Plant Prattles HUGE destructive lie against relatives....

Kane writes:

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

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.

Hi, Kane!

Anyone reading the data and bothering to think will see that the percentage
of foster carers who are relatives decreased each successive year since 1998
to 2001.

If you recall, you had called Fern a liar for posting that only 27% of
foster carers were relatives. You said it was higher in 1999 and that it
was going up. Well, it was 26% in 1999 (under Fern's number) and down to
24% in 2001.

As you know, federal auditors found that the states consistently failed to
make EFFORTS to place children with relatives. It was one point most of the
states failed.

Doug

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

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

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.

Hi, Kane!

Anyone reading the data and bothering to think will see that the
percentage
of foster carers who are relatives decreased each successive year since
1998
to 2001.

If you recall, you had called Fern a liar for posting that only 27% of
foster carers were relatives. You said it was higher in 1999 and that it
was going up. Well, it was 26% in 1999 (under Fern's number) and down to
24% in 2001.

As you know, federal auditors found that the states consistently failed to
make EFFORTS to place children with relatives. It was one point most of
the
states failed.

Doug

Kane just doens't want to admit it. Even the high of 26% would seem much
too low if families and friends were allowed to become involved. Two points,
first the secretcy surrounding reasons for removal would expose the trival
reasons alledged. Second, family members and friends would be more apt to
come to the defense of the child. CPS certainly resists being second
guessed.

It's also not unreasonable to suggest CPS engages in 'selective placement'.
Those expected to do well in a foster home and/or adoption rise to the top.

Kane also misses the point about children becoming strangers to their own
family members. With maturity comes changes in tastes, attitudes,
behaviors, interests, and activities.

Of Kane's oh so many personal expereinces, he deludes himself into beleiving
what is the norm. Or, perhaps, wishful thinking. I've never seen a report
indicating the number of foster parent applications subsquently denied...but
foster parent recruiters will tell you a large percentage are weeded out...
perhaps for just reasons... perhaps not... but we do know many kin complain
they have been excluded. It seems statistically impossible that only 26
percent of kin are afforded the opportunity to care for relatives.. and we
are talking across all age groups.

It is possible to conclude CPS sees 75 percent of the population unfit to
parent? Is it no wonder they have difficulty trying to recruit foster
parents?

bobb

What Kane just informed us... the majority of black kids and their
families are very dysfunctional. Even their kin, such as grandparents, do
not have the necessary parenting skills.

Kane says, "If anyone knows the problems in the
black community with the causes of child abuse and neglect it is black
community members." While we all understand this.. it's not politically
correct to say so.

He goes on to say, "(He)... saw many examples of alienated black kids in
lockup and mental facilities that could not operate in black or white
society very well."

While this is true... it doesn't answer the question as to why although Kane
resorts to the age old excuse, "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."

I'm quite sure that the long history of bigotry of which he refers is
known to the little children of which he speaks. To agree with Kane, one
would have to suppose that programs such as 'head start' promotes bigotry
and sets the child up for failure.

In his zeal to both defend CPS and the perception of black injustices he
contradictes himself. The denial of kinship care by CPS applies to all
ethnic groups... yet Kane makes the case against black kin care... which..
is not quite true. There have been many instances where the black
community came forth to adopt or foster children when some caring
organization promoted the cause. Someone has to ask the question.. why
doesn't CPS?

The malarky about black kids, and I'm talking about kids and not adults,
have special needs that are so far different from other ethnic groups only
serves the divide. One could also determine merely by available
statistics... while many special needs have been attended... the result
remains vastly unchanged.

Of course, none of this belies the fact that blacks are treated unfairly by
CPS... a position you see as appropriate.

bobb

On Mon, 24 May 2004 11:02:48 -0500, "bobb"
wrote:

What Kane just informed us... the majority of black kids and
their
families are very dysfunctional.

Bull****. You are a lying racist bigot. I made no such claim at all.
In fact the black community by its actions on behalf of the children
in state care shows that they are VERY MUCH functional..in a way
whites tend to lose track of when it comes to people of color, or
ethnic minority status.

Even their kin, such as grandparents, do
not have the necessary parenting skills.

Odd. Black extended family values are well known to be strong and
effective....even whuppin' ass on white bigotry and saving at least
some of their children from you and your kind.

Kane says, "If anyone knows the problems in the
black community with the causes of child abuse and neglect it is
black
community members." While we all understand this.. it's not
politically
correct to say so.

And nothing in what I said identifies what they KNOW...and what they
do know is that racism has taken a terrible toll and must be
countered.

You are lying yet again. Trying to assign meaning to my words that are
not there. Very like you cretins.

He goes on to say, "(He)... saw many examples of alienated black
kids in
lockup and mental facilities that could not operate in black or white
society very well."

Yep...sure did. They had been FOSTERED IN WHITE FAMILIES, dummy. Some
even adopted, and it didn't "take." Funny how skin color and culture
don't change because whitey just loves those cute little colored
children. Until they grow up.

While this is true... it doesn't answer the question as to why
although Kane
resorts to the age old excuse, "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."

Are you denying that those things have an effect? You can do it to
white children and see exactly the same reactions that blacks have. I
pointed you to the work done on this, asked you to read about it, even
rent the videos and watch it, and you haven't, have you...because you
are a coward, a bigot and sick in the head.

I'm quite sure that the long history of bigotry of which he refers
is
known to the little children of which he speaks.

Nope. But they learn soon enough. And white children learn to deliver
the goods in this matter, all too soon. There are exceptions, but they
are just that, and rare. We are an institutionalized bigoted racist
society.

To agree with Kane, one
would have to suppose that programs such as 'head start' promotes
bigotry
and sets the child up for failure.

You are going to assign me YOUR logic?

In his zeal to both defend CPS and the perception of black injustices
he
contradictes himself. The denial of kinship care by CPS applies to
all
ethnic groups... yet Kane makes the case against black kin care...
which..
is not quite true.

What are you babbling about, liar. Where did I support those fantasies
of yours. Black kinship care is something I was arguing FOR. And so
have the folks that resonded to One Church One Child....

There have been many instances where the black
community came forth to adopt or foster children when some caring
organization promoted the cause. Someone has to ask the question..
why
doesn't CPS?

R R R R.......................One Church, One Child was funded by
annual grants and administered by.................wanna guess who?

WELL CPS OF COURSE, DUMMMY. A number of CPS programs are funded by
charitable foundations.

The malarky about black kids, and I'm talking about kids and not
adults,
have special needs that are so far different from other ethnic groups
only
serves the divide.

They are not "far different." In fact most are the same, but where
they are different and ignored or the child is forced to comform to
another culture's values about his own race, it is harmful to that
child...and maybe for life.

One of the reasons the blacks currently are gettin' over on yah,
peckerwood, is that service organizations decided to put a stop to
this denigration of blacks in the eyes of black children.

Do some reading.

One could also determine merely by available
statistics... while many special needs have been attended... the
result
remains vastly unchanged.

Odd. You seem to be unaware of outcomes. Blacks ahve been comin' up
for years now and that is what makes you babble this kind of nonsense.
You can't stand that despite the routine, vicious, racist bigotry
they've lived with all these generations they refuse to lay down and
take it quietly. And they are excelling...in ways YOU cannot.

YOu are a jealous frightened little twit.

Of course, none of this belies the fact that blacks are treated
unfairly by
CPS... a position you see as appropriate.

Odd, since the programs are administered by CPS that I was talking
about, and funded and overseen by a charitable foundation.

How the would I be saying that unfair treatment is appropriate please?
Or get your head out your ass and start looking at the real world. The
choice is yours.

My position has always been, and you know it since I've addressed you
so many times on this...that racism has harmed minorities, blacks and
others. That Blacks overcome in extraordinary ways, as they do, gets
me admiration.

I don't fear them or what they do so I don't have to dwell on their
failures when racism beats some of them some of the time.

You are a sick little fearful **** that can't feel good about yourself
unless you feel superior to someone. Keep showing us what a foul
racist bigot you are.

I notice you are learning to cut my posts so a reader will assume your
claims about what I said and meant are true without checking easily.
Thanks, you ****ing little prick. A fit acolyte of the Big Liar.


bobb

bobb the idiot that can't even understand simple words.....and LOVES
his own ignorance.

Kane

On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:06:19 -0500, "bobb"
wrote:


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

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

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.

Hi, Kane!

Anyone reading the data and bothering to think will see that the
percentage
of foster carers who are relatives decreased each successive year
since
1998
to 2001.

If you recall, you had called Fern a liar for posting that only 27%
of
foster carers were relatives. You said it was higher in 1999 and
that it
was going up. Well, it was 26% in 1999 (under Fern's number) and
down to
24% in 2001.

As you know, federal auditors found that the states consistently
failed to
make EFFORTS to place children with relatives. It was one point
most of
the
states failed.

The failed to based on a number of factors. Often the parents won't
give correct information about relatives ..they are ashamed...and CPS
dosn't even know there are relatives until it's too late.

And some relatives do NOT want to interfer so they hang back until the
11th hour, then scream because they are not getting services that they
once turned down. Like I said, Doug, you are a liar.


Doug

Kane just doens't want to admit it.

There's nothing to "admit." There is no mass of relatives begging to
foster kin.

Even the high of 26%

The high in some states is 50%. The low is an artificial average
caused by just a few states.

would seem much
too low if families and friends were allowed to become involved.

