A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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

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

Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #22  
Old December 25th 03, 02:01 PM
Greg Hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture

(Proprclr) wrote
Anyone who owns one should be suspected of child abuse.


Kane is the only known owner of one.
  #23  
Old December 25th 03, 02:03 PM
Greg Hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture

Apparently the only picture of one is on a no-spank site.

What's the URL for the actual seller?
  #24  
Old December 25th 03, 03:39 PM
Greg Hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture

Dear newsgroup participants:

One of the anti-spanking zealots named Kane says that
there is a 22" long 3/8" nylon rod with a handle
marketed through "Home School Digest" for
"Biblical training".

Kane wrote
It is a hard barely flexible quarter to 3/8s
inch thick rod of nylon
in a full grip handle. I own one I use as an example.


Kane, being the totalitarian anti-spanker that he
is, is of course trying to pretend that this is
in some way representative of parental spanking.

In turn, he advocates for a law making it illegal
for parents to administer ANY form of spanking.
This would in turn allow Child Protection caseworkers
who are already anti-spanking zealots, to REMOVE
children from their homes for this parental offense.

Kane is strongly identified with CPS caseworkers
and is an atheist who sees religion as a tool.

Kane's guru, Strauss, however, got caught at bogus
numbers in his research and has since moved on
to try to prove that all "psychological aggression"
is harmful to children. I don't know yet for certain,
but I suspect that even so much as saying "no!"
would likely be termed "psychological aggression"
either now or in the future.

As I hope many of you can imagine, this could lead
to a society much like that described in the book
"Lord Of The Flies".

Can any of you provide information on this "implement"
supposedly sold through a "Home School Digest" for
"Biblical Training" ?

Spanking a child with ANY object is illegal in Iowa,
and spanking a child with an implement like this is
of course ALREADY illegal in almost every state in the US.

Parental spanking of a child for discipline, is legal
within state guidelines in all 50 states.

Child Protective Services in all 50 states, however,
has been found to be not in compliance with Federal
Regulations, noteably some intended to safeguard
families against abuses BY the Child Protection agencies.

Citizen Review Boards over Child Protection removals
do not exist in many states, despite the TEN YEAR OLD
requirement. (Don't confuse with CRB's over Foster Care)

Administrative Grievance process about problems
with services were proscribed in 1983 and in several
states these processes do not yet exist.
For example, in many cases, Families have Services Plans
("hoops") IMPOSED upon them, whereas it is Federally
Required that Families be allowed Active Participation
in the FORMATION of Services Plans. My family was
denied this even after numerous complaints and requests.
Iowa denied us the Grievance process saying that since
we were not denied services (despite our statement we were!)
that we could not have this grievance process.
If you read the below, you will see that refusing us
this avenue of redress on these grounds does not
conform to the 45 CFR 205.10 requirements.
(Not to mention that we did request certain services
and were denied.)

If you think about that logic, by the way, the state
agency is, in effect, saying that families can not
complain about QUALITATIVE problems with services.
In addition, this would prevent families from
complaining about services applied without BASIS.
It also prevented us from presenting evidence that
one service provider committed paper FRAUD in their
"treatment paln". These are all things the GRIEVANCE
process certainly should be dealing with but
are, according to Kevin Concannon of Iowa DHS, these
services problems are not eligible for a GRIEVANCE hearing.

A caseworker fabrication that I supposedly have a
""Sex Abuse History"" is a pretty horrible LIE.
After they were shown paper proof that it is FALSE,
their refusal to correct it for 2.5 years is culpable.
Such a LIE is never "In the Child's Best Interest".

Please help us regain control over the REAL Instrument
of Child Torture, Child Protective Services agencies
themselves. (See AFCARS data, Wallis v. Escondido)

Please snip judiciously so as to avoid overquoting.

Greg in Iowa


"FAQ Sheet/PIQ Directive"
www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm
click on -Policy
-Child Welfare Policy Manual
-Title IV-B (also notice SACWIS info)
-Programmatic requirements
-Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair hearings...

or just enter the following URL or web link
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...?citID=178#686
[ verbatim, but some text converted to capital letters for EMPHASIS ]

2. Question: Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair hearings
for appeals related to services as well as financial claims?

Answer: Yes. The regulations at 1355.30 (p)(2) provide that the
procedures for hearings found in 45 CFR 205.10 shall apply to all
programs funded under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act.
Fair hearings in relation to services as well as financial claims are
therefore covered under this regulation. The Department believes that
the close programmatic and fiscal relationship between titles IV-E and
IV-B makes a fair hearings requirement appropriate. The process for
fair hearings under section 205.10 is ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FOR
SERVICES HEARINGS AS FOR FINANCIAL HEARINGS. However, because the
substantive portion of the regulations provides no examples of service
issues, the State has the option of modifying the context of the
hearing to ACCOMODATE SERVICES PROGRAM COMPLAINTS. The hearing process
under either situation requires that recipients be advised of their
RIGHT TO A HEARING, that they may be represented by an authorized
representative, and that there be a timely notice of the date and
place of the hearing.

