If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CHILD'S DEATH IN OVERCROWDED FOSTER HOME HIGHLIGHTS STATEWIDE PROBLEM
http://www.childrensrights.org/PDF/08-03-01.pdf
August 3, 2001 CHILD'S DEATH IN OVERCROWDED FOSTER HOME HIGHLIGHTS STATEWIDE PROBLEM; ADVOCATES CALL FOR STRIKE FORCE TO INVESTIGATE OVERCROWDING AND ABUSE BY FOSTER PARENTS. Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force. The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month. http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wexwimpy wrote: http://www.childrensrights.org/PDF/08-03-01.pdf August 3, 2001 CHILD'S DEATH IN OVERCROWDED FOSTER HOME HIGHLIGHTS STATEWIDE PROBLEM; ADVOCATES CALL FOR STRIKE FORCE TO INVESTIGATE OVERCROWDING AND ABUSE BY FOSTER PARENTS. Kane: Overcrowding CAN'T be a problem. I have it on good authority. I would have sworn someone in this ng, an obvious 'authority,' claimed that due to changes in child abuse investigations (LEs being used instead of caseworkers, except of course the LEs hired caseworkers to 'team' with them) foster populations were reducing in this state. Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in such things. 0:- Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force. The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month. http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kane writes:
Kane: Overcrowding CAN'T be a problem. I have it on good authority. Hi, Kane, Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including Florida, where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of murdering one her wards. I would have sworn someone in this ng, an obvious 'authority,' claimed that due to changes in child abuse investigations (LEs being used instead of caseworkers, except of course the LEs hired caseworkers to 'team' with them) foster populations were reducing in this state. While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties, foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state. The same is true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely would require drastic reduction. A lot of children need to be allowed to go home to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force uneeded services need to stay at home. In the newsstory you cut and paste below, child advocates are seeking a federal investigation of foster homes with more than 5 children. This comes after a foster carer is alledged to have murdered one of the state wards in her care. Many members of this newsgroup have discussed at great length the insanity of placing children who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED as victims of maltreatment into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system. Many children are being ripped from their families and put into state custody for the wrong reasons, which led to the overcrowding to begin with. Children should not be held hostage to force their parents to accept the sanctions/services CPS is peddling. Why on earth would CPS forcibly remove 96,000 children its workers unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect in 2002 and place them with strangers, where children are abused at rates eight to ten times that of children living outside of the foster care system? Ron tells us that those 96,000 children were voluntarily placed into foster care by their parents sometime during the investigation or afterwards. We know that is not true, of course. But the real reason is almost as bizarre and stands as the bewitching foundation for systemic, institutional child abuse. Because agencies need a "stick" to force clients to accept their wares, children are being abused by the very agencies mandated to protect them. We learn in another current thread in this newsgroup that children are being taken into state custody because their parents are not "cooperative" with workers. How is it even remotely justifyable to forcibly take children from their families and incarcerate them because their parents are not playing the game the way caseworkers want them to? Too many children are being placed into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system for the wrong reasons. Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in such things. The institutional child abuse occuring in state care is far too staggering for anyone to be mistaken. We may disagree as to the cause of the magnitude of abuse children suffer in state care, but none of us are mistaken as to its existance. Your posted newsstory is just another in an almost daily journal of such abuse. In this case, a grass roots group of child advocates is attempting to do something about it. Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force. The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month. http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action. Children's Rights, the organization that runs the website you cited, has done much to seek a solution to the abuse of children by foster carers. They have brought class action lawsuits against more than a dozen CPS jurisdictions across this country and won every one of them. Many agencies' foster care systems are under the stewardship of federal courts because of the widespread mistreatment of foster children Children's Rights has proven in court. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I had written:
While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties, foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state. The same is true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely would require drastic reduction. A lot of children need to be allowed to go home to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force uneeded services need to stay at home. To which, Ron responds: Thats right doug, send them home to their families, where the chances or additional abuse, neglect, or even death are vastly higher. Lets face it doug, what is needed is more foster homes, not sending the kids home to be abused or neglected again, or even killed. Hi, Ron, We both know that there are some children who are abused by their parents and have to be removed. I said nothing about sending these children home to be reabused. As you can see above in the quotation to which you reply, I was talking about children who were removed from homes CPS itself unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or even the risk of abuse/neglect. 96,000 "non-victims" were removed from families CPS unsubstantiated in 2002. Since CPS itself found no evidence to suspect that these children were abused/neglected/at risk of abuse/at risk of neglect in the first place, letting them go home would not be subjecting them to additional abuse/neglect. I was talking about unsubstantiated children who now stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to hold over their parents. I was talking about children who have been placed in state custody because workers who threatened parents they deemed innocent of abuse/neglect to take services and ended up having to use the stick. I was talking about children who were removed from their homes because their parents didn't "cooperate" the way workers wanted them to. Those children -- all of them -- should be allowed to go home to their families. Now. Mostly because CPS determined they were never abused or at risk of abuse in their homes. And because they are now at increased risk of abuse in state custody. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug" wrote in message ... Kane writes: Kane: Overcrowding CAN'T be a problem. I have it on good authority. Hi, Kane, Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including Florida, where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of murdering one her wards. I would have sworn someone in this ng, an obvious 'authority,' claimed that due to changes in child abuse investigations (LEs being used instead of caseworkers, except of course the LEs hired caseworkers to 'team' with them) foster populations were reducing in this state. While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties, foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state. The same is true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely would require drastic reduction. A lot of children need to be allowed to go home to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force uneeded services need to stay at home. Thats right doug, send them home to their families, where the chances or additional abuse, neglect, or even death are vastly higher. Lets face it doug, what is needed is more foster homes, not sending the kids home to be abused or neglected again, or even killed. Ron |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Doug wrote:
