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.support » Foster Parents
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CHILD'S DEATH IN OVERCROWDED FOSTER HOME HIGHLIGHTS STATEWIDE PROBLEM



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 6th 05, 06:17 PM
wexwimpy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHILD'S DEATH IN OVERCROWDED FOSTER HOME HIGHLIGHTS STATEWIDE PROBLEM

http://www.childrensrights.org/PDF/08-03-01.pdf

August 3, 2001

CHILD'S DEATH IN OVERCROWDED FOSTER HOME HIGHLIGHTS STATEWIDE

PROBLEM; ADVOCATES CALL FOR STRIKE FORCE TO INVESTIGATE OVERCROWDING

AND ABUSE BY FOSTER PARENTS.

Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster
home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for

first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are
calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force.
The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with
more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in
overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and
Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions
surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but
symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster
children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster
care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month.

http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm
Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action.
  #2  
Old August 6th 05, 06:35 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wexwimpy wrote:
http://www.childrensrights.org/PDF/08-03-01.pdf

August 3, 2001

CHILD'S DEATH IN OVERCROWDED FOSTER HOME HIGHLIGHTS STATEWIDE

PROBLEM; ADVOCATES CALL FOR STRIKE FORCE TO INVESTIGATE OVERCROWDING

AND ABUSE BY FOSTER PARENTS.



Kane: Overcrowding CAN'T be a problem. I have it on good authority.

I would have sworn someone in this ng, an obvious 'authority,' claimed
that due to changes in child abuse investigations (LEs being used
instead of caseworkers, except of course the LEs hired caseworkers to
'team' with them) foster populations were reducing in this state.

Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in
such things.

0:-


Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster
home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for

first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are
calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force.
The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with
more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in
overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and
Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions
surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but
symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster
children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster
care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month.

http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm
Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action.


  #3  
Old August 6th 05, 11:07 PM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kane writes:

Kane: Overcrowding CAN'T be a problem. I have it on good authority.


Hi, Kane,

Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including Florida,
where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of murdering
one her wards.

I would have sworn someone in this ng, an obvious 'authority,' claimed
that due to changes in child abuse investigations (LEs being used
instead of caseworkers, except of course the LEs hired caseworkers to
'team' with them) foster populations were reducing in this state.


While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties,
foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state. The same is
true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this
population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely would
require drastic reduction. A lot of children need to be allowed to go home
to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families
who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force
uneeded services need to stay at home.

In the newsstory you cut and paste below, child advocates are seeking a
federal investigation of foster homes with more than 5 children. This comes
after a foster carer is alledged to have murdered one of the state wards in
her care.

Many members of this newsgroup have discussed at great length the insanity
of placing children who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED as victims of maltreatment
into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system. Many children
are being ripped from their families and put into state custody for the
wrong reasons, which led to the overcrowding to begin with. Children should
not be held hostage to force their parents to accept the sanctions/services
CPS is peddling.

Why on earth would CPS forcibly remove 96,000 children its workers
unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect in 2002 and
place them with strangers, where children are abused at rates eight to ten
times that of children living outside of the foster care system?

Ron tells us that those 96,000 children were voluntarily placed into foster
care by their parents sometime during the investigation or afterwards.

We know that is not true, of course. But the real reason is almost as
bizarre and stands as the bewitching foundation for systemic, institutional
child abuse. Because agencies need a "stick" to force clients to accept
their wares, children are being abused by the very agencies mandated to
protect them.

We learn in another current thread in this newsgroup that children are being
taken into state custody because their parents are not "cooperative" with
workers. How is it even remotely justifyable to forcibly take children from
their families and incarcerate them because their parents are not playing
the game the way caseworkers want them to?

Too many children are being placed into an already overcrowded and abusive
foster care system for the wrong reasons.

Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in
such things.


The institutional child abuse occuring in state care is far too staggering
for anyone to be mistaken. We may disagree as to the cause of the magnitude
of abuse children suffer in state care, but none of us are mistaken as to
its existance.

Your posted newsstory is just another in an almost daily journal of such
abuse. In this case, a grass roots group of child advocates is attempting
to do something about it.

Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster
home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for

first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are
calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force.
The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with
more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in
overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and
Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions
surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but
symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster
children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster
care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month.

http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm
Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org,
become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at
http://www.aclu.org/action.


Children's Rights, the organization that runs the website you cited, has
done much to seek a solution to the abuse of children by foster carers.
They have brought class action lawsuits against more than a dozen CPS
jurisdictions across this country and won every one of them. Many agencies'
foster care systems are under the stewardship of federal courts because of
the widespread mistreatment of foster children Children's Rights has proven
in court.



  #4  
Old August 6th 05, 11:45 PM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I had written:

While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties,
foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state. The same is
true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this
population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely
would require drastic reduction. A lot of children need to be allowed to
go home to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated
families who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to
force uneeded services need to stay at home.


To which, Ron responds:

Thats right doug, send them home to their families, where the chances or
additional abuse, neglect, or even death are vastly higher. Lets face it
doug, what is needed is more foster homes, not sending the kids home to be
abused or neglected again, or even killed.


Hi, Ron,

We both know that there are some children who are abused by their parents
and have to be removed. I said nothing about sending these children home to
be reabused.

As you can see above in the quotation to which you reply, I was talking
about children who were removed from homes CPS itself unsubstantiated for
abuse/neglect or even the risk of abuse/neglect. 96,000 "non-victims" were
removed from families CPS unsubstantiated in 2002.

Since CPS itself found no evidence to suspect that these children were
abused/neglected/at risk of abuse/at risk of neglect in the first place,
letting them go home would not be subjecting them to additional
abuse/neglect.

I was talking about unsubstantiated children who now stand at risk of being
removed because CPS needs a stick to hold over their parents. I was talking
about children who have been placed in state custody because workers who
threatened parents they deemed innocent of abuse/neglect to take services
and ended up having to use the stick. I was talking about children who were
removed from their homes because their parents didn't "cooperate" the way
workers wanted them to.

Those children -- all of them -- should be allowed to go home to their
families. Now. Mostly because CPS determined they were never abused or at
risk of abuse in their homes. And because they are now at increased risk of
abuse in state custody.












  #5  
Old August 7th 05, 12:12 AM
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

Kane: Overcrowding CAN'T be a problem. I have it on good authority.


Hi, Kane,

Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including
Florida, where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of
murdering one her wards.

I would have sworn someone in this ng, an obvious 'authority,' claimed
that due to changes in child abuse investigations (LEs being used
instead of caseworkers, except of course the LEs hired caseworkers to
'team' with them) foster populations were reducing in this state.


While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties,
foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state. The same is
true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this
population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely
would require drastic reduction. A lot of children need to be allowed to
go home to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated
families who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to
force uneeded services need to stay at home.


Thats right doug, send them home to their families, where the chances or
additional abuse, neglect, or even death are vastly higher. Lets face it
doug, what is needed is more foster homes, not sending the kids home to be
abused or neglected again, or even killed.

Ron


  #6  
Old August 7th 05, 04:18 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug wrote:
Kane writes:

Kane: Overcrowding CAN'T be a problem. I have it on good authority.


Hi, Kane,

Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including Florida,
where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of murdering
one her wards.


You made a claim. It's not related to the story central point. Why did
you feel the need to include it?

As for your claim, please provide us with support for your claim that
it's a huge problem nationwide, and what the causes might be. You can
give up on the bull**** that too many children are removed that turn
out to be unsubstantiated. It's just years of your crappola and lies.

I would have sworn someone in this ng, an obvious 'authority,' claimed
that due to changes in child abuse investigations (LEs being used
instead of caseworkers, except of course the LEs hired caseworkers to
'team' with them) foster populations were reducing in this state.


While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties,
foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state.


Why? You said they were going down as a result of more and more LE
investigative involvement (which is something of credibility stretch,
given tha that they had to hire trained CPS investigators....R R R R
....so much for your baloney).

The same is
true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this
population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely would
require drastic reduction.


Yep. Something to do with child abuse, neglect, poverty, crime,
substance abuse and chemical dependency, mental illness, as I recall.

A lot of children need to be allowed to go home
to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families
who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force
uneeded services need to stay at home.


There's that lie again. The reason for the stick is that these very
families are, a great many of them, repeat offenders. YOU yourself have
shared, crowing, the data from the USDHHS, so don't ask ME to support
the claim.

In the newsstory you cut and paste below, child advocates are seeking a
federal investigation of foster homes with more than 5 children. This comes
after a foster carer is alledged to have murdered one of the state wards in
her care.


Yes, makes sense, doesn't it? And what will they come up with when they
discover the true scope of child abuse and neglect and what it does,
behavior-wise, to the children? That you are a liar, that's what.