The following paragraphs, excerpted from the now obsolete section
1392.11, may be used as guidance for the hearings related to services
issues. "The State must have a provision for a fair hearing, under
which applicants and recipients may appeal DENIAL OF OR EXCLUSION FROM
A SERVICE PROGRAM, FAILURE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF RECIPIENT CHOICE OF
SERVICE or a DETERMINATION THAT THE INDIVIDUALS MUST PARTICIPATE IN
THE SERVICE PROGRAM. The results of appeals must be formally recorded
and all applicants and recipients must be advised of their right to
appeal and the procedures for such appeal. THERE MUST BE A SYSTEM
THROUGH WHICH RECIPIENTS MAY PRESENT GRIEVANCES ABOUT THE OPERATION OF
THE SERVICE PROGRAM."

Examples of service issues in title IV-B that might result in a
grievance or request for a hearing include: Agency failure to offer or
provide APPROPRIATE PRE-PLACEMENT PREVENTATIVE SERVICES or
REUNIFICATION SERVICES; Agency may not have placed child in the most
FAMILY-LIKE setting in close proximity to his parents; Parents were
not INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHTS to participate in periodic administrative
reviews; Agency failed to provide services AGREED to in case plan; A
REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC SERVICE IS DENIED or NOT ACTED UPON; and Agency
failure to carry out terms of adoption assistance agreements.

Source/Date: ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04 (10/26/83)

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


I know if you read this law it might not LOOK like it
applies to services directed by a Child Protection agency,
but if you look at the "PIQ Directive" above you will
see that indeed this law IS to be used for Administrative
Grievance Hearings regarding services in Child Protection
cases and involving state care of children.

Long link wraps around, may need to be pieced together.
Link tested December 25, 2003 and working.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...00&TYP E=TEXT

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 45, Volume 2, Parts 200 to 499]
[Revised as of October 1, 2000]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 45CFR205.10]

[Page 20-24]

TITLE 45--PUBLIC WELFARE

CHAPTER II--OFFICE OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE (ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS),
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN
SERVICES

PART 205--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION--PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS--Table of
Contents

Sec. 205.10 Hearings.

(a) State plan requirements. A State plan under title I, IV-A, X,
XIV, or XVI(AABD) of the Social Security Act shall provide for a
system
of hearings under which:
(1) The single State agency responsible for the program shall be
responsible for fulfillment of hearing provisions which shall provide
for:
(i) A hearing before the State agency, or
(ii) An evidentiary hearing at the local level with a right of
appeal to a State agency hearing. Where a State agency adopts a system
of evidentiary hearings with an appeal to a State agency hearing, it
may, in some political subdivisions, permit local evidentiary
hearings,
and in others, provide for a single hearing before the State agency.
Under this requirement hearings shall meet the due process standards
set
forth in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397
U.S.
254 (1970) and the standards set forth in this section.
(2) Hearing procedures shall be issued and publicized by the State
agency. Such procedures shall provide for a face-to-face hearing or,
at
State option, a hearing by telephone when the applicant or recipient
also agrees. Under this provision, the State shall assure that the
applicant or recipient is afforded all rights as specified in this
section, whether the hearing is face-to-face or by telephone;
(3) Every applicant or recipient shall be informed in writing at
the
time of application and at the time of any action affecting his claim:
(i) Of his right to a hearing, as provided in paragraph (a)(5) of
this section;
(ii) Of the method by which he may obtain a hearing;
(iii) That he may be represented by an authorized representative,
such as legal counsel, relative, friend, or other spokesman, or he may
represent himself.
(4) In cases of intended action to discontinue, terminate, suspend
or reduce assistance or to change the manner or form of payment to a
protective, vendor, or two-party payment under Sec. 234.60:

[[Page 21]]

(i) The State or local agency shall give timely and adequate
notice,
except as provided for in paragraphs (a)(4) (ii), (iii), or (iv) of
this
section. Under this requirement:
(A) Timely means that the notice is mailed at least 10 days before
the date of action, that is, the date upon which the action would
become
effective;
(B) Adequate means a written notice that includes a statement of
what action the agency intends to take, the reasons for the intended
agency action, the specific regulations supporting such action,
explanation of the individual's right to request an evidentiary
hearing
(if provided) and a State agency hearing, the circumstances under
which
assistance is continued if a hearing is requested, and if the agency
action is upheld, that such assistance must be repaid under title
IV-A,
and must also be repaid under titles I, X, XIV or XVI (AABD) if the
State plan provides for recovery of such payments.
(ii) The agency may dispense with timely notice but shall send
adequate notice not later than the date of action when:
(A) The agency has factual information confirming the death of a
recipient or of the AFDC payee when there is no relative available to
serve as new payee;
(B) The agency receives a clear written statement signed by a
recipient that he no longer wishes assistance, or that gives
information
which requires termination or reduction of assistance, and the
recipient
has indicated, in writing, that he understands that this must be the
consequence of supplying such information;
(C) The recipient has been admitted or committed to an
institution,
and further payments to that individual do not qualify for Federal
financial participation under the State plan;
(D) The recipient has been placed in skilled nursing care,
intermediate care or long-term hospitalization;
(E) The claimant's whereabouts are unknown and agency mail
directed
to him has been returned by the post office indicating no known
forwarding address. The claimant's check must, however, be made
available to him if his whereabouts become known during the payment
period covered by a returned check;
(F) A recipient has been accepted for assistance in a new
jurisdiction and that fact has been established by the jurisdiction
previously providing assistance;
(G) An AFDC child is removed from the home as a result of a
judicial
determination, or voluntarily placed in foster care by his legal
guardian;
(H) For AFDC, the agency takes action because of information the
recipient furnished in a monthly report or because the recipient has
failed to submit a complete or a timely monthly report without good
cause. (See Sec. 233.37);
(I) A special allowance granted for a specific period is
terminated
and the recipient has been informed in writng at the time of
initiation
that the allowance shall automatically terminate at the end of the
specified period;
(J) The agency has made a presumption of mismanagement as a result
of a recipient's nonpayment of rent and provides for post hearings in
such circumstances;
(K) An individual's payment is suspended or reduced for failure to
meet a payment after performance obligation as set forth at
Sec. 233.101(b)(2)(iv) (B) or (C) of this chapter. In addition to the
contents set forth in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section, the
adequate notice must advise the individual of the right to have
assistance immediately reinstated retroactive to the date of action at
the previous month's level pending the hearing decision if he or she
makes a request for a hearing and reinstatement within 10 days after
the
date of the notice.
(iii) When changes in either State or Federal law require
automatic
grant adjustments for classes of recipients, timely notice of such
grant
adjustments shall be given which shall be ``adequate'' if it includes
a
statement of the intended action, the reasons for such intended
action,
a statement of the specific change in law requiring such action and a
statement of the circumstances under which a hearing may be obtained
and
assistance continued.
(iv) When the agency obtains facts indicating that assistance
should
be discontinued, suspended, terminated, or reduced because of the
probable

