A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with childabuser in Tucson arizona....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 8th 07, 06:04 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
fx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,848
Default Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with childabuser in Tucson arizona....

CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser
May 4, 2007 04:57 PM

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035


Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child
protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a
confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients.

The client is a convicted child abuser.

The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that
month of a 4 year old by his father.

Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his
right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an
investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to
child abuse.

But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a
romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months
before the abuse occurred.

And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's
case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002.

The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are
just some of the details:

* In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his
daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing."
* September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for
food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids
were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002.
* August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's
daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the
right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated
report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with
their father.

Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned
about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse,
and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the
children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the
children in her presence."

We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She
said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this.

Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS
spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in
which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional
relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation
of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing
on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case
has ended, relationships are discouraged."

State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that
was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker
could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one
who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS.

News 4 has learned the father will be on probation, convicted of child
abuse, until 2008.

His three children were returned to him last August.

News 4 spoke with the CPS supervisor in question. She turned down my
request for an interview.

We'll will bring you any new developments in this story when they happen.



CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...
  #2  
Old May 9th 07, 01:37 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
krp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,268
Default Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....


"0:-]" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:04:56 -0700, fx wrote:

CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser
May 4, 2007 04:57 PM

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035


Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child
protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a
confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients.

The client is a convicted child abuser.

The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that
month of a 4 year old by his father.

Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his
right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an
investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to
child abuse.

But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a
romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months
before the abuse occurred.

And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's
case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002.

The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are
just some of the details:

* In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his
daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing."
* September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for
food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids
were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002.
* August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's
daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the
right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated
report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with
their father.

Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned
about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse,
and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the
children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the
children in her presence."

We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She
said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this.

Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS
spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in
which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional
relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation
of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing
on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case
has ended, relationships are discouraged."

State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that
was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker
could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one
who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS.


It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association
barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts
if need be.


Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a CPS
supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least find
it troublesome? Then it is defended by saying it is "freedom of
association." IMHO a rather warped reading of the Bill of Rights. Kane
misses that the "people" who employ this individual, CAN, as a "condition of
employment" impose rules and expectations of conduct on the people hired for
a job which is NOT, Kane, to screw the perverts! I can't find that in the
Bill of Rights. Of course one has to believe in some standard of ethics for
public employees.

I was treated to an interesting quip from one of the users on the Falseacc
list today that I'll share he

============================================

Dear God:

Why didn't you save the school children at:

Virginia Tech

Amish Country, PA

Columbine High School

Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96

Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97

Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97

West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97

Stam P, Arkansas 12/15/97

Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98

Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98

Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98

Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98

Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98

Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99

Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99

Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99

Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99

Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99

Santee, California 3/ 5/01 and

El Cajon, California 3/22/01?

Sincerely,

Concerned Student

-----------------------------------------------------

Reply:

Dear Concerned Student:

I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,

God



  #3  
Old May 9th 07, 11:46 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking,talk.politics.guns
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....

On May 9, 5:37 am, " krp" wrote:
"0:-]" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:04:56 -0700, fx wrote:


CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser
May 4, 2007 04:57 PM


http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035


Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child
protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a
confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients.


The client is a convicted child abuser.


The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that
month of a 4 year old by his father.


Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his
right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an
investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to
child abuse.


But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a
romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months
before the abuse occurred.


And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's
case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002.


The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are
just some of the details:


* In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his
daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing."
* September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for
food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids
were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002.
* August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's
daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the
right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated
report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with
their father.


Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned
about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse,
and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the
children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the
children in her presence."


We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She
said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this.


Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS
spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in
which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional
relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation
of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing
on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case
has ended, relationships are discouraged."


State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that
was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker
could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one
who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS.


It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association
barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts
if need be.


Why did you stop there, after leaving everything else, and remove what
showed that I was not defending the agency or the supervisor?
Hmmmm....kenny?

Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a CPS
supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least find
it troublesome?


"Killer?" You will provide proof of my having killed anyone
immediately, Ken.

And how do you know what I find troublesome or not, liar?

Why did you snip the rest of my post that more clearly showed my
position?