Family and friends are begged to become involved. Special certs are
often friends and aquaintences...there are many of these...in some
states they comprise a quarter of all placements. Church and school
connections, and a few, "mommy I brought my friend home, can she stay
with us" kind of contacts abound.

Two points,

You have two on your head now?

first the secretcy surrounding reasons for removal would expose the
trival
reasons alledged.

R R R R.....well, let me see now. As far as I know, the parent who
gives out the names of relatives and friends to the worker to check
with for placement is NOT constrained about telling them the reasons
their child has been removed.

The "secrecy" is more often the perp parent's, not CPS. In fact there
is a form given to foster parents when they receive a child and the
reasons for removal are one of the line items on that form.

Second, family members and friends would be more apt to
come to the defense of the child.

You finally have a valid point. CPS is very concerned that the child's
safety NOT be set aside in favor of a lying dangerous parent.

CPS certainly resists being second
guessed.

Well, give that they have, if the judge awards TC to the state,
ultimate responsiblity. Wouldn't that cause you, if you were in that
position, to NOT want to be second guessed?

It's also not unreasonable to suggest CPS engages in 'selective
placement'.
Those expected to do well in a foster home and/or adoption rise to
the top.

What in the hell are you babbling about now?

How can a worker determine if a child will do well or not? That is
impossible. but what they **** is the "top?"

Kane also misses the point about children becoming strangers to their
own
family members.

I miss nothing of the kind. Nor does CPS. What do you think
"visitation" is about you lying creep? YOu were NEVER A FOSTER PARENT
AND HAVE BEEN LYING ABOUT THIS SINCE I SAW YOUR FIRST POST. No working
foster parent could be a stupid and uninformed as you exhibit daily.

With maturity comes changes in tastes, attitudes,
behaviors, interests, and activities.

And that won't happen if they aren't separated from their parents?
Riiiiight you are.

Of Kane's oh so many personal expereinces, he deludes himself into
beleiving
what is the norm.

Nope. I simply have witnessed it again and again for just short of 30
years now.
YOu lie.

Or, perhaps, wishful thinking. I've never seen a report
indicating the number of foster parent applications subsquently
denied...but
foster parent recruiters will tell you a large percentage are weeded
out...
perhaps for just reasons... perhaps not... but we do know many kin
complain
they have been excluded.

Oh. How "many" is this "many?" I see it reported quite rarely. And I
know for a fact that often the real reason they were excluded they are
NOT going to tell anyone about...they'd rather just blame CPS and lie
lie lie...as you do.

How many folks are going to tell you, well, I had a drug and felony
history and they didn't think I'd make a safe foster parents....like I
was busted for abusing a child who died subsequently.

I've seen people I KNOW have a police record of assault on children
get turned down for a relative...and lie their asses off...and CPS
can't tell.

It seems statistically impossible that only 26
percent of kin are afforded the opportunity to care for relatives..

Well, since that's not what the number is that are "afforded an
opportunity" then you'd be wrong as usual. Many more than that are
given the opportunity and turn it down, or prove later to not be
suitable, and often they demand the removal of the child themselves.
Nice for the kid, right?

and we
are talking across all age groups.

Translation: "And we are talking out our asses"

It is possible to conclude CPS sees 75 percent of the population
unfit to
parent? Is it no wonder they have difficulty trying to recruit
foster
parents?

R R R R ...completely wiping out what I actually did say as to why the
numbers are what they are.

First of all CPS doesn't see 75 percent of the population of kin as
unfit.

They simply place from 24% to 50% with kin. That doesn't mean there
ARE kin for all children in the system. They can't place if there are
no kin. nitwit.

This entire issue is yet another red herring of the little twits that
pretend to be reformers.

I invite the those that are not the bigoted assholes you idiots are to
think just a moment.

We have fewer extended family than many cultures. Hence fewer
relatives. We have been putting off child bearing until later
years...meaning that there are fewer surviving relatives. We have been
moving constantly in jobs and just because americans do that.

And finally, you silly ass twit, MANY RELATIVES DO NOT COME FORWARD
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT DRUG EFFECTED CHILDREN THAT HAVE BEEN DRIVING
INSANE BY SICK PARENTS. And they sure as hell don't want the inlaws
that come with some of these children...legal or not.

I have said these things before and you and your Buds refuse to
comment or have any argument to refute me. There is no vast army of
relatives lining up at the doors of CPS begging for their little kin,
who they may not have ever met, and who are the offspring of family
members they have had a very time with already.

CPS begs relatives to become caregivers, and more often than not gets
turned down. Or the relative simply hasn't the capacity...advanced
age, infirmities of mind and body, dangerous themselves.

And the claim that CPS doesn't look is also bogus. They look ONCE or
twice...if no one turns up or comes forward, they are spending TAX
dollars that could better be spent on rehabing the parent and child.

bobb

You people are such a pack of liars.

Kane

I wrote:

As you know, federal auditors found that the states consistently
failed to make EFFORTS to place children with relatives. It was one
point most of the states failed.

To which, Kane replies:

The failed to based on a number of factors. Often the parents won't
give correct information about relatives ..they are ashamed...and CPS
dosn't even know there are relatives until it's too late.

Hi, Kane!

I am afraid you did not read my statement. I have included it again. The
auditors found that the states failed to use diligent EFFORTS to place
foster children with relatives. Efforts. Efforts. http://tinyurl.com/i8t0

The auditors did not measure how successful CPS was in placing children with
relatives, but whether they TRIED to place foster children with relatives.
The vast majority failed to make diligent EFFORTS to do so. They didn't
try. http://tinyurl.com/i8t0
Your comment does not address the issue.


And some relatives do NOT want to interfer so they hang back until the
11th hour, then scream because they are not getting services that they
once turned down. Like I said, Doug, you are a liar.

Since you use that term so often, let's review what in your opinion consists
of "lies" during the past few posts.

You are a liar if, like Fern, you write that only 27% of foster children are
placed with relatives, when federal statistics indicate 24% to 26% are
placed with relatives.

You are a "liar" if, like me, you suggest that Kane is wrong when he states
that "everybody and their brother is manufactorng methamphetamine." It is a
lie to state that Kane's statement is an overgeneralization.

You are a "liar" if you cite auditors reports finding that most the the
states failed to use diligent efforts to place foster children with
relatives.

Even the high of 26%

The high in some states is 50%. The low is an artificial average
caused by just a few states.

If it is true that some states place 50% of foster children with relatives,
then the average of 24% is very much inflated by those states -- making the
average in other states much, much less than 24%.

You claim that California, which has well over 30% of the foster children of
the entire nation, places 50% of their foster children with relatives. If
that is true, then the remaining states place children with relatives in a
much lower percentage than 24%.

Since I have never seen any documentation on the percentages of relative
foster care placement in California, I will use estimated rough figures to
do some math. California houses more than 30% of the nations foster
children, but we will use 30%. 30% of the rounded off 500,000 foster care
population is 150,000 children. You claim that 50% of these children are
placed with relatives -- 75,000. Nationwide, an average of 24% of children
are placed with relatives (including California). That's a total of 120,000
children in relative care nationwide.

120,000
- 75,000 California
---------------
45,000 Remaining children in relative care for other 49 states

There would be roughly 350,000 foster children in those 49 states (500,000
minus California's 150,000). 45,000 of those children would be in relative
care. If we divide the number of children in relative care in those states
by the total foster care population in those states, we have a percentage of
12.85714 or 12.9%.

So, if California does indeed place 50% of its foster children with
relatives, the remaining 49 states place an average of 12.9% of their foster
children with relatives.

If, as you claim, other states place 50% of their foster children with
relatives, the overall average nationwide would further decrease.
The nationwide average of 24% is, in fact, artificially INFLATED by just one
state's 50% showing -- IF that figure for California is correct.

I appreciate you pointing this out, Kane. What other states do you claim
placed 50% of their foster children with relatives? If we had those states
as well, we can calculate the true percentage for the remaining states.

would seem much
too low if families and friends were allowed to become involved.

Family and friends are begged to become involved. Special certs are
often friends and aquaintences...there are many of these...in some
states they comprise a quarter of all placements. Church and school
connections, and a few, "mommy I brought my friend home, can she stay
with us" kind of contacts abound.

Again, federal auditors found that most the the states failed to make
diligent efforts to involve relatives in placement -- let alone "beg" them.
http://tinyurl.com/i8t0

You finally have a valid point. CPS is very concerned that the child's
safety NOT be set aside in favor of a lying dangerous parent.

We do have to keep in mind that the majority of children in foster care are
not taken from dangerous, lying parents. More than 100,000 of them were
taken from families CPS itself unsubstantiated for any risk of neglect or
abuse in 2000. http://tinyurl.com/9psd

I miss nothing of the kind. Nor does CPS. What do you think
"visitation" is about you lying creep? YOu were NEVER A FOSTER PARENT
AND HAVE BEEN LYING ABOUT THIS SINCE I SAW YOUR FIRST POST. No working
foster parent could be a stupid and uninformed as you exhibit daily.

Because bobb posts information that Kane disagrees with, Kane suddenly
disinvows bobb's former role as a foster caregiver. "You were a foster
caregiver as long as you agree with me."

Or, perhaps, wishful thinking. I've never seen a report
indicating the number of foster parent applications subsquently
denied...but
foster parent recruiters will tell you a large percentage are weeded
out...
perhaps for just reasons... perhaps not... but we do know many kin
complain
they have been excluded.