[[Page 22]]

fraud of the recipient, and, where possible, such facts have been
verified through collateral sources, notice of such grant adjustment
shall be timely if mailed at least five (5) days before action would
become effective.
(5) An opportunity for a hearing shall be granted to any applicant
who requests a hearing because his or her claim for financial
assistance
(including a request for supplemental payments under Secs. 233.23 and
233.27) is denied, or is not acted upon with reasonable promptness,
and
to any recipient who is aggrieved by any agency action resulting in
suspension, reduction, discontinuance, or termination of assistance,
or
determination that a protective, vendor, or two-party payment should
be
made or continued. A hearing need not be granted when either State or
Federal law requires automatic grant adjustments for classes of
recipients unless the reason for an individual appeal is incorrect
grant
computation.
(i) A request for a hearing is defined as a clear expression by
the
claimant (or his authorized representative acting for him), to the
effect that he wants the opportunity to present his case to higher
authority. The State may require that such request be in written form
in
order to be effective;
(ii) The freedom to make such a request shall not be limited or
interfered with in any way. The agency may assist the claimant to
submit
and process his request;
(iii) The claimant shall be provided reasonable time, not to
exceed
90 days, in which to appeal an agency action;
(iv) Agencies may respond to a series of individual requests for
hearing by conducting a single group hearing. Agencies may consolidate
only cases in which the sole issue involved is one of State or Federal
law or policy or changes in State or Federal law. In all group
hearings,
the policies governing hearings must be followed. Thus, each
individual
claimant shall be permitted to present his own case or be represented
by
his authorized representative;
(v) The agency may deny or dismiss a request for a hearing where
it
has been withdrawn by the claimant in writing, where the sole issue is
one of State or Federal law requiring automatic grant adjustments for
classes of recipients, where a decision has been rendered after a WIN
hearing before the manpower agency that a participant has, without
good
cause, refused to accept employment or participate in the WIN program,
or has failed to request such a hearing after notice of intended
action
for such refusal, or where it is abandoned. Abandonment may be deemed
to
have occurred if the claimant, without good cause therefor, fails to
appear by himself or by authorized representative at the hearing
scheduled for such claimant.
(6) If the recipient requests a hearing within the timely notice
period:
(i) Assistance shall not be suspended, reduced, discontinued or
terminated (but is subject to recovery by the agency if its action is
sustained), until a decision is rendered after a hearing, unless:
(A) A determination is made at the hearing that the sole issue is
one of State or Federal law or policy, or change in State or Federal
law
and not one of incorrect grant computation;
(B) A change affecting the recipient's grant occurs while the
hearing decision is pending and the recipient fails to request a
hearing
after notice of the change;
(C) The recipient specifically requests that he or she not receive
continued assistance pending a hearing decision; or
(D) The agency has made a presumption of mismanagement as a result
of a recipient's nonpayment of rent and provides for the opportunity
for
a hearing after the manner or form of payment has been changed for
such
cases in accordance with Sec. 234.60 (a)(2) and (a)(11).
(ii) The agency shall promptly inform the claimant in writing if
assistance is to be discontinued pending the hearing decision; and
(iii) In any case where the decision of an evidentiary hearing is
adverse to the claimant, he shall be informed of and afforded the
right
to make a written request, within 15 days of the mailing of the
notification of such adverse decision, for a State agency hearing and
of
his right to request a de novo hearing. Unless a de novo hearing is
specifically requested by the appellant,

