "standard"
rule was clearly laid out -- preference for placement was only offered
to grandparents, aunts, uncles, and adult siblings.


What "main web site?" If you mean the one for everyone, including
whites blacks etc, yes, that would be pretty standard in most states.
The closest relatives first, especially if they had cared for the
child in any capacity before, the less and less intimate and more
remote, gradually.

I have heard that when young, adoptable children are involved, local
grandparents who ask to take the children are told that they are "too
close" and can't be counted on to keep the children away from the bio
parents, while out-of-state grandparents are "too far away," and can't
be given the children because that would interfere with the stated
goal of reunification.


Oddly, that is correct. SOME grandparents are turned down because of
that very thing...but not just because they are grandparents, but
because they have demonstrated, or even stated, they will not maintain
safe boundaries for the child...and yes, there IS a thing called
concurrent planning that requires the state CPS to plan for both
reuniting and separation at the same time.

It is down so that of ONE cannot happen all the bits and pieces for
the other are in place NOW....or the time would stretch out forever
for the child.

As far as background checks go, this seems to
be all over the place.


BG checks have a standardization within the state, and seem remarkably
similar from state to state. Roughly it goes like this: an in agency
check first, with a local police and then state level crim records
check. If the person lived out of the state within the past five year,
then a national (FBI does them) bg crim check is done.

That is why it seems to the uninitiated, "all over the place." That's
because the circumstances are different. If crimes that would
disqualify are found then broader checks are done, the person is given
a chance to interview and explain the circumstances, and sometime it's
not enough (they didn't clean up their act) or it is seen to be worked
out well and they DO get chosen.

The amount of misinformation is directly proportionate to the lack of
information. Folks need to stop trying to fill in the gaps. It's like
trying to self diagnose...it can lead to complications. What you think
is a rash, can be the first sign of a deadly disease, or conversally
what you go running to the doctor screaming for help for can be
nothing mroe serious than indigestion.

It pays to ask someone that knows...like a worker, or those that have
worked with the system long enough, even as an adversary, to know what
is actually happening.

"Rilya" was given


"was" placed. Children are not "given" for foster carers, unless one
wishes to use hyperbolic propagandistic emotion laden language to
incite....are you doing that?

to grifters


They did NOT turn up any crimes in a crim bg check. You cannot blame
CPS for something it cannot know that it did not.

who claimed to
be blood relatives of some sort or another,


Yep. No reason not to believe them. Do you think each g'parent that
steps up to do a foster care should submit to a DNA test to prove it?
Okay, pay the bill.

The Rilya case was that of a single worker's malfeasance and a
couple's criminal behavior, or so the latter is believed.

While I want CPS to be psychic and NEVER ever make such mistakes, I'm
sure I'll be disappointed, just as I am with cops, doctors, and my
plumber, that each proves to be less than perfect individually and as
a class.

while, as you say, some
people asking to have young relatives placed with them are turned down
for "ancient history"


He's as full of **** as a xmas goose. He knows from nothing and spouts
the same ignorance that I'm cutting you more slack on. He presumes all
the time, things that are not inevidence, about races, genders,
children, loss, sexuality, damn near anything he discusses he manages
to get either a little bit wrong, or hugely, and if people believe
him, dangerously wrong.

People commit suicide under circumstances that he would
approve.....like being in depression from loss, and just "picking up
and getting on with it," that could have been saved had they known
that this does NOT always work.

which would NOT have prevented them from
becoming foster parents to children who were unknown to them.


Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Relatives are cut far more slack than
strangers applying for foster care certification. I've helped
relatives with just such problems get their little g'kids, or neices
etc.

Even in cases in which CPS knows that it will be forced to turn the
children over to the grandparents at some point, they will often drag
their feet for as long as possible.


Abosolute crappola. In cases where they relatives are being
considered, but do NOT have the child in their physical custody the
number ONE reason for not placing the child right away and "dragging
their heels" is that they want to have the g'parent show true
commitment and NOT later change their mind and ask the child be moved
YET AGAIN AND DO MORE HARM TO THE CHILD.

Too many years of too many of just such events taught CPS workers NOT
to assume a relative was goning to be a permanent placement just
because they at first clamored to be.

Many a granny has found out these little darlings had learned some
seriously grotesque, frightening, and dangerous survival skills living
with mommy druggest and daddy drunkest. **** smearing, wetting and
soiling under the slightest duress, language like a drunken sailor,
and very very sadly, withdrawal into states nearing catatonia. Lots of
acting out. EVen to the point of threatening the carer's lives...and
trying to carry it out.

By the way, we are talking 2 and 3 year olds here....the more
difficult child to workwith..really. Trust me. Coming at granma wiht a
kitchen knife kind of stuff.

You'd be amazed what living in a drug house teaches a child.

The relatives caved many a time...until CPS started the practice of
holding them back BEFORE placement, giving adequate training in the
things I mention above, and what it's about, and how to deal wiht it
successfully.....it's called, "Love Is NOT enough with these
children."

What some g'parents are ****ing about was nothing more than a worker
trying to get through to them that they did NOT AUTOMATICALLY have the
skills to work with these extremely damanged children...not matter how
much they might love them or feel family obligated to take them.

Thanks for the opportunity to inform.

Have a nice day.

Kane
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PLANT AND WHO WAS Hey Fern! Show me where I said it's "OK." Kane General 2 January 22nd 04 06:42 PM
Sarah Key's huge balls (also: Kids can SQUAT motionless for hours) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 2 August 4th 03 10:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.