There is a special place in Hell (well you're a believer aren't you?)
for those that will take a portion of what someone says, and base a
false accusation or claim about the person or his views on the portion
alone.

You make a habit of this, and have paid dearly for it when caught. You
ran when I caught you.

Then it is defended by saying it is "freedom of
association."


No it isn't. I am defending freedom of association, not the actions of
this person in particular. I am explaining why the state cannot stop
this person from hanging with who she wishes.

Pointing out a fact, unless I clearly state that it defends the
action, as I did not, is not defending anything but the rights
recognized by our constitution and BOR.

Did you see me say I approved of the supervisors actions? Show us.
Here's my statement:

"It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association
barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts
if need be.

Hence, the state lacks statute to prevent it (probably at the
insistence of the state's AG who understands constitutional issues)
and CPS can ONLY control associations with active current clients.

This is yet another bogus attempt of yours, by finding someone in
agreement with illogical and in this case blatantly ILLEGAL attempts
to tell a person who they may associate with.

Yer a real constitutional and "rights" fount of wisdom you are. Just
as the state Rep Paton, who of course is doing a political Hail Mary
play.

He KNOWS that he is standing on thin air, but boy, does it LOOK good
to claim CPS isn't doing what they cannot by law do. He just leaves
out the latter part of that idea.

Like you. " ...

That is it in full..so short that it's more than obvious you chopped
it to make libel.

So, where is the defense of the supervisor, or of CPS, Ken the Liar?

IMHO a rather warped reading of the Bill of Rights.


Your opinion is warped, Ken. We know that about you by now.

Kane
misses that the "people" who employ this individual, CAN, as a "condition of
employment" impose rules and expectations of conduct on the people hired for
a job which is NOT, Kane, to screw the perverts!


Of course they can be so restrained by their employer, as long as it
does NOT violate their rights.

Unless the article is wrong, that would have been the case had they
ordered her not to see someone that was NOT a client at the time she
did associate with him.

You, who claim to be a trial consultant, don't know the BOR. Go ahead
and show me were what I "missed" in the BOR exists, Ken.

In a democratic republic with carefully designed law to maintain the
power of the people over the government and it's agents, sometimes bad
people do bad things that take advantage of those protected rights.

The supervisor is protected by the US Constitution, Ken, and you know
it. We don't have to like it or approve of it to point out a political
and legal fact.

And we cannot blame CPS for not being able to do anything about it, as
long as the supervisor did not "see" him privately while he was her
client.

I can't find that in the
Bill of Rights


Of course you can't. But you can find the part about freedom of
association, if you look. It was so vital to our founders it ended up
in AMENDMENT ONE of the BOR.

Of course one has to believe in some standard of ethics for
public employees.


Yep. Where is that in the law? In fact, CPS stated very much the same
thing. But your 'new' posting buddy seemed to have suggested they
didn't.

And exactly when did it extend to associations with people who are NOT
CLIENTS of CPS at the time of the association?

You aren't very bright but I'd expect you to read the article for
content, Ken, rather than risk being caught again, lying.

Here's your 'opps!' Ken.

"... there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients...."

That is from the first paragraph of the article and I took it from the
attributions of THIS post of yours.

"...there's been," is a contraction and a word meaning "in the past."
You can tell by the word "former."

Now was she seeing him while he was HER client? Then you got her.
Where does it say she was?

Here is what the poster tries to ignore and claim some kind of evil
intent or malpractice concerning:

" Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the
rules. A CPS
spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in
which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional
relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation
of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing
on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case
has ended, relationships are discouraged.""


Oh, "once the case has ENDED..."

They can discourge, Ken, but if they do not want to be criminally
charged, and perforce sued they cannot forbid or punish or otherwise
violate WHAT AMENDMENT KEN?

Hint, it's the First.

The right of assembly is in fact a right, with caselaw supporting it,
for people to associate with who they will, unless for criminal
intent, Ken. How the hell do you make a living doing court
consultation?

You were supposed to learn about the BOR in the Eight Grade.

Now if the supervisor is found to have in any way aided, abetted, or
participated in the abuse of a child there goes that right.