Many members of this newsgroup have discussed at great length the insanity
of placing children who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED as victims of maltreatment
into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system.


And many have lied, or been conned by you into believing what I've
proven repeatedly is a phony concoction of yours to mislead and
misconstrue the real meaning of "unsubstantiated."

Many children
are being ripped


"Ripped?" Please describe, so we can all see what a con artist you are,
how and actual removal takes place.

from their families and put into state custody for the
wrong reasons,


Those are rare instances of error in judgement, or misinformation that
led CPS workers to believe that the child was at risk when they were
not. The majority of those children are returned when the error is
noted.

which led to the overcrowding to begin with.


Drugs, alcohol, mental illness, incapacity, abuse, sexual abuse,
neglect...these are the true reasons for overcrowding. You are lying.

Children should
not be held hostage to force their parents to accept the sanctions/services
CPS is peddling.


They are not held hostage. Many, in fact, are still in their parents
homes while services are provided. Not peddled. You are a liar.

Why on earth would CPS forcibly remove 96,000 children its workers
unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect in 2002 and
place them with strangers, where children are abused at rates eight to ten
times that of children living outside of the foster care system?


Because of two things you are lying about again. "unsubstantiated for
abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect" does not mean what you try
to make it mean, as anyone that studies this issue closely knows, and
children are COUNTED as abused in the system at a higher rate because
it is far more easy to catch abuses in state custody than in the homes
of private citizens NOT required to open they door to anyone that
happens to walk up to it.

Yer a liar.

Ron tells us that those 96,000 children were voluntarily placed into foster
care by their parents sometime during the investigation or afterwards.


Mmm....I'm not sure that is exactly what he meant. I do know that a
great many DO in fact volunteer to do so. They are the ones that have
caught on that they have a real problem that needs to be addressed.

We know that is not true, of course.


We know you are lying sack of ****.

Here's comes yet another load of propaganda ****.

But the real reason is almost as
bizarre and stands as the bewitching foundation for systemic, institutional
child abuse. Because agencies need a "stick" to force clients to accept
their wares, children are being abused by the very agencies mandated to
protect them.


Nonsense. You yourself quoted last year the numbers of children that
are left with families and recieve services. And you and I both know
that most abusers and those that neglect would do nothing without some
prodding. Your lies that they have to do it voluntarily or it doesn't
work, notwithstanding.

We learn in another current thread in this newsgroup that children are being
taken into state custody because their parents are not "cooperative" with
workers.


Depends on what "cooperative" actually means. Doesn't it.

How is it even remotely justifyable to forcibly take children from
their families and incarcerate them because their parents are not playing
the game the way caseworkers want them to?


"The Game?" Keeping children safe and demanding their parents do so is
to you A GAME? You slimy creep.

Too many children are being placed into an already overcrowded and abusive
foster care system for the wrong reasons.


Nonsense. A single bad placement is too many, but we are not seeing
vast numbers of children so placed. Yer a liar.

Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in
such things.


The institutional child abuse occuring in state care is far too staggering
for anyone to be mistaken.


One is "staggering." Yer a liar.

We may disagree as to the cause of the magnitude
of abuse children suffer in state care, but none of us are mistaken as to
its existance.


You bet we disagree. YOU have tried to blame foster parents for losing
it when children came into their home with behaviors to intense and
upsetting. YOU are a liar and a 3 dollar bill.

Your posted newsstory is just another in an almost daily journal of such
abuse. In this case, a grass roots group of child advocates is attempting
to do something about it.


The almost "daily journal," Doug, is abuse by parents...some of it, in
fact a great deal of it, so horrendous it shocks the mind into
disbelief.

Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster
home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for

first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are
calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force.
The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with
more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in
overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and
Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions
surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but
symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster
children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster
care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month.

http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm
Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org,
become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at
http://www.aclu.org/action.


Children's Rights, the organization that runs the website you cited, has
done much to seek a solution to the abuse of children by foster carers.


Yep. Lot's of suing. That's gonna work when the state is strapped for
money. Notice that some states, like Oregon, are saying they can't even
see 50% of the events called into their hotline? And those are calls
they would normally have gone out on.

They have brought class action lawsuits against more than a dozen CPS
jurisdictions across this country and won every one of them.


And.........?

Many agencies'
foster care systems are under the stewardship of federal courts


And what is the first thing the federal courts demands from the states
to run the foster system better? Come on, Doug. Don't lie again. It's
money, and you know it.

And the states know it. And those monitoring the states know it:

http://www.shepherd-express.com/6_30...wsandviews.htm

"Question 7:
The child welfare system in Milwaukee was so bad that in 2002 the
federal court ordered the Department of Health and Family Services
(DHFS) to provide better services. DHFS must attain specific outcomes
on or before Jan. 1, 2006, just a few months away. Do you:

A. Provide more money for training and support of foster parents,
caseworker retention, domestic violence services for families and the
creation of an ombudsman to look into complaints.
B. Pick out just one new program to fund, in this case a family
safety program, and disregard the other offers on the table.

If you think Plan B will work, hopefully you're right, because
that's the only new foster care program that will receive additional
funding. Gov. Doyle proposed option A."


Here's what you lie about, constantly in this ng. You claim that
federal money is free to be used for whatever the state wishes. That's
either monumental ignorance, or blatant propagandistic lying. I can't
imagine it's ignorance, not with your self appointed role of "expert."

http://www.ctkidslink.org/media/pres...fostercare.pdf

Read. Think. Why would just a few states have to get "waivers" to use
federal dollars on services to families to intervene if it could only
be used, as you claim, as a general fund for such programs. You idiot.
You liar. You fool.

"The report outlines how current federal financing rules favor keeping
children in foster care over
providing services that can help keep children at home or support other
permanent, stable
arrangements for children like legal guardianship. States are currently
reimbursed by the federal
government for caring for children in foster care, but extremely
limited in their ability to spend
those same federal dollars on services like mental health and substance
abuse treatment or
alternatives like subsidized guardianship that give abused and
neglected children more stable,
permanent homes. Nevertheless, despite these current federal funding
restrictions, the report shows
that some states, when granted flexible use of federal funding through
"waivers," have succeeded in
reducing the number or length of stay of children in foster care in
part by using federal funds to pay
for these alternative services"


And any thinking honest human being that looks closely at the problem
KNOWS that the problem is parental abuse of chidlren.

because of
the widespread mistreatment of foster children Children's Rights has proven
in court.


Yep, and notice: IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY. Panels, surveys, experts, in the
end all say the same...it's a crippled underfunded system.

A few ****s like you try to minimize the actual level of parental
neglect and child abuse.

Tsk!

0:-

  #7  
Old August 7th 05, 06:55 AM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I wrote:

Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including
Florida,
where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of
murdering
one her wards.


To which, Kane replies:

You made a claim. It's not related to the story central point. Why did
you feel the need to include it?


Hi, Kane,

It is related to the newsstory's central point, which is that child advocacy
groups are seeking federal investigation of overcrowded foster homes.
Overcrowded foster homes.

As for your claim, please provide us with support for your claim that
it's a huge problem nationwide, and what the causes might be. You can
give up on the bull**** that too many children are removed that turn
out to be unsubstantiated. It's just years of your crappola and lies.


The reasons that stand out are the wrongful removal of children CPS itself
has determined were not maltreated. 96,000 "non-victims" -- children
unsubstantiated as victims of child maltreatment -- were removed from their
homes in 2002. Another reason is that children are removed from their homes
not because they are at risk, but because their parents did not "cooperate"
with social service caseworkers. Another reason is that unsubstantiated
parents are threatened with removal of their children if they do not sign
safety plans or participate in unwanted services hustled by the agency.
Removal of children is a threat used as what workers call a "stick" to force
unsubstantiated parents to take the services. What ends up happening far
too often is that the parents do not jump through the hoops and the agency
is forced to use the stick.

While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties,
foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state.


Why? You said they were going down as a result of more and more LE
investigative involvement (which is something of credibility stretch,
given tha that they had to hire trained CPS investigators....R R R R
...so much for your baloney).


They are going down in many Florida counties. But the reduction in the
population has thus far not been enough to make foster care in that state no
longer overcrowded. Pretty simple.

The same is
true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this
population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely
would
require drastic reduction.


Yep. Something to do with child abuse, neglect, poverty, crime,
substance abuse and chemical dependency, mental illness, as I recall.


Many children do need to be removed because their parents have been
substantiated for abusing them. This represents a rather large number of
children -- 169,000 child victims were removed from their homes in 2002.
However, another 96,000 nonvictims were also forcibly removed from their
homes that same year. The foster care system would be far less crowded if
CPS restricted themselves to taking children who have maltreated or were
found to be at risk of abuse/neglect.