[[Page 23]]

the State agency hearing may consist of a review by the State agency
hearing officer of the record of the evidentiary hearing to determine
whether the decision of the evidentiary hearing officer was supported
by
substantial evidence in the record. Assistance shall not be continued
after an adverse decision to the claimant at the evidentiary hearing.
(7) A State may provide that a hearing request made after the date
of action (but during a period not in excess of 10 days following such
date) shall result in reinstatement of assistance to be continued
until
the hearing decision, unless (i) the recipient specifically requests
that continued assistance not be paid pending the hearing decision; or
(ii) at the hearing it is determined that the sole issue is one of
State
or Federal law or policy. In any case where action was taken without
timely notice, if the recipient requests a hearing within 10 days of
the
mailing of the notice of the action, and the agency determines that
the
action resulted from other than the application of State or Federal
law
or policy or a change in State or Federal law, assistance shall be
reinstated and continued until a decision is rendered after the
hearing,
unless the recipient specifically requests that continued assistance
not
be paid pending the hearing decision.
(8) The hearing shall be conducted at a reasonable time, date, and
place, and adequate preliminary written notice shall be given.
(9) Hearings shall be conducted by an impartial official
(officials)
or designee of the agency. Under this requirement, the hearing
official
(officials) or designee shall not have been directly involved in the
initial determination of the action in question.
(10) When the hearing involves medical issues such as those
concerning a diagnosis, an examining physician's report, or a medical
review team's decision, a medical assessment other than that of the
person or persons involved in making the original decision shall be
obtained at agency expense and made part of the record if the hearing
officer considers it necessary.
(11) In respect to title IV-C, when the appeal has been taken on
the
basis of a disputed WIN registration requirement, exemption
determination or finding of failure to appear for an appraisal
interview, a representative of the local WIN manpower agency shall,
where appropriate, participate in the conduct of the hearing.
(12) The hearing shall include consideration of:
(i) An agency action, or failure to act with reasonable
promptness,
on a claim for financial assistance, which includes undue delay in
reaching a decision on eligibility or in making a payment, refusal to
consider a request for or undue delay in making an adjustment in
payment, and discontinuance, termination or reduction of such
assistance;
(ii) Agency decision regarding:
(A) Eligibility for financial assistance in both initial and
subsequent determinations,
(B) Amount of financial assistance or change in payments,
(C) The manner or form of payment, including restricted or
protective payments, even though no Federal financial participation is
claimed.
(13) The claimant, or his representative, shall have adequate
opportunity:
(i) To examine the contents of his case file and all documents and
records to be used by the agency at the hearing at a reasonable time
before the date of the hearing as well as during the hearing;
(ii) At his option, to present his case himself or with the aid of
an authorized representative;
(iii) To bring witnesses;
(iv) To establish all pertinent facts and circumstances;
(v) To advance any arguments without undue interference;
(vi) To question or refute any testimony or evidence, including
opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
(14) Recommendations or decisions of the hearing officer or panel
shall be based exclusively on evidence and other material introduced
at
the hearing. The transcript or recording of testimony and exhibits, or
an official report containing the substance of what transpired at the
hearing, together with all papers and requests filed in the
proceeding,
and the recommendation or decision of the hearing officer or

[[Page 24]]

panel shall constitute the exclusive record and shall be available to
the claimant at a place accessible to him or his representative at a
reasonable time.
(15) Decisions by the hearing authority shall:
(i) In the event of an evidentiary hearing, consist of a
memorandum
decision summarizing the facts and identifying the regulations
supporting the decision;
(ii) In the event of a State agency de novo hearing, specify the
reasons for the decision and identify the supporting evidence and
regulations.

Under this requirement no persons who participated in the local
decision
being appealed shall participate in a final administrative decision on
such a case.
(16) Prompt, definitive, and final administrative action shall be
taken within 90 days from the date of the request for a hearing.
(17) The claimant shall be notified of the decision in writing
and,
to the extent it is available to him, of his right to appeal to State
agency hearing or judicial review.
(18) When the hearing decision is favorable to the claimant, or
when
the agency decides in favor of the claimant prior to the hearing, the
agency shall promptly make corrective payments retroactively to the
date
the incorrect action was taken.
(19) All State agency hearing decisions shall be accessible to the
public (subject to provisions of safeguarding public assistance
information).
(b) Federal financial participation. Federal financial
participation
is available for the following items:
(1) Payments of assistance continued pending a hearing decision.
(2) Payments of assistance made to carry out hearing decisions, or
to take corrective action after an appeal but prior to hearing, or to
extend the benefit of a hearing decision or court order to others in
the
same situation as those directly affected by the decision or order.
Such
payments may be retroactive in accordance with applicable Federal
policies on corrective payments.
(3) Payments of assistance within the scope of Federally aided
public assistance programs made in accordance with a court order.
(4) Administrative costs incurred by the agency for:
(i) Providing transportation for the claimant, his representative
and witnesses to and from the place of the hearing;
(ii) Meeting other expenditures incurred by the claimant in
connection with the hearing;
(iii) Carrying out the hearing procedures, including expenses of
obtaining an additional medical assessment.

[38 FR 22007, Aug. 15, 1973, as amended at 44 FR 17941, Mar. 23, 1979;
45 FR 20480, Mar. 28, 1980; 47 FR 5673, Feb. 5, 1982; 47 FR 47827,
Oct. 28, 1982; 51 FR 9202, Mar. 18, 1986; 53 FR 36579, Sept. 21, 1988;
57
FR 30425, July 9, 1992]
  #25  
Old December 25th 03, 03:46 PM
Dan Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture


"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...