But so far as the news article stated, that has not been established.
So the state cannot legally tell her not to associate, unless he is
HER client. He isn't, so far as we know. He WAS. But is no more.

Tell me again how I am excusing her actions, Ken. I want everyone here
to see what a thoroughgoing liar you are.



I was treated to an interesting quip from one of the users on the Falseacc
list today that I'll share he


It's not a "quip."

And the punch line isn't he least clever. If there were a God she
would not be so impressed with non believers as to make decisions of
this importance based on their acceptance or not.

The truth is that in many instances the reason the shooters, if guns
were used, able to do what they did is because no one was allowed to
be armed to stop them.

In a few instance, in fact, guns were retrieved, or showed up by
someone rushing to the scene and stopping the carnage, using a gun.
"God," or the lack thereof, hadn't a damn thing to do with it.

You just wanted to make some kind of impression on the readers
pretending you couldn't possibly lie or have malevolent motives, Ken.
That in itself is a lie.

0:]


============================================

Dear God:

Why didn't you save the school children at:

Virginia Tech

Amish Country, PA

Columbine High School

Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96

Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97

Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97

West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97

Stam P, Arkansas 12/15/97

Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98

Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98

Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98

Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98

Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98

Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99

Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99

Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99

Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99

Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99

Santee, California 3/ 5/01 and

El Cajon, California 3/22/01?

Sincerely,

Concerned Student

-----------------------------------------------------

Reply:

Dear Concerned Student:

I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,

God



  #4  
Old May 10th 07, 01:44 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking,talk.politics.guns
krp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,268
Default Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....


"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser
May 4, 2007 04:57 PM


http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035


Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child
protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a
confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients.


The client is a convicted child abuser.


The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that
month of a 4 year old by his father.


Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his
right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and
an
investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to
child abuse.


But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a
romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months
before the abuse occurred.


And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the
family's
case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002.


The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are
just some of the details:


* In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his
daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing."
* September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking
for
food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids
were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002.
* August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's
daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the
right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated
report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with
their father.


Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was
questioned
about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged
abuse,
and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the
children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the
children in her presence."


We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She
said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this.


Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A
CPS
spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in
which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional
relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation
of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing
on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case
has ended, relationships are discouraged."


State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that
was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker
could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one
who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of
CPS.


It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association
barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts
if need be.


Why did you stop there, after leaving everything else, and remove what
showed that I was not defending the agency or the supervisor?
Hmmmm....kenny?


Could have fooled me Kane. Sure as hell seemed like you were grasping at
EXCUSES.

Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a
CPS
supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least
find
it troublesome?


"Killer?" You will provide proof of my having killed anyone immediately,
Ken.


A nickname for the Internet's BADDEST badass at debate.

And how do you know what I find troublesome or not, liar?


Do you find it troublesome for a CPS SUPERVISOR to be GEWTTING IT ON
with a SEX OFFENDER??? Huh, Kane, DO YA?

Why did you snip the rest of my post that more clearly showed my
position?


There is a special place in Hell (well you're a believer aren't you?)
for those that will take a portion of what someone says, and base a
false accusation or claim about the person or his views on the portion
alone.


I will only wade in bull**** so deep Kane.

You make a habit of this, and have paid dearly for it when caught. You
ran when I caught you.


On your WETTEST of all possible dreams pantywaist.

Then it is defended by saying it is "freedom of
association."


No it isn't. I am defending freedom of association, not the actions of
this person in particular. I am explaining why the state cannot stop
this person from hanging with who she wishes.



Yes master... Now take your bull**** elsewhere.


  #5  
Old May 10th 07, 01:46 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
krp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,268
Default Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....


"0:-]" wrote in message
...

You just wanted to make some kind of impression on the readers
pretending you couldn't possibly lie or have malevolent motives, Ken.
That in itself is an act of misleading...the classic lie.


Like beating your chest and CLAIMING FALSELY to have driven me off with
your rapier sharp wit! Still waiting to see PROOF that spanking turns kids
into homicidal maniacs!


  #6  
Old May 10th 07, 02:24 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.parenting.spanking
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 625
Default Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....