Foster care would be far less crowded if CPS did not use removal of innocent
children as a bartering chip to impose their services upon families they
have unsubstantiated for maltreating their children.

A lot of children need to be allowed to go home
to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families
who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force
uneeded services need to stay at home.


There's that lie again. The reason for the stick is that these very
families are, a great many of them, repeat offenders. YOU yourself have
shared, crowing, the data from the USDHHS, so don't ask ME to support
the claim.


All of the families I was talking about above were not substantiated by CPS
to be offenders, so it would be impossible for them to "reoffend." In fact,
CPS caseworkers made a determination that there was no evidence to SUSPECT
that these children were maltreated or at risk of maltreatment.

Here's the deal. When a hotline report is made, CPS goes out and
investigates or assesses the allegations. If they find there is reason to
suspect the allegations are true, or that other maltreatment or risk of
maltreatment is discovered, they make a determination of substantiated and
the children in that case are called "victims." On the other hand, if the
workers find in their investigation or assessment that there is no evidence
for them to SUSPECT the allegations or other child maltreatment or risk of
maltreatment has occurred, they make a determination of "unsubstantiated"
and the children in that case are called "nonvictims."

Here is a breakdown of CPS findings. "Alternative response" refers to cases
where CPS has elected to conduct an "assessment" rather than an
investigation in states that use a dual-track system.
http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6
a.. Alternative Response Victim: A conclusion that the child was
identified as a victim when a response other than investigation was
provided.
b.. Alternative Response Nonvictim: A conclusion that the child was not a
victim of maltreatment when a response other than investigation was
provided.
c.. Indicated: An investigation disposition that concludes that
maltreatment cannot be substantiated under State law or policy, but there
was reason to suspect that the child may have been maltreated or was at risk
of maltreatment. This is applicable only to States that distinguish between
substantiated and indicated dispositions.
d.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes that
the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or
founded by State law or State policy. This is the highest level of finding
by a State agency.
e.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines
that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect
that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6
In the newsstory you cut and paste below, child advocates are seeking a
federal investigation of foster homes with more than 5 children. This
comes
after a foster carer is alledged to have murdered one of the state wards
in
her care.


Yes, makes sense, doesn't it? And what will they come up with when they
discover the true scope of child abuse and neglect and what it does,
behavior-wise, to the children? That you are a liar, that's what.


I suspect that is precisely what the child advocates expect the federal
investigators to discover -- the true scope of child abuse and neglect in
state care and what it does to the foster children.

Many members of this newsgroup have discussed at great length the
insanity
of placing children who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED as victims of
maltreatment
into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system.


And many have lied, or been conned by you into believing what I've
proven repeatedly is a phony concoction of yours to mislead and
misconstrue the real meaning of "unsubstantiated."


The real meaning of unsubstantiated is that it is a disposition by CPS that
there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that
the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated.

Is this your deal: Hotlined allegations of child maltreatment are
investigated or assessed by CPS caseworkers, who determine whether the
allegations are true or whether the children have been maltreated or at risk
of maltreatment. If they substantiate the allegations in the
investigation/assessment, then the children are determined to be victims of
child maltreatment or risk of same. If they unsubstantiate the allegations,
then the children are determined also to be victims of maltreatment. In
other words, the allegations are true whether CPS substantiates them or not?

Wow. Parents don't have much of a chance of being found innocent in your
deal. Since 2/3 of investigated/assessed cases are unsubstantiated, we are
talking about an awful lot of guilty parents.

Substantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend.
Unsubstantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend.

Is there ever a parent who is innocent of the allegations? If so, what is
the CPS determination for a unfounded report in your deal?

from their families and put into state custody for the
wrong reasons,


Those are rare instances of error in judgement, or misinformation that
led CPS workers to believe that the child was at risk when they were
not. The majority of those children are returned when the error is
noted.


96,000 children -- or 36% of all of the 265,000 children removed from their
homes in 2002 -- does not make removal of children from innocent families a
"rare" instance of error in judgement.

which led to the overcrowding to begin with.


Drugs, alcohol, mental illness, incapacity, abuse, sexual abuse,
neglect...these are the true reasons for overcrowding. You are lying.


I am assuming the removals were made while the workers were sober and of
sound mind.

Children should
not be held hostage to force their parents to accept the
sanctions/services
CPS is peddling.


They are not held hostage. Many, in fact, are still in their parents
homes while services are provided. Not peddled. You are a liar.


Yep. For the stick to work, children are held hostage by threat of removal
if the parents do not sign up for services in a safety plan and participate
in them.
When they don't jump through the hoops, the children are removed because, of
course, a stick loses its effectiveness if it is not used from time to time.

Why on earth would CPS forcibly remove 96,000 children its workers
unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect in 2002 and
place them with strangers, where children are abused at rates eight to
ten
times that of children living outside of the foster care system?


Because of two things you are lying about again. "unsubstantiated for
abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect" does not mean what you try
to make it mean, as anyone that studies this issue closely knows, and
children are COUNTED as abused in the system at a higher rate because
it is far more easy to catch abuses in state custody than in the homes
of private citizens NOT required to open they door to anyone that
happens to walk up to it.


Unsubstantiated is a disposition by CPS that determines that there is not
sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child
has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated, as those who study
this issue have published. Child maltreatment by foster carers is
tremendously underreported because a CPS disposition against a state
caregiver is a finding against their agency and opens the agency up to
lawsuits by the foster children once they age out of the system.

And, of course, neither state caregivers with foster children or private
citizens with their own children have to "open their door to anyone that
happens to walk up to it."

Yer a liar.


No, really. Foster carers don't have to open their door to anyone who walks
up to it. Such a practice wouldn't make things very safe for the foster
kids, now would it?

Ron tells us that those 96,000 children were voluntarily placed into
foster
care by their parents sometime during the investigation or afterwards.


Mmm....I'm not sure that is exactly what he meant. I do know that a
great many DO in fact volunteer to do so. They are the ones that have
caught on that they have a real problem that needs to be addressed.


If they are caught and they have a real problem abusing their children, they
are substantiated. I was talking about unsubstantiated parents.

Is this what you are saying happens:

"We have completed our investigation and have decided to unsubstantiate the
allegations against you."

"Oh, okay, then, here you go, please take my children."

But the real reason is almost as
bizarre and stands as the bewitching foundation for systemic,
institutional
child abuse. Because agencies need a "stick" to force clients to accept
their wares, children are being abused by the very agencies mandated to
protect them.


Nonsense. You yourself quoted last year the numbers of children that
are left with families and recieve services.


Precisely. That is the reason for the stick -- the threat to take the
children into custody at a later date if the parent doesn't jump through the
hoops.

And you and I both know
that most abusers and those that neglect would do nothing without some
prodding. Your lies that they have to do it voluntarily or it doesn't
work, notwithstanding.


I was not talking about parents who abuse or neglect or put their children
at risk of abuse or neglect. I was talking about parents involved in cases
where CPS determined that there was not sufficient evidence under State law
to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of
being maltreated.

We learn in another current thread in this newsgroup that children are
being
taken into state custody because their parents are not "cooperative" with
workers.


Depends on what "cooperative" actually means. Doesn't it.


No, not really. Not when, again, I am talking about parents in cases where
CPS determined there was not sufficient evidence to suspect that their
children were maltreated or were at risk of being maltreated. In these
cases, the travesty against the nonvictim children exists regardless of what
"uncooperative" behavior their innocent parents presented with.

How is it even remotely justifyable to forcibly take children from
their families and incarcerate them because their parents are not playing
the game the way caseworkers want them to?


"The Game?" Keeping children safe and demanding their parents do so is
to you A GAME? You slimy creep.


I said nothing about keeping children safe or demanding their parents do so.
What I did say was that nonvictim children were being removed from
unsubstantiated parents because those innocent parents did not "cooperate"
with CPS caseworkers. This is punishing innocent children for the perceived
discourtesy of their parents. This is systemic, institutional child abuse.

Too many children are being placed into an already overcrowded and
abusive
foster care system for the wrong reasons.


Nonsense. A single bad placement is too many, but we are not seeing
vast numbers of children so placed. Yer a liar.


Depends what you consider "vast." 96,000 children seems pretty vast to me.
It is about 96,000 times worse than a single bad placement, which you say is
too many.

Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in
such things.


The institutional child abuse occuring in state care is far too
staggering
for anyone to be mistaken.


One is "staggering." Yer a liar.


Yes, one is staggering. 96,000 is 96,000 times more staggering.

We may disagree as to the cause of the magnitude
of abuse children suffer in state care, but none of us are mistaken as to
its existance.


You bet we disagree. YOU have tried to blame foster parents for losing
it when children came into their home with behaviors to intense and
upsetting. YOU are a liar and a 3 dollar bill.