Dear newsgroup participants:


snip

Please snip judiciously so as to avoid overquoting.


snip

Greg in Iowa




  #26  
Old December 25th 03, 08:43 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture

On 25 Dec 2003 06:39:06 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Dear newsgroup participants:

One of the anti-spanking zealots named Kane says that
there is a 22" long 3/8" nylon rod with a handle
marketed through "Home School Digest" for
"Biblical training".


Not only do I say so, I provide the link to three websites that
comfirm it. And on one it uses the product flyer to give the
dimensions and components.

Kane wrote
It is a hard barely flexible quarter to 3/8s
inch thick rod of nylon
in a full grip handle. I own one I use as an example.


All of which is correct.

Kane, being the totalitarian anti-spanker that he
is, is of course trying to pretend that this is
in some way representative of parental spanking.


It is sold for, and obiously purchased (My first encounter was five
years ago), for exactly that purpose. Although I do NOT recall using
the world "spanking" to describe the use of this instrument of
torture. It falls well within the parental definition of an acceptable
use of corporal punishment.

In turn, he advocates for a law making it illegal
for parents to administer ANY form of spanking.


You are either misinformed or a liar. I think both definitions cover
you well.

I have specifically stated my intent is to do everything I know how to
avoid what is most likely inevitable if the spanking in all it's forms
does not diminish.

And that is to encourage and educate so that people will voluntarily
chose a non-pain parenting approach.

This would in turn allow Child Protection caseworkers
who are already anti-spanking zealots, to REMOVE
children from their homes for this parental offense.


I know a number of CPS workers who with their own children use CP for
discipline. You are lying yet again. What they will do is, under the
laws of their various states, remove children that have marks or
injuries related to CP of any kind.

Kane is strongly identified with CPS caseworkers


Well, some like me and then some don't, but few fail to respect me.

and is an atheist who sees religion as a tool.


I am an atheist. How would you know what I see religion as?

Kane's guru, Strauss,


I have repeatedly stated that I am not a follower of studies as a way
to answer definitively the questions around the issue of spanking. I'm
not sure Straus if for that matter. It's, like all research and human
inquiry, is an ongoing process.

however, got caught at bogus
numbers in his research and has since moved on
to try to prove that all "psychological aggression"
is harmful to children.


I don't believe the former is true, while the latter makes sense for a
researcher looking into the effects of various parenting methods on
children. What would you think his next research project would be,
watermelon cultivation?

I don't know yet for certain,


Oh, you can be certain you don't know.

but I suspect that even so much as saying "no!"
would likely be termed "psychological aggression"
either now or in the future.


The context would be the determining factor. Age of child, the setting
and activities underway, frequency, tone, intensity.

But then you phonies love to avoid context and rant your little rants.

As I hope many of you can imagine, this could lead
to a society much like that described in the book
"Lord Of The Flies".


Well, I've been watching folks bring up LOTF a few times trying to
link the behaviors of the children to non-spanking, and I've waited
patiently to see if any of you have actually read the book.

In fact the story begins with a group of island marooned English
schoolboys, one of the more notoriously switched, paddled, humiliated
and otherwise mistreated child demographics.

Do you wish to continue to use them of an example of non-cp outcomes?

Can any of you provide information on this "implement"
supposedly sold through a "Home School Digest" for
"Biblical Training" ?


What are you fishing for? Do you really think the people that use The
Rod are going to come to this ng and confess? Please.

Spanking a child with ANY object is illegal in Iowa,


Could you cite the law please. I believe Iowa statutes are online.

For instance, here is the PDF of an Iowa form for use by a citizen to
make a report of abuse...spanking is specifically covered, yet
"objects" are NOT. Care to explain:

http://tinyurl.com/3c7ll

or

http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/policyana...s/470-3789.pdf


I find this one even more interesting in light of your complaint that
a service plan was created without participation of "the family."

http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/policyana...s/470-3239.pdf

From one of Q&As on the form:

"WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF I DON'T COOPERATE? If the child protection worker
cannot talk to you or your family members about the incident reported,
the assessment will have to be completed without information which
only you can provide regarding the alleged abuse and regarding your
family' strengths and concerns."

This goes directly to Iowa law apparently, that if you don't
"cooperate," as you have so proudly made known you unwillingness to
do, the worker has to ("will have to be completed") make a report
anyway without your input. R R R

So THAT'S why there was a service plan without participation.

and spanking a child with an implement like this is
of course ALREADY illegal in almost every state in the US.


"Implements" are not named in many states, yet there are parents that
would use similar instruments on children and consider it acceptable
CP.

Parental spanking of a child for discipline, is legal
within state guidelines in all 50 states.


One state does NOT specifically protect the parent. Guess which one.

So now please continue your argument that The Rod and its presence on
scene have some CPS vs parent issues.

Child Protective Services in all 50 states, however,
has been found to be not in compliance with Federal
Regulations, noteably some intended to safeguard
families against abuses BY the Child Protection agencies.