Oh. How "many" is this "many?" I see it reported quite rarely. And I
know for a fact that often the real reason they were excluded they are
NOT going to tell anyone about...they'd rather just blame CPS and lie
lie lie...as you do.

It would be helpful to report the numbers of relatives considered for foster
placements. Since most of the states were found in audits to have failed to
make diligent efforts to locate relatives and place children with them, it
may be that number is startlingly low.

How many folks are going to tell you, well, I had a drug and felony
history and they didn't think I'd make a safe foster parents....like I
was busted for abusing a child who died subsequently.

I've seen people I KNOW have a police record of assault on children
get turned down for a relative...and lie their asses off...and CPS
can't tell.

It seems statistically impossible that only 26
percent of kin are afforded the opportunity to care for relatives..

Well, since that's not what the number is that are "afforded an
opportunity" then you'd be wrong as usual. Many more than that are
given the opportunity and turn it down, or prove later to not be
suitable, and often they demand the removal of the child themselves.
Nice for the kid, right?

and we
are talking across all age groups.

Translation: "And we are talking out our asses"

It is possible to conclude CPS sees 75 percent of the population
unfit to
parent? Is it no wonder they have difficulty trying to recruit
foster
parents?

R R R R ...completely wiping out what I actually did say as to why the
numbers are what they are.

First of all CPS doesn't see 75 percent of the population of kin as
unfit.

They simply place from 24% to 50% with kin. That doesn't mean there
ARE kin for all children in the system. They can't place if there are
no kin. nitwit.

No, no, no. You are posting misinformation, Kane. The range of percentages
would be much lower on the low end...more like about 12% to 50%, depending
on how many states really do place 50% of their foster children with
relatives. We have no documentation of any states that place 50% of foster
children with relatives, but the more there are, the smaller the lower end
of the percentages would be.

If you use the 50%, it is categorically inaccurate to take the national
average as the lower figure in the range. You must know that. If the mean
is 24%, and the higher number in the range is 50%, then the lower number in
the range has to be less than 24%.

This entire issue is yet another red herring of the little twits that
pretend to be reformers.

What kind of fish would you call your misinformation about the range of
percentages of children placed with relatives?


I invite the those that are not the bigoted assholes you idiots are to
think just a moment.

We have fewer extended family than many cultures. Hence fewer
relatives. We have been putting off child bearing until later
years...meaning that there are fewer surviving relatives. We have been
moving constantly in jobs and just because americans do that.

The percentages are not comparative figures to other cultures. And they are
published with the understanding that states have been found by auditors not
to be making diligent efforts to place children with relatives.

Do you think that the reason for the low numbers could be that CPS is not
making the effort it should to place children with relatives?

And finally, you silly ass twit, MANY RELATIVES DO NOT COME FORWARD
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT DRUG EFFECTED CHILDREN THAT HAVE BEEN DRIVING
INSANE BY SICK PARENTS. And they sure as hell don't want the inlaws
that come with some of these children...legal or not.

1) Most children taken into state custody are not drug effected or driven
insane by their parents. Fully a third of them are removed annually from
homes CPS itself has unsubstantiated for any risk of maltreatment.

2) If CPS made diligent efforts to place these kids with relatives, we would
know how many relatives were offered the opportunity and failed to meet
requirements or refused.

Remember, it wasn't that the states failed to place enough children with
relatives, it was that they didn't TRY.

I have said these things before and you and your Buds refuse to
comment or have any argument to refute me. There is no vast army of
relatives lining up at the doors of CPS begging for their little kin,
who they may not have ever met, and who are the offspring of family
members they have had a very time with already.

If state agencies would make diligent efforts to place foster children with
relatives, they would know if the relatives had ever met the children and
could consider this as a factor.

CPS begs relatives to become caregivers, and more often than not gets
turned down. Or the relative simply hasn't the capacity...advanced
age, infirmities of mind and body, dangerous themselves.

To the contrary, federal auditors determined that most states were not
making diligent efforts to have relatives become caregivers, let alone "beg"
them.

And the claim that CPS doesn't look is also bogus. They look ONCE or
twice...if no one turns up or comes forward, they are spending TAX
dollars that could better be spent on rehabing the parent and child.

Where do you get this information . . . that they look once or twice. The
auditors are saying the majority of states did not apply diligent efforts to
place foster children with relatives.

You people are such a pack of liars.

Are the auditors liars, too?

Is the math lying to us, too?

Is the formula that tells us lower numbers in range have to be lower than
the mean a lie?

If from the hip hyperbole differs from statistics gathered by government
agencies, are we to consider the statistics a lie?

If you choose to ponder these questions, I hope it is done while you are
enjoying the day.

Doug

On Tue, 25 May 2004 08:57:57 -0400, "Doug" wrote:

I wrote:

As you know, federal auditors found that the states consistently
failed to make EFFORTS to place children with relatives. It
was one
point most of the states failed.

To which, Kane replies:

The failed to based on a number of factors. Often the parents won't
give correct information about relatives ..they are ashamed...and
CPS
dosn't even know there are relatives until it's too late.

Hi, Kane!

I am afraid you did not read my statement.

No, I read it fine and my answer stands. The state discontinues
efforts after some events, like NOT BEING ABLE TO GET ANY INFORMATION
ABOUT RELATIVES ON INITIAL INTERVIEWS with parents. Or the parents not
being present, like missing. Or claiming there ARE not living
relatives. No kin.

I have included it again.

Misleading lying prattle, as usual.

The
auditors found that the states failed to use diligent EFFORTS to
place
foster children with relatives. Efforts. Efforts.
http://tinyurl.com/i8t0

R R R R....you send us to a page of states and territories, each of
which requires time to download a file.....on what.......the vague and
misleading typical language liars like you use? R R R ..good'un...
"Diligent EFFORTS."

R R R R R R ......make a diligent effort to get your head out of your
ass. It'll do yah good. Make a diligent effort to stop your asshole
buddy racist hatefilled bigot to stop. I'll RATE YOU ON WHETHER OR NOT
IT'S "diligent."

Fart words...that's all they are...and the same as you alway post.
Garbage.

The auditors did not measure how successful CPS was in placing
children with
relatives,

Oh. Really? YOu have't been reading then.

but whether they TRIED to place foster children with relatives.

How do you measure someone's "effort" unless you consider the results?

Where is the chart or file (and the feds are auditing a notoriously
small sampling state to state...it would make a real researcher puke)
showing a measure of "efforts."

I can hear my old shop teacher now..."You boys aren't making an
effort."

And we're pickin' splinters out of our thumbs and sweatin' **** over
some clunky gun rack or wobbly end table for our parents.

The vast majority failed to make diligent EFFORTS to do so. They
didn't
try. http://tinyurl.com/i8t0
Your comment does not address the issue.

Your citation.....R R R R.... alist of states with NO data beside
them, shows lack of "diligent effort" to show that I did not address
the issue. I did, and you lied and dodged yet again.

And some relatives do NOT want to interfer so they hang back until
the
11th hour, then scream because they are not getting services that
they
once turned down. Like I said, Doug, you are a liar.

Since you use that term so often, let's review what in your opinion
consists
of "lies" during the past few posts.

No, actually let's review the statement I made and the part you are
avoiding, as you always seem to..........RELATIVES ARE HARD TO COME BY
BECAUSE OF MANY THINGS ONE OF WHICH I JUST POINTED OUT AND YOU
AVOIDED.

They hang back until the 11th hour hoping their relative bio
production unit gets it's **** together and gets the kid
back...completely in denial of the damage that BPU did to their
grandchild, nephew, neice, etc.

You are a liar if, like Fern, you write that only 27% of foster
children are
placed with relatives, when federal statistics indicate 24% to 26%
are
placed with relatives.

Then I'm a liar too. The trick here is to sort out who is trying to
decieve, and I have no trouble, since I catch you and It again and
again doing this same thing.

You are a "liar" if, like me, you suggest that Kane is wrong when he
states
that "everybody and their brother is manufactorng methamphetamine."
It is a
lie to state that Kane's statement is an overgeneralization.

ALL figures of speech are "overgeneralizations." That's why they are
called figures of speech, you lying little creep. They are stated to
make a point.

The point being that prior to the 70's meth babies were unheard
of...see, yet another generalization...I know for a fact, having seen
them, there were a few, but the public didn't know about them and
statistically they were a blip...so "meth babies were unheard of."

You going to call me a liar because I used a figure of speech AGAIN?

Well YOU and your asshole buddies don't do much figure of speech
use....you make baldface claims that are lies DESIGNED TO MISLEAD...in
fact the posting methods of The Plant are and have been highly
misleading for as long as I've read them.

You are a "liar" if you cite auditors reports finding that most the
the
states failed to use diligent efforts to place foster children with
relatives.

Yep, YOU are liar on that one. I am NOT because I have been following
this for years and watched the auditors....reviewers is the correct
term...case reviewers...LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE AND LIE repeatedly.

Even the sample size is a research lie of high magnitude, but it suits
you to defend it.

Even the high of 26%

The high in some states is 50%. The low is an artificial average
caused by just a few states.

If it is true that some states place 50% of foster children with
relatives,
then the average of 24% is very much inflated by those states --
making the
average in other states much, much less than 24%.

You claim that California, which has well over 30% of the foster
children of
the entire nation,

Hell, isn't it coming up on 30% of the population? R R R R R R

places 50% of their foster children with relatives.

