|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#91
November 24th 03, 08:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
|
|
#92
November 25th 03, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
She probably wasn't even aware of
how terrified she was, consciously. Apparently CPS didn't think this was the case or, as the psychologist asked, why didn't they get her to a psychologist? Do you think CPS screwed up in that regard?  Regarding pedophile CPS caseworker Geoff Rantz: Colorado knew he was a pedophile? How would they know that before he offended again snip I said that he was a known pedophile. I did not say that they knew. They never looked. There's that legal phrase again: "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN". Both states had a "FAILURE TO PROTECT" but they won't get criminally charged for that as a parent would.
|
|
#94
November 26th 03, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Kane:
When somebody's JOB is to check background and they have ready access to such a search, but they don't bother, that is culpable. You know it, the courts know it, and agencies and caseworkers have been learning it over and over again. When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that I have a sex abuse history, and I don't, that should be perjury. At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should have looked it up on a computer. He did not. Why should this ass be immune in such a case? He should be free to LIE? (The 2 year unwillingness to correct makes it no longer a mere technical mistake.) A large number of parents who have dealt with CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE. Thank God the immunity is not absolute, no thanks to any STATE, however. Freedom to do their job? Give me a break. 38 visits to starving New Jersey kids and that is not a "Failure to Protect" criminal charge?
|
|
#95
November 26th 03, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
|
|
#96
November 27th 03, 02:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Kane wrote
If "somebody" screwed up then it is THERE culpability. Geez, man, lousy english? Capitalized also? Yep. Caseworkers are disgusted at malfeasance of any kind from coworkers. They don't get to go public with it usually. Do you know why? Yes, I'd like to see that. When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that I have a sex abuse history, and I don't, that should be perjury. Did they swear you have a sex abuse history, or that they know you sexually abused? If I read that you have a history and swear I read it that is all I'm swearing to, not that you sexually abused anyone. No, he swore that I had a sex abuse history, in reference to the past investigations which were not only unfounded but also NOT SEXUAL. At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should have looked it up on a computer. He did not. How do you know he didn't? Because it doesn't exist and I found the old documents which prove he lied about the past CPS investigation that found nothing. Why should this ass be immune in such a case? He was immune? You sued him and lost on an immunity argument? Not yet. CPS always claims the immmunity issue every time somebody drags them into court for stuff like this. Without fail. He should be free to LIE? You are. Coming from you that makes me an honest man. (The 2 year unwillingness to correct makes it no longer a mere technical mistake.) The 2 years may well represent waiting to see if more comes in on you. Having the claim there is a reminder this is an open investigation. When I read what you write here I too, just a plain old ordinary (but with a lot of interest in CPS activities) citizen also wonders if there isn't more. That's not investigation, that's voyeurism. You've got so much interest in CPS activities that you are obviously in some way one of the "whores of the court". You recently popped up with a new bit on your prior retraining order history. Brand new stuff to me. New to me also, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What else is going to surface. Was that a question? A large number of parents who have dealt with CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE. Then they should sue. And bring criminal charges anyway. Civilians can't bring criminal charges. The Prosecutor would do that. They will not prosecute the caseworker. WHAT? Now you are admitting that a page of ranting about the immunity of the state doesn't constitute the absolute power of the state you were saying it did? Very Difficult and expensive. What IS up with you? How much time have you done in lockup, Greg? You first. Freedom to do their job? Yes. That is exactly the case. You want them completely crippled so you can ply your hobby with little girls in showers. Never was a hobby, just another chore. You did FAR WORSE when you went into a shower naked in front of your kids. Your danglies must have been about eye level for the kids. Was that a hobby for you?
|
|
#97
November 27th 03, 02:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
National Council on Family Relations, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2003.