How did I know you were going to switch tracks? R R R

Citizen Review Boards over Child Protection removals
do not exist in many states,


Which ones.

despite the TEN YEAR OLD
requirement. (Don't confuse with CRB's over Foster Care)


Please cite the section and paragraph in Adoption and Safe Families
Act (ASFA) PL 105-89 (1997)where that is required by law. Or possibly
you are thinking of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of
1974 (CAPTA), P.L. 93-247, 88 Stat. 4, 42 U.S.C. §§5101-5107.

For instance, under CAPTA one must read carefully to determine the
requirement of the state to do as you claim:

"Under federal law, each state, in order
to receive funding under the Child Abuse
and Neglect State Grants Program of Title I,
must establish Citizen Review Panels.
These Panels are charged with providing
oversight of child protective services (CPS)
at both a state and local level. The federal
legislation uses very general language in
establishing both a scope of responsibility
for the Panels and specific operational
requirements."

Note that this, and often many mandates by the Feds, are worded ("in
order to receive funding under....etc.")so that the states can do as
they wish if they are willing to forgo particular funding streams. And
you can bet the states pick and choose. Possibly Iowa and other states
choose to NOT avail themselves of Title I funding.

Administrative Grievance process about problems
with services were proscribed in 1983 and in several
states these processes do not yet exist.


For example, in many cases, Families have Services Plans
("hoops") IMPOSED upon them, whereas it is Federally
Required that Families be allowed Active Participation
in the FORMATION of Services Plans.


Please post the Federal requirement(s).

Here, for instance, is one interpretation, that I have found
consistent from state to state...note carefully, where I've placed the
"****," that there are at least two approaches to Service Plans, one
being to involve the family, and the other simply to inform the family
of the requirements they must meet...kinda shoots your ASSumptions
right in the ... well, you know.

In a comment on Service Plans at:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/fostercare-r...1/chapter2.htm

"...............

Rather than having the caseworker serve as the expert to determine
what the family needs to do, the family is encouraged to come up with
plans for what needs to be done. In practice, family conferencing
programs vary in the extent to which families are empowered to come up
with their own solutions. ****In some localities, family conferencing
is a means to inform families about the permanency planning process,
what is expected from the family, and what the repercussions will be
if problems are not remedied in a timely fashion (i.e., the
termination of parental rights).**** In other areas, family members
are expected to participate fully in the design of the intervention
and service plan to provide an environment where the child can one day
return home. Ideally, family conferences are used throughout the
service process to evaluate progress and make new plans as necessary.
Supporters of family conferencing believe that it is effective because
it identifies additional supportive resources for the parent and
child, helps to break down the sometimes adversarial relationship
between child welfare staff and family so that all are working toward
a common goal, and serves to give the family notice of the
consequences of inaction on the part of the parent."

So, Greegor....so you see a federal LW in that? Notice at the bottom
of the page where this web site originates.

My family was
denied this even after numerous complaints and requests.


Your 'family' was denied most likely because of YOU and your slimy
handprints all over the family. Do you think social workers can't spot
a "User" in a split second? Your underestimation of other people is
legend here, and I'd bet there as well.

Iowa denied us the Grievance process saying that since
we were not denied services (despite our statement we were!)
that we could not have this grievance process.


What "services" were you denied? You blew one righteously...and that
was likely quite enough to negate ANY responsibility of the state to
your or "your family."

That IS all it takes, smart ass. Just the hint of unwillingness to
cooperate and the entire show is down the ****ter. Nice going there
"family" man.

If you read the below, you will see that refusing us
this avenue of redress on these grounds does not
conform to the 45 CFR 205.10 requirements.
(Not to mention that we did request certain services
and were denied.)


Like storing YOUR personal **** at state expense, or having the state
collect the overdue child support from the little girl's father to be
used for the same thing?

If you think about that logic, by the way, the state
agency is, in effect, saying that families can not
complain about QUALITATIVE problems with services.


You can complain all you want...you are NOT a family member, despite
your bull**** to the contrary. When you marry the mother you've got a
start, then adopt the child...you will THEN be a family member and
related to the girl.

In addition you have never answered this question: is the child Title
IV-E eligible? If not YOUR case doesn't fall under ASFA or any other
guidelines you so kindly quoted below that is ALL ABOUT FUNDING.

Call Iowa. Ask if they have to follow ASFA in cases that are NOT IV-E
eligible. State law yes, federal law, NO dumbass.

In addition, this would prevent families from
complaining about services applied without BASIS.


They are probably constrained from using language referring to a
"whiner" but basically you qualify. They can drop whiners on their
asses instantly through a series of laws and case law findings.

Don't you think they KNOW that kind of thing ahead of time? Do you
think you are the first good-for-nothing freeloader they've run
across?

It also prevented us from presenting evidence that
one service provider committed paper FRAUD in their
"treatment paln".


Awwww...what "paper FRAUD" would that be, Greefor the Whiner?

These are all things the GRIEVANCE
process certainly should be dealing with but
are, according to Kevin Concannon of Iowa DHS, these
services problems are not eligible for a GRIEVANCE hearing.


Yep. Just like I said. If the child isn't IV-E eligible and or the
state of Iowa doesn't give a **** for Title I funding you can go ****
up a rope for all he cares.

A caseworker fabrication that I supposedly have a
""Sex Abuse History"" is a pretty horrible LIE.


Sure would like to have access to all the paperwork involved.