Naw, that was LA county. My bad if I said California. Your own Plant
posted it, as I told you. Didn't you bother to look at It's recent
postings to see?

If
that is true, then the remaining states place children with relatives
in a
much lower percentage than 24%.

Actually there were some as low as 3 percent a few years back.

Since I have never seen any documentation on the percentages of
relative
foster care placement in California, I will use estimated rough
figures to
do some math.

Translation: "Here somes the ****, open up."

California houses more than 30% of the nations foster
children, but we will use 30%. 30% of the rounded off 500,000 foster
care
population is 150,000 children. You claim that 50% of these children
are
placed with relatives -- 75,000. Nationwide, an average of 24% of
children
are placed with relatives (including California). That's a total of
120,000
children in relative care nationwide.

120,000
- 75,000 California
---------------
45,000 Remaining children in relative care for other 49 states

There would be roughly 350,000 foster children in those 49 states
(500,000
minus California's 150,000). 45,000 of those children would be in
relative
care. If we divide the number of children in relative care in those
states
by the total foster care population in those states, we have a
percentage of
12.85714 or 12.9%.

So, if California does indeed place 50% of its foster children with
relatives, the remaining 49 states place an average of 12.9% of their
foster
children with relatives.

Actually that could be true. It isn't, but your hypothetical is no
better than mine.

If, as you claim, other states place 50% of their foster children
with
relatives, the overall average nationwide would further decrease.
The nationwide average of 24% is, in fact, artificially INFLATED by
just one
state's 50% showing -- IF that figure for California is correct.

Hope. It was in error, apparently on my part. It's LA county. CA runs
about in the middle.

I appreciate you pointing this out, Kane. What other states do you
claim
placed 50% of their foster children with relatives?

Did I say that?

YOu are a master at making a claim then asking why the other person
said it.

If we had those states
as well, we can calculate the true percentage for the remaining
states.

I see. YOU post a citation that supposedly leads to all the states
kinship placement numbers but instead of opening each state and
finding out yourself you want someone else to do it.

Very very clever, Duplicitious. You know few would slog through all
that.

Why didn't YOU? R R R R R....yet you took the time to guess.

It's because you are basically dishonest and unethical.

would seem much
too low if families and friends were allowed to become involved.

Family and friends are begged to become involved. Special certs are
often friends and aquaintences...there are many of these...in some
states they comprise a quarter of all placements. Church and school
connections, and a few, "mommy I brought my friend home, can she
stay
with us" kind of contacts abound.

Again, federal auditors found that most the the states failed to make
diligent efforts to involve relatives in placement -- let alone "beg"
them.
http://tinyurl.com/i8t0

You going to post that URL again that YOU won't explore and cite
specifics from? I thought so.

R R R R....well, CA doesn't agree with you or the FEDS, and says so.

I have witnessed the efforts some states have made and complained THEY
ARE WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY when it goes on to long and too
"diligently." Some states have even paid PI's to run down relatives in
other states. Now THAT is a waste of my money.

If the families arent' close enough to know one of their kin is
abusing their child then when did it get to be MY state's job to run
them down and inform them with anything more than publication or an
interview of the bio production unit, WHO WILL LIE LIE LIE AND LIE
again....mostly because they hate the parents of the last guy that
plugged them up with a baby.

YOU, doug, as I've said before, are a ****ing low life scumsucking
liar...because you know these things if you are a child welfare social
worker...and conceal them here when you make your bogus claims.

It takes HUGE efforts that are EXTREMELY COSTLY and I do NOT want
states doing it beyond MIMINAL "efforts."

It's money better spent on either or reunification and rehabilitation
for child and bpu.

You finally have a valid point. CPS is very concerned that the
child's
safety NOT be set aside in favor of a lying dangerous parent.

We do have to keep in mind that the majority of children in foster
care are
not taken from dangerous, lying parents. More than 100,000 of them
were
taken from families CPS itself unsubstantiated for any risk of
neglect or
abuse in 2000. http://tinyurl.com/9psd

crappola. FOUND LATER TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED....smart ass.

They weren't found unsubstantiated and THEN removed. How sick you are.

Or rather, how sick are you?

I miss nothing of the kind. Nor does CPS. What do you think
"visitation" is about you lying creep? YOu were NEVER A FOSTER
PARENT
AND HAVE BEEN LYING ABOUT THIS SINCE I SAW YOUR FIRST POST. No
working
foster parent could be a stupid and uninformed as you exhibit
daily.

Because bobb posts information that Kane disagrees with, Kane
suddenly
disinvows bobb's former role as a foster caregiver. "You were a
foster
caregiver as long as you agree with me."

Or, perhaps, wishful thinking. I've never seen a report
indicating the number of foster parent applications subsquently
denied...but
foster parent recruiters will tell you a large percentage are
weeded
out...
perhaps for just reasons... perhaps not... but we do know many kin
complain
they have been excluded.

Oh. How "many" is this "many?" I see it reported quite rarely. And
I
know for a fact that often the real reason they were excluded they
are
NOT going to tell anyone about...they'd rather just blame CPS and
lie
lie lie...as you do.

It would be helpful to report the numbers of relatives considered for
foster
placements. Since most of the states were found in audits to have
failed to
make diligent efforts to locate relatives and place children with
them, it
may be that number is startlingly low.

How many folks are going to tell you, well, I had a drug and felony
history and they didn't think I'd make a safe foster
parents....like I
was busted for abusing a child who died subsequently.

I've seen people I KNOW have a police record of assault on children
get turned down for a relative...and lie their asses off...and CPS
can't tell.

It seems statistically impossible that only 26
percent of kin are afforded the opportunity to care for
relatives..

Well, since that's not what the number is that are "afforded an
opportunity" then you'd be wrong as usual. Many more than that are
given the opportunity and turn it down, or prove later to not be
suitable, and often they demand the removal of the child
themselves.
Nice for the kid, right?

and we
are talking across all age groups.

Translation: "And we are talking out our asses"

It is possible to conclude CPS sees 75 percent of the population
unfit to
parent? Is it no wonder they have difficulty trying to recruit
foster
parents?

R R R R ...completely wiping out what I actually did say as to why
the
numbers are what they are.

First of all CPS doesn't see 75 percent of the population of kin as
unfit.

They simply place from 24% to 50% with kin. That doesn't mean there
ARE kin for all children in the system. They can't place if there
are
no kin. nitwit.

No, no, no. You are posting misinformation, Kane. The range of
percentages
would be much lower on the low end...more like about 12% to 50%,
depending
on how many states really do place 50% of their foster children with
relatives. We have no documentation of any states that place 50% of
foster
children with relatives, but the more there are, the smaller the
lower end
of the percentages would be.

If you use the 50%, it is categorically inaccurate to take the
national
average as the lower figure in the range. You must know that. If
the mean
is 24%, and the higher number in the range is 50%, then the lower
number in
the range has to be less than 24%.

This entire issue is yet another red herring of the little twits
that
pretend to be reformers.

What kind of fish would you call your misinformation about the range
of
percentages of children placed with relatives?


I invite the those that are not the bigoted assholes you idiots are
to
think just a moment.

We have fewer extended family than many cultures. Hence fewer
relatives. We have been putting off child bearing until later
years...meaning that there are fewer surviving relatives. We have
been
moving constantly in jobs and just because americans do that.

The percentages are not comparative figures to other cultures. And
they are
published with the understanding that states have been found by
auditors not
to be making diligent efforts to place children with relatives.

Do you think that the reason for the low numbers could be that CPS is
not
making the effort it should to place children with relatives?

And finally, you silly ass twit, MANY RELATIVES DO NOT COME FORWARD
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT DRUG EFFECTED CHILDREN THAT HAVE BEEN
DRIVING
INSANE BY SICK PARENTS. And they sure as hell don't want the
inlaws
that come with some of these children...legal or not.

1) Most children taken into state custody are not drug effected or
driven
insane by their parents. Fully a third of them are removed annually
from
homes CPS itself has unsubstantiated for any risk of maltreatment.

2) If CPS made diligent efforts to place these kids with relatives,
we would
know how many relatives were offered the opportunity and failed to
meet
requirements or refused.

Remember, it wasn't that the states failed to place enough children
with
relatives, it was that they didn't TRY.

I have said these things before and you and your Buds refuse to
comment or have any argument to refute me. There is no vast army of
relatives lining up at the doors of CPS begging for their little
kin,
who they may not have ever met, and who are the offspring of family
members they have had a very time with already.

If state agencies would make diligent efforts to place foster
children with
relatives, they would know if the relatives had ever met the children
and
could consider this as a factor.

CPS begs relatives to become caregivers, and more often than not
gets
turned down. Or the relative simply hasn't the capacity...advanced
age, infirmities of mind and body, dangerous themselves.

To the contrary, federal auditors determined that most states were
not
making diligent efforts to have relatives become caregivers, let
alone "beg"
them.

And the claim that CPS doesn't look is also bogus. They look ONCE
or
twice...if no one turns up or comes forward, they are spending TAX
dollars that could better be spent on rehabing the parent and
child.

Where do you get this information . . . that they look once or twice.
The
auditors are saying the majority of states did not apply diligent
efforts to
place foster children with relatives.

You people are such a pack of liars.

Are the auditors liars, too?

Is the math lying to us, too?