" krp" wrote in message
news:Vfj0i.8427$Q96.7733@trnddc04...

"0:-]" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:04:56 -0700, fx wrote:

CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser
May 4, 2007 04:57 PM

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035


Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child
protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a
confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients.

The client is a convicted child abuser.

The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that
month of a 4 year old by his father.

Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his
right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an
investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to
child abuse.

But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a
romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months
before the abuse occurred.

And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's
case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002.

The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are
just some of the details:

* In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his
daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing."
* September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for
food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids
were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002.
* August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's
daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the
right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated
report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with
their father.

Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned
about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse,
and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the
children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the
children in her presence."

We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She
said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this.

Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS
spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in
which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional
relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation
of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing
on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case
has ended, relationships are discouraged."

State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that
was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker
could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one
who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS.


It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association
barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts
if need be.


Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a CPS
supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least find
it troublesome? Then it is defended by saying it is "freedom of
association." IMHO a rather warped reading of the Bill of Rights. Kane
misses that the "people" who employ this individual, CAN, as a "condition
of employment" impose rules and expectations of conduct on the people
hired for a job which is NOT, Kane, to screw the perverts! I can't find
that in the Bill of Rights. Of course one has to believe in some standard
of ethics for public employees.


Gee, kenny's back, how ..... surprising.

1. You can call the law a rationalization if you like kenny, I honestly
don't mind it when you make yourself look like an idiot. It saves me the
effort.

2. No one is telling you what kind of life form you can date, but you
presume that the courts (our nations guardians of freedom) should have the
right to say who can associate with whom because of their job. Nice. Lets
extend it to you for example kenny. Should the courts be able to decide who
you can associate with? Of course, you have admitted to breaking many laws
in your time in Usenet, and SHOULD have a long term relationship with the
criminal justice system, but should the courts tell you that you are not
allowed to associate with parents working with the system just because you
have bilked them time and again of their hard earned money?

3. As a matter of LAW kenny, once again I make an attempt to educate, an
employer cannot extend job expectations beyond hours of duty and into an
individuals personal life, except in very rare and specific circumstances.
Right of Association is NOT one of those areas.

4. I find it totally hilarious that you, given your record here in Usenet,
can even THINK about the term "ethics" much less presume to instruct anyone
else about it. Personally, I'd laugh in your face even if you tried to
explain it to Charles Manson, much less anyone associated with the topic
under discussion.

5. You have no "humble opinions" kenny. Your ego gets in the way.

Ron


I was treated to an interesting quip from one of the users on the Falseacc
list today that I'll share he

============================================

Dear God:

Why didn't you save the school children at:

Virginia Tech

Amish Country, PA

Columbine High School

Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96

Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97

Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97

West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97

Stam P, Arkansas 12/15/97

Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98

Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98

Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98

Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98

Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98

Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99

Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99

Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99

Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99

Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99

Santee, California 3/ 5/01 and

El Cajon, California 3/22/01?

Sincerely,

Concerned Student

-----------------------------------------------------

Reply:

Dear Concerned Student:

I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,

God





  #7  
Old May 10th 07, 02:19 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.parenting.spanking,talk.politics.guns
krp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,268
Default Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....


"0:-]" wrote in message
...

CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser
May 4, 2007 04:57 PM

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035

Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child
protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a
confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients.

The client is a convicted child abuser.

The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that
month of a 4 year old by his father.

Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his
right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and
an
investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to
child abuse.

But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a
romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months
before the abuse occurred.

And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the
family's
case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002.

The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here
are
just some of the details:

* In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his
daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing."
* September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking
for
food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids
were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002.
* August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's
daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the
right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated
report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with
their father.

Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was
questioned
about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged
abuse,
and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the
children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at
the
children in her presence."

We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She
said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this.

Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A
CPS
spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics
in
which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional
relationship with families while they are involved in the
investigation
of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing
on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case
has ended, relationships are discouraged."

State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that
was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker
could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one
who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of
CPS.

It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association
barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts
if need be.


Why did you stop there, after leaving everything else, and remove what
showed that I was not defending the agency or the supervisor?
Hmmmm....kenny?