It is inappropriate and barbaric to blame children for their own
victimization by adult foster carers, regardless of children's behaviors.

Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster
home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for

first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are
calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force.
The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with
more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in
overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and
Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions
surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but
symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster
children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster
care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month.

http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm
Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org,
become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at
http://www.aclu.org/action.


Children's Rights, the organization that runs the website you cited, has
done much to seek a solution to the abuse of children by foster carers.


Yep. Lot's of suing. That's gonna work when the state is strapped for
money. Notice that some states, like Oregon, are saying they can't even
see 50% of the events called into their hotline? And those are calls
they would normally have gone out on.


Are the families Oregon does not investigate or assess still guilty of child
abuse? Your deal is that the parents are guilty of child abuse or neglect
if the investigated cases are unsubstantiated or substantiated. I was
wondering if that guideline extends to those cases not even investigated and
given a disposition.

http://www.shepherd-express.com/6_30...wsandviews.htm

"Question 7:
The child welfare system in Milwaukee was so bad that in 2002 the
federal court ordered the Department of Health and Family Services
(DHFS) to provide better services. DHFS must attain specific outcomes
on or before Jan. 1, 2006, just a few months away. Do you:


A. Provide more money for training and support of foster parents,
caseworker retention, domestic violence services for families and the
creation of an ombudsman to look into complaints.
B. Pick out just one new program to fund, in this case a family
safety program, and disregard the other offers on the table.


Neither. Neither plan will address the problems with child welfare system
in Milwaukee. Problems so bad that the federal courts had to step in.

If you think Plan B will work, hopefully you're right, because
that's the only new foster care program that will receive additional
funding. Gov. Doyle proposed option A."


I don't think plan B will work. I don't think plan A will work, either.

Here's what you lie about, constantly in this ng. You claim that
federal money is free to be used for whatever the state wishes. That's
either monumental ignorance, or blatant propagandistic lying. I can't
imagine it's ignorance, not with your self appointed role of "expert."


Ninety percent of federal child welfare funding is based upon the number of
children from impoverished families placed into foster care. As your cut
and pastes point out, when states get exclusions to draw down the federal
funding for other reasons, the foster care population drops. Hmm.

http://www.ctkidslink.org/media/pres...fostercare.pdf

Read. Think. Why would just a few states have to get "waivers" to use
federal dollars on services to families to intervene if it could only
be used, as you claim, as a general fund for such programs. You idiot.
You liar. You fool.


That they cannot use federal funding for services to families is the very
reason why, without the waivers, states put so many children in foster care,
as your cut and paste suggests. Read just below:

"The report outlines how current federal financing rules favor keeping
children in foster care over
providing services that can help keep children at home or support other
permanent, stable
arrangements for children like legal guardianship. States are currently
reimbursed by the federal
government for caring for children in foster care, but extremely
limited in their ability to spend
those same federal dollars on services like mental health and substance
abuse treatment or
alternatives like subsidized guardianship that give abused and
neglected children more stable,
permanent homes. Nevertheless, despite these current federal funding
restrictions, the report shows
that some states, when granted flexible use of federal funding through
"waivers," have succeeded in
reducing the number or length of stay of children in foster care in
part by using federal funds to pay
for these alternative services"


And any thinking honest human being that looks closely at the problem
KNOWS that the problem is parental abuse of chidlren.


The problem outlined in the newsstory you pasted in this message thread and
what we are discussing involved the alleged murder of a child by a foster
carer.



  #8  
Old August 7th 05, 07:11 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Doug wrote:

No, Doug cons.

And here's just one of the ways he pulls the wool over your eyes, if
you are a reader in this ng.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=997688

Subtle changes in wording, shifting the meanings of claims and
statements by "experts," avoiding reality by taking claims out of
context -- such as data sets to measure one thing being used to make
claims about things that appear related but in themselves are not being
examined. These latter are Doug's stock in trade as a propagandist.

Enjoy being conned by him, if you wish, or do your own thinking and
especially watch out for him when he says the same thing but loads you
up with HIS biases and HIS agenda first.

Most of what he babbles below is just more of his monumental phony
balony CPS reform crusader garbage. He's just out to destroy.

0:-

I wrote:

Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including
Florida,
where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of
murdering
one her wards.


To which, Kane replies:

You made a claim. It's not related to the story central point. Why did
you feel the need to include it?


Hi, Kane,

It is related to the newsstory's central point, which is that child advocacy
groups are seeking federal investigation of overcrowded foster homes.
Overcrowded foster homes.

As for your claim, please provide us with support for your claim that
it's a huge problem nationwide, and what the causes might be. You can
give up on the bull**** that too many children are removed that turn
out to be unsubstantiated. It's just years of your crappola and lies.


The reasons that stand out are the wrongful removal of children CPS itself
has determined were not maltreated. 96,000 "non-victims" -- children
unsubstantiated as victims of child maltreatment -- were removed from their
homes in 2002. Another reason is that children are removed from their homes
not because they are at risk, but because their parents did not "cooperate"
with social service caseworkers. Another reason is that unsubstantiated
parents are threatened with removal of their children if they do not sign
safety plans or participate in unwanted services hustled by the agency.
Removal of children is a threat used as what workers call a "stick" to force
unsubstantiated parents to take the services. What ends up happening far
too often is that the parents do not jump through the hoops and the agency
is forced to use the stick.

While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties,
foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state.


Why? You said they were going down as a result of more and more LE
investigative involvement (which is something of credibility stretch,
given tha that they had to hire trained CPS investigators....R R R R
...so much for your baloney).


They are going down in many Florida counties. But the reduction in the
population has thus far not been enough to make foster care in that state no
longer overcrowded. Pretty simple.

The same is
true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this
population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely
would
require drastic reduction.


Yep. Something to do with child abuse, neglect, poverty, crime,
substance abuse and chemical dependency, mental illness, as I recall.


Many children do need to be removed because their parents have been
substantiated for abusing them. This represents a rather large number of
children -- 169,000 child victims were removed from their homes in 2002.
However, another 96,000 nonvictims were also forcibly removed from their
homes that same year. The foster care system would be far less crowded if
CPS restricted themselves to taking children who have maltreated or were
found to be at risk of abuse/neglect.

Foster care would be far less crowded if CPS did not use removal of innocent
children as a bartering chip to impose their services upon families they
have unsubstantiated for maltreating their children.

A lot of children need to be allowed to go home
to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families
who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force
uneeded services need to stay at home.


There's that lie again. The reason for the stick is that these very
families are, a great many of them, repeat offenders. YOU yourself have
shared, crowing, the data from the USDHHS, so don't ask ME to support
the claim.


All of the families I was talking about above were not substantiated by CPS
to be offenders, so it would be impossible for them to "reoffend." In fact,
CPS caseworkers made a determination that there was no evidence to SUSPECT
that these children were maltreated or at risk of maltreatment.

Here's the deal. When a hotline report is made, CPS goes out and
investigates or assesses the allegations. If they find there is reason to
suspect the allegations are true, or that other maltreatment or risk of
maltreatment is discovered, they make a determination of substantiated and
the children in that case are called "victims." On the other hand, if the
workers find in their investigation or assessment that there is no evidence
for them to SUSPECT the allegations or other child maltreatment or risk of
maltreatment has occurred, they make a determination of "unsubstantiated"
and the children in that case are called "nonvictims."

Here is a breakdown of CPS findings. "Alternative response" refers to cases
where CPS has elected to conduct an "assessment" rather than an
investigation in states that use a dual-track system.
http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6
a.. Alternative Response Victim: A conclusion that the child was
identified as a victim when a response other than investigation was
provided.
b.. Alternative Response Nonvictim: A conclusion that the child was not a
victim of maltreatment when a response other than investigation was
provided.
c.. Indicated: An investigation disposition that concludes that
maltreatment cannot be substantiated under State law or policy, but there
was reason to suspect that the child may have been maltreated or was at risk
of maltreatment. This is applicable only to States that distinguish between
substantiated and indicated dispositions.
d.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes that
the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or
founded by State law or State policy. This is the highest level of finding
by a State agency.
e.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines
that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect
that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6
In the newsstory you cut and paste below, child advocates are seeking a
federal investigation of foster homes with more than 5 children. This
comes
after a foster carer is alledged to have murdered one of the state wards
in
her care.


Yes, makes sense, doesn't it? And what will they come up with when they
discover the true scope of child abuse and neglect and what it does,
behavior-wise, to the children? That you are a liar, that's what.


I suspect that is precisely what the child advocates expect the federal
investigators to discover -- the true scope of child abuse and neglect in
state care and what it does to the foster children.

Many members of this newsgroup have discussed at great length the
insanity
of placing children who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED as victims of
maltreatment
into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system.