After they were shown paper proof that it is FALSE,
their refusal to correct it for 2.5 years is culpable.


What do you mean by "correct?" Remove the allegation? Not hardly. They
can and will leave it there, along with the "shower" reports, just in
case. If you gave them a copy of the "paper proof" they'll keep that
too, and likely check up on the veracity of said proof.

Such a LIE is never "In the Child's Best Interest".


On the contrary. Unless the "LIE" is proven a lie in a court of law
they are remiss to dismiss it themselves. They are NOT required to
make a judgement, but to build a case and fill up a case record.

Please help us regain control over the REAL Instrument
of Child Torture, Child Protective Services agencies
themselves. (See AFCARS data, Wallis v. Escondido)


Which "us" are you begging for help for? YOU?

Please snip judiciously so as to avoid overquoting.


Sure, bubbah, but I want to be sure and not miss a thing.

Greg in Iowa


"FAQ Sheet/PIQ Directive"
www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm
click on -Policy
-Child Welfare Policy Manual
-Title IV-B (also notice SACWIS info)
-Programmatic requirements
-Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair hearings...

or just enter the following URL or web link
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...?citID=178#686
[ verbatim, but some text converted to capital letters for EMPHASIS ]


Verbatim, but watch for where I insert ****

2. Question: Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair

hearings
for appeals related to services as well as financial claims?

Answer: Yes. The regulations at 1355.30 (p)(2) provide that the
procedures for hearings found in 45 CFR 205.10 shall apply to all
programs funded under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security

Act.
Fair hearings in relation to services as well as financial claims are
therefore covered under this regulation. The Department believes that
the close programmatic and fiscal relationship between titles IV-E

and
IV-B makes a fair hearings requirement appropriate.
The process for
fair hearings under section 205.10 is ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FOR
SERVICES HEARINGS AS FOR FINANCIAL HEARINGS. However, because the
substantive portion of the regulations provides no examples of

service
issues, the State has the option of modifying the context of the
hearing to ACCOMODATE SERVICES PROGRAM COMPLAINTS.


Oh, they do do they? Imagine...the state has the option. Shucks.

The hearing process
under either situation requires that recipients be advised of their
RIGHT TO A HEARING, that they may be represented by an authorized
representative, and that there be a timely notice of the date and
place of the hearing.


If the state has exercised its "option." Were you not advised of your
right to a hearing? Did you read everything the mother signed? Did she
even give you everything?

The following paragraphs, excerpted from the now obsolete section
1392.11, may be used as guidance for the hearings related to services
issues. "The State must have a provision for a fair hearing, under
which applicants and recipients may appeal DENIAL OF OR EXCLUSION

FROM
A SERVICE PROGRAM, FAILURE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF RECIPIENT CHOICE OF
SERVICE or a DETERMINATION THAT THE INDIVIDUALS MUST PARTICIPATE IN
THE SERVICE PROGRAM. The results of appeals must be formally recorded
and all applicants and recipients must be advised of their right to
appeal and the procedures for such appeal. THERE MUST BE A SYSTEM
THROUGH WHICH RECIPIENTS MAY PRESENT GRIEVANCES ABOUT THE OPERATION

OF
THE SERVICE PROGRAM."

Examples of service issues in title IV-B that might result in a
grievance or request for a hearing include: Agency failure to offer

or
provide APPROPRIATE PRE-PLACEMENT PREVENTATIVE SERVICES or
REUNIFICATION SERVICES; Agency may not have placed child in the most
FAMILY-LIKE setting in close proximity to his parents; Parents were
not INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHTS to participate in periodic

administrative
reviews; Agency failed to provide services AGREED to in case plan; A
REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC SERVICE IS DENIED or NOT ACTED UPON; and

Agency
failure to carry out terms of adoption assistance agreements.


So which of the above, or any others you imagine, did the state fail
to provide?

Source/Date: ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04 (10/26/83)

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


I know if you read this law it might not LOOK like it
applies to services directed by a Child Protection agency,
but if you look at the "PIQ Directive" above you will
see that indeed this law IS to be used for Administrative
Grievance Hearings regarding services in Child Protection
cases and involving state care of children.


If you haven't blown your right to a hearing by refusing to perform
parts or all of the service plan. Which one's did you screw up again?

I forget.

Long link wraps around, may need to be pieced together.
Link tested December 25, 2003 and working.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...00&TYP E=TEXT


snip............


Before the reader exhausts him or herself under the deluge of manure
you are prone to spread let me familarize you with your own situation
and why little or possibly NONE of your whining applies:

The state can, if it so deems, refuse to do anything other than the
barest of protective services. Why? Because they see a non-family
member the parent is unwilling to schuck themself of intruding in the
case.

When your "SO" wakes up and kicks your worthless ass OUT the state can
be held accountable then and only then to all these laws and policies.

YOU are the problem for "your family" Greegor, because you are NOT
FAMILY, ASSHOLE. Not by state law in Iowa.

You are a millstone around the neck of the stupid mother.

And YOU are terrified to let her come here and read what you have
writen and our replies.

Introduce us to your "SO" Greegor. In the words of your new butt
buddy: I double dare you.

You are a **** faced lying scumbag that is living off someone else's
loss and pain. And you love it because it makes you feel more
important than you are.