Is the formula that tells us lower numbers in range have to be lower
than
the mean a lie?

If from the hip hyperbole differs from statistics gathered by
government
agencies, are we to consider the statistics a lie?

If you choose to ponder these questions, I hope it is done while you
are
enjoying the day.

As usual, one of your long misleading crocks of ****.

So tell us Douggie, just exactly what IS a "diligent effort?"

One try? Four? None?

The feds, as I have repeatedly said, have had the fix in from the
beginning, and such vague and impenetrable language to discribe
something that MUST have exact numbers or be uncountable proves they
are liars just as you are to use that language to make such a claim.

So tell me, Douggie, were do all these relatives come from that you
twits claim are lining up to foster their little relatives? More
chidlren are being born all the time to the same people that lost
children in the past...yet these same people cannot produce MORE
relatives with the ease they can babies.

In other words, one population is remaining constant (or dying of old
age) and filling up...they simply won't take more children, and the
other is growing ... being born.

Of course the percentage of placements would drop.

You are one of the cleverest cut and run artists I've run across. It's
amazing what you don't respond to that I challenge you with.

I don't think you make "diligent efforts" to answer all my points of
argument.

So if I claimed you didn't make diligent efforts to answer all my
claims, what would you want to know about my definition of "diligent
efforts" Douggie?

What a pack of unprincipled little hyena pups you are.

I brought up California partly because The Vegetable Bud of yours
mentioned it and because it's an interest of mine.

I have pointed out to you and other posters from the twit side that
the states are starting to run out of patience with this fix the feds
have run on them.

States that have made huge strides in child welfare systems
improvement are being classed with a few states that have done little
or nothing.

Your claims about California and the numbers of children in care
ignores, as your usual ploy, the fact the CA has a huge population ...
in fact, no state has MORE of a population. How could it NOT have more
children in care given that fact.

And it has political power that is going to be turned loose in the
feds. Here's what Rita Saenz, Director
California Department of Social Services had to say in January of
2003...indicating that I'm not dreaming up these scenarios of the
states being railroaded.

The problem isn't the states...it's the unrealistic expectations of
the feds,...worded in such a way they cannot be interpreted until
after the fact.....the practice of weasels and thugs.

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cfsr/Informatio_1312.htm

Rita got it, and Rita talks a great deal with other states. They
compare notes. They are not going to take this lying piece of crap
lying down, trust me on this.

The feds, it seems, have been lying....and CA caught them at it.

YOU and your cronies have relied on a great deal of shakey data based
on just such lies of the past year that I've monitored you. When
caught you immediately REFUSE TO ANSWER THE CHARGE and take off in
other directions as you did in this post.

I made no claims about other states, nor did I discuss averages beyond
casual mention of some numbers displayed by states and reported in the
media. I did NOT open a debate on this issue. Your lying asshole buddy
Plant did that by making claims over and over again about the states
the It cannot support, any more than you can, except by lies.

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cfsr/res/...CAresponse.pdf

CA is ****ED and the feds do NOT want to get a state the size of CA
****ed at them. CA is awash with activists..who may well take up the
cause of cutting the throat of the tax collector vis a vis federal
taxes. Major anti tax movements have already come out of CA in the
past and heads rolled in DC and the climate is ripe for another round,
as the IRS starts to get pushy again.

All that has to be done is to link Child Welfare CUTS to taking tax
payers money away from tax payers in CA and you'll see it happen. And
just such plans are underway.

California, just as I, take exception to the vague language of the
feds. And in fact call the feds liars and state that reviewers made
judgements that were NOT to be allowed to them to make negative
determinations about reviewed cases and outcomes.

This is epidemic across the country in the Child and Family Services
Review procedures. I predict if the feds claim, based on "audits"
states have failed and withdraw funding we will see a court battle
like few before.

I've heard two other states administrators besides CA makes such
claims and they claim they have similar reports from their peers in
other states.

It's a mess, and YOU you ****ing lying asshole, and your cronies are
trying to make your claims based on this garbage that passes for
review of cases.

Your inconsistency, and your blaming each of only two possible efforts
of the states is a constant. In other words you are unethical. You
scream for reunification, yet the feds fault for TRYING TO REUNIFY,
and yet they also fault for failure to reunify. Can't have it both
ways, ol' Douggie the liar.

"The case goal of reunification is maintained for too long, and the
courts are reluctant to approve terminating parental rights unless the
agency has identified an adoptive home for the child."

In other words the feds want TPRs with children in limbo...no
prospects for permancy, instead of working toward reunification more
diligently, yet it is they that tie funding to finding adoptive homes
or other permanency....talk about stick and carrot with more stick. .

As you read this PDF reply to the feds assessment notice the small
numbers of cases being used to make the outrageously lying claims the
feds do. And the sharp response from CA correcting them.

Comments such as this are common responses by CA: "Additionally, the
comment that in five cases it was a, "lack of attention" that resulted
in placement disruption is an unsubstantiated interpretation."

Here's another exchange: "Item 6: Stability of Foster Care Placement
... Federal Comment
This item was rated as a strength in 19 of 25 applicable cases and as
an area needing improvement in the remaining six cases. (page 32)

State Response
There was a factual error in the report on one child's case, which
should be listed as a strength, instead of needing improvement. Even
though there were two or less placement moves, the reviewer made an
independent determination that the child was not in the best
placement, which under the Federal instructions is not a permitted
criteria for rating this question. This correction will result in a
total of 20 cases as a strength. Additionally, the comment that in
five cases it was a, "lack of attention" that resulted in
placement disruption is an unsubstantiated interpretation. The
Statewide Assessment identified the need for more placement resources
to meet the needs of children and this section should be amended to
reflect that change."

Notice yet again their strong respose to the use of vague and
misleading wording............YOUR speciality in these ngs, reflected
in the federal language in their comments. Bull****...is what it
should be called and you are full of it.

And here's yet another that shows just how valid the claims I read
here placed in this ng by they mindless Plants, and liars such as you,
actually a

"'Item 7: Permanency Goal for Child
... Federal Comment
There is little evidence of concurrent plans for permanency in Los
Angeles County. (Page 34, last paragraph)

State Response
The comment that there is "little evidence" is not supported by the
data from the review or the stakeholder interviews and should be
deleted. The report acknowledges that 76 percent of the cases had
timely permanence established which by itself would refute
this statement. Further the stakeholder interviews identified focused
efforts at implementing concurrent planning in cases assigned to the
Black Family Unit and the Family to Family pilot.

NOW will you admit the fix has been in from the beginning?

Naw, of course not. You'll just try to run one of your bull**** garden
variety diversionary dishonest piles of crap for the gallery to cheer
you on.

YOU ALL ARE A PACK OF ****ING LIARS. The feds included.

The feds gigged CA on training of staff....this is the response:

"Our training is consistent with the goals and objectives as outlined
in our Title IV-B Plan. Our construction and application of the
federal requirements regarding training has been reflected in our
state plan for a number of years. That plan has consistently been
approved by federal authorities."

Notice that last sentence.

It's calling the feds liars, just as I call YOU liars for your
inconsistency, your claims that run counter to each other where you
fault CPS for not doing something then fault them for doing it..or you
simply lie about facts and their meaning.

IN OTHER WORDS YOU AND THE FEDS ARE A PACK OF ****ING LYING CRETINS.

The feds "approved" yet the feds now fault the same program?

Can you spell FIX without vomiting over this kind of unethical
behavior by the feds?

I'm telling you the feds, and not just this administration, have been
after these monies, and educational funding dollars and profits, for a
long time. And they will lie to get them.

Vested interests survive changing administrations just fine, and they
keep the pressure on with lobbiests, and with lies. And local vendors
of rehab and counseling services are NOT in the same league and are
subject to local controls...while the big money boys are NOT, and they
have immense political and economic power in DC and the world.

This is going according to plan. And you are either a dupe or a
player, you ****ing immoral creep.

Anyone with half a brain in their head not an unethical pile of crap
such as you would strongly question the failure of ALL the states to
universally. That HAS to be crap.

I had, as an undergrad, a college instructor that failed an intire
class full of bright intelligent third year students. No one tried to
pass off that these were all failures. The instructor was sacked.

Well, let's say counselled out, as she had a mental problem that a few
of us pointed out to the adminstrators.

This is not the least different. Lies, clever twisting of data, and
just plain bull**** is what the federal review is about, and CA called
them on it clear back in early 2003.

The fat lady has NOT sung, Duplicitious Douggie. Not yet.

As for relative foster placements...as I have said, there are many
more reasons for NOT placing with them than a lack of "diligent
efforts."

It's not as simple as you try to pretend to advance your sick agenda:

http://www.brennancenter.org/program...y_id=5&page=55

Just a sample of only ONE area when there are many...prior criim
history being a major one...unwillingness to maintain safe boundaries
for the child(ren) another....poverty yet another.

So don't try that bull**** the feds pull with lack of diligent efforts
crap. They, and YOU, have been exposed for the disingenuous twits you
really are.

Doug

Kane

Kane writes:

R R R R....you send us to a page of states and territories, each of
which requires time to download a file.....on what.......the vague and
misleading typical language liars like you use? R R R ..good'un...
"Diligent EFFORTS."

Hi, Kane!

The criteria for determining failure of diligent efforts is provided in each
state audit, along with examples of shortcomings. Each state can be chosen
from the page the URL sent you to.

For instance, click on Nebraska.