And many have lied, or been conned by you into believing what I've
proven repeatedly is a phony concoction of yours to mislead and
misconstrue the real meaning of "unsubstantiated."


The real meaning of unsubstantiated is that it is a disposition by CPS that
there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that
the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated.

Is this your deal: Hotlined allegations of child maltreatment are
investigated or assessed by CPS caseworkers, who determine whether the
allegations are true or whether the children have been maltreated or at risk
of maltreatment. If they substantiate the allegations in the
investigation/assessment, then the children are determined to be victims of
child maltreatment or risk of same. If they unsubstantiate the allegations,
then the children are determined also to be victims of maltreatment. In
other words, the allegations are true whether CPS substantiates them or not?

Wow. Parents don't have much of a chance of being found innocent in your
deal. Since 2/3 of investigated/assessed cases are unsubstantiated, we are
talking about an awful lot of guilty parents.

Substantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend.
Unsubstantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend.

Is there ever a parent who is innocent of the allegations? If so, what is
the CPS determination for a unfounded report in your deal?

from their families and put into state custody for the
wrong reasons,


Those are rare instances of error in judgement, or misinformation that
led CPS workers to believe that the child was at risk when they were
not. The majority of those children are returned when the error is
noted.


96,000 children -- or 36% of all of the 265,000 children removed from their
homes in 2002 -- does not make removal of children from innocent families a
"rare" instance of error in judgement.

which led to the overcrowding to begin with.


Drugs, alcohol, mental illness, incapacity, abuse, sexual abuse,
neglect...these are the true reasons for overcrowding. You are lying.


I am assuming the removals were made while the workers were sober and of
sound mind.

Children should
not be held hostage to force their parents to accept the
sanctions/services
CPS is peddling.


They are not held hostage. Many, in fact, are still in their parents
homes while services are provided. Not peddled. You are a liar.


Yep. For the stick to work, children are held hostage by threat of removal
if the parents do not sign up for services in a safety plan and participate
in them.
When they don't jump through the hoops, the children are removed because, of
course, a stick loses its effectiveness if it is not used from time to time.

Why on earth would CPS forcibly remove 96,000 children its workers
unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect in 2002 and
place them with strangers, where children are abused at rates eight to
ten
times that of children living outside of the foster care system?


Because of two things you are lying about again. "unsubstantiated for
abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect" does not mean what you try
to make it mean, as anyone that studies this issue closely knows, and
children are COUNTED as abused in the system at a higher rate because
it is far more easy to catch abuses in state custody than in the homes
of private citizens NOT required to open they door to anyone that
happens to walk up to it.


Unsubstantiated is a disposition by CPS that determines that there is not
sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child
has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated, as those who study
this issue have published. Child maltreatment by foster carers is
tremendously underreported because a CPS disposition against a state
caregiver is a finding against their agency and opens the agency up to
lawsuits by the foster children once they age out of the system.

And, of course, neither state caregivers with foster children or private
citizens with their own children have to "open their door to anyone that
happens to walk up to it."

Yer a liar.


No, really. Foster carers don't have to open their door to anyone who walks
up to it. Such a practice wouldn't make things very safe for the foster
kids, now would it?

Ron tells us that those 96,000 children were voluntarily placed into
foster
care by their parents sometime during the investigation or afterwards.


Mmm....I'm not sure that is exactly what he meant. I do know that a
great many DO in fact volunteer to do so. They are the ones that have
caught on that they have a real problem that needs to be addressed.


If they are caught and they have a real problem abusing their children, they
are substantiated. I was talking about unsubstantiated parents.

Is this what you are saying happens:

"We have completed our investigation and have decided to unsubstantiate the
allegations against you."

"Oh, okay, then, here you go, please take my children."

But the real reason is almost as
bizarre and stands as the bewitching foundation for systemic,
institutional
child abuse. Because agencies need a "stick" to force clients to accept
their wares, children are being abused by the very agencies mandated to
protect them.


Nonsense. You yourself quoted last year the numbers of children that
are left with families and recieve services.


Precisely. That is the reason for the stick -- the threat to take the
children into custody at a later date if the parent doesn't jump through the
hoops.

And you and I both know
that most abusers and those that neglect would do nothing without some
prodding. Your lies that they have to do it voluntarily or it doesn't
work, notwithstanding.


I was not talking about parents who abuse or neglect or put their children
at risk of abuse or neglect. I was talking about parents involved in cases
where CPS determined that there was not sufficient evidence under State law
to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of
being maltreated.

We learn in another current thread in this newsgroup that children are
being
taken into state custody because their parents are not "cooperative" with
workers.


Depends on what "cooperative" actually means. Doesn't it.


No, not really. Not when, again, I am talking about parents in cases where
CPS determined there was not sufficient evidence to suspect that their
children were maltreated or were at risk of being maltreated. In these
cases, the travesty against the nonvictim children exists regardless of what
"uncooperative" behavior their innocent parents presented with.

How is it even remotely justifyable to forcibly take children from
their families and incarcerate them because their parents are not playing
the game the way caseworkers want them to?


"The Game?" Keeping children safe and demanding their parents do so is
to you A GAME? You slimy creep.


I said nothing about keeping children safe or demanding their parents do so.
What I did say was that nonvictim children were being removed from
unsubstantiated parents because those innocent parents did not "cooperate"
with CPS caseworkers. This is punishing innocent children for the perceived
discourtesy of their parents. This is systemic, institutional child abuse.

Too many children are being placed into an already overcrowded and
abusive
foster care system for the wrong reasons.


Nonsense. A single bad placement is too many, but we are not seeing
vast numbers of children so placed. Yer a liar.


Depends what you consider "vast." 96,000 children seems pretty vast to me.
It is about 96,000 times worse than a single bad placement, which you say is
too many.

Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in
such things.

The institutional child abuse occuring in state care is far too
staggering
for anyone to be mistaken.


One is "staggering." Yer a liar.


Yes, one is staggering. 96,000 is 96,000 times more staggering.

We may disagree as to the cause of the magnitude
of abuse children suffer in state care, but none of us are mistaken as to
its existance.


You bet we disagree. YOU have tried to blame foster parents for losing
it when children came into their home with behaviors to intense and
upsetting. YOU are a liar and a 3 dollar bill.


It is inappropriate and barbaric to blame children for their own
victimization by adult foster carers, regardless of children's behaviors.

Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster
home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for

first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are
calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force.
The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with
more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in
overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and
Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions
surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but
symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster
children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster
care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month.

http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm
Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org,
become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at
http://www.aclu.org/action.

Children's Rights, the organization that runs the website you cited, has
done much to seek a solution to the abuse of children by foster carers.


Yep. Lot's of suing. That's gonna work when the state is strapped for
money. Notice that some states, like Oregon, are saying they can't even
see 50% of the events called into their hotline? And those are calls
they would normally have gone out on.


Are the families Oregon does not investigate or assess still guilty of child
abuse? Your deal is that the parents are guilty of child abuse or neglect
if the investigated cases are unsubstantiated or substantiated. I was
wondering if that guideline extends to those cases not even investigated and
given a disposition.

http://www.shepherd-express.com/6_30...wsandviews.htm

"Question 7:
The child welfare system in Milwaukee was so bad that in 2002 the
federal court ordered the Department of Health and Family Services
(DHFS) to provide better services. DHFS must attain specific outcomes
on or before Jan. 1, 2006, just a few months away. Do you:


A. Provide more money for training and support of foster parents,
caseworker retention, domestic violence services for families and the
creation of an ombudsman to look into complaints.
B. Pick out just one new program to fund, in this case a family
safety program, and disregard the other offers on the table.


Neither. Neither plan will address the problems with child welfare system
in Milwaukee. Problems so bad that the federal courts had to step in.

If you think Plan B will work, hopefully you're right, because
that's the only new foster care program that will receive additional
funding. Gov. Doyle proposed option A."


I don't think plan B will work. I don't think plan A will work, either.

Here's what you lie about, constantly in this ng. You claim that
federal money is free to be used for whatever the state wishes. That's
either monumental ignorance, or blatant propagandistic lying. I can't
imagine it's ignorance, not with your self appointed role of "expert."


Ninety percent of federal child welfare funding is based upon the number of
children from impoverished families placed into foster care. As your cut
and pastes point out, when states get exclusions to draw down the federal
funding for other reasons, the foster care population drops. Hmm.

http://www.ctkidslink.org/media/pres...fostercare.pdf

Read. Think. Why would just a few states have to get "waivers" to use
federal dollars on services to families to intervene if it could only
be used, as you claim, as a general fund for such programs. You idiot.
You liar. You fool.