Harms to Children and Parents Inherent to Abuse Investigations Sandra Mira and Gordon E. Finley ) Department of Psychology, Florida International University Abstract Beginning in the 1960's, national concern arose regarding a perceived crisis of child abuse and neglect. Beginning in the 1980's, a counter-concern also arose regarding a perceived crisis of large numbers of unfounded and false abuse allegations along with the inherently negative consequences of these investigations for children and parents. This poster briefly lists the existing practice and policy based literature on these negative impacts, calls for a research based literature focusing on the harms caused by unfounded or false abuse investigations for children and parents, and suggests policy changes based on what we currently know. Introduction Beginning in the 1960's, national concern arose which regarded child abuse to be a crisis of great magnitude. Public policy was reevaluated, new laws were passed, and Child Protective Service units were formed to investigate the rising flood of abuse allegations. The implicit, and sometimes explicit, assumption was that these were "victimless" investigations and were necessary to ferret out abuse, "save" children, and punish wrongdoers - all in the name of the "best interest of the child" (Finley, 2002a). Beginning in the 1980's, however, a counter-trend emerged which argued that such investigations were far from harmless, far from victimless, and that they had grave consequences for the children under investigation as well as their parents. If the number of investigations closed with the designation of unfounded or false were small, the issues raised here would be of minor consequence. Unfortunately, and although the percentages vary by state, the percentage of abuse cases investigated and closed with the designation of unfounded or false usually substantially exceeds 50%. Thus, when (a) there are substantial harms and negative consequences inherent to the investigations of unfounded and false abuse allegations for children and parents and (b) the number of unfounded or false outcomes is high, we have a new crisis - a crisis of unfounded and false abuse reports and investigations (Finley, 2002b). Most of the articles cited below argue: (a) that the abuse field long has been in denial regarding the harms and consequences of these investigations, (b) that it is long past time to balance the crisis to save children and the crisis to protect the due process rights of the accused, and (c) that the well-being of both children and parents is not being well served by the present system (Finley, 2002a, 2002b). There also is the implicit argument that this denial may be in the service of political agendas as well as the substantial financial profits for those who toil in the domestic violence, divorce, and forensic mental health industries. Indeed, the suppression of the literature reporting the harms and consequences of abuse investigations has been so effective that an exhaustive computerized literature search yielded only about two dozen professional articles directly on the topic. By contrast, the writings and workshops focused on "saving" children from abuse and neglect number in the tens of thousands. Those motivated to "save" children (Finley, 2002a), should consider first the harms and consequences of abuse investigations for children. The major harms cited in the literature and the authors citing them are cryptically grouped and listed below. Harms and Consequences for Children 1. The most potent consequence is the marginalization or severing of the parent-child relationship. A previously healthy parent child relationship may be disrupted, become defensive or distant, or even terminated (Besharov, 1985; Dillon, 1987; Finley, 2003; Green & Schetky, 1988; Patterson, 1991; Robin, 1992; Wakefield & Underwager, 1991). 2. There may be a separation from a parent (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Fincham, et. al., 1994; Finley, 2002b; Green, 1991; Hickman & Reynolds, 1994; Rutter, 1971; Wong, 1989). 3. There may be foster care with sometimes tragic consequences including: abuse, neglect, disappearance, and death (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Duquette, 1982; Fincham, et. al., 1994; Finley, 2002b; Robin, 1992). 4. Investigative interviews with officials are inherently stressful, repetitive, unsettling, and sometimes entail threats, harassment, coercive techniques and often a large number of individuals (Fincham, et. al., 1994; Hickman & Reynolds, 1994; Lipovsky, 1994; Parker, 1982; Wakefield and Underwager, 1991; and Weiss & Berg, 1982). 5. The child who testifies in court may experience severe psychological stress (Lipovsky, 1994; Parker, 1982; Weiss & Berg, 1982). Genital examinations are highly stressful often producing anxiety, fear, or anger (Berson, et al, 1993; Fincham, et .al., 1994; Robin, 1992). 