Kane writes: Kane: Overcrowding CAN'T be a problem. I have it on good authority. Hi, Kane, Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including Florida, where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of murdering one her wards. You made a claim. It's not related to the story central point. Why did you feel the need to include it? As for your claim, please provide us with support for your claim that it's a huge problem nationwide, and what the causes might be. You can give up on the bull**** that too many children are removed that turn out to be unsubstantiated. It's just years of your crappola and lies. I would have sworn someone in this ng, an obvious 'authority,' claimed that due to changes in child abuse investigations (LEs being used instead of caseworkers, except of course the LEs hired caseworkers to 'team' with them) foster populations were reducing in this state. While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties, foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state. Why? You said they were going down as a result of more and more LE investigative involvement (which is something of credibility stretch, given tha that they had to hire trained CPS investigators....R R R R ....so much for your baloney). The same is true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely would require drastic reduction. Yep. Something to do with child abuse, neglect, poverty, crime, substance abuse and chemical dependency, mental illness, as I recall. A lot of children need to be allowed to go home to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force uneeded services need to stay at home. There's that lie again. The reason for the stick is that these very families are, a great many of them, repeat offenders. YOU yourself have shared, crowing, the data from the USDHHS, so don't ask ME to support the claim. In the newsstory you cut and paste below, child advocates are seeking a federal investigation of foster homes with more than 5 children. This comes after a foster carer is alledged to have murdered one of the state wards in her care. Yes, makes sense, doesn't it? And what will they come up with when they discover the true scope of child abuse and neglect and what it does, behavior-wise, to the children? That you are a liar, that's what. Many members of this newsgroup have discussed at great length the insanity of placing children who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED as victims of maltreatment into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system. And many have lied, or been conned by you into believing what I've proven repeatedly is a phony concoction of yours to mislead and misconstrue the real meaning of "unsubstantiated." Many children are being ripped "Ripped?" Please describe, so we can all see what a con artist you are, how and actual removal takes place. from their families and put into state custody for the wrong reasons, Those are rare instances of error in judgement, or misinformation that led CPS workers to believe that the child was at risk when they were not. The majority of those children are returned when the error is noted. which led to the overcrowding to begin with. Drugs, alcohol, mental illness, incapacity, abuse, sexual abuse, neglect...these are the true reasons for overcrowding. You are lying. Children should not be held hostage to force their parents to accept the sanctions/services CPS is peddling. They are not held hostage. Many, in fact, are still in their parents homes while services are provided. Not peddled. You are a liar. Why on earth would CPS forcibly remove 96,000 children its workers unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect in 2002 and place them with strangers, where children are abused at rates eight to ten times that of children living outside of the foster care system? Because of two things you are lying about again. "unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect" does not mean what you try to make it mean, as anyone that studies this issue closely knows, and children are COUNTED as abused in the system at a higher rate because it is far more easy to catch abuses in state custody than in the homes of private citizens NOT required to open they door to anyone that happens to walk up to it. Yer a liar. Ron tells us that those 96,000 children were voluntarily placed into foster care by their parents sometime during the investigation or afterwards. Mmm....I'm not sure that is exactly what he meant. I do know that a great many DO in fact volunteer to do so. They are the ones that have caught on that they have a real problem that needs to be addressed. We know that is not true, of course. We know you are lying sack of ****. Here's comes yet another load of propaganda ****. But the real reason is almost as bizarre and stands as the bewitching foundation for systemic, institutional child abuse. Because agencies need a "stick" to force clients to accept their wares, children are being abused by the very agencies mandated to protect them. Nonsense. You yourself quoted last year the numbers of children that are left with families and recieve services. And you and I both know that most abusers and those that neglect would do nothing without some prodding. Your lies that they have to do it voluntarily or it doesn't work, notwithstanding. We learn in another current thread in this newsgroup that children are being taken into state custody because their parents are not "cooperative" with workers. Depends on what "cooperative" actually means. Doesn't it. How is it even remotely justifyable to forcibly take children from their families and incarcerate them because their parents are not playing the game the way caseworkers want them to? "The Game?" Keeping children safe and demanding their parents do so is to you A GAME? You slimy creep. Too many children are being placed into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system for the wrong reasons. Nonsense. A single bad placement is too many, but we are not seeing vast numbers of children so placed. Yer a liar. Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in such things. The institutional child abuse occuring in state care is far too staggering for anyone to be mistaken. One is "staggering." Yer a liar. We may disagree as to the cause of the magnitude of abuse children suffer in state care, but none of us are mistaken as to its existance. You bet we disagree. YOU have tried to blame foster parents for losing it when children came into their home with behaviors to intense and upsetting. YOU are a liar and a 3 dollar bill. Your posted newsstory is just another in an almost daily journal of such abuse. In this case, a grass roots group of child advocates is attempting to do something about it. The almost "daily journal," Doug, is abuse by parents...some of it, in fact a great deal of it, so horrendous it shocks the mind into disbelief. Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force. The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month. http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action. Children's Rights, the organization that runs the website you cited, has done much to seek a solution to the abuse of children by foster carers. Yep. Lot's of suing. That's gonna work when the state is strapped for money. Notice that some states, like Oregon, are saying they can't even see 50% of the events called into their hotline? And those are calls they would normally have gone out on. They have brought class action lawsuits against more than a dozen CPS jurisdictions across this country and won every one of them. And.........? Many agencies' foster care systems are under the stewardship of federal courts And what is the first thing the federal courts demands from the states to run the foster system better? Come on, Doug. Don't lie again. It's money, and you know it. And the states know it. And those monitoring the states know it: http://www.shepherd-express.com/6_30...wsandviews.htm "Question 7: The child welfare system in Milwaukee was so bad that in 2002 the federal court ordered the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to provide better services. DHFS must attain specific outcomes on or before Jan. 1, 2006, just a few months away. Do you: A. Provide more money for training and support of foster parents, caseworker retention, domestic violence services for families and the creation of an ombudsman to look into complaints. B. Pick out just one new program to fund, in this case a family safety program, and disregard the other offers on the table. If you think Plan B will work, hopefully you're right, because that's the only new foster care program that will receive additional funding. Gov. Doyle proposed option A." Here's what you lie about, constantly in this ng. You claim that federal money is free to be used for whatever the state wishes. That's either monumental ignorance, or blatant propagandistic lying. I can't imagine it's ignorance, not with your self appointed role of "expert." http://www.ctkidslink.org/media/pres...fostercare.pdf Read. Think. Why would just a few states have to get "waivers" to use federal dollars on services to families to intervene if it could only be used, as you claim, as a general fund for such programs. You idiot. You liar. You fool. "The report outlines how current federal financing rules favor keeping children in foster care over providing services that can help keep children at home or support other permanent, stable arrangements for children like legal guardianship. States are currently reimbursed by the federal government for caring for children in foster care, but extremely limited in their ability to spend those same federal dollars on services like mental health and substance abuse treatment or alternatives like subsidized guardianship that give abused and neglected children more stable, permanent homes. Nevertheless, despite these current federal funding restrictions, the report shows that some states, when granted flexible use of federal funding through "waivers," have succeeded in reducing the number or length of stay of children in foster care in part by using federal funds to pay for these alternative services" And any thinking honest human being that looks closely at the problem KNOWS that the problem is parental abuse of chidlren. because of the widespread mistreatment of foster children Children's Rights has proven in court. Yep, and notice: IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY. Panels, surveys, experts, in the end all say the same...it's a crippled underfunded system. A few ****s like you try to minimize the actual level of parental neglect and child abuse. Tsk! 0:- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I wrote:
Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including Florida, where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of murdering one her wards. To which, Kane replies: You made a claim. It's not related to the story central point. Why did you feel the need to include it? Hi, Kane, It is related to the newsstory's central point, which is that child advocacy groups are seeking federal investigation of overcrowded foster homes. Overcrowded foster homes. As for your claim, please provide us with support for your claim that it's a huge problem nationwide, and what the causes might be. You can give up on the bull**** that too many children are removed that turn out to be unsubstantiated. It's just years of your crappola and lies. The reasons that stand out are the wrongful removal of children CPS itself has determined were not maltreated. 96,000 "non-victims" -- children unsubstantiated as victims of child maltreatment -- were removed from their homes in 2002. Another reason is that children are removed from their homes not because they are at risk, but because their parents did not "cooperate" with social service caseworkers. Another reason is that unsubstantiated parents are threatened with removal of their children if they do not sign safety plans or participate in unwanted services hustled by the agency. Removal of children is a threat used as what workers call a "stick" to force unsubstantiated parents to take the services. What ends up happening far too often is that the parents do not jump through the hoops and the agency is forced to use the stick. While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties, foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state. Why? You said they were going down as a result of more and more LE investigative involvement (which is something of credibility stretch, given tha that they had to hire trained CPS investigators....R R R R ...so much for your baloney). They are going down in many Florida counties. But the reduction in the population has thus far not been enough to make foster care in that state no longer overcrowded. Pretty simple. The same is true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely would require drastic reduction. Yep. Something to do with child abuse, neglect, poverty, crime, substance abuse and chemical dependency, mental illness, as I recall. Many children do need to be removed because their parents have been substantiated for abusing them. This represents a rather large number of children -- 169,000 child victims were removed from their homes in 2002. However, another 96,000 nonvictims were also forcibly removed from their homes that same year. The foster care system would be far less crowded if CPS restricted themselves to taking children who have maltreated or were found to be at risk of abuse/neglect. Foster care would be far less crowded if CPS did not use removal of innocent children as a bartering chip to impose their services upon families they have unsubstantiated for maltreating their children. A lot of children need to be allowed to go home to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force uneeded services need to stay at home. There's that lie again. The reason for the stick is that these very families are, a great many of them, repeat offenders. YOU yourself have shared, crowing, the data from the USDHHS, so don't ask ME to support the claim. All of the families I was talking about above were not substantiated by CPS to be offenders, so it would be impossible for them to "reoffend." In fact, CPS caseworkers made a determination that there was no evidence to SUSPECT that these children were maltreated or at risk of maltreatment. Here's the deal. When a hotline report is made, CPS goes out and investigates or assesses the allegations. If they find there is reason to suspect the allegations are true, or that other maltreatment or risk of maltreatment is discovered, they make a determination of substantiated and the children in that case are called "victims." On the other hand, if the workers find in their investigation or assessment that there is no evidence for them to SUSPECT the allegations or other child maltreatment or risk of maltreatment has occurred, they make a determination of "unsubstantiated" and the children in that case are called "nonvictims." Here is a breakdown of CPS findings. "Alternative response" refers to cases where CPS has elected to conduct an "assessment" rather than an investigation in states that use a dual-track system. http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6 a.. Alternative Response Victim: A conclusion that the child was identified as a victim when a response other than investigation was provided. b.. Alternative Response Nonvictim: A conclusion that the child was not a victim of maltreatment when a response other than investigation was provided. c.. Indicated: An investigation disposition that concludes that maltreatment cannot be substantiated under State law or policy, but there was reason to suspect that the child may have been maltreated or was at risk of maltreatment. This is applicable only to States that distinguish between substantiated and indicated dispositions. d.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or founded by State law or State policy. This is the highest level of finding by a State agency. e.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated. http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6 In the newsstory you cut and paste below, child advocates are seeking a federal investigation of foster homes with more than 5 children. This comes after a foster carer is alledged to have murdered one of the state wards in her care. Yes, makes sense, doesn't it? And what will they come up with when they discover the true scope of child abuse and neglect and what it does, behavior-wise, to the children? That you are a liar, that's what. I suspect that is precisely what the child advocates expect the federal investigators to discover -- the true scope of child abuse and neglect in state care and what it does to the foster children. Many members of this newsgroup have discussed at great length the insanity of placing children who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED as victims of maltreatment into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system. And many have lied, or been conned by you into believing what I've proven repeatedly is a phony concoction of yours to mislead and misconstrue the real meaning of "unsubstantiated." The real meaning of unsubstantiated is that it is a disposition by CPS that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated. Is this your deal: Hotlined allegations of child maltreatment are investigated or assessed by CPS caseworkers, who determine whether the allegations are true or whether the children have been maltreated or at risk of maltreatment. If they substantiate the allegations in the investigation/assessment, then the children are determined to be victims of child maltreatment or risk of same. If they unsubstantiate the allegations, then the children are determined also to be victims of maltreatment. In other words, the allegations are true whether CPS substantiates them or not? Wow. Parents don't have much of a chance of being found innocent in your deal. Since 2/3 of investigated/assessed cases are unsubstantiated, we are talking about an awful lot of guilty parents. Substantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend. Unsubstantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend. Is there ever a parent who is innocent of the allegations? If so, what is the CPS determination for a unfounded report in your deal? from their families and put into state custody for the wrong reasons, Those are rare instances of error in judgement, or misinformation that led CPS workers to believe that the child was at risk when they were not. The majority of those children are returned when the error is noted. 