Auditors found that Nebraska failed to be in substantial compliance in
making efforts to allow parents to visit their children in foster care,
maintaining relationships between parents and their children in foster care,
preserving connections between foster children and their families AND making
diligent efforts to place foster children with relatives.
http://tinyurl.com/8wia

In 33% of the cases, "reviewers found that the agency had made NO EFFORTS to
explore the possibility of relative placements or had conducted only a
limited exploration of potential relative placements, such as seeking and
assessing only maternal relatives" (cited Final Audit Report, at page 7, My
emphasis). http://tinyurl.com/8wia

NO EFFORTS. Does that describe it sufficiently for you?

Fart words...that's all they are...and the same as you alway post.
Garbage.

The auditors did not measure how successful CPS was in placing
children with
relatives,

Oh. Really? YOu have't been reading then.

but whether they TRIED to place foster children with relatives.

How do you measure someone's "effort" unless you consider the results?


See above. Did you have another state you would like to look at?


Your citation.....R R R R.... alist of states with NO data beside
them, shows lack of "diligent effort" to show that I did not address
the issue. I did, and you lied and dodged yet again.


Here is some summary information on the first 32 states to be audited.

Alabama
Arizona
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DistOfColum
Florida
Georgia
Indiania
Kansas
Mass
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
New York
North Caroln
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvnia
South Dakta
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Wst Virginia

27 of those states failed to comply with federal standards for protecting
children from abuse and neglect (Safety Outcome 1).

28 of those states failed to insure that children were maintained safely in
their homes whenever possible (Safety Outcome 2).

ALL 32 of those states failed to substantially insure that children had
permanency and stability in their living situations.

28 of those states failed to preserve continuity of family relationships and
connections for foster children. This includes failure to make diligent
efforts to place children with relatives.

ALL 32 of the states failed to insure that families had enhanced capacity to
provide for their children's needs.

28 of the states failed to provide appropriate services to meet children's
educational needs.

ALL 32 of the state child protective agencies audited failed to provide
adequate services to meet children's physical and mental health needs.

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...erpt/index.htm

And some relatives do NOT want to interfer so they hang back until
the
11th hour, then scream because they are not getting services that
they
once turned down. Like I said, Doug, you are a liar.


Where are your sources for this statement? Where is the data?

No, actually let's review the statement I made and the part you are
avoiding, as you always seem to..........RELATIVES ARE HARD TO COME BY
BECAUSE OF MANY THINGS ONE OF WHICH I JUST POINTED OUT AND YOU
AVOIDED.


They are especially hard to come by if, like Nebraska, you fail to make ANY
effort to find them.

They hang back until the 11th hour hoping their relative bio
production unit gets it's **** together and gets the kid
back...completely in denial of the damage that BPU did to their
grandchild, nephew, neice, etc.


Where is your source of information supporting this subjective statement of
yours?

The point being that prior to the 70's meth babies were unheard
of...see, yet another generalization...I know for a fact, having seen
them, there were a few, but the public didn't know about them and
statistically they were a blip...so "meth babies were unheard of."


You claim to "know for a fact," but where is the data...supporting sources
to support your contention?

You going to call me a liar because I used a figure of speech AGAIN?

Well YOU and your asshole buddies don't do much figure of speech
use....you make baldface claims that are lies DESIGNED TO MISLEAD...in
fact the posting methods of The Plant are and have been highly
misleading for as long as I've read them.

You are a "liar" if you cite auditors reports finding that most the
the
states failed to use diligent efforts to place foster children with
relatives.

Yep, YOU are liar on that one. I am NOT because I have been following
this for years and watched the auditors....reviewers is the correct
term...case reviewers...LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE AND LIE repeatedly.


You don't like what the auditors came up with, so it turns out they, too are
liars. Anyone who disagrees with the way you presuppose things are are
liars.

Naw, that was LA county. My bad if I said California. Your own Plant
posted it, as I told you. Didn't you bother to look at It's recent
postings to see?


You stated that you had verified the California stat with two other sources.

If
that is true, then the remaining states place children with relatives
in a
much lower percentage than 24%.

Actually there were some as low as 3 percent a few years back.


Apparently, there is still a possibility some states are that low.

If, as you claim, other states place 50% of their foster children
with
relatives, the overall average nationwide would further decrease.
The nationwide average of 24% is, in fact, artificially INFLATED by
just one
state's 50% showing -- IF that figure for California is correct.

Hope. It was in error, apparently on my part. It's LA county. CA runs
about in the middle.

I appreciate you pointing this out, Kane. What other states do you
claim
placed 50% of their foster children with relatives?

Did I say that?


Yes. You said, "The high in some states is 50%. The low is an artificial
average caused by just a few states."

If we had those states
as well, we can calculate the true percentage for the remaining
states.

I see. YOU post a citation that supposedly leads to all the states
kinship placement numbers but instead of opening each state and
finding out yourself you want someone else to do it.


Nope. That URL led to the Audit Reports for each of the states, not the
population of children being cared for by kin.


Very very clever, Duplicitious. You know few would slog through all
that.

Why didn't YOU? R R R R R....yet you took the time to guess.


Because I am not the one who said there are "SOME" states that place 50% of
foster children with relatives. I know better.

Have a nice day, Kane!

Doug

Kane writes:

"diligent" is a word one uses for casual descriptions. It is imprecise
to the extreme. It has NO place in a legal document or preceedings, as
the reviews of states are. It is inexact and would NOT be tolerated as
a deciding factor for anything but a loose description in academic
research. As usual, Duplicitious, you are busy with the bull****.

Hi, Kane!

The audit teams from ACF were restricted to measuring results against
requirements in federal law. "Diligent efforts" is legal language used in
federal statutes, so the auditors had to base their criteria on these
standards. The language is legalistic -- the prose of legislators -- not
academic.

All of us are very familiar with this type of legal language used in
statutes. For instance, "reasonable efforts," "beyond a reasonable doubt,"
"reason to believe," "reasonable man" tests, etc. Federal statutes are full
of such phrases.

Diligent isn't a measure of anything, but dollars can be counted
exactly...and that is the problem here. The states may be shorted
actual dollars by a count of something that cannot be counted.
...bull****. The Fix Is IN.

It is the legal language in the statutes the auditors are checking
compliance with.

Auditors found that Nebraska failed to be in substantial compliance
in
making efforts to allow parents to visit their children in foster
care,
maintaining relationships between parents and their children in
foster care,
preserving connections between foster children and their families AND
making
diligent efforts to place foster children with relatives.
http://tinyurl.com/8wia

In 33% of the cases, "reviewers found that the agency had made NO
EFFORTS to
explore the possibility of relative placements or had conducted only
a
limited exploration of potential relative placements, such as seeking
and
assessing only maternal relatives" (cited Final Audit Report, at page
7, My
emphasis). http://tinyurl.com/8wia

NO EFFORTS. Does that describe it sufficiently for you?

Sure, but you farted yet again. You seemed to have missed, 33% vs "or
had conducted only a limited." Does that not indicate EFFORTS of some
kind.

....Not to the relatives on the paternal side of the family. The limited
efforts, if you recall, were that Nebraska failed to make any effort to
contact paternal relatives.

No, Douggie, these folks think just like you. Any EFFORT WOULD NOT BE
ENOUGH. And every dollar that does to more and more searching is lost
to other good uses.

No, diligent efforts are required and are enough. Do you make the same
argument for "reasonable effort" requirements that states consider leaving
the child in the home. Is reasonable efforts -- on the books since 1974 --
mean "any effort would not be enough?"

And I, unlike you, know and understand the federal law and it's
language. ANY effort is ALL THAT IS ASKED FOR...and it reads,
"attempt." Try looking it up.

It reads diligent efforts.


Fart words...that's all they are...and the same as you alway post.
Garbage.

The auditors did not measure how successful CPS was in placing
children with
relatives,

Oh. Really? YOu have't been reading then.

but whether they TRIED to place foster children with relatives.

How do you measure someone's "effort" unless you consider the
results?

It is done all the time. Surely you know that.

See above. Did you have another state you would like to look at?

The "above" did NOT list the efforts or any code to go by, thus
leaving, legally, ANY EFFORT NO MATTER HOW TINY, as meeting the
requirement. This is EXACTLY WHAT I've been talking about as in "fix
is in."

It simply used the terminlogy in the law -- diligent efforts.

You would have preferred the federal standards be written so that "any
effort to locate relatives, no matter how tiny, meet the requirement? In
other words, so CPS could go through the motions, fake it, and get away with
it? Well, they tried to go through the motions, but they were caught at it.

The feds left the language vague in the law, ASFA, and now suddenly
it's getting more and more rigid, but even here, it's still garbage
verbage and really says nothing.

Diligent efforts is a vague legal term. But it is not inconsistent with
other language in federal statutes, which is equally as vague, as you state.

And given CA's interaction with the feds, I have a great deal of
trouble believing that the claim of NO efforts is true.

We were talking about Nebraska.

Alabama
Arizona
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DistOfColum
Florida
Georgia
Indiania
Kansas
Mass
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
New York
North Caroln
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvnia
South Dakta
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Wst Virginia

27 of those states failed to comply with federal standards for
protecting
children from abuse and neglect (Safety Outcome 1).

At least one seemed to differ on the interpretations, or didn't you
read the CA report?