That they cannot use federal funding for services to families is the very
reason why, without the waivers, states put so many children in foster care,
as your cut and paste suggests. Read just below:

"The report outlines how current federal financing rules favor keeping
children in foster care over
providing services that can help keep children at home or support other
permanent, stable
arrangements for children like legal guardianship. States are currently
reimbursed by the federal
government for caring for children in foster care, but extremely
limited in their ability to spend
those same federal dollars on services like mental health and substance
abuse treatment or
alternatives like subsidized guardianship that give abused and
neglected children more stable,
permanent homes. Nevertheless, despite these current federal funding
restrictions, the report shows
that some states, when granted flexible use of federal funding through
"waivers," have succeeded in
reducing the number or length of stay of children in foster care in
part by using federal funds to pay
for these alternative services"


And any thinking honest human being that looks closely at the problem
KNOWS that the problem is parental abuse of chidlren.


The problem outlined in the newsstory you pasted in this message thread and
what we are discussing involved the alleged murder of a child by a foster
carer.


  #9  
Old August 8th 05, 01:19 AM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kane writes:

No, Doug cons.


Hi, Kane,

I see you have run out of beef again. Lacking any substantative reply to
the number of children removed from homes CPS unsubstantiates for any
childmaltreatment or risk of maltreatment, you cite an article that has
absolutely no relevance to the post to which you reply.

....And childish name-calling of course.

Yours is an understandable preoccupation, since it is impossible to excuse
much of current CPS practice with substance or authorities. The literature
abounds with empirical evidence of its failure.

And here's just one of the ways he pulls the wool over your eyes, if
you are a reader in this ng.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=997688


Thieves live in terror of being robbed.

The article you cite talks about methodology in the junk science that feeds
some of your Type II errors. I think most of us in this forum would
wholeheartedly agree with what the author has to say about small studies,
self-reported situations (like prisoners complaining that they are there
because, afterall, they were spanked as kids -- we all know that it's not
the criminal's fault, but his parents and everyone else).

But the article does not address anything in the post to which you reply
(and you quote below).

You continue:

Subtle changes in wording, shifting the meanings of claims and
statements by "experts,"


No comments exist in my post about so-called experts, their claims, or
anything close to it.

avoiding reality by taking claims out of
context -- such as data sets to measure one thing being used to make
claims about things that appear related but in themselves are not being
examined.


Nothing out of context in this post to which you reply. In fact, to the
contrary, I quoted exactly the entire section on CPS findings directly from
USDHHS' "Child Maltreatment, 2002."

These latter are Doug's stock in trade as a propagandist.


None of these things you descibe appear in the post to which you reply. You
are playing with an empty hand, so you call the author of information you
cannot challenge childish names.

If the information below is "propaganda", so us some beef -- some documented
information that challenges the facts I have provided.

Enjoy being conned by him, if you wish, or do your own thinking and
especially watch out for him when he says the same thing but loads you
up with HIS biases and HIS agenda first.


I am sure the readers here are doing their own thinking. They have since
the beginning of their involvement in this newsgroup and will continue to do
so. If you want them to consider any rebuttal you may have to what I have
written in the post to which you reply, then give them some substance...some
information they can use their own thinking to consider as refuting the
substance of my post.

By simply calling those who post information you don't like to see names,
you are not giving readers a chance to think about what you have to say.
Instead, you leave them no alternative but to think of what the name-calling
says about you.

Most of what he babbles below is just more of his monumental phony
balony CPS reform crusader garbage. He's just out to destroy.


What appears below -- and the substance of the post to which you now
reply -- is:

1) The entire quoted narrative from USDHHS defining the findings made by CPS
workers. USDHHS is the agency that publishes the data on how many children
are subject to each of these findings.

2) The fact that 96,000 children were removed from families CPS caseworkers
themselves unsubstantiated because they found no reason to suspect that
those children were at risk of maltreatment or actually maltreated.

3) The fact that child advocacy groups in Florida are seeking a federal
investigation of overcrowded foster homes after a foster carer was charged
with murdering a foster child.

4) That foster care systems in more than a dozen jurisdictions are under the
stewardship of the federal courts because of the maltreatment of foster
children by state agencies.

5) That Children's Rights, an organization founded by a family court
specialist from ACLU, has successfully won every class action suit it has
brought in federal courts against foster care systems across the nation.

6) That a variable other than child abuse or neglect or risk of either is
the causal agent for the removal of a large percentage of children from
their families.

I wrote:

Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including
Florida,
where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of
murdering
one her wards.


To which, Kane replies:

You made a claim. It's not related to the story central point. Why did
you feel the need to include it?


Hi, Kane,

It is related to the newsstory's central point, which is that child
advocacy
groups are seeking federal investigation of overcrowded foster homes.
Overcrowded foster homes.

As for your claim, please provide us with support for your claim that
it's a huge problem nationwide, and what the causes might be. You can
give up on the bull**** that too many children are removed that turn
out to be unsubstantiated. It's just years of your crappola and lies.


The reasons that stand out are the wrongful removal of children CPS
itself
has determined were not maltreated. 96,000 "non-victims" -- children
unsubstantiated as victims of child maltreatment -- were removed from
their
homes in 2002. Another reason is that children are removed from their
homes
not because they are at risk, but because their parents did not
"cooperate"
with social service caseworkers. Another reason is that unsubstantiated
parents are threatened with removal of their children if they do not sign
safety plans or participate in unwanted services hustled by the agency.
Removal of children is a threat used as what workers call a "stick" to
force
unsubstantiated parents to take the services. What ends up happening far
too often is that the parents do not jump through the hoops and the
agency
is forced to use the stick.

While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties,
foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state.

Why? You said they were going down as a result of more and more LE
investigative involvement (which is something of credibility stretch,
given tha that they had to hire trained CPS investigators....R R R R
...so much for your baloney).


They are going down in many Florida counties. But the reduction in the
population has thus far not been enough to make foster care in that state
no
longer overcrowded. Pretty simple.

The same is
true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get
this
population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely
would
require drastic reduction.

Yep. Something to do with child abuse, neglect, poverty, crime,
substance abuse and chemical dependency, mental illness, as I recall.


Many children do need to be removed because their parents have been
substantiated for abusing them. This represents a rather large number of
children -- 169,000 child victims were removed from their homes in 2002.
However, another 96,000 nonvictims were also forcibly removed from their
homes that same year. The foster care system would be far less crowded
if
CPS restricted themselves to taking children who have maltreated or were
found to be at risk of abuse/neglect.

Foster care would be far less crowded if CPS did not use removal of
innocent
children as a bartering chip to impose their services upon families they
have unsubstantiated for maltreating their children.

A lot of children need to be allowed to go home
to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated
families
who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force
uneeded services need to stay at home.

There's that lie again. The reason for the stick is that these very
families are, a great many of them, repeat offenders. YOU yourself have
shared, crowing, the data from the USDHHS, so don't ask ME to support
the claim.


All of the families I was talking about above were not substantiated by
CPS
to be offenders, so it would be impossible for them to "reoffend." In
fact,
CPS caseworkers made a determination that there was no evidence to
SUSPECT
that these children were maltreated or at risk of maltreatment.

Here's the deal. When a hotline report is made, CPS goes out and
investigates or assesses the allegations. If they find there is reason
to
suspect the allegations are true, or that other maltreatment or risk of
maltreatment is discovered, they make a determination of substantiated
and
the children in that case are called "victims." On the other hand, if
the
workers find in their investigation or assessment that there is no
evidence
for them to SUSPECT the allegations or other child maltreatment or risk
of
maltreatment has occurred, they make a determination of "unsubstantiated"
and the children in that case are called "nonvictims."

Here is a breakdown of CPS findings. "Alternative response" refers to
cases
where CPS has elected to conduct an "assessment" rather than an
investigation in states that use a dual-track system.
http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6
a.. Alternative Response Victim: A conclusion that the child was
identified as a victim when a response other than investigation was
provided.
b.. Alternative Response Nonvictim: A conclusion that the child was not
a
victim of maltreatment when a response other than investigation was
provided.
c.. Indicated: An investigation disposition that concludes that
maltreatment cannot be substantiated under State law or policy, but there
was reason to suspect that the child may have been maltreated or was at
risk
of maltreatment. This is applicable only to States that distinguish
between
substantiated and indicated dispositions.
d.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes
that
the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or
founded by State law or State policy. This is the highest level of
finding
by a State agency.
e.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that
determines
that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or
suspect
that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6
In the newsstory you cut and paste below, child advocates are seeking
a
federal investigation of foster homes with more than 5 children. This
comes
after a foster carer is alledged to have murdered one of the state
wards
in
her care.

Yes, makes sense, doesn't it? And what will they come up with when they
discover the true scope of child abuse and neglect and what it does,
behavior-wise, to the children? That you are a liar, that's what.


I suspect that is precisely what the child advocates expect the federal
investigators to discover -- the true scope of child abuse and neglect in
state care and what it does to the foster children.