6. Children sometimes are placed in coercive psychotherapy to overcome "denial" and required to remain in "treatment" until molestation is described (Green, 1991; Wakefield & Underwager, 1991). Likewise, the accusing parent can induce trauma in the child, which leads to a confused sense of reality (Green, 1991). 7. A variety of negative psychosocial outcomes may occur including PTSD, depression, loss of appetite, listlessness, loss of enjoyment of play, sleep disturbances, school failure, disturbances in psychosexual development, and developing a victim mentality (Hickman & Reynolds, 1994). Children also can suffer a sense of notoriety for having a parent who was accused of being a sex offender (Dillon 1987). Harms and Consequences for the Accused Parent 1. The presumption of guilt becomes a taken-for-granted reality often based on nothing more than an anonymous report and before an investigative decision is rendered. There also is an absence of due process for the accused (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Green, 1991; Green & Schetky, 1988; Robin, 1992). 2. In divorce and custody conflicts, the mother often obtains sole custody, terminates visitation, terminates paternal rights, and harasses the noncustodial parent (Benedek & Schetky, 1985; Besharov, 1985, 1988; Finley, 2003; Patterson, 1991; Wong, 1989). Contact between father and child can be abruptly terminated (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Brooks & Milchman, 1991; Finley, 2002b, 2003; Green, 1991; Patterson, 1991) or the father can be placed under long-term court supervision (Besharov, 1985, 1988). These events can induce stress, loss of self-confidence, mistrust, fear of losing one's children, and anger at those who are perceived as responsible for the report (Robin, 1992) as well as the marginalization or severing of the parent child relationship (Finley, 2003). 3. The parent is stigmatized and their reputation put into question even if they later are found innocent (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Brooks & Milchman, 1991; Dillon, 1987; Green, 1991; Green & Schetky, 1988; Patterson, 1991; Robin, 1992; Wong, 1989). 4. A great deal of time and money is spent on legal defense (Besharov, 1985; Dillon, 1987; Green, 1991; Patterson, 1991; Robin, 1992; Wong, 1989). 5. Employment may be terminated and a professional reputation destroyed (Fincham, et. al., 1994; Green, 1991; Green & Schetky, 1988; Robin, 1992; Wong, 1989). 6. The parent may be abandoned by friends and suffer social isolation, court stresses, or wrongful incarceration (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Duquette, 1982; Green & Schetky, 1988; Robin, 1992). The falsely accused also may experience the same type of symptoms as the truly abused including feelings of: trauma, betrayal, powerlessness, stigmatization, and additional symptoms such as anxiety, fear, difficulty in resuming normal activities, obsessive thoughts about the event, eating and sleeping difficulties, and depression (Robin, 1992). At the end of the road, there may be suicide (Fincham et. al., 1994). 7. Finally, Farrell (2001) summarizes many of these points when he argues that a charge of child abuse creates twelve guarantees of child abuse independent of the truth or falseness of the charge: Image of parent transformed from trusted-loved-one to possibly-untrustworthy-criminal-and-abuser; loss of innocence; suspicion and mistrust for all men (or women); repeated interrogations by police, psychologists, and welfare agencies; attacked as being in "denial" if the child denies abuse; parents are seen as each other's enemies; played off by one parent against the other; feeling personally responsible for driving the family apart; father spends approximately $75,000 for lawyers, psychological testing, and expert witnesses leading to money conflicts or poverty and often dad is fired; child feels powerless to prevent his own stability from being undermined; the child is deprived of touching by the charged parent; child feels that neighbors and schoolmates think of the accused parent as a criminal; and the child is empowered to get the parent into legal trouble any time the parent does something the child does not like (Farrell, 2001, 204-205). Implications for Research Unfortunately, due to the absence of empirical research, it is necessary to re-issue the now decade old call to: "compare abused children to children reported to CPS but whose cases turned out to be unfounded. This comparison is critical in separating the possible impact of abuse from the potential impact of professionals' response to the abuse" (Fincham et .al., 1994, 250). Implications for Practice and Policy The four most critical implications for practice and policy stemming from the literature reviewed above are that: (a) we must seek to balance an overzealous search for abuse and neglect with the rights of due process for the accused by replacing the family court standard of the "best interest of the child" (Finley, 2002a) with the criminal court standards of due process; (b) we must carefully re-examine our "presumptions" regarding guilt, innocence, and truthfulness; (c) we must forgo denial and recognize not only that more than half of the abuse and neglect allegations are unfounded or false but also that these investigations inherently cause harms to children and parents; and (d) most critically, we must recognize that, even if the investigations turn out to be unfounded or false, the harms inherent to these investigations remain with - and influence the lives of - children, fathers, and mothers for the balance of their lives. References Benedek, E.P., & Schetky, D.H. (1985). Allegations of sexual abuse in child custody and visitation disputes. In D.H. Schetky & E.B. Benedek (Eds.), Emerging issues in child psychiatry and the law. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Berson, N.L., Herman-Giddens, M.E., & Frothingham, T.E. (1993). Children's perceptions of genital examinations during sexual abuse evaluations. Child Welfare League of America,72, 41-49. Besharov, D.J. (1985). "Doing Something" About Child Abuse: The Need to Narrow the Grounds for State Intervention. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 8, 539-589. Besharov, D. (1988). The central dilemma: Protecting abused children while protecting innocent parents. In H. Wakefield & R. Underwager (Eds.), Accusations of child sexual abuse (pp.3-15). Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Brooks, C.M. & Milchman, M.S. (1991). Child Sexual Abuse Allegations during Custody Litigation: Conflicts between Mental Health Expert Witnesses and the Law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 21-32. Dillon, K.M. (1987). False sexual abuse allegations: Causes and concerns. Social Work, 32(6), 540-541. Duquette, D. (1982). Protecting individual liberties in the context of screening for child abuse. In Starr, R.H., Child abuse prediction: Policy implications (pp.191-204). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company. Fincham, F.D., Beach, S.R.H., Moore, T., and Diener, C. (1994). The professional response to child sexual abuse: Whose interests are served? Family Relations, 43, 244-254. Fincham, F.D., Beach, S.R.H., Moore, T., and Diener, C. (1994). Child sexual abuse: Finding common ground. Family Relations, 43, 264- 266. Farrell, W. (2001). Father and child reunion. New York: Tarcher/Putnam. Finley, G.E. (2002a). The best interest of the child and the eye of the beholder. [Review of C. Panter- Brick & M.T. Smith (Eds.) Abandoned Children.] ContemporaryPsychology APA REVIEW OF BOOKS, 47 (5), 629-631. Finley, G.E. (2002b). Family and state in the context of abuse and neglect: An input-output analysis. Adoption Quarterly, 5 (4), 1-6. Finley, G.E. (2003). Father-child relationships following divorce. In J.R. Miller, R. M. Lerner, L.B. Schiamberg, & P.M. Anderson (Eds.) Human ecology, Volume 1: A - H. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, pp. 291-293. Green, A.H. (1991). Factors contributing to false allegations of child sexual abuse in custody disputes. Child & Youth Services, 15(2), 177- 189. Green, A.H. & Schetky, D.H. (1988). True and false allegations of child sexual abuse. In D.H. Schetky & A.H. Green, Child sexual abuse (pp.104-124). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Hickman, J.A. & Reynolds, C.R. (1994). Effects of false allegations of sexual abuse on children and families. In B. Threatt (Ed.), Evaluating children's allegations of sexual assault. Austin: Texas Legal Resource Center for Children and Travis County Bar Association. Lipovsky, J.A. (1994). The Impact of Court on Children: Research Finding and Practical Recommendations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 238-257. Parker, J.Y. (1982). The Rights of Child Witnesses: Is the Court a Protector or Perpetrator? New England Law Review, 17, 643-717. Patterson, D.H. (1991). The other victim: The falsely accused parent in a sexual abuse custody case. Journal of family law, 30(4), 919-941. Robin, M. (1992). The trauma of false allegations of sexual abuse. In E.C. Viano (Ed.), Critical issues in victimology: International perspectives (pp. 140-152), New York: Springer. Rutter, M. (1971). Parent-child separation: Psychological effects on the Children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (12), 233-260. Wakefield, M.A. & Underwager, R. (1991). Sexual abuse allegations in divorce and custody disputes. Behavioral sciences and the law, 9, 451-468. Weiss, E.H. and Berg, R.F. (1982). Child Psychiatry and Law: Child Victims of Sexual Assault: Impact of Court Procedures. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 513-518. Wong, D. (1989). False allegations of child abuse: The other side of the tragedy. Pediatric nursing¸ 13(5), 329-333.
|
|
#98
November 27th 03, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that
I have a sex abuse history, and I don't, that should be perjury. Did they swear you have a sex abuse history, or that they know you sexually abused? If I read that you have a history and swear I read it that is all I'm swearing to, not that you sexually abused anyone. No, he swore that I had a sex abuse history, in reference to the past investigations which were not only unfounded but also NOT SEXUAL. Barbeque time, if you really wanted the child back. But hey, don't listen to Dan, he's just successful. Can't have that, now can we, Whore. Imagine your difficulty if the child returned. Dan has offered no useful suggestions on how to force blood from a stone. Dan? At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should have looked it up on a computer. He did not. How do you know he didn't? Because it doesn't exist and I found the old documents which prove he lied about the past CPS investigation that found nothing. And you don't know how to use them other than to come here screeching "EVIL CPS EVIL CPS?" Ignored by CPS. Ignored in Juvenile Court. Dan? What a duplicitious thug you are. It's obvious that you don't want that child back that I'm starting to think you've convinced the mother that if she can hold out you are going to make her rich with a state settlement. I would MUCH RATHER put the caseworker who LIED in jail. I'll bet that's it. It fits your profile and your admissions. Right. In your own anonymous way you determined that. What's holdin' you up, besides your ****filled drawers? CPS always claims the immmunity issue every time somebody drags them into court for stuff like this. Well, they can claim a mistake, and if it wasn't, your lawyer should be able to take them apart. We haven't seen a lawyer willing to get up off their state paid arse and do diddly squat. The ones we have seen have been the sorriest bunch of ass draggers I've ever seen in suits. They can claim irrelevance to the claim you are making, such as THAT is no longer the reason they are not returning the child. A tactic you endorse? I'd say you ought to go for it if you are sure you have a case. Even if you are not. I'd love to see what you do in the clinch. I kinda thought making little girls let you be their towelboy-shampoogirl and making them take cold showers had more stink of voyeurism. Yes, it would if that was what took place, but it was not. You recently popped up with a new bit on your prior retraining order history. Brand new stuff to me. New to me also, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You didn't talk recently about your wife or was it a prior "fiance" having a restraining order against you? Nope. So it seems these new revelations you yapped about were just some fairy tale. This is a lot like why caseworkers mucking around in peoples LIVES is a dangerous thing. Somebody who can't keep facts straight and turns it into glorified gossip can be extremely dangerous to families. highly likely fact. Here's a "thinking error" again. As long as you post here, trying to convince us, and possibly yourself, that you are the victim in the mother/child/CPS escapade you will blow it and spill more. You are carefull, and neurotically, building around yourself, lying to yourself, a victim state of mind so that you can keep your indignation quotient up for your suit against CPS. I did not MAKE CPS side with a Prozac patient against us. I did not MAKE CPS fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History". We have both admitted that there are things we could have done better. We will NOT melt into quivering masses of jelly over the mistakes we made, especially since small things have been used to cause GREAT HARM. A simple warning would have been enough. A stated requirement would have been enough. Standards for clutter would have helped. But the RIGGED services, the bitchy caseworker, the huge lies they have deliberately NOT corrected, these show us malevolent intent. A large number of parents who have dealt with CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE. Then they should sue. And bring criminal charges anyway. Civilians can't bring criminal charges. A civilian can't sign a complaint against another person for actions that are criminal? Our country is in some trouble. You are being a nit picking dip**** yet again. Why do you do that when you have been called on your bull****? You use sophistry constantly, so get used to nit picking. The Prosecutor would do that. And in response to your filing a complaint, no? Dip**** nitpicker caught at it. Don't you know that you can't get away with anything here. Someone, me mostly, Dan comes in second (R R R R), others from time to time, will call you on your crap. They will not prosecute the caseworker. Liar. The media as posted by your other Dip**** Tree buddy proves you wrong time and again. Started by the state prosecutor. Caseworkers have been successfully prosecuted. And on many kinds of charges. Never started by a parent. Only when started by the state itself. You are, as I've said many a time, a liar. Or stupid. Or abysmally ignorant. Or neurotic as a lonesome puppy. But you can't decide? If you can't decide then why have you asserted I am a liar? Stating something you apparently haven't decided is so would make you a liar. Oh, now it's difficult and expensive. No longer absolute immunity. Absolute immunity applies to actions within their manual. If they violate their manual and the law, they then have partial immunity. Caseworkers are under a mixture of partial and absolute. It's called "qualified immunity" I think. You want the reader Is anybody reading this dreck? Kane wrote to think there is something perverse in my showering with my own children... Could you please SAY THAT A LITTLE LOUDER, KANE?
|
|
#99
November 27th 03, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Greg Hanson" wrote in message om... When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that I have a sex abuse history, and I don't, that should be perjury. Did they swear you have a sex abuse history, or that they know you sexually abused? If I read that you have a history and swear I read it that is all I'm swearing to, not that you sexually abused anyone. No, he swore that I had a sex abuse history, in reference to the past investigations which were not only unfounded but also NOT SEXUAL. Barbeque time, if you really wanted the child back. But hey, don't listen to Dan, he's just successful. Can't have that, now can we, Whore. Imagine your difficulty if the child returned. Dan has offered no useful suggestions on how to force blood from a stone. Dan? I don't know how to get blood from a stone. But my tactics and strategy for getting children back from CPS is in direct opposition to everything you've done.
|
|
#100
November 28th 03, 04:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On 27 Nov 2003 08:25:18 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote: When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that I have a sex abuse history, and I don't, that should be perjury. Did they swear you have a sex abuse history, or that they know you sexually abused? If I read that you have a history and swear I read it that is all I'm swearing to, not that you sexually abused anyone. No, he swore that I had a sex abuse history, in reference to the past investigations which were not only unfounded but also NOT SEXUAL. Barbeque time, if you really wanted the child back. But hey, don't listen to Dan, he's just successful. Can't have that, now can we, Whore. Imagine your difficulty if the child returned. Dan has offered no useful suggestions on how to force blood from a stone. Dan? You are correct. He has on how to force CPS and the courts to return children and get abuse findings unfounded. "Blood from a stone" strongly suggests you are in this for the money. I've never seen Dan, beyond possibly saying something on the order of "So sue 'em" offer advice on how to get money out of the state. That's not was he wishes to do here, if I understand correctly. So because he won't do what YOU want you won't use what he is good at? We know that of course, but I thought I'd remind you. 1 At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should have looked it up on a computer. He did not. How do you know he didn't? Because it doesn't exist and I found the old documents which prove he lied about the past CPS investigation that found nothing. And you don't know how to use them other than to come here screeching "EVIL CPS EVIL CPS?" Ignored by CPS. When they are delivered in the manner in which you delivered your demands in the Motion it is no wonder. I think you were lucky to be heard at all, if you were. Ignored in Juvenile Court. Same as above. Dan? I can't answer for Dan but I can give my opinion. You are so obviously a litiginous little creep, with delusions of getting off the state and willing ot sacrifice a child and mother connection to do the court is giving you ZERO credibility. Your "Motion" reeks of it. The deliberate demands, the pompous pronouncements, the outrageous accusations against people, the sick language about the grandmother, the things you write here (it's my bet some worker from your area has heard about you here and could well have googled your posts, copied and dropped them off with the court clerk....wouldn't surprize me...it's a free country after all.) What a duplicitious thug you are. It's obvious that you don't want that child back that I'm starting to think you've convinced the mother that if she can hold out you are going to make her rich with a state settlement. I would MUCH RATHER put the caseworker who LIED in jail. Bull****. If I offered you 10 k right now to walk and drop the whole thing you couldn't pack fast enough. You are too obvious you stinking Whore. I'll bet that's it. It fits your profile and your admissions. Right. In your own anonymous way you determined that. Yep...right along with a few others that observe you here and make it plan to you they think the same of you. What's holdin' you up, besides your ****filled drawers? CPS always claims the immmunity issue every time somebody drags them into court for stuff like this. Well, they can claim a mistake, and if it wasn't, your lawyer should be able to take them apart. We haven't seen a lawyer willing to get up off their state paid arse and do diddly squat. I haven't seen a "fiance" get up off his lazy unemployed ass, get a job, and pay for a better lawyer. Have you noticed that yet? You haven't had a kid there, and NO responsibilities for 2+ years, and you still won't go out and earn enough to pay a better lawyer. So much for defending "YOUR, 'family'" Dedicated, aren't you. The ones we have seen have been the sorriest bunch of ass draggers I've ever seen in suits. Well, check out what they get paid. You are just a stop gap until they can get into a law firm, or you are pro bono for a more fully employed lawyer that does public service. They can claim irrelevance to the claim you are making, such as THAT is no longer the reason they are not returning the child. A tactic you endorse? It isn't up to me. But in YOUR particular case, I'd recommend immediate arrest and a death penalty trial. You destroyed a family for your greed and laziness. And the chance you can milk the state, much more than you are currently milking the mother. You are a "bummer calf." A bully that took the love of a mother from the child, and the support as well. I think they have been more than patient with you, asshole, considering what it's cost the child...I'm reaching the point where I can't anything but the deepest pity for the mother, or if she knows what she is doing, the deepest disgust. I'd say you ought to go for it if you are sure you have a case. Even if you are not. I'd love to see what you do in the clinch. I kinda thought making little girls let you be their towelboy-shampoogirl and making them take cold showers had more stink of voyeurism. Yes, it would if that was what took place, but it was not. Says you. You had a hundred other choices about how to handle the problem. One of which was to let the girl shower herself, after you left her towels. This is, according to you, a child of nearly genius capacity. And even the punishment, you sick ****, could have been different..but no, it had to be a shower, and you had to bring towels to a child of six and more, and you had to stand by while she shampooed instead of simply giving her instructions to go back and rinse the shampoo out. No, Greeg, you wanted to be there in the bathroom. You recently popped up with a new bit on your prior retraining order history. Brand new stuff to me. New to me also, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You didn't talk recently about your wife or was it a prior "fiance" having a restraining order against you? Nope. So it seems these new revelations you yapped about were just some fairy tale. Then why did you say, about a domestic violence complaint, to Dan, it was twice then it was once? You could have easily, instead of denying the restraining order admitted it was a domestic violence beef. Why is it you hold out so on information, teasing, teasing, teasing, until you finally stupidly blurt it out? This is a lot like why caseworkers mucking around in peoples LIVES is a dangerous thing. How is it "a lot like why" "mucking?" Somebody who can't keep facts straight and turns it into glorified gossip can be extremely dangerous to families. And a big fat hole out of the system for the child and the parents, and even for stupid selfish little pricks like you...if that was what you wanted. You are looking for something you think you have a chance of sueing for...and no matter the cost to mother and child. highly likely fact. Here's a "thinking error" again. Speculation is not a ""thinking error."" That is why I used the word "likely." As long as you post here, trying to convince us, and possibly yourself, that you are the victim in the mother/child/CPS escapade you will blow it and spill more. You are carefull, and neurotically, building around yourself, lying to yourself, a victim state of mind so that you can keep your indignation quotient up for your suit against CPS. I did not MAKE CPS side with a Prozac patient against us. I did not MAKE CPS fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History". You love it. You love it. You can't and don't want to counter it. You just are ragingly frustrated that you can't figure out how to make it a civil case. Poor little Greegor. We have both admitted that there are things we could have done better. I should hope. We will NOT melt into quivering masses of jelly over the mistakes we made, especially since small things have been used to cause GREAT HARM. Translation:"no matter how innocuous the demands of CPS and the judge we will not comply as the child is not the point here...my ego and my pocketbook are." A simple warning would have been enough. "Now that you have been in the bathroom with the naked child X number of times, don't do it again." Yeah, that's sure how CPS can protect children from predatory pedaphiles. Sure, that's it. A stated requirement would have been enough. "If we catch you again we will give you another warning." That's even better. Like you, a grown adult male, with the mind of a creepy hormone impaired adolescent (aren't they darling though?) are unable to figure out you have no business in the bathroom with an unrelated female six year old with NO ONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE. Standards for clutter would have helped. I'll give you one. Get your **** out of the house that doesn't belong to you and most especially OUT OF THE CHILDS TINY BEDROOM IN A SINGLEWIDE MOBILE HOME, you twit. But the RIGGED services, Oh, how do you "rig" an order to attend, what is obviously badly needed, parenting classes for the little male whore living with the mother sans matrimony" the bitchy caseworker, I would have much preferred a six foot 4 hairly ape that would check quick and make sure no one was looking and popped you a hefty one to your fat lazy gut. I'm surprised the worker doesn't spit on you. It's a credit to her professionalism. Thank heaven's for your sake I'm not a CPS caseworker and more especially not your girl friend's. the huge lies they have deliberately NOT corrected, these show us malevolent intent. They are holding they file open on you to see what comes up. I certainly would consider that a smart thing to do. They DON'T HAVE TO unless you can bring a successful court challenge, just like Dan showed you and many others how to do. And even then I doubt they are required to remove their information on YOU an unrelated adult squating in the house. A large number of parents who have dealt with CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE. Then they should sue. And bring criminal charges anyway. Civilians can't bring criminal charges. A civilian can't sign a complaint against another person for actions that are criminal? Our country is in some trouble. You are being a nit picking dip**** yet again. Why do you do that when you have been called on your bull****? You use sophistry constantly, so get used to nit picking. Bull****. I call it like it is. That may be too sophisticated for you but it isn't "sophistry." My arguments aren't fallacious. They are factual. Hence sophistry is the incorrect term. I just see through your highly transparent veneer of ****. The Prosecutor would do that. And in response to your filing a complaint, no? Dip**** nitpicker caught at it. Don't you know that you can't get away with anything here. Someone, me mostly, Dan comes in second (R R R R), others from time to time, will call you on your crap. They will not prosecute the caseworker. Liar. The media as posted by your other Dip**** Tree buddy proves you wrong time and again. Started by the state prosecutor. Which is completely incomprehensible dribbling diarrhea considering th three previous statements. Caseworkers have been successfully prosecuted. And on many kinds of charges. Never started by a parent. Only when started by the state itself. Oh...? You better call or write real quick. These folks, one of the more rabid anti CPS groups at their web site made the claim: http://www.beanswers.com/pages/miscinfo.htm page to the bottom. LAWSUITS (THE TORT CLAIM) "It is now possible for parents to sue agencies and their personnel. Many states have already allowed such lawsuits, and parents have often won them. " Were they lying, Whore, or were you? Or are you just too stupid to look up things so easily found in the Web before you run off at the mouth. Watch folks. Yet another claim by the asshole child abuser displacer shot down that he will suddenly lose complete interest in. And for your information The State rarely starts civil suits on behalf of parents that don't themselves file a complaint and intent to sue through an attorney. So your statement is yet another weaseling bit of SOPHISTRY... a fallacious attempt to con the reader. You are, as I've said many a time, a liar. Or stupid. Or abysmally ignorant. Or neurotic as a lonesome puppy. But you can't decide? No. You put on so many faces here. If you can't decide then why have you asserted I am a liar? That is obvious. All too obvious. I just caught you in one above. Stating something you apparently haven't decided is so would make you a liar. I beg your pardon? Would you mind terribly doing a dictionary search for us and show where a speculative statement is a lie, or stating they one doesn't know something but is considering alternatives is a lie? Are you out of your freekin' mind? Oh, now it's difficult and expensive. No longer absolute immunity. Absolute immunity applies to actions within their manual. Well, do you think they should be able to do their work or not. If a cop, butcher, doctor, lawyer, adheres to their standards and it turns out badly for the patient, customer, client, the professional, with no intent to harm, should be paying you off? The trick is to find intent of harm. THAT is what you assholes keep crying about. You want some one sued when they meant no harm and did exactly as stipulated as a professional standard, even under the law. If they violate their manual and the law, they then have partial immunity. Not if there was intent to harm, and you can prove it. Caseworkers are under a mixture of partial and absolute. Not if you can prove intent to harm. You and your little army of anti CPS dipwads want to confuse the issue, so you make these stupid claims. It's called "qualified immunity" I think. Yes, they have "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY." So do parents. I can't spank their child, but they can. The qualification is that they are the paretn. The workers qualification is that they are a state worker. Without that immunity they cannot perform their duties. When the **** up...they are YOURS, dummy...as Dan has proven time and time again...and they don't even have to have had BAD INTENT. You don't want the child back, you want to sue and the child be damned. It's so obvious now you cannot possibly weasel your way out of people seeing it plainly. You want the reader Is anybody reading this dreck? You hope not. I hope they are so that the next time you jump on a new poster, as is your habit, to try and mislead them and subvert them you will be even MORE easily exposed for the lying sneaking child abusing mother ****ing-up smelly asshole you really are. Kane wrote to think there is something perverse in my showering with my own children... Could you please SAY THAT A LITTLE LOUDER, KANE? Sure, only I won't arfully snip to make me look like a perv, as NON of us have had to snip you to show you as the perv YOU ARE You have tried to make people think that my showering with my children until they were old enough, LONG BEFORE SIX, to notice our sexual differences is perverse. I can understand why you must have to not go out to work or deal with anyone in the real world by the refund clerk at the supermarket. You are such a loser it's beat you into retreat. If you are this hapless, and a loser with me in a silly ass newsgroup, what must your failures look like in real life? Oh, wait, you've found someone to share your loser victim role, haven't you now: The mother. By the way, you carefully have avoided, snipped I imagine, the question I asked: Given that YOU had to shower and attend the child when she was there, before you came into the household, while the mother was working, who supplied child care? Betcha snip it again to avoid answering, eh? Thought up a good enough lie yet... Try it out on us. I've a hunch there are four or five of us just waiting to see your newest bit of sick nonsense. Kane
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| "Parenting Without Punishing" | Chris | General | 328 | July 1st 04 05:59 AM |
| Debate on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | June 12th 04 08:30 PM |
| | | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
| || U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 0 | October 9th 03 08:35 PM |
Linear Mode