I have read a lot of stuff out of California lately. Under the leadership
of their new governor, heads of the CPS agency have gone on record with
harsh criticism of their own agency. One top CPS administrator said that
1/2 of the children the agency put in foster care did not belong there.

I'd venture that if the fed reviewers would try that in CA they'd sure
as hell do it in other states.

I reckon so.


28 of those states failed to insure that children were maintained
safely in
their homes whenever possible (Safety Outcome 2).

Same crap. They are compromised. We don't know if they are sticking to
the standards, and we sure as hell know that the sampling was a crock.

There was nothing wrong with the random sampling or other methodology used.
They were extensive reviews of a small sample size.

ALL 32 of those states failed to substantially insure that children
had
permanency and stability in their living situations.

Problem is that more than half the readers here don't know what you
and I know....what that means in the real world, social worker.

I am among those "half the readers" since I don't know to be true what you
seem to think is true.

What, by the way, is the federal measure of "substantially?" I get
"anything they want to say it is" since it's about as vague as one can
get.

Yep....substantially is another one of those vague legalistic words used in
the federal codes.

I am soooo glad you are doing this. I was sure no one here, that
mattered, would believe me when I kept saying, "The fix is in."

Thank you! I am glad I am doing this, too. But you may have to consider
the possibility that you are the only one reading these words that sees them
as supporting the idea that the "fix is in."

You, by quoting such terms as you have that the feds are using to
determine the state's "failure" are making it abudantly clear that I
was telling the truth. It's much more telling when YOU do it for me.

LOL!

28 of those states failed to preserve continuity of family
relationships and
connections for foster children. This includes failure to make
diligent
efforts to place children with relatives.

Sounds like everyone is lined up outside the CPS office, on time, bib
and tucker, presents for the kiddies, and kind words for all.....and
YOU know, asshole, that is NOT what is happening and never has.

You are the one that keeps talking about all these folks lining up here and
there. Whether they are or are not has nothing to do with the issue --
which is whether states are making diligent efforts to locate relatives and
place foster children with them.

People are constantly breaking appointments. Foster parents are
sitting around for an hour ahead of time, and waiting for an hour
after the appointed time and no one showed up, and then the worker
spends a couple of days fruitlessly trying to find the folks that said
they'd be there.

Who says? How many don't show up? How does this address the fact that
states are not allowing visitation between foster children and their
parents?

Relatives aren't showing for scheduled training until months of
begging them to attend have gone by...thus blowing the efforts of CPS
to get on to the next step...thus resulting in a failure to do the
"diligent efforts."

Sources? Citations? Data?

In fact most of the "failures" of CPS are related directly to the
resistance of clients and stake holders to do THEIR PART ON
TIME....and I know, if you are really a social worker, that YOU know
that. Any wonder I call you the names I do?

I disagree. I do not think for a minute that most of CPS failures are
directly related to resistance of clients and failure of stake holders to do
their jobs. CPS is responsible for their failures.

ALL 32 of the states failed to insure that families had enhanced
capacity to
provide for their children's needs.

Shortage of funds. Been going on since the 70's when I first
encountered CPS close up. Long lines at service providers (that IS the
enhanced capacity part...part of it anyway) and failure of OTHER
AGENCIES TO COME THROUGH. CPS can't make other agencies more
responsive and reactive.

Blaming. A form of denial. CPS will not be able to reform and get better
until it understands it has a problem.

Again, CPS is beling blamed for the failings of others.....

28 of the states failed to provide appropriate services to meet
children's
educational needs.

Yep. And CA had a very good response to that. The feds were making
"educational neglect" the bane of homeschooling families that
encounter CPS, a reason for enforcing services.

Yep. CPS attacks many homeschoolers in all the states, making an issue out
of educational neglect. I wish the homeschoolers the very best of luck.

It's bogus. there is NO federal mandate for it. And most states do not
have a law about educational neglect.

No more bogus that many of the other items they use for neglect findings.

The feds conned with this "educational needs" when in fact they were
pointing to failure to remove children on grounds of educational
neglect. Bogus, as most of the assessment points are.

The entire thing is a laughing matter, if the bucks weren't tied to
it.

ALL 32 of the state child protective agencies audited failed to
provide
adequate services to meet children's physical and mental health
needs.

Excuse me. You are posting this in a ng where YOU have refused to call
some of your littlle asslickin' buddies when they oppose mental health
needs.

What's with you, slimey duplicitious one? Think people would miss
that?

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...erpt/index.htm

And notice the vague language yet again......"adequate." Notice that.
I can, by looking at how I cared for my own children, probably call
half the country on being in"adequate" but then I have so many medical
types in my family we always had access to health care immediately.

Vague wording is part of federal and state codes.

Doug

On Tue, 25 May 2004 14:05:10 -0400, "Doug" wrote:

....fails again, on the following point:

"diligent" is a word one uses for casual descriptions. It is imprecise
to the extreme. It has NO place in a legal document or preceedings, as
the reviews of states are. It is inexact and would NOT be tolerated as
a deciding factor for anything but a loose description in academic
research. As usual, Duplicitious, you are busy with the bull****.

Diligent isn't a measure of anything, but dollars can be counted
exactly...and that is the problem here. The states may be shorted
actual dollars by a count of something that cannot be counted.
....bull****. The Fix Is IN.


Kane writes:

R R R R....you send us to a page of states and territories, each of
which requires time to download a file.....on what.......the vague
and
misleading typical language liars like you use? R R R ..good'un...
"Diligent EFFORTS."

Hi, Kane!

The criteria for determining failure of diligent efforts is provided
in each
state audit, along with examples of shortcomings. Each state can be
chosen
from the page the URL sent you to.

For instance, click on Nebraska.

Auditors found that Nebraska failed to be in substantial compliance
in
making efforts to allow parents to visit their children in foster
care,
maintaining relationships between parents and their children in
foster care,
preserving connections between foster children and their families AND
making
diligent efforts to place foster children with relatives.
http://tinyurl.com/8wia

In 33% of the cases, "reviewers found that the agency had made NO
EFFORTS to
explore the possibility of relative placements or had conducted only
a
limited exploration of potential relative placements, such as seeking
and
assessing only maternal relatives" (cited Final Audit Report, at page
7, My
emphasis). http://tinyurl.com/8wia

NO EFFORTS. Does that describe it sufficiently for you?

Sure, but you farted yet again. You seemed to have missed, 33% vs "or
had conducted only a limited." Does that not indicate EFFORTS of some
kind.

No, Douggie, these folks think just like you. Any EFFORT WOULD NOT BE
ENOUGH. And every dollar that does to more and more searching is lost
to other good uses.

And I, unlike you, know and understand the federal law and it's
language. ANY effort is ALL THAT IS ASKED FOR...and it reads,
"attempt." Try looking it up.

Fart words...that's all they are...and the same as you alway post.
Garbage.

The auditors did not measure how successful CPS was in placing
children with
relatives,

Oh. Really? YOu have't been reading then.

but whether they TRIED to place foster children with relatives.

How do you measure someone's "effort" unless you consider the
results?


See above. Did you have another state you would like to look at?

The "above" did NOT list the efforts or any code to go by, thus
leaving, legally, ANY EFFORT NO MATTER HOW TINY, as meeting the
requirement. This is EXACTLY WHAT I've been talking about as in "fix
is in."

The feds left the language vague in the law, ASFA, and now suddenly
it's getting more and more rigid, but even here, it's still garbage
verbage and really says nothing.

And given CA's interaction with the feds, I have a great deal of
trouble believing that the claim of NO efforts is true.

Your citation.....R R R R.... alist of states with NO data beside
them, shows lack of "diligent effort" to show that I did not
address
the issue. I did, and you lied and dodged yet again.


Here is some summary information on the first 32 states to be
audited.

Alabama
Arizona
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DistOfColum
Florida
Georgia
Indiania
Kansas
Mass
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
New York
North Caroln
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvnia
South Dakta
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Wst Virginia

27 of those states failed to comply with federal standards for
protecting
children from abuse and neglect (Safety Outcome 1).

At least one seemed to differ on the interpretations, or didn't you
read the CA report?

I'd venture that if the fed reviewers would try that in CA they'd sure
as hell do it in other states.

28 of those states failed to insure that children were maintained
safely in
their homes whenever possible (Safety Outcome 2).

Same crap. They are compromised. We don't know if they are sticking to
the standards, and we sure as hell know that the sampling was a crock.

ALL 32 of those states failed to substantially insure that children
had
permanency and stability in their living situations.

Problem is that more than half the readers here don't know what you
and I know....what that means in the real world, social worker.

What, by the way, is the federal measure of "substantially?" I get
"anything they want to say it is" since it's about as vague as one can
get.

I am soooo glad you are doing this. I was sure no one here, that
mattered, would believe me when I kept saying, "The fix is in."

You, by quoting such terms as you have that the feds are using to
determine the state's "failure" are making it abudantly clear that I
was telling the truth. It's much more telling when YOU do it for me.

28 of those states failed to preserve continuity of family
relationships and
connections for foster children. This includes failure to make
diligent
efforts to place children with relatives.

Sounds like everyone is lined up outside the CPS office, on time, bib
and tucker, presents for the kiddies, and kind words for all.....and
YOU know, asshole, that is NOT what is happening and never has.

People are constantly breaking appointments. Foster parents are
sitting around for an hour ahead of time, and waiting for an hour
after the appointed time and no one showed up, and then the worker
spends a couple of days fruitlessly trying to find the folks that said
they'd be there.