Many members of this newsgroup have discussed at great length the
insanity
of placing children who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED as victims of
maltreatment
into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system.

And many have lied, or been conned by you into believing what I've
proven repeatedly is a phony concoction of yours to mislead and
misconstrue the real meaning of "unsubstantiated."


The real meaning of unsubstantiated is that it is a disposition by CPS
that
there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect
that
the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated.

Is this your deal: Hotlined allegations of child maltreatment are
investigated or assessed by CPS caseworkers, who determine whether the
allegations are true or whether the children have been maltreated or at
risk
of maltreatment. If they substantiate the allegations in the
investigation/assessment, then the children are determined to be victims
of
child maltreatment or risk of same. If they unsubstantiate the
allegations,
then the children are determined also to be victims of maltreatment. In
other words, the allegations are true whether CPS substantiates them or
not?

Wow. Parents don't have much of a chance of being found innocent in your
deal. Since 2/3 of investigated/assessed cases are unsubstantiated, we
are
talking about an awful lot of guilty parents.

Substantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend.
Unsubstantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can
reoffend.

Is there ever a parent who is innocent of the allegations? If so, what
is
the CPS determination for a unfounded report in your deal?

from their families and put into state custody for the
wrong reasons,

Those are rare instances of error in judgement, or misinformation that
led CPS workers to believe that the child was at risk when they were
not. The majority of those children are returned when the error is
noted.


96,000 children -- or 36% of all of the 265,000 children removed from
their
homes in 2002 -- does not make removal of children from innocent families
a
"rare" instance of error in judgement.

which led to the overcrowding to begin with.

Drugs, alcohol, mental illness, incapacity, abuse, sexual abuse,
neglect...these are the true reasons for overcrowding. You are lying.


I am assuming the removals were made while the workers were sober and of
sound mind.

Children should
not be held hostage to force their parents to accept the
sanctions/services
CPS is peddling.

They are not held hostage. Many, in fact, are still in their parents
homes while services are provided. Not peddled. You are a liar.


Yep. For the stick to work, children are held hostage by threat of
removal
if the parents do not sign up for services in a safety plan and
participate
in them.
When they don't jump through the hoops, the children are removed because,
of
course, a stick loses its effectiveness if it is not used from time to
time.

Why on earth would CPS forcibly remove 96,000 children its workers
unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect in 2002
and
place them with strangers, where children are abused at rates eight to
ten
times that of children living outside of the foster care system?

Because of two things you are lying about again. "unsubstantiated for
abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect" does not mean what you try
to make it mean, as anyone that studies this issue closely knows, and
children are COUNTED as abused in the system at a higher rate because
it is far more easy to catch abuses in state custody than in the homes
of private citizens NOT required to open they door to anyone that
happens to walk up to it.


Unsubstantiated is a disposition by CPS that determines that there is not
sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child
has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated, as those who study
this issue have published. Child maltreatment by foster carers is
tremendously underreported because a CPS disposition against a state
caregiver is a finding against their agency and opens the agency up to
lawsuits by the foster children once they age out of the system.

And, of course, neither state caregivers with foster children or private
citizens with their own children have to "open their door to anyone that
happens to walk up to it."

Yer a liar.


No, really. Foster carers don't have to open their door to anyone who
walks
up to it. Such a practice wouldn't make things very safe for the foster
kids, now would it?

Ron tells us that those 96,000 children were voluntarily placed into
foster
care by their parents sometime during the investigation or afterwards.

Mmm....I'm not sure that is exactly what he meant. I do know that a
great many DO in fact volunteer to do so. They are the ones that have
caught on that they have a real problem that needs to be addressed.


If they are caught and they have a real problem abusing their children,
they
are substantiated. I was talking about unsubstantiated parents.

Is this what you are saying happens:

"We have completed our investigation and have decided to unsubstantiate
the
allegations against you."

"Oh, okay, then, here you go, please take my children."

But the real reason is almost as
bizarre and stands as the bewitching foundation for systemic,
institutional
child abuse. Because agencies need a "stick" to force clients to
accept
their wares, children are being abused by the very agencies mandated
to
protect them.

Nonsense. You yourself quoted last year the numbers of children that
are left with families and recieve services.


Precisely. That is the reason for the stick -- the threat to take the
children into custody at a later date if the parent doesn't jump through
the
hoops.

And you and I both know
that most abusers and those that neglect would do nothing without some
prodding. Your lies that they have to do it voluntarily or it doesn't
work, notwithstanding.


I was not talking about parents who abuse or neglect or put their
children
at risk of abuse or neglect. I was talking about parents involved in
cases
where CPS determined that there was not sufficient evidence under State
law
to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk
of
being maltreated.

We learn in another current thread in this newsgroup that children are
being
taken into state custody because their parents are not "cooperative"
with
workers.

Depends on what "cooperative" actually means. Doesn't it.


No, not really. Not when, again, I am talking about parents in cases
where
CPS determined there was not sufficient evidence to suspect that their
children were maltreated or were at risk of being maltreated. In these
cases, the travesty against the nonvictim children exists regardless of
what
"uncooperative" behavior their innocent parents presented with.

How is it even remotely justifyable to forcibly take children from
their families and incarcerate them because their parents are not
playing
the game the way caseworkers want them to?

"The Game?" Keeping children safe and demanding their parents do so is
to you A GAME? You slimy creep.


I said nothing about keeping children safe or demanding their parents do
so.
What I did say was that nonvictim children were being removed from
unsubstantiated parents because those innocent parents did not
"cooperate"
with CPS caseworkers. This is punishing innocent children for the
perceived
discourtesy of their parents. This is systemic, institutional child
abuse.

Too many children are being placed into an already overcrowded and
abusive
foster care system for the wrong reasons.

Nonsense. A single bad placement is too many, but we are not seeing
vast numbers of children so placed. Yer a liar.


Depends what you consider "vast." 96,000 children seems pretty vast to
me.
It is about 96,000 times worse than a single bad placement, which you say
is
too many.

Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken
in
such things.

The institutional child abuse occuring in state care is far too
staggering
for anyone to be mistaken.

One is "staggering." Yer a liar.


Yes, one is staggering. 96,000 is 96,000 times more staggering.

We may disagree as to the cause of the magnitude
of abuse children suffer in state care, but none of us are mistaken as
to
its existance.

You bet we disagree. YOU have tried to blame foster parents for losing
it when children came into their home with behaviors to intense and
upsetting. YOU are a liar and a 3 dollar bill.


It is inappropriate and barbaric to blame children for their own
victimization by adult foster carers, regardless of children's behaviors.

Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded
foster
home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for

first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are
calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force.
The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes
with
more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed
in
overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and
Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the
conditions
surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but
symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster
children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida
foster
care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month.

http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm
Defend your civil liberties! Get information at
http://www.aclu.org,
become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at
http://www.aclu.org/action.

Children's Rights, the organization that runs the website you cited,
has
done much to seek a solution to the abuse of children by foster
carers.

Yep. Lot's of suing. That's gonna work when the state is strapped for
money. Notice that some states, like Oregon, are saying they can't even
see 50% of the events called into their hotline? And those are calls
they would normally have gone out on.


Are the families Oregon does not investigate or assess still guilty of
child
abuse? Your deal is that the parents are guilty of child abuse or
neglect
if the investigated cases are unsubstantiated or substantiated. I was
wondering if that guideline extends to those cases not even investigated
and
given a disposition.

http://www.shepherd-express.com/6_30...wsandviews.htm

"Question 7:
The child welfare system in Milwaukee was so bad that in 2002 the
federal court ordered the Department of Health and Family Services
(DHFS) to provide better services. DHFS must attain specific outcomes
on or before Jan. 1, 2006, just a few months away. Do you:


A. Provide more money for training and support of foster parents,
caseworker retention, domestic violence services for families and the
creation of an ombudsman to look into complaints.
B. Pick out just one new program to fund, in this case a family
safety program, and disregard the other offers on the table.


Neither. Neither plan will address the problems with child welfare
system
in Milwaukee. Problems so bad that the federal courts had to step in.

If you think Plan B will work, hopefully you're right, because
that's the only new foster care program that will receive additional
funding. Gov. Doyle proposed option A."


I don't think plan B will work. I don't think plan A will work, either.

Here's what you lie about, constantly in this ng. You claim that
federal money is free to be used for whatever the state wishes. That's
either monumental ignorance, or blatant propagandistic lying. I can't
imagine it's ignorance, not with your self appointed role of "expert."


Ninety percent of federal child welfare funding is based upon the number
of
children from impoverished families placed into foster care. As your cut
and pastes point out, when states get exclusions to draw down the federal
funding for other reasons, the foster care population drops. Hmm.

http://www.ctkidslink.org/media/pres...fostercare.pdf

Read. Think. Why would just a few states have to get "waivers" to use
federal dollars on services to families to intervene if it could only
be used, as you claim, as a general fund for such programs. You idiot.
You liar. You fool.