Could have fooled me Kane. Sure as hell seemed like you were grasping
at
EXCUSES.


A great many things that aren't so seem like they are to you, Ken. We
see a lot of that with you.

Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a
CPS
supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least
find
it troublesome?


"Killer?" You will provide proof of my having killed anyone immediately,
Ken.


A nickname for the Internet's BADDEST badass at debate.


0:]


And how do you know what I find troublesome or not, liar?


Do you find it troublesome for a CPS SUPERVISOR to be GETTING IT ON
with a SEX OFFENDER??? Huh, Kane, DO YA?


Sure. Don't you? I found other things I disapproved of as well.


There is ONE main thing to disapprove of, that is a CPS Suprevisor
boffing a CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER there Kane. NOT changing the saubject and
ranting about her "FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!"

My point was that the poster, and the representative are full of **** to
blame CPS for it.


No the blame is right on. It is the agency's DUTY because of what they
DO to police themselves. These are people who have LIFE AND DEATH ocntrol
over children and the FULL and TOTAL coercive power and authority of the
state. They damn well had better be above reproach. These are people who
snatch kids from parents for the SAME THING!

Why did you snip the rest of my post that more clearly showed my
position?


There is a special place in Hell (well you're a believer aren't you?)
for those that will take a portion of what someone says, and base a
false accusation or claim about the person or his views on the portion
alone.


I will only wade in bull**** so deep Kane.


In other words, you'll manipulate another's post to create a lie. Yes, we
know.


No I deal with the ISSUE I wish to deal with not the rest of the ****
you have thrown against the wall Kane. You really gotta get the hell over
youirself and the idea that YOU run the internet and YOU dictate terms for
discussion. I answered what I wanted to answer, you have a problem with that
I suggest you take a course at Kripy Kreme aviation and fo take a flying
fukkk at a rolling donut! YOU do NOT issue ORDERS Mister BLOWHARD!

Yes master... Now take your bull**** elsewhere.


I didn't post this to adu, little man.

YES, you DID!


  #8  
Old May 10th 07, 02:31 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.parenting.spanking
krp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,268
Default Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....


"0:-]" wrote in message
...

You just wanted to make some kind of impression on the readers
pretending you couldn't possibly lie or have malevolent motives, Ken.
That in itself is an act of misleading...the classic lie.


Like beating your chest and CLAIMING FALSELY to have driven me off
with your rapier sharp wit!


Nope. Just the facts.


I was amused yesterday when my previous comment drew TWO of your ANGRY
responses BADASS. I am even more amused today at how you continue to delude
yourself with your overestimate of your intelligence and debate prowess. You
wouldn't know a "FACT" if it bit you on the ass and hung on!

Still waiting to see PROOF that spanking turns kids into homicidal
maniacs!


Still waiting to see where I claimed that.


What was the title of your ANGRY post? What was the title of the ARTICLE
you tried to quote? "Spanking leads to violence in children." Toi any NORMAL
person, in that sentence "LEADS TO" means exactly the same thing as "CAUSES"
only a jackass like you TRIES(and fails) to parse it differently from what
ANY reputable source on English defines it as meaning. Your source did NOT
support your claims. In fact if you actually had read it, the SOURCE, weak
as it is, contradicts that spanking CAUSES aggression in kid - PERIOD!

I'm also waiting to see the proof you have for your claim, WHICH YOU DID
MAKE, STUPID, that not spanking creates sociopathic children. Got any
yet?


I have always had it dip****, but I laid out my conditions for posting
it. That was that YOU prove your original claiim FIRST! You ain't come even
close. You always DEFLECT such things. And you LIE your ass off, what I
ACTUALLY said was; "there is anecdotal evidence that not spanking is
responsible for an increase in sociopathy in children." I would like to
invite a BRAIN DEAD CLOWN like you to examine the remourseless killings on
school campuses accross this country and ask yourself if there isn't some
message in those incidents? To a moron these things occur in a vacuum Was a
lack of spanking the ONLY cause? Nope! Was it a contributor? It sure as hell
looks that way when you examine the backgrounds on the perps.