96,000 children -- or 36% of all of the 265,000 children removed from their homes in 2002 -- does not make removal of children from innocent families a "rare" instance of error in judgement. which led to the overcrowding to begin with. Drugs, alcohol, mental illness, incapacity, abuse, sexual abuse, neglect...these are the true reasons for overcrowding. You are lying. I am assuming the removals were made while the workers were sober and of sound mind. Children should not be held hostage to force their parents to accept the sanctions/services CPS is peddling. They are not held hostage. Many, in fact, are still in their parents homes while services are provided. Not peddled. You are a liar. Yep. For the stick to work, children are held hostage by threat of removal if the parents do not sign up for services in a safety plan and participate in them. When they don't jump through the hoops, the children are removed because, of course, a stick loses its effectiveness if it is not used from time to time. Why on earth would CPS forcibly remove 96,000 children its workers unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect in 2002 and place them with strangers, where children are abused at rates eight to ten times that of children living outside of the foster care system? Because of two things you are lying about again. "unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect" does not mean what you try to make it mean, as anyone that studies this issue closely knows, and children are COUNTED as abused in the system at a higher rate because it is far more easy to catch abuses in state custody than in the homes of private citizens NOT required to open they door to anyone that happens to walk up to it. Unsubstantiated is a disposition by CPS that determines that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated, as those who study this issue have published. Child maltreatment by foster carers is tremendously underreported because a CPS disposition against a state caregiver is a finding against their agency and opens the agency up to lawsuits by the foster children once they age out of the system. And, of course, neither state caregivers with foster children or private citizens with their own children have to "open their door to anyone that happens to walk up to it." Yer a liar. No, really. Foster carers don't have to open their door to anyone who walks up to it. Such a practice wouldn't make things very safe for the foster kids, now would it? Ron tells us that those 96,000 children were voluntarily placed into foster care by their parents sometime during the investigation or afterwards. Mmm....I'm not sure that is exactly what he meant. I do know that a great many DO in fact volunteer to do so. They are the ones that have caught on that they have a real problem that needs to be addressed. If they are caught and they have a real problem abusing their children, they are substantiated. I was talking about unsubstantiated parents. Is this what you are saying happens: "We have completed our investigation and have decided to unsubstantiate the allegations against you." "Oh, okay, then, here you go, please take my children." But the real reason is almost as bizarre and stands as the bewitching foundation for systemic, institutional child abuse. Because agencies need a "stick" to force clients to accept their wares, children are being abused by the very agencies mandated to protect them. Nonsense. You yourself quoted last year the numbers of children that are left with families and recieve services. Precisely. That is the reason for the stick -- the threat to take the children into custody at a later date if the parent doesn't jump through the hoops. And you and I both know that most abusers and those that neglect would do nothing without some prodding. Your lies that they have to do it voluntarily or it doesn't work, notwithstanding. I was not talking about parents who abuse or neglect or put their children at risk of abuse or neglect. I was talking about parents involved in cases where CPS determined that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated. We learn in another current thread in this newsgroup that children are being taken into state custody because their parents are not "cooperative" with workers. Depends on what "cooperative" actually means. Doesn't it. No, not really. Not when, again, I am talking about parents in cases where CPS determined there was not sufficient evidence to suspect that their children were maltreated or were at risk of being maltreated. In these cases, the travesty against the nonvictim children exists regardless of what "uncooperative" behavior their innocent parents presented with. How is it even remotely justifyable to forcibly take children from their families and incarcerate them because their parents are not playing the game the way caseworkers want them to? "The Game?" Keeping children safe and demanding their parents do so is to you A GAME? You slimy creep. I said nothing about keeping children safe or demanding their parents do so. What I did say was that nonvictim children were being removed from unsubstantiated parents because those innocent parents did not "cooperate" with CPS caseworkers. This is punishing innocent children for the perceived discourtesy of their parents. This is systemic, institutional child abuse. Too many children are being placed into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system for the wrong reasons. Nonsense. A single bad placement is too many, but we are not seeing vast numbers of children so placed. Yer a liar. Depends what you consider "vast." 96,000 children seems pretty vast to me. It is about 96,000 times worse than a single bad placement, which you say is too many. Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in such things. The institutional child abuse occuring in state care is far too staggering for anyone to be mistaken. One is "staggering." Yer a liar. Yes, one is staggering. 96,000 is 96,000 times more staggering. We may disagree as to the cause of the magnitude of abuse children suffer in state care, but none of us are mistaken as to its existance. You bet we disagree. YOU have tried to blame foster parents for losing it when children came into their home with behaviors to intense and upsetting. YOU are a liar and a 3 dollar bill. It is inappropriate and barbaric to blame children for their own victimization by adult foster carers, regardless of children's behaviors. Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force. The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month. http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action. Children's Rights, the organization that runs the website you cited, has done much to seek a solution to the abuse of children by foster carers. Yep. Lot's of suing. That's gonna work when the state is strapped for money. Notice that some states, like Oregon, are saying they can't even see 50% of the events called into their hotline? And those are calls they would normally have gone out on. Are the families Oregon does not investigate or assess still guilty of child abuse? Your deal is that the parents are guilty of child abuse or neglect if the investigated cases are unsubstantiated or substantiated. I was wondering if that guideline extends to those cases not even investigated and given a disposition. http://www.shepherd-express.com/6_30...wsandviews.htm "Question 7: The child welfare system in Milwaukee was so bad that in 2002 the federal court ordered the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to provide better services. DHFS must attain specific outcomes on or before Jan. 1, 2006, just a few months away. Do you: A. Provide more money for training and support of foster parents, caseworker retention, domestic violence services for families and the creation of an ombudsman to look into complaints. B. Pick out just one new program to fund, in this case a family safety program, and disregard the other offers on the table. Neither. Neither plan will address the problems with child welfare system in Milwaukee. Problems so bad that the federal courts had to step in. If you think Plan B will work, hopefully you're right, because that's the only new foster care program that will receive additional funding. Gov. Doyle proposed option A." I don't think plan B will work. I don't think plan A will work, either. Here's what you lie about, constantly in this ng. You claim that federal money is free to be used for whatever the state wishes. That's either monumental ignorance, or blatant propagandistic lying. I can't imagine it's ignorance, not with your self appointed role of "expert." Ninety percent of federal child welfare funding is based upon the number of children from impoverished families placed into foster care. As your cut and pastes point out, when states get exclusions to draw down the federal funding for other reasons, the foster care population drops. Hmm. http://www.ctkidslink.org/media/pres...fostercare.pdf Read. Think. Why would just a few states have to get "waivers" to use federal dollars on services to families to intervene if it could only be used, as you claim, as a general fund for such programs. You idiot. You liar. You fool. That they cannot use federal funding for services to families is the very reason why, without the waivers, states put so many children in foster care, as your cut and paste suggests. Read just below: "The report outlines how current federal financing rules favor keeping children in foster care over providing services that can help keep children at home or support other permanent, stable arrangements for children like legal guardianship. States are currently reimbursed by the federal government for caring for children in foster care, but extremely limited in their ability to spend those same federal dollars on services like mental health and substance abuse treatment or alternatives like subsidized guardianship that give abused and neglected children more stable, permanent homes. Nevertheless, despite these current federal funding restrictions, the report shows that some states, when granted flexible use of federal funding through "waivers," have succeeded in reducing the number or length of stay of children in foster care in part by using federal funds to pay for these alternative services" And any thinking honest human being that looks closely at the problem KNOWS that the problem is parental abuse of chidlren. The problem outlined in the newsstory you pasted in this message thread and what we are discussing involved the alleged murder of a child by a foster carer. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Doug wrote: No, Doug cons. And here's just one of the ways he pulls the wool over your eyes, if you are a reader in this ng. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=997688 Subtle changes in wording, shifting the meanings of claims and statements by "experts," avoiding reality by taking claims out of context -- such as data sets to measure one thing being used to make claims about things that appear related but in themselves are not being examined. These latter are Doug's stock in trade as a propagandist. Enjoy being conned by him, if you wish, or do your own thinking and especially watch out for him when he says the same thing but loads you up with HIS biases and HIS agenda first. Most of what he babbles below is just more of his monumental phony balony CPS reform crusader garbage. He's just out to destroy. 0:- I wrote: Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including Florida, where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of murdering one her wards. To which, Kane replies: You made a claim. It's not related to the story central point. Why did you feel the need to include it? Hi, Kane, It is related to the newsstory's central point, which is that child advocacy groups are seeking federal investigation of overcrowded foster homes. Overcrowded foster homes. As for your claim, please provide us with support for your claim that it's a huge problem nationwide, and what the causes might be. You can give up on the bull**** that too many children are removed that turn out to be unsubstantiated. It's just years of your crappola and lies. The reasons that stand out are the wrongful removal of children CPS itself has determined were not maltreated. 96,000 "non-victims" -- children unsubstantiated as victims of child maltreatment -- were removed from their homes in 2002. Another reason is that children are removed from their homes not because they are at risk, but because their parents did not "cooperate" with social service caseworkers. Another reason is that unsubstantiated parents are threatened with removal of their children if they do not sign safety plans or participate in unwanted services hustled by the agency. Removal of children is a threat used as what workers call a "stick" to force unsubstantiated parents to take the services. What ends up happening far too often is that the parents do not jump through the hoops and the agency is forced to use the stick. While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties, foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state. Why? You said they were going down as a result of more and more LE investigative involvement (which is something of credibility stretch, given tha that they had to hire trained CPS investigators....R R R R ...so much for your baloney). They are going down in many Florida counties. But the reduction in the population has thus far not been enough to make foster care in that state no longer overcrowded. Pretty simple. The same is true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely would require drastic reduction. Yep. Something to do with child abuse, neglect, poverty, crime, substance abuse and chemical dependency, mental illness, as I recall. Many children do need to be removed because their parents have been substantiated for abusing them. This represents a rather large number of children -- 169,000 child victims were removed from their homes in 2002. However, another 96,000 nonvictims were also forcibly removed from their homes that same year. The foster care system would be far less crowded if CPS restricted themselves to taking children who have maltreated or were found to be at risk of abuse/neglect. Foster care would be far less crowded if CPS did not use removal of innocent children as a bartering chip to impose their services upon families they have unsubstantiated for maltreating their children. A lot of children need to be allowed to go home to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force uneeded services need to stay at home. There's that lie again. The reason for the stick is that these very families are, a great many of them, repeat offenders. YOU yourself have shared, crowing, the data from the USDHHS, so don't ask ME to support the claim. All of the families I was talking about above were not substantiated by CPS to be offenders, so it would be impossible for them to "reoffend." In fact, CPS caseworkers made a determination that there was no evidence to SUSPECT that these children were maltreated or at risk of maltreatment. Here's the deal. When a hotline report is made, CPS goes out and investigates or assesses the allegations. If they find there is reason to suspect the allegations are true, or that other maltreatment or risk of maltreatment is discovered, they make a determination of substantiated and the children in that case are called "victims." On the other hand, if the workers find in their investigation or assessment that there is no evidence for them to SUSPECT the allegations or other child maltreatment or risk of maltreatment has occurred, they make a determination of "unsubstantiated" and the children in that case are called "nonvictims." Here is a breakdown of CPS findings. "Alternative response" refers to cases where CPS has elected to conduct an "assessment" rather than an investigation in states that use a dual-track system. http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6 a.. Alternative Response Victim: A conclusion that the child was identified as a victim when a response other than investigation was provided. b.. Alternative Response Nonvictim: A conclusion that the child was not a victim of maltreatment when a response other than investigation was provided. c.. Indicated: An investigation disposition that concludes that maltreatment cannot be substantiated under State law or policy, but there was reason to suspect that the child may have been maltreated or was at risk of maltreatment. This is applicable only to States that distinguish between substantiated and indicated dispositions. d.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or founded by State law or State policy. This is the highest level of finding by a State agency. e.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated. http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6 In the newsstory you cut and paste below, child advocates are seeking a federal investigation of foster homes with more than 5 children. This comes after a foster carer is alledged to have murdered one of the state wards in her care. Yes, makes sense, doesn't it? And what will they come up with when they discover the true scope of child abuse and neglect and what it does, behavior-wise, to the children? That you are a liar, that's what. I suspect that is precisely what the child advocates expect the federal investigators to discover -- the true scope of child abuse and neglect in state care and what it does to the foster children. Many members of this newsgroup have discussed at great length the insanity of placing children who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED as victims of maltreatment into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system. And many have lied, or been conned by you into believing what I've proven repeatedly is a phony concoction of yours to mislead and misconstrue the real meaning of "unsubstantiated." The real meaning of unsubstantiated is that it is a disposition by CPS that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated. Is this your deal: Hotlined allegations of child maltreatment are investigated or assessed by CPS caseworkers, who determine whether the allegations are true or whether the children have been maltreated or at risk of maltreatment. If they substantiate the allegations in the investigation/assessment, then the children are determined to be victims of child maltreatment or risk of same. If they unsubstantiate the allegations, then the children are determined also to be victims of maltreatment. In other words, the allegations are true whether CPS substantiates them or not? Wow. Parents don't have much of a chance of being found innocent in your deal. Since 2/3 of investigated/assessed cases are unsubstantiated, we are talking about an awful lot of guilty parents. Substantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend. Unsubstantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend. Is there ever a parent who is innocent of the allegations? If so, what is the CPS determination for a unfounded report in your deal? from their families and put into state custody for the wrong reasons, Those are rare instances of error in judgement, or misinformation that led CPS workers to believe that the child was at risk when they were not. The majority of those children are returned when the error is noted. 