That they cannot use federal funding for services to families is the very
reason why, without the waivers, states put so many children in foster
care,
as your cut and paste suggests. Read just below:

"The report outlines how current federal financing rules favor keeping
children in foster care over
providing services that can help keep children at home or support other
permanent, stable
arrangements for children like legal guardianship. States are currently
reimbursed by the federal
government for caring for children in foster care, but extremely
limited in their ability to spend
those same federal dollars on services like mental health and substance
abuse treatment or
alternatives like subsidized guardianship that give abused and
neglected children more stable,
permanent homes. Nevertheless, despite these current federal funding
restrictions, the report shows
that some states, when granted flexible use of federal funding through
"waivers," have succeeded in
reducing the number or length of stay of children in foster care in
part by using federal funds to pay
for these alternative services"


And any thinking honest human being that looks closely at the problem
KNOWS that the problem is parental abuse of chidlren.


The problem outlined in the newsstory you pasted in this message thread
and
what we are discussing involved the alleged murder of a child by a foster
carer.




  #10  
Old August 8th 05, 04:20 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Doug wrote:
Kane writes:

No, Doug cons.


Hi, Kane,

I see you have run out of beef again.


I delivered "the beef," long ago in this ng. Starting over three years
ago, Doug. Proving again and again you are ignorant, and full of
bull****.

Lacking any substantative reply to
the number of children removed from homes CPS unsubstantiates for any
childmaltreatment or risk of maltreatment, you cite an article that has
absolutely no relevance to the post to which you reply.


It has great relevance to your propagandist ways. And I said so. So
once again you are using exactly those tactics of dodging and
weaseling.

The issues concerning children that are removed as 'unsubstantiated' I
have answered, and you have failed to counter.

...And childish name-calling of course.


No, it's quite adult name calling. You are an asshole. And a liar.

Yours is an understandable preoccupation, since it is impossible to excuse
much of current CPS practice with substance or authorities. The literature
abounds with empirical evidence of its failure.


The literature abounds, as I have pointed out, with even authorities
that YOU cite, that says plainly enough that the scope of child abuse
is far greater than is currently being addressed...much more of it than
is responded to sufficiently. The system is overburdened, and always
has been and THAT is what the authorities say...even your own citation
choices.



And here's just one of the ways he pulls the wool over your eyes, if
you are a reader in this ng.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=997688


Thieves live in terror of being robbed.


You that afraid are yah?

The article you cite talks about methodology in the junk science that feeds
some of your Type II errors.


No, it is exactly the opposite. But then that's the favorite first ploy
of the weasel and liar.

I think most of us in this forum would
wholeheartedly agree with what the author has to say about small studies,
self-reported situations (like prisoners complaining that they are there
because, afterall, they were spanked as kids -- we all know that it's not
the criminal's fault, but his parents and everyone else).


So do you wish to call the reports and surveys of those even YOU have
cited that include, but you ignore, clear and uncontrovertable claims
of a massive overload of the system by virtue of the amount of abuse
going on?

Or do you wish to call those folks liars?

But the article does not address anything in the post to which you reply
(and you quote below).

You continue:

Subtle changes in wording, shifting the meanings of claims and
statements by "experts,"


No comments exist in my post about so-called experts, their claims, or
anything close to it.


Why do you insist on this weaseling then? You know perfectly well I am
addressing your general propagandist methods and messages here. This is
why I call you a liar. Because you do such things to misled, and that
IS lying.

avoiding reality by taking claims out of
context -- such as data sets to measure one thing being used to make
claims about things that appear related but in themselves are not being
examined.


Nothing out of context in this post to which you reply. In fact, to the
contrary, I quoted exactly the entire section on CPS findings directly from
USDHHS' "Child Maltreatment, 2002."


I was, and you know it, referring to ALL you lies and subterfuges, not
just this one.

The quoting, while ignoring all the postings that I have shown why
those findings do NOT fit the assumptions you promote and have in the
past, is a simple lie. The cleverness of the propagandist.


These latter are Doug's stock in trade as a propagandist.


None of these things you descibe appear in the post to which you reply.


You are a liar. The very act of ignoring my past posts that answered
questions the validity of the term "unsubstantiated" is sufficient to
show you as a liar.

You
are playing with an empty hand,


I played those hands months and even years ago here, and you
systematically ignore them or wish to argue them again to the same
end...that you finally dodge the truth.

so you call the author of information you
cannot challenge childish names.


Liar is not a childish name. You are a liar. You attempt to and do
mislead.

If the information below is "propaganda", so us some beef -- some documented
information that challenges the facts I have provided.


I have in the past. Again and again. You simple with to exercise me as
a weasel tactic.

Enjoy being conned by him, if you wish, or do your own thinking and
especially watch out for him when he says the same thing but loads you
up with HIS biases and HIS agenda first.


I am sure the readers here are doing their own thinking.


You have working them like a carney on the midway. YOu appeal to the
biased, fears, and dysfunctions of character and ignorance like the pro
I think you are.

They have since
the beginning of their involvement in this newsgroup and will continue to do
so.


Nonsense. You have been playing to their vulnerabilities from as far
back as I've looked at your postings.

If you want them to consider any rebuttal you may have to what I have
written in the post to which you reply, then give them some substance...some
information they can use their own thinking to consider as refuting the
substance of my post.


They've seen my posts in reply to you for over three years. In some
part of their biased brains resides some capacity for truth and they
KNOW in that part of themselves that you are a bull**** artist of great
skill. Again and again you made claims, or attempted to refute mine,
that ended in your ignominous defeat shown by just such tactics as
these....pretending we hadn't argued it out and pretending I hadn't
shown how wrong you were, or how much a liar you were, or how stupid
you are.

From who does CPS investigations, to the use of FBI systems for

background checks, to how jobs are specialized or not in CPS, again and
again you've been shown to be a clever fool and liar.

Live with it.

By simply calling those who post information you don't like to see names,


That in itself is a lie. There are plenty of posts here that I do not
like the information in wherein I do not call the poster a liar. I only
call liars liars.

you are not giving readers a chance to think about what you have to say.


Three years of posting on the same topics over and over, at instigation
by lying AGAIN about something that you were refuted over repeatedly.

Instead, you leave them no alternative but to think of what the name-calling
says about you.


I quite agree with you that most do have the capacity to think, and
that those few who cannot, for themselves, have some place in them that
isn't foul and full of your ****. They know the truth. It will just
take time for them to grow out of their biases.

Most of what he babbles below is just more of his monumental phony
balony CPS reform crusader garbage. He's just out to destroy.


What appears below -- and the substance of the post to which you now
reply -- is:

1) The entire quoted narrative from USDHHS defining the findings made by CPS
workers. USDHHS is the agency that publishes the data on how many children
are subject to each of these findings.


I responded to this nonsense again and again. You ignore my posts
pretending it never happened. That is what makes you a liar. And THAT
is what long time readers here know.

2) The fact that 96,000 children were removed from families CPS caseworkers
themselves unsubstantiated because they found no reason to suspect that
those children were at risk of maltreatment or actually maltreated.


And that has been explained fully with authoritative reports that show
that unsubstantiated do NOT mean what you claim it means. It is a
definition NOT in use in the field.

3) The fact that child advocacy groups in Florida are seeking a federal
investigation of overcrowded foster homes after a foster carer was charged
with murdering a foster child.


Yep. And the truth is that YOU claimed that foster placements were
DOWN. They are not.

4) That foster care systems in more than a dozen jurisdictions are under the
stewardship of the federal courts because of the maltreatment of foster
children by state agencies.


And you refuse to acknowledge the posts I put here with citations that
judges have made the first order of business MORE FUNDING...NOW!!!

5) That Children's Rights, an organization founded by a family court
specialist from ACLU, has successfully won every class action suit it has
brought in federal courts against foster care systems across the nation.


Of course. They sue for the things that are caused by lack of funding.
Stop playing stupid. No one here, not even your pets are unaware of
that.

6) That a variable other than child abuse or neglect or risk of either is
the causal agent for the removal of a large percentage of children from
their families.


That is a lie. Plain and simple. The very wording is a mass of weasel
talk.

...snip more of your bull****....

But do have nice day.

0:-

 




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
OT but for all Foster Parents: NFPA Position Statements PopInJay Foster Parents 1 June 10th 05 03:06 AM
What if a foster parent is a bad parent? angryandsad Foster Parents 10 September 13th 04 06:51 AM
'Horrible' Home Kane General 1 July 16th 03 02:29 AM
| Database should audit high $$ in Foster Care system Kane General 3 July 15th 03 06:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:12 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.