Relatives aren't showing for scheduled training until months of
begging them to attend have gone by...thus blowing the efforts of CPS
to get on to the next step...thus resulting in a failure to do the
"diligent efforts."

In fact most of the "failures" of CPS are related directly to the
resistance of clients and stake holders to do THEIR PART ON
TIME....and I know, if you are really a social worker, that YOU know
that. Any wonder I call you the names I do?

ALL 32 of the states failed to insure that families had enhanced
capacity to
provide for their children's needs.

Shortage of funds. Been going on since the 70's when I first
encountered CPS close up. Long lines at service providers (that IS the
enhanced capacity part...part of it anyway) and failure of OTHER
AGENCIES TO COME THROUGH. CPS can't make other agencies more
responsive and reactive.

Again, CPS is beling blamed for the failings of others.....

28 of the states failed to provide appropriate services to meet
children's
educational needs.

Yep. And CA had a very good response to that. The feds were making
"educational neglect" the bane of homeschooling families that
encounter CPS, a reason for enforcing services.

It's bogus. there is NO federal mandate for it. And most states do not
have a law about educational neglect.

The feds conned with this "educational needs" when in fact they were
pointing to failure to remove children on grounds of educational
neglect. Bogus, as most of the assessment points are.

The entire thing is a laughing matter, if the bucks weren't tied to
it.

ALL 32 of the state child protective agencies audited failed to
provide
adequate services to meet children's physical and mental health
needs.

Excuse me. You are posting this in a ng where YOU have refused to call
some of your littlle asslickin' buddies when they oppose mental health
needs.

What's with you, slimey duplicitious one? Think people would miss
that?

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...erpt/index.htm

And notice the vague language yet again......"adequate." Notice that.
I can, by looking at how I cared for my own children, probably call
half the country on being in"adequate" but then I have so many medical
types in my family we always had access to health care immediately.

Again, more garbage language. And again, you are just sending us to a
listing of states with no accompanying data...unless we slog through
the mess of lies and bull**** the feds are shoveling.

And some relatives do NOT want to interfer so they hang back
until
the
11th hour, then scream because they are not getting services
that
they
once turned down. Like I said, Doug, you are a liar.


Where are your sources for this statement? Where is the data?

Personal witness. Myself. Of coure no one is keeping this data. It
would be a breach of confidentiality to identify individuals hence no
one is logging it carefully, and no one is collecting the data.

Adn you know what I just said is true. and anyone that has relatives
and is honest about them and their various characteristics and
shortcomings knows damn well they have family members that would NOT
come through for them or each other.

The logistics of managing a family to find a willing person, who can
do it, is immense. and all too oftne the one person in a family that
offers is poorly set up to do it. Typical. Bobb will tell you how
badly we are losing family values in this country...what, you don't
agree with him, and you claim there is a long line of willing
relatives for each kid that comes into the system?

Doug...you.......are...........a........liar.

Ot so lost in your propaganda filled life you wont' see the truth when
it's slapping you in the face from your own citations.

No, actually let's review the statement I made and the part you are
avoiding, as you always seem to..........RELATIVES ARE HARD TO COME
BY
BECAUSE OF MANY THINGS ONE OF WHICH I JUST POINTED OUT AND YOU
AVOIDED.


They are especially hard to come by if, like Nebraska, you fail to
make ANY
effort to find them.

And we know the feds didn't lie, as they did in CA, how again?

They hang back until the 11th hour hoping their relative bio
production unit gets it's **** together and gets the kid
back...completely in denial of the damage that BPU did to their
grandchild, nephew, neice, etc.


Where is your source of information supporting this subjective
statement of
yours?

It is absolutely subjective. I absolutely agree it is. And SUBJECTIVE
KNOWLEDGE IS NOT INFERIOR TO OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE if the facts are
witnessed. I witnessed them many times in the past 14 years.

You recall my post that I helped relatives with CPS...well, not all
was sunshine and roses, asshole. Some of those folks were impossible
to help because they were exactly as I described.

I had more than one argument with a them as well. The most disgusting
type to me were those that refused to adopt, when there simply were
NOT other options for the child, and insisted on long term foster
care. Can you guess the message to the child when they learn other
children are lovingly adopted by relatives, and they aren't, all for
money?

The point being that prior to the 70's meth babies were unheard
of...see, yet another generalization...I know for a fact, having
seen
them, there were a few, but the public didn't know about them and
statistically they were a blip...so "meth babies were unheard of."


You claim to "know for a fact," but where is the data...supporting
sources
to support your contention?

How do I prove a negative? Not possible. My claim is they were NOT
being posted to databases because the number was too small. As for the
current data, it's all over the place.

Of course I can't prove, as you well knew and wish to take advantage
fo, if they weren't there I can't prove they weren't there.

What an asshole liar you are.

Cocaine....ah, now that's different...they were starting to come on
scene.

Meth abuse in those days were usually prescribed diet pills. I'm sure
people old enough remember when that little scandal came out...and as
far as I know, no one using them was being particularly careful about
birth control...but NO one was tracking the births with meth in
children's blood because they weren't being tested in the 70's.

I know it and anyone that noticed knows it...so you are caught yet
again with your vicious sick little act.

You going to call me a liar because I used a figure of speech
AGAIN?

Well YOU and your asshole buddies don't do much figure of speech
use....you make baldface claims that are lies DESIGNED TO
MISLEAD...in
fact the posting methods of The Plant are and have been highly
misleading for as long as I've read them.

You are a "liar" if you cite auditors reports finding that most
the
the
states failed to use diligent efforts to place foster children
with
relatives.

Yep, YOU are liar on that one. I am NOT because I have been
following
this for years and watched the auditors....reviewers is the correct
term...case reviewers...LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE AND LIE repeatedly.


You don't like what the auditors came up with, so it turns out they,
too are
liars. Anyone who disagrees with the way you presuppose things are
are
liars.

I am happy to say, even though you folks call it the "Left Coast,"
CA has agreed with me since 2003. You didn't think I have been making
these claims about a "fix" without some supporting information, now
did you?

Any claim of a negative, of course I cannot prove, nor can anyone, but
when it come to the positive claims I'm usually quite ready with the
data.

Naw, that was LA county. My bad if I said California. Your own
Plant
posted it, as I told you. Didn't you bother to look at It's recent
postings to see?


You stated that you had verified the California stat with two other
sources.

Must have lied. Or that the sources were human not printed.

Or I'm unable to find where and in what circumstances I made that
claim.

One of my major sources for my comments on relative placement is
through knowledge of the welfare system. Possibly among my many bits
and pieces of information I cross connected.

The TANF program assessments prove exactly what I claim...that
relatives are, among other things, hard pressed to provide for foster
children.

http://www.familiesinsociety.org/Sho...true&docid=243

In fact near the end of this report you'll find words that come close
to quoting what I've claimed.

And many relatives opt OUT even before coming into being a client
because they KNOW they cannot do it...hence the state fails to recruit
them.....but it tries...The feds are blowing smoke up your ass and you
love the feel because it agrees with your personal brand of
misinformation.

If
that is true, then the remaining states place children with
relatives
in a
much lower percentage than 24%.

Actually there were some as low as 3 percent a few years back.


Apparently, there is still a possibility some states are that low.

Gosh you don't read the states you listed for ME to read? You gave ONE
back, Nebraska I think. You aren't doing much of a job of supporting
your bogus claims, now are you?

Hell, it all blows out if even half of the responses of CA are true.
The feds are NOT to be trusted. Not in the assessments, not in the
reviews, and certainly NOT in the language of ASFA applications with
such wonderfully 'flexible' language.

If, as you claim, other states place 50% of their foster children
with
relatives, the overall average nationwide would further decrease.
The nationwide average of 24% is, in fact, artificially INFLATED
by
just one
state's 50% showing -- IF that figure for California is correct.

Hope. It was in error, apparently on my part. It's LA county. CA
runs
about in the middle.

I appreciate you pointing this out, Kane. What other states do
you
claim
placed 50% of their foster children with relatives?

Did I say that?


Yes. You said, "The high in some states is 50%. The low is an
artificial
average caused by just a few states."

Then my mistake and admitting it stands. Is CA not one of some states?

Where is this claim I said I had proof of other states?

I do know that about 50% of welfare cases where children move to
foster care the children are in the home of the relative or is moved
there. In fact it's often because of the need of the relative that a
CPS case is opened, on the claim of the relative that they will return
the child to the parent if there isn't intervention.

Though I don't fully approve of the method, I sure as hell approve of
the intent. IN fact this is ONE of the ways I've helped relatives with
CPS. Kickbutt. "How to get more from the system for your child" kind
of coaching.

If we had those states
as well, we can calculate the true percentage for the remaining
states.

I see. YOU post a citation that supposedly leads to all the states
kinship placement numbers but instead of opening each state and
finding out yourself you want someone else to do it.


Nope. That URL led to the Audit Reports for each of the states, not
the
population of children being cared for by kin.

And this was supposed to prove what again?

Very very clever, Duplicitious. You know few would slog through all
that.

Why didn't YOU? R R R R R....yet you took the time to guess.


Because I am not the one who said there are "SOME" states that place
50% of
foster children with relatives. I know better.

But you are quite willing to believe the lies of the feds as exposed
by CA, right?

Have a nice day, Kane!

Yewbetcha


Doug

Enjoy your mirror.

Kane