96,000 children -- or 36% of all of the 265,000 children removed from their homes in 2002 -- does not make removal of children from innocent families a "rare" instance of error in judgement. which led to the overcrowding to begin with. Drugs, alcohol, mental illness, incapacity, abuse, sexual abuse, neglect...these are the true reasons for overcrowding. You are lying. I am assuming the removals were made while the workers were sober and of sound mind. Children should not be held hostage to force their parents to accept the sanctions/services CPS is peddling. They are not held hostage. Many, in fact, are still in their parents homes while services are provided. Not peddled. You are a liar. Yep. For the stick to work, children are held hostage by threat of removal if the parents do not sign up for services in a safety plan and participate in them. When they don't jump through the hoops, the children are removed because, of course, a stick loses its effectiveness if it is not used from time to time. Why on earth would CPS forcibly remove 96,000 children its workers unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect in 2002 and place them with strangers, where children are abused at rates eight to ten times that of children living outside of the foster care system? Because of two things you are lying about again. "unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect" does not mean what you try to make it mean, as anyone that studies this issue closely knows, and children are COUNTED as abused in the system at a higher rate because it is far more easy to catch abuses in state custody than in the homes of private citizens NOT required to open they door to anyone that happens to walk up to it. Unsubstantiated is a disposition by CPS that determines that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated, as those who study this issue have published. Child maltreatment by foster carers is tremendously underreported because a CPS disposition against a state caregiver is a finding against their agency and opens the agency up to lawsuits by the foster children once they age out of the system. And, of course, neither state caregivers with foster children or private citizens with their own children have to "open their door to anyone that happens to walk up to it." Yer a liar. No, really. Foster carers don't have to open their door to anyone who walks up to it. Such a practice wouldn't make things very safe for the foster kids, now would it? Ron tells us that those 96,000 children were voluntarily placed into foster care by their parents sometime during the investigation or afterwards. Mmm....I'm not sure that is exactly what he meant. I do know that a great many DO in fact volunteer to do so. They are the ones that have caught on that they have a real problem that needs to be addressed. If they are caught and they have a real problem abusing their children, they are substantiated. I was talking about unsubstantiated parents. Is this what you are saying happens: "We have completed our investigation and have decided to unsubstantiate the allegations against you." "Oh, okay, then, here you go, please take my children." But the real reason is almost as bizarre and stands as the bewitching foundation for systemic, institutional child abuse. Because agencies need a "stick" to force clients to accept their wares, children are being abused by the very agencies mandated to protect them. Nonsense. You yourself quoted last year the numbers of children that are left with families and recieve services. Precisely. That is the reason for the stick -- the threat to take the children into custody at a later date if the parent doesn't jump through the hoops. And you and I both know that most abusers and those that neglect would do nothing without some prodding. Your lies that they have to do it voluntarily or it doesn't work, notwithstanding. I was not talking about parents who abuse or neglect or put their children at risk of abuse or neglect. I was talking about parents involved in cases where CPS determined that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated. We learn in another current thread in this newsgroup that children are being taken into state custody because their parents are not "cooperative" with workers. Depends on what "cooperative" actually means. Doesn't it. No, not really. Not when, again, I am talking about parents in cases where CPS determined there was not sufficient evidence to suspect that their children were maltreated or were at risk of being maltreated. In these cases, the travesty against the nonvictim children exists regardless of what "uncooperative" behavior their innocent parents presented with. How is it even remotely justifyable to forcibly take children from their families and incarcerate them because their parents are not playing the game the way caseworkers want them to? "The Game?" Keeping children safe and demanding their parents do so is to you A GAME? You slimy creep. I said nothing about keeping children safe or demanding their parents do so. What I did say was that nonvictim children were being removed from unsubstantiated parents because those innocent parents did not "cooperate" with CPS caseworkers. This is punishing innocent children for the perceived discourtesy of their parents. This is systemic, institutional child abuse. Too many children are being placed into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system for the wrong reasons. Nonsense. A single bad placement is too many, but we are not seeing vast numbers of children so placed. Yer a liar. Depends what you consider "vast." 96,000 children seems pretty vast to me. It is about 96,000 times worse than a single bad placement, which you say is too many. Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in such things. The institutional child abuse occuring in state care is far too staggering for anyone to be mistaken. One is "staggering." Yer a liar. Yes, one is staggering. 96,000 is 96,000 times more staggering. We may disagree as to the cause of the magnitude of abuse children suffer in state care, but none of us are mistaken as to its existance. You bet we disagree. YOU have tried to blame foster parents for losing it when children came into their home with behaviors to intense and upsetting. YOU are a liar and a 3 dollar bill. It is inappropriate and barbaric to blame children for their own victimization by adult foster carers, regardless of children's behaviors. Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force. The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month. http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action. Children's Rights, the organization that runs the website you cited, has done much to seek a solution to the abuse of children by foster carers. Yep. Lot's of suing. That's gonna work when the state is strapped for money. Notice that some states, like Oregon, are saying they can't even see 50% of the events called into their hotline? And those are calls they would normally have gone out on. Are the families Oregon does not investigate or assess still guilty of child abuse? Your deal is that the parents are guilty of child abuse or neglect if the investigated cases are unsubstantiated or substantiated. I was wondering if that guideline extends to those cases not even investigated and given a disposition. http://www.shepherd-express.com/6_30...wsandviews.htm "Question 7: The child welfare system in Milwaukee was so bad that in 2002 the federal court ordered the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to provide better services. DHFS must attain specific outcomes on or before Jan. 1, 2006, just a few months away. Do you: A. Provide more money for training and support of foster parents, caseworker retention, domestic violence services for families and the creation of an ombudsman to look into complaints. B. Pick out just one new program to fund, in this case a family safety program, and disregard the other offers on the table. Neither. Neither plan will address the problems with child welfare system in Milwaukee. Problems so bad that the federal courts had to step in. If you think Plan B will work, hopefully you're right, because that's the only new foster care program that will receive additional funding. Gov. Doyle proposed option A." I don't think plan B will work. I don't think plan A will work, either. Here's what you lie about, constantly in this ng. You claim that federal money is free to be used for whatever the state wishes. That's either monumental ignorance, or blatant propagandistic lying. I can't imagine it's ignorance, not with your self appointed role of "expert." Ninety percent of federal child welfare funding is based upon the number of children from impoverished families placed into foster care. As your cut and pastes point out, when states get exclusions to draw down the federal funding for other reasons, the