That's what brings you to this newsgroup. The sense of importance you
derive out of the mess you have made of someone else's life and all
the people that are ****ed off at you for it.

I am wrapping my present to you...20 feet of 3/4 inch hemp rope. Use
it in good health. Where may I post the package too please?

Kane
  #27  
Old December 26th 03, 02:23 AM
Greg Hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture

Kane wrote
Not only do I say so, I provide the link
to three websites that comfirm it. And on
one it uses the product flyer to give the
dimensions and components.


The only link I saw you post on this was
one to a no-spank propaganda site.
  #28  
Old December 26th 03, 02:28 AM
Dan Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture


"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
Kane wrote
Not only do I say so, I provide the link
to three websites that comfirm it. And on
one it uses the product flyer to give the
dimensions and components.


The only link I saw you post on this was
one to a no-spank propaganda site.


No one ever claimed you were the sharpest knife in the drawer...


  #29  
Old December 26th 03, 04:16 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture

On 25 Dec 2003 17:23:56 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Kane wrote
Not only do I say so, I provide the link
to three websites that comfirm it. And on
one it uses the product flyer to give the
dimensions and components.


The only link I saw you post on this was
one to a no-spank propaganda site.


Yah know, Greegor, you are such a poor hapless twit I seriously
considered, this being Xmas day and all...and you know being sure what
you believe in....that I'd cut you some slack when you stuck your head
up your ass ONCE AGAIN, but then I thought..."No," "he loves playing
the fool, just as all narcissists do." "I'd hardly be doing him a
favor to let this go by when he is just begging for it:"

So happy holidays, sport:

From:
(Kane)
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.parenting.solutions,mis c.kids,alt.support.child-protective-services
Subject: Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture
Date: 12 Dec 2003 00:37:06 -0800

On 12 Dec 2003 00:16:33 -0800,
(Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Kane bought an S&M fetish toy


I bought it, as I said, as a sample of the sickness that folks like
you wallow in.


snip....................

I bought it mail order from a magazine ad...and they maintain this
website, though I purchased through the hard copy.

Go to the page where this is shown:


(((((((((citation Ichi))))))))))))))

http://www.homeschooldigest.com/pradv.htm

Are you calling this company a porno shop fetishist toy peddler?


(((((((((citation yee))))))))))))))

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/

or these people the same? I'll put you in touch with Susan Lawrence.

The clerk says "Yeah, we hear that a lot."
as they hand Kane his change.


Tell it to the Lawrences:


(((((((((citation tatu))))))))))))))

http://nospank.net/lawrence.htm


who are trying to get this product taken off the market, and are also
the authors of the website,

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/


snip..........................

Figure out all three languages I counted in and you win the grand
prize....The Plant will bring Its Manure fork to you and pry your head
outchoreass forthwith.

In fact I believe I may have also posted the URL for the petition as
well, so that would make four page links to three webcites.

Go pick up some cans'nbottles. The exercise will do you good.


Kane
  #30  
Old December 26th 03, 04:18 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture

On 25 Dec 2003 17:23:56 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Kane wrote
Not only do I say so, I provide the link
to three websites that comfirm it. And on
one it uses the product flyer to give the
dimensions and components.


The only link I saw you post on this was
one to a no-spank propaganda site.


Yah know, Greegor, you are such a poor hapless twit I seriously
considered, this being Xmas day and all...and you know being sure what
you believe in....that I'd cut you some slack when you stuck your head
up your ass ONCE AGAIN, but then I thought..."No," "he loves playing
the fool, just as all narcissists do." "I'd hardly be doing him a
favor to let this go by when he is just begging for it:"

So happy holidays, sport:

From:
(Kane)
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.parenting.solutions,mis c.kids,alt.support.child-protective-services
Subject: Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture
Date: 12 Dec 2003 00:37:06 -0800

On 12 Dec 2003 00:16:33 -0800,
(Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Kane bought an S&M fetish toy


I bought it, as I said, as a sample of the sickness that folks like
you wallow in.


snip....................

I bought it mail order from a magazine ad...and they maintain this
website, though I purchased through the hard copy.

Go to the page where this is shown:


(((((((((citation Ichi))))))))))))))

http://www.homeschooldigest.com/pradv.htm

Are you calling this company a porno shop fetishist toy peddler?


(((((((((citation yee))))))))))))))

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/

or these people the same? I'll put you in touch with Susan Lawrence.

The clerk says "Yeah, we hear that a lot."
as they hand Kane his change.


Tell it to the Lawrences:


(((((((((citation tatu))))))))))))))

http://nospank.net/lawrence.htm


who are trying to get this product taken off the market, and are also
the authors of the website,

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/


snip..........................

Figure out all three languages I counted in and you win the grand
prize....The Plant will bring Its Manure fork to you and pry your head
outchoreass forthwith.

In fact I believe I may have also posted the URL for the petition as
well, so that would make four page links to three webcites.

Go pick up some cans'nbottles. The exercise will do you good.

Kane
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chemically beating children: THOR to hammer fluoridation finally? Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 18 July 25th 04 05:31 PM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 142 November 16th 03 08:46 PM
A Plant's Motivation? Kane Spanking 44 October 16th 03 01:51 PM
'Horrible' Home Kane General 1 July 16th 03 02:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:42 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.