Let me see now. Didn't you promise, at here insistence, that you weren't
going to post here any more?


Again your typical INACCURACY. I said I would refrain from posting for a
time. TIME'S UP JACKASS!!!!!! Where's your BUDDY??

Want to see that post too, or has she seen the light and gone back to
Cuba?


She's right here. Where's your PAL your SAVIOR? Time to call for help
again? It may not so you much good.






  #9  
Old May 10th 07, 11:40 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.parenting.spanking
krp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,268
Default Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....


"0:-]" wrote in message
...


You must be DESPERATE for your buddy to come save your pathetic BLOW HARD
ass again Kane. You keep ADDING ADRU in your pathetic desperation for help.
Pretty much a confession. I removed your RECRUITING NOTICE AGAIN!!!

ach tim e you add it Kane it will be taken as a confession of: "I AM A LOSER
AND NEED HELP."

CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser
May 4, 2007 04:57 PM

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035

Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child
protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and
a
confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients.

The client is a convicted child abuser.

The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that
month of a 4 year old by his father.

Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his
right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called,
and
an
investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to
child abuse.

But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a
romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months
before the abuse occurred.

And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the
family's
case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002.

The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here
are
just some of the details:

* In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched
[his
daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing."
* September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors
asking
for
food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three
kids
were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002.
* August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's
daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on
the
right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated
report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with
their father.

Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was
questioned
about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged
abuse,
and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the
children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at
the
children in her presence."

We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified.
She
said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of
this.

Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules.
A
CPS
spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics
in
which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a
professional
relationship with families while they are involved in the
investigation
of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in
providing
on-going support and services to children and families. Once the
case
has ended, relationships are discouraged."

State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document
that
was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker
could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one
who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management
of
CPS.

It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of
association
barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the
courts
if need be.

Why did you stop there, after leaving everything else, and remove what
showed that I was not defending the agency or the supervisor?
Hmmmm....kenny?

Could have fooled me Kane. Sure as hell seemed like you were
grasping at
EXCUSES.


A great many things that aren't so seem like they are to you, Ken. We
see a lot of that with you.

Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize
a CPS
supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least
find
it troublesome?


"Killer?" You will provide proof of my having killed anyone
immediately,
Ken.


A nickname for the Internet's BADDEST badass at debate.


0:]


TRULY A LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND AND ONLY IN HIS OWN MIND!!

And how do you know what I find troublesome or not, liar?

Do you find it troublesome for a CPS SUPERVISOR to be GETTING IT ON
with a SEX OFFENDER??? Huh, Kane, DO YA?


Sure. Don't you? I found other things I disapproved of as well.


As I said, I certainly would, based on YOUR wording, failing to point
out the sex offense in THIS CASE, I would find it troublesome for a
CPS supervisor getting it on with a sex offender.


DO SAY?

Trouble is, there was no sex offense mentioned in the article. Do you
know something about the case I don't?


The man was a CONVICTED sex offender KANE wuit trying to RATIONALIZE IT!

I also, and much more importantly, because it is accurate, is that I'm
troubled by a supervisor associating intimately with a CHILD ABUSER.


GOOD FOR YOU - YOU are a HERO KANE!

The question now would be, was she his client. If not, despite my, and
your, indignation, nothing much can be done about it. Not according to
the US Constitution.


No Kane that would NOT be the question. Only to a CPS whore like you
would THAT diversion be THE question. So you are arguing that a CPS
Superviosor has a "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" to hold that job AND screw a
CONVICTED sex offender??? ONLY YOU KANE! ONLY YOU and the whore you travel
with.

Why have you not commented on that aspect when I brought it up, other
than to making a false claim I am excusing CPS and the supervisor by
mentioning that fact?


You are overworking RATIONALIZATION trying to obfuscate the issue as
hard as you can. How can we trust the JUDGMENT of somebody who has the TOTAL
life and death LEGAL AUTHORITY over children who is SCREWING a CONVICTED SEX
OFFENDER? Top YOU that is FANTASTIC JUDGMNENT! Great qualificationfs for
the job. How much I expected that of you Kane.