foster care population drops. Hmm. http://www.ctkidslink.org/media/pres...fostercare.pdf Read. Think. Why would just a few states have to get "waivers" to use federal dollars on services to families to intervene if it could only be used, as you claim, as a general fund for such programs. You idiot. You liar. You fool. That they cannot use federal funding for services to families is the very reason why, without the waivers, states put so many children in foster care, as your cut and paste suggests. Read just below: "The report outlines how current federal financing rules favor keeping children in foster care over providing services that can help keep children at home or support other permanent, stable arrangements for children like legal guardianship. States are currently reimbursed by the federal government for caring for children in foster care, but extremely limited in their ability to spend those same federal dollars on services like mental health and substance abuse treatment or alternatives like subsidized guardianship that give abused and neglected children more stable, permanent homes. Nevertheless, despite these current federal funding restrictions, the report shows that some states, when granted flexible use of federal funding through "waivers," have succeeded in reducing the number or length of stay of children in foster care in part by using federal funds to pay for these alternative services" And any thinking honest human being that looks closely at the problem KNOWS that the problem is parental abuse of chidlren. The problem outlined in the newsstory you pasted in this message thread and what we are discussing involved the alleged murder of a child by a foster carer. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Kane writes:
No, Doug cons. Hi, Kane, I see you have run out of beef again. Lacking any substantative reply to the number of children removed from homes CPS unsubstantiates for any childmaltreatment or risk of maltreatment, you cite an article that has absolutely no relevance to the post to which you reply. ....And childish name-calling of course. Yours is an understandable preoccupation, since it is impossible to excuse much of current CPS practice with substance or authorities. The literature abounds with empirical evidence of its failure. And here's just one of the ways he pulls the wool over your eyes, if you are a reader in this ng. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=997688 Thieves live in terror of being robbed. The article you cite talks about methodology in the junk science that feeds some of your Type II errors. I think most of us in this forum would wholeheartedly agree with what the author has to say about small studies, self-reported situations (like prisoners complaining that they are there because, afterall, they were spanked as kids -- we all know that it's not the criminal's fault, but his parents and everyone else). But the article does not address anything in the post to which you reply (and you quote below). You continue: Subtle changes in wording, shifting the meanings of claims and statements by "experts," No comments exist in my post about so-called experts, their claims, or anything close to it. avoiding reality by taking claims out of context -- such as data sets to measure one thing being used to make claims about things that appear related but in themselves are not being examined. Nothing out of context in this post to which you reply. In fact, to the contrary, I quoted exactly the entire section on CPS findings directly from USDHHS' "Child Maltreatment, 2002." These latter are Doug's stock in trade as a propagandist. None of these things you descibe appear in the post to which you reply. You are playing with an empty hand, so you call the author of information you cannot challenge childish names. If the information below is "propaganda", so us some beef -- some documented information that challenges the facts I have provided. Enjoy being conned by him, if you wish, or do your own thinking and especially watch out for him when he says the same thing but loads you up with HIS biases and HIS agenda first. I am sure the readers here are doing their own thinking. They have since the beginning of their involvement in this newsgroup and will continue to do so. If you want them to consider any rebuttal you may have to what I have written in the post to which you reply, then give them some substance...some information they can use their own thinking to consider as refuting the substance of my post. By simply calling those who post information you don't like to see names, you are not giving readers a chance to think about what you have to say. Instead, you leave them no alternative but to think of what the name-calling says about you. Most of what he babbles below is just more of his monumental phony balony CPS reform crusader garbage. He's just out to destroy. What appears below -- and the substance of the post to which you now reply -- is: 1) The entire quoted narrative from USDHHS defining the findings made by CPS workers. USDHHS is the agency that publishes the data on how many children are subject to each of these findings. 2) The fact that 96,000 children were removed from families CPS caseworkers themselves unsubstantiated because they found no reason to suspect that those children were at risk of maltreatment or actually maltreated. 3) The fact that child advocacy groups in Florida are seeking a federal investigation of overcrowded foster homes after a foster carer was charged with murdering a foster child. 4) That foster care systems in more than a dozen jurisdictions are under the stewardship of the federal courts because of the maltreatment of foster children by state agencies. 5) That Children's Rights, an organization founded by a family court specialist from ACLU, has successfully won every class action suit it has brought in federal courts against foster care systems across the nation. 6) That a variable other than child abuse or neglect or risk of either is the causal agent for the removal of a large percentage of children from their families. I wrote: Overcrowding in foster care is a huge problem nationwide, including Florida, where your posted newsstory says a foster caregiver is accused of murdering one her wards. To which, Kane replies: You made a claim. It's not related to the story central point. Why did you feel the need to include it? Hi, Kane, It is related to the newsstory's central point, which is that child advocacy groups are seeking federal investigation of overcrowded foster homes. Overcrowded foster homes. As for your claim, please provide us with support for your claim that it's a huge problem nationwide, and what the causes might be. You can give up on the bull**** that too many children are removed that turn out to be unsubstantiated. It's just years of your crappola and lies. The reasons that stand out are the wrongful removal of children CPS itself has determined were not maltreated. 96,000 "non-victims" -- children unsubstantiated as victims of child maltreatment -- were removed from their homes in 2002. Another reason is that children are removed from their homes not because they are at risk, but because their parents did not "cooperate" with social service caseworkers. Another reason is that unsubstantiated parents are threatened with removal of their children if they do not sign safety plans or participate in unwanted services hustled by the agency. Removal of children is a threat used as what workers call a "stick" to force unsubstantiated parents to take the services. What ends up happening far too often is that the parents do not jump through the hoops and the agency is forced to use the stick. While foster care populations are decreasing in many Florida counties, foster homes remain horrendously overcrowded in that state. Why? You said they were going down as a result of more and more LE investigative involvement (which is something of credibility stretch, given tha that they had to hire trained CPS investigators....R R R R ...so much for your baloney). They are going down in many Florida counties. But the reduction in the population has thus far not been enough to make foster care in that state no longer overcrowded. Pretty simple. The same is true, to greater or lesser degree, in all other 49 states. To get this population down to a number the pool of state carers can manage safely would require drastic reduction. Yep. Something to do with child abuse, neglect, poverty, crime, substance abuse and chemical dependency, mental illness, as I recall. Many children do need to be removed because their parents have been substantiated for abusing them. This represents a rather large number of children -- 169,000 child victims were removed from their homes in 2002. However, another 96,000 nonvictims were also forcibly removed from their homes that same year. The foster care system would be far less crowded if CPS restricted themselves to taking children who have maltreated or were found to be at risk of abuse/neglect. Foster care would be far less crowded if CPS did not use removal of innocent children as a bartering chip to impose their services upon families they have unsubstantiated for maltreating their children. A lot of children need to be allowed to go home to their families. And