If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hines v Minnesota Social Services
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lavonne no parent should be deprived of their infant based on the junk science
spewed by CPS. How would you like your babies taken from you, based on conjecture? I assume you are knowledgeable about attachement disorders and the bond between infants and their parents. You purport to have taught a class in ECD. Guess to you as a foster incarcerator, the state is always right. After all, your foster child did NOT have any relatives or family with whom she could have been placed. Lavonne denies the essential bond between parent and child: Subject: Hines v Minnesota Social Services From: Carlson LaVonne Date: 11/4/2004 10:09 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: Fern, No one has argued that CPS is perfect, or that CPS doesn't make mistakes. More money for CPS to hire more qualified workers and more money for worker education and training would certainly go a long way to addressing the problems CPs faces. Brittle Bone is fairly rare and a tough challenge for CPS workers. When a child pressents with multiple old and new bone fractutures, any prudent CPS worker would remove the child. Parents should take a child into emergency or urgent care when a bone fracture occurs. Tests can be run to determine if the child has Brittle Bone. Universal health care and a well-funded CPS system could go a long way towards preventing the problems you outline in your email below. Thank you for voting for both. I'm sure, with your obvious concern for children and for errors in CPS, you voted for an increase in tax dollars that could alleviate the problems you mention. LaVonneFern F Fern5827 wrote: The jokers at CPS in MN took a sick child away from sterling,educated, alert and informed parents. Not once, but TWICE. Or at least they attempted to. Subject: Many families suffer frm unjustified CPS interventions From: (Fern5827) Date: 10/22/2004 11:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: Court case Hines v Minnesota Family of airline pilot Wally Hines assisted by the Rutherford Institute. DPSS in MN just would not listen to family. Stable, middle-class Christian family. Note that the child suffered a fracture while incarcerated in foster care, too. In Defense of Parents Rights Hines v. Dakota County Social Services On July 10, 1998, Wyatt was born to Wally and Debby Hines. The family had settled in a suburb of St. Paul, Minnesota, and joined the Bible Baptist Church, where Wally played the trumpet in the praise band. Their lives appeared to be truly blessed until Debby took Wyatt to a pediatrician because he had been crying a lot, especially when his leg was touched. X-rays revealed a fracture in Wyatt’s leg. Additional x-rays revealed six rib fractures, with some being so old they took place in utero, according to experts. One of the doctors who examined Wyatt explained that he exhibited symptoms of a rare disease known as osteogenesis imperfecta (O.I.), also known as Brittle Bone Disease. However, because of Wyatt’s injuries, charges of child abuse were filed against the Hineses by the Dakota County Social Services (DCSS). Wyatt was taken from his parents and placed in foster care. The DCSS would not allow Debby to furnish the foster parents with information about Brittle Bone Disease, and Wyatt suffered another fracture while in foster care. Finally, after three months and expert testimony, a judge returned Wyatt to his parents, found that the baby did have O.I. and ruled that he should be treated accordingly. The Hineses thought this nightmare was finally over, but in April 1999 Wyatt re-broke his leg. He was treated for O.I., a cast was put on his leg and he was sent home. Debby reported the doctor’s visit as she had been instructed to do by the judge. DCSS then went to the office of Wyatt’s doctor with a local police detective, spoke to a non-treating physician, and decided again it was child abuse. The doctor then called the Hineses and told them that the police detective and the DCSS were on their way to take custody of their baby again. On April 27, 1999, after receiving that phone call, the Hineses threw some diapers and a few other necessities in the back of their station wagon, strapped Wyatt in the car seat, and fled their home in Minesota. Rather than hand over their son to the DCSS for the second time, the Hineses became fugitives, on the run from a child welfare system they felt was out of control. On September 13, 1999, after contacting the Hineses and reviewing the evidence with regard to Brittle Bone Disease, The Rutherford Institute agreed to help the Hineses return to Minnesota and receive appropriate medical care for their son's serious and on-going condition. "The Rutherford Institute is very interested in cases likes the Hineses' where the state has gone too far in pursuit of alleged abuse of a child and cannot seem to acknowledge that it may have made a mistake," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Children do need to be protected; but where no abuse can be proved, the rights of parents and families must also be protected." With The Rutherford Institute’s assistance, Wally and Debby’s battle to keep their family together gained national attention when ABC News 20/20 aired a special report on their case. And after intense negotiations between DCSS officials and Rutherford Institute attorneys, the Hineses were allowed to return home to Minnesota in January of 2000, nearly a year after fleeing with their child. Despite the fact that leading medical experts had attributed Wyatt's recurring instances of broken bones to Brittle Bone Disease and he had not suffered any further fractures while in their care, the Hineses were still forced to live under the supervision of a foster family for several months. On April 1, 2000, they were released to live on their own. However, DCSS continued to insist that social workers monitor the family and conduct intermittent visits to their home because, they claimed, the possibility of abuse could still not be ruled out. Finally, on May 24, 2000, a judge dismissed all abuse charges against the Hineses. "We are thankful the court at last recognized the baseless nature of these charges and have given the Hineses back their baby and their lives," said Institute President John W. Whitehead. "While the nightmare has finally ended for the Hineses, we must remember that there are many more families like them who continue to suffer unjustified persecution by overzealous social services agencies." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Fern5827 wrote: Lavonne no parent should be deprived of their infant based on the junk science spewed by CPS. This is true, if things were as black and white as you make them out to be. Everything isn't as black and white as you assume (when it suits your personal agenda). Brittle Bone is not junk science. Nor is physical abuse that results is bone fractures. Without fairly expensive medical tests, it is not that easy to distinguish between the two How would you like your babies taken from you, based on conjecture? I wouldn't like my babies taken from me, based on conjecture. If I had been an abusive parent I suspect I wouldn't have liked my babies taken from me either, because very few parents admit to blatant physical abuse. However, I would submit to every investigation necessary, for there are children who are abused and killed by supposedly loving parents, and I would understand this procedure is in the best interest of children. I assume you are knowledgeable about attachement disorders and the bond between infants and their parents. Yes, I am extremely knowledgeable about attachment disorders. The rest of your statement is in error, which leads me to believe you have minimal understanding of either attachment or bonding. When discussing attachment theory it is important to understand the process and the terminology. The word "attachment" refers to the relationship that goes from child to parent or caregiver. Bonding refers to the relationship that goes from the parent or caregiver to the infant. You are in error when you refer to attachment as a "bond between infants and their parents." There are many kinds of attachment, and not all are positive. Hence ther term, attachment disorders. Secure attachment occurs when parents are responsive to a child's signals and a child's cues. It is evident during infancy. A securely attached infant does not loose that attachment by a brief separation. Nor does a family that has securely bonded with their child. Attachment disorders present strongly when a child has not attached due to parental abuse or neglect. Please understand what you are saying before you post for all the world. You purport to have taught a class in ECD. I don't know what "ECD" is. I teach courses in child development (CPsy), special education (EPsy), and early childhood education (CI). I supervise student teachers and present at workshops in these topics. Guess to you as a foster incarcerator, the state is always right. I don't know what a "foster incarcerator" is nor why you would apply that term to me. I certainly don't think the state is always right, and if you had possessed the integrity to include my post which seems to be the purpose of this response, you would have known this. After all, your foster child did NOT have any relatives or family with whom she could have been placed. Where do you get this stuff, Fern? If you are the original Fern, this has been asked an answered years ago. If you aren't the orinal Fern, you just proved it (grin)! Lavonne denies the essential bond between parent and child: I explained the difference between attachment and bonding. Now I suggest you become informed before presenting more of what you did in this post. LaVonne |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Apparently Lavonne takes no note of the FACTS in the Hines case which are that
Mr and Ms Hines had their BELOVED SON, suffer a second fracture while MN incarcerated the infant in Foster Care. As usual, she spews propaganda, which anyone can parrot. Lavonne didactically lectured: ( We can all do this, L.) Subject: Hines v Minnesota Social Services From: Carlson LaVonne Date: 11/6/2004 3:45 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: Fern5827 wrote: Lavonne no parent should be deprived of their infant based on the junk science spewed by CPS. This is true, if things were as black and white as you make them out to be. Everything isn't as black and white as you assume (when it suits your personal agenda). Brittle Bone is not junk science. Nor is physical abuse that results is bone fractures. Without fairly expensive medical tests, it is not that easy to distinguish between the two How would you like your babies taken from you, based on conjecture? I wouldn't like my babies taken from me, based on conjecture. If I had been an abusive parent I suspect I wouldn't have liked my babies taken from me either, because very few parents admit to blatant physical abuse. However, I would submit to every investigation necessary, for there are children who are abused and killed by supposedly loving parents, and I would understand this procedure is in the best interest of children. I assume you are knowledgeable about attachement disorders and the bond between infants and their parents. Yes, I am extremely knowledgeable about attachment disorders. The rest of your statement is in error, which leads me to believe you have minimal understanding of either attachment or bonding. When discussing attachment theory it is important to understand the process and the terminology. The word "attachment" refers to the relationship that goes from child to parent or caregiver. Bonding refers to the relationship that goes from the parent or caregiver to the infant. You are in error when you refer to attachment as a "bond between infants and their parents." There are many kinds of attachment, and not all are positive. Hence ther term, attachment disorders. Secure attachment occurs when parents are responsive to a child's signals and a child's cues. It is evident during infancy. A securely attached infant does not loose that attachment by a brief separation. Nor does a family that has securely bonded with their child. Attachment disorders present strongly when a child has not attached due to parental abuse or neglect. Please understand what you are saying before you post for all the world. You purport to have taught a class in ECD. I don't know what "ECD" is. I teach courses in child development (CPsy), special education (EPsy), and early childhood education (CI). I supervise student teachers and present at workshops in these topics. Guess to you as a foster incarcerator, the state is always right. I don't know what a "foster incarcerator" is nor why you would apply that term to me. I certainly don't think the state is always right, and if you had possessed the integrity to include my post which seems to be the purpose of this response, you would have known this. After all, your foster child did NOT have any relatives or family with whom she could have been placed. Where do you get this stuff, Fern? If you are the original Fern, this has been asked an answered years ago. If you aren't the orinal Fern, you just proved it (grin)! Lavonne denies the essential bond between parent and child: I explained the difference between attachment and bonding. Now I suggest you become informed before presenting more of what you did in this post. LaVonne |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Fern,
I answered every question in your post which you finally had the decency to include in your response. Would you care to respond to my answers? And while you are responding, how about addressing the differences between attachment and bonding, and demonstrating your understanding of attachment theory and attachment disorders, including insecure attachments? And how about addressing your ridiculous public declaration that I was "adjunct" and needed to earn foster care money because I only earned "1500?" And how about addressing the need for health care for children, the need for more money spent on public schools, and the need for a bill that would fully fund special education? Along with that, why not sponsor a bill that would increase CPS funding? An increase in CPS funding would allow CPS to hire more qualified workers, decrease workers case load, and likely result in fewer errors? LaVonne Fern5827 wrote: Apparently Lavonne takes no note of the FACTS in the Hines case which are that Mr and Ms Hines had their BELOVED SON, suffer a second fracture while MN incarcerated the infant in Foster Care. As usual, she spews propaganda, which anyone can parrot. Lavonne didactically lectured: ( We can all do this, L.) Subject: Hines v Minnesota Social Services From: Carlson LaVonne Date: 11/6/2004 3:45 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: Fern5827 wrote: Lavonne no parent should be deprived of their infant based on the junk science spewed by CPS. This is true, if things were as black and white as you make them out to be. Everything isn't as black and white as you assume (when it suits your personal agenda). Brittle Bone is not junk science. Nor is physical abuse that results is bone fractures. Without fairly expensive medical tests, it is not that easy to distinguish between the two How would you like your babies taken from you, based on conjecture? I wouldn't like my babies taken from me, based on conjecture. If I had been an abusive parent I suspect I wouldn't have liked my babies taken from me either, because very few parents admit to blatant physical abuse. However, I would submit to every investigation necessary, for there are children who are abused and killed by supposedly loving parents, and I would understand this procedure is in the best interest of children. I assume you are knowledgeable about attachement disorders and the bond between infants and their parents. Yes, I am extremely knowledgeable about attachment disorders. The rest of your statement is in error, which leads me to believe you have minimal understanding of either attachment or bonding. When discussing attachment theory it is important to understand the process and the terminology. The word "attachment" refers to the relationship that goes from child to parent or caregiver. Bonding refers to the relationship that goes from the parent or caregiver to the infant. You are in error when you refer to attachment as a "bond between infants and their parents." There are many kinds of attachment, and not all are positive. Hence ther term, attachment disorders. Secure attachment occurs when parents are responsive to a child's signals and a child's cues. It is evident during infancy. A securely attached infant does not loose that attachment by a brief separation. Nor does a family that has securely bonded with their child. Attachment disorders present strongly when a child has not attached due to parental abuse or neglect. Please understand what you are saying before you post for all the world. You purport to have taught a class in ECD. I don't know what "ECD" is. I teach courses in child development (CPsy), special education (EPsy), and early childhood education (CI). I supervise student teachers and present at workshops in these topics. Guess to you as a foster incarcerator, the state is always right. I don't know what a "foster incarcerator" is nor why you would apply that term to me. I certainly don't think the state is always right, and if you had possessed the integrity to include my post which seems to be the purpose of this response, you would have known this. After all, your foster child did NOT have any relatives or family with whom she could have been placed. Where do you get this stuff, Fern? If you are the original Fern, this has been asked an answered years ago. If you aren't the orinal Fern, you just proved it (grin)! Lavonne denies the essential bond between parent and child: I explained the difference between attachment and bonding. Now I suggest you become informed before presenting more of what you did in this post. LaVonne |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Social Services, Do they really care?????????????????? | Brab At Home | Foster Parents | 1 | May 31st 04 07:46 AM |
WISCONSIN SOCIAL SERVICES: Foster care system fails federal review | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 11th 04 06:07 PM |
Experts say agencies need to to coordinate social services better | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 8th 04 05:18 PM |
State social services chief defends agency's workers It is impossible to stop all child abuse, he says | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 4th 04 06:33 PM |
Warnings of abuse, yet the system fails a child Protection: The beating death of 2-month-old David Carr is the latest in a string of cases that highlight serious flaws in city and state agencies charged with protecting children, advocates say. | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 4th 04 06:28 PM |