There is ONE main thing to disapprove of, that is a CPS Suprevisor
boffing a CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER there Kane. NOT changing the saubject and
ranting about her "FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!"


Problem is, ranter, there was no sex offense involved.


Just the one he was CONVICTED of !

I didn't change the subject. The subject was blaming CPS.


My comment went to the fact they could not legally do much about it,
unless they could get a judge to give an order concerning it. I doubt
many judges are as stupid as you, and they would not make a
constitutional error as gross as that.


What can they DO about it?

1. FIRE her!
2. Move her to a job NOT involving children!




You are such a WHORE for the insane child savers you will rationalize
ANYTHING! God help any parent ANY PARENT who ever listens to a word YOU have
to say Kane.



  #10  
Old May 11th 07, 12:02 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.parenting.spanking,talk.politics.guns
krp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,268
Default Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....


"0:-]" wrote in message
...

I was amused yesterday when my previous comment drew TWO of your ANGRY
responses BADASS.


We know how you amuse yourself, Ken.


Yeah I read YOUR screwball posts on the intener where you play the role
of REAL BADASS!

I am even more amused today at how you continue to delude
yourself with your overestimate of your intelligence and debate prowess.
You
wouldn't know a "FACT" if it bit you on the ass and hung on!


I take that as your idea of a debate?


No it is my idea of deling with an IDIOT.

Still waiting to see PROOF that spanking turns kids into homicidal
maniacs!


Still waiting to see where I claimed that.


What was the title of your ANGRY post? What was the title of the
ARTICLE
you tried to quote? "Spanking leads to violence in children."


Yep.


Show us the PROOF Kane! Still waiting and stilld ealing with your FEEBLE
attenpts to DIVERT the issue and shift it to me.

To any NORMAL person,


Nope. Normal people would have not confined their argument to ONLY the
subject title, and would have honored my point made clearly that the
body of the article, and the abstract, which I provided a link to as
well as the authors of the article doing, NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM AT
ALL.


Your reason to POST that was to claim that spanking CAUSES kids to
be agressive. It blew up in your face Kane and you are STILL trying
desperately to LIE your way out of it. As you ALWAYS do when your bull****
is exposed.

You are a liar, and you will do it again. Watch:


in that sentence "LEADS TO" means exactly the same thing as "CAUSES"
only a jackass like you TRIES(and fails) to parse it differently from what


The title was the only part of the article you wished to debate. You
ran when I presented the rest of it, circling back ONLY to try and
claim the title was the sum total of the claims.


Kane you tried to use that article to support your argument against
spanking. It flatly did NOTY support wehat you said, and at one point even
YOU had to asmit it. But you are LYING again now.

The ARTICLE contradicted its title and YOU rather DUMB claims for it.
You TRIED to use it to make your claim that spanking kids is harmful to them
and it backfired.

You refused to discuss the actual research except in those terms.
Since the abstract of the research said NO SUCH THING nor was it's
title the same as the magazine article (though it quoted more
accurately in it's actual article content).


Your problem is that I *DID* discuss the actual article which was NOT
"research" as such but a "SURVEY" of mothers. Your problem is compounded by
the ***FACT*** Killer Kane that the article contradicted the claims showing
a profound difference in the "EFFECTS" in cultures where spanking is
accepted as normal, and Kane you lack the ability to have even remote
understanding of the significane of that FACT! It is father over your head
than the sun.

YOU - Mr. Dumbass was the guy trying to makle the argument here on
Usenet and offered it as PROOF of YOUR claims that spanking is bad.

In other words, Ken, you lied by weasel. You and your hysterical
monkeyboy crony.


No I just proved that YOU were full of **** AGAIN!

ANY reputable source on English defines it as meaning.


Yep....for the title.


Your source did NOT support your claims.


I pointed that out by simply posting the entire article, and making
sure the link in it was active (cut and paste did not do that, so I
typed in the full URL, to make it active in readers and browsers).


And it proved YOUR conclusions 100% WRONG to boot but you didn't realize
that when you first posted it as a BRAGGARD!

In fact if you actually had read it, the SOURCE, weak
as it is, contradicts that spanking CAUSES aggression in kid - PERIOD!


That's not what the source did. It did not mention "causes," or "leads
to," Ken.


Again you show your ILLITERACY. "Leads to" is a statement in CAUSALITY!
Take a remedial science course and then a remedial ENGLISH course.
Onl;y YOU would define it as NOT being cause and effect - ONLY you Kane.

It did, as most reputable researchers do in their release of
information, simply list the things they found, in outcomes and
proceeding circumstance, and those following as well. Let the reader
draw their own conclusions.


No jerk off it did NOT "find outcomes" it was a FRIGGING SURVEY of the
mothers OPINIONS! Chnrist - WHY can't you understand that? WHY is it that
the significance of that just sails over your head?


KILLER KANE'S BIG POINT:

Want to see that post too, or has she seen the light and gone back to
Cuba?


She's right here. Where's your PAL your SAVIOR? Time to call for help
again? It may not so you much good.


You forget that I asked him NOT to intervene in the debate on the subject
of what spanking "leads to" or doesn't.



That why every time your PATHETIC ASS is backed into a corner you start
TROLLING for him where you think he hangs out and BEG for his help? Every
time you do it is a CONFESSION that you know your ass is being kicked and
you NEED to divert the issues with PERSONAL **** like bringing my wife into
it. What a desperate little CREEP you are!

YOU, on the other hand, constantly solicited Doan's help on that subject.
And you both found out as liars. And unethical in debate by
refusing to accept the full argument of your opponent...me.


I have never spoken to Doan - PERIOD! I never go looking for him or BEG
HIM like you BEG my stalker to come RESCUE you.

I can produce dozens of posts to that effect, and you can produce NOT ONE
from the person you are referring to on the same subject. He
seemed not to care for you, but made no mention of the subject of
spanking.


So I am responsible for others seeing you as full of **** on the subject
too? The FACT that your HERO only posts personal attacks on me you think
makes YOU credible? Kane you are really fukkekd-up.

About the most your nemesis did was post the URL to his web page regarding
you and your various exploits.


His bull**** URL Kane.

Got rid of that "diploma" yet? R R RRRRR..R.R.R.RR


No reason to, your HERO wasn't telling the truth. POOR YOU.

Why are you so afraid of him, Ken? So afraid that you removed the addy of
the dad's newsgroup that fx placed there in the first post for this
thread?


First because this thread is OFF TOPIC for ADRU, and secondly because
YOU are hysterical in your search for help. It's funny to make you jump
through hoops. Do you think people miss your desperation seeking help? Help
of a whack job? Where is he right now? Do you KNOW?

Just like bringing up this subject of our debate on spanking research.


Let's see the "RESEARCH" Kane.

You are desperate to NOT attract his attention. Hell, stupid, he's likely
got a yahoo or google alert on you for ANY posting by you. Or even about
you.


Well where is he?

I can't help but wonder what you might have done that makes him so dogged
in confronting you with the truth about yourself.


TGoo bad it is NOT the "truth" clown.

alt.dads-rights.unmoderated Yep, it's BAAAACK. And he need not, and I
request he not, address any of OUR debated issues.


DESPERATION - admission you KNOW you are losing and calling up the
reserves.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A conversation with arizona's Terry Goddard,Tucson, Arizona | Published:04.22.2007 by The Arizona Daily Star fx Spanking 0 April 29th 07 08:59 AM
Arizona Child Protective Services foiled mom's custody bid, 2 kidsremained with dad accused of killing them Although she had a court ordergiving her sole custody fx Spanking 1 April 28th 07 09:29 PM
Arizona Child Protective Services foiled mom's custody bid, 2 kidsremained with dad accused of killing them Although she had a court ordergiving her sole custody fx Foster Parents 1 April 28th 07 09:29 PM
Child Protective Services [Public Enemy Number One]: She went afterCPS -- but now the state of arizona may be coming after her... fx Spanking 0 March 27th 07 08:08 AM
Child Protective Services [Public Enemy Number One]: She went afterCPS -- but now the state of arizona may be coming after her... fx Foster Parents 0 March 27th 07 08:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 AM.


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