a lot more children from unsubstantiated families who stand at risk of being removed because CPS needs a stick to force uneeded services need to stay at home. There's that lie again. The reason for the stick is that these very families are, a great many of them, repeat offenders. YOU yourself have shared, crowing, the data from the USDHHS, so don't ask ME to support the claim. All of the families I was talking about above were not substantiated by CPS to be offenders, so it would be impossible for them to "reoffend." In fact, CPS caseworkers made a determination that there was no evidence to SUSPECT that these children were maltreated or at risk of maltreatment. Here's the deal. When a hotline report is made, CPS goes out and investigates or assesses the allegations. If they find there is reason to suspect the allegations are true, or that other maltreatment or risk of maltreatment is discovered, they make a determination of substantiated and the children in that case are called "victims." On the other hand, if the workers find in their investigation or assessment that there is no evidence for them to SUSPECT the allegations or other child maltreatment or risk of maltreatment has occurred, they make a determination of "unsubstantiated" and the children in that case are called "nonvictims." Here is a breakdown of CPS findings. "Alternative response" refers to cases where CPS has elected to conduct an "assessment" rather than an investigation in states that use a dual-track system. http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6 a.. Alternative Response Victim: A conclusion that the child was identified as a victim when a response other than investigation was provided. b.. Alternative Response Nonvictim: A conclusion that the child was not a victim of maltreatment when a response other than investigation was provided. c.. Indicated: An investigation disposition that concludes that maltreatment cannot be substantiated under State law or policy, but there was reason to suspect that the child may have been maltreated or was at risk of maltreatment. This is applicable only to States that distinguish between substantiated and indicated dispositions. d.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or founded by State law or State policy. This is the highest level of finding by a State agency. e.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated. http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6 In the newsstory you cut and paste below, child advocates are seeking a federal investigation of foster homes with more than 5 children. This comes after a foster carer is alledged to have murdered one of the state wards in her care. Yes, makes sense, doesn't it? And what will they come up with when they discover the true scope of child abuse and neglect and what it does, behavior-wise, to the children? That you are a liar, that's what. I suspect that is precisely what the child advocates expect the federal investigators to discover -- the true scope of child abuse and neglect in state care and what it does to the foster children. Many members of this newsgroup have discussed at great length the insanity of placing children who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED as victims of maltreatment into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system. And many have lied, or been conned by you into believing what I've proven repeatedly is a phony concoction of yours to mislead and misconstrue the real meaning of "unsubstantiated." The real meaning of unsubstantiated is that it is a disposition by CPS that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated. Is this your deal: Hotlined allegations of child maltreatment are investigated or assessed by CPS caseworkers, who determine whether the allegations are true or whether the children have been maltreated or at risk of maltreatment. If they substantiate the allegations in the investigation/assessment, then the children are determined to be victims of child maltreatment or risk of same. If they unsubstantiate the allegations, then the children are determined also to be victims of maltreatment. In other words, the allegations are true whether CPS substantiates them or not? Wow. Parents don't have much of a chance of being found innocent in your deal. Since 2/3 of investigated/assessed cases are unsubstantiated, we are talking about an awful lot of guilty parents. Substantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend. Unsubstantiated = Child abused, parents guilty offenders who can reoffend. Is there ever a parent who is innocent of the allegations? If so, what is the CPS determination for a unfounded report in your deal? from their families and put into state custody for the wrong reasons, Those are rare instances of error in judgement, or misinformation that led CPS workers to believe that the child was at risk when they were not. The majority of those children are returned when the error is noted. 96,000 children -- or 36% of all of the 265,000 children removed from their homes in 2002 -- does not make removal of children from innocent families a "rare" instance of error in judgement. which led to the overcrowding to begin with. Drugs, alcohol, mental illness, incapacity, abuse, sexual abuse, neglect...these are the true reasons for overcrowding. You are lying. I am assuming the removals were made while the workers were sober and of sound mind. Children should not be held hostage to force their parents to accept the sanctions/services CPS is peddling. They are not held hostage. Many, in fact, are still in their parents homes while services are provided. Not peddled. You are a liar. Yep. For the stick to work, children are held hostage by threat of removal if the parents do not sign up for services in a safety plan and participate in them. When they don't jump through the hoops, the children are removed because, of course, a stick loses its effectiveness if it is not used from time to time. Why on earth would CPS forcibly remove 96,000 children its workers unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect in 2002 and place them with strangers, where children are abused at rates eight to ten times that of children living outside of the foster care system? Because of two things you are lying about again. "unsubstantiated for abuse/neglect or risk of abuse or neglect" does not mean what you try to make it mean, as anyone that studies this issue closely knows, and children are COUNTED as abused in the system at a higher rate because it is far more easy to catch abuses in state custody than in the homes of private citizens NOT required to open they door to anyone that happens to walk up to it. Unsubstantiated is a disposition by CPS that determines that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated, as those who study this issue have published. Child maltreatment by foster carers is tremendously underreported because a CPS disposition against a state caregiver is a finding against their agency and opens the agency up to lawsuits by the foster children once they age out of the system. And, of course, neither state caregivers with foster children or private citizens with their own children have to "open their door to anyone that happens to walk up to it." Yer a liar. No, really. Foster carers don't have to open their door to anyone who walks up to it. Such a practice wouldn't make things very safe for the foster kids, now would it? Ron tells us that those 96,000 children were voluntarily placed into foster care by their parents sometime during the investigation or afterwards. Mmm....I'm not sure that is exactly what he meant. I do know that a great many DO in fact volunteer to do so. They are the ones that have caught on that they have a real problem that needs to be addressed. If they are caught and they have a real problem abusing their children, they are substantiated. I was talking about unsubstantiated parents. Is this what you are saying happens: "We have completed our investigation and have decided to unsubstantiate the allegations against you." "Oh, okay, then, here you go, please take my children." But the real reason is almost as bizarre and stands as the bewitching foundation for systemic, institutional child abuse. Because agencies need a "stick" to force clients to accept their wares, children are being abused by the very agencies mandated to protect them. Nonsense. You yourself quoted last year the numbers of children that are left with families and recieve services. Precisely. That is the reason for the stick -- the threat to take the children into custody at a later date if the parent doesn't jump through the hoops. And you and I both know that most abusers and those that neglect would do nothing without some prodding. Your lies that they have to do it voluntarily or it doesn't work, notwithstanding. I was not talking about parents who abuse or neglect or put their children at risk of abuse or neglect. I was talking about parents involved in cases where CPS determined that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or suspect that the child has been maltreated or is at risk of being maltreated. We learn in another current thread in this newsgroup that children are being taken into state custody because their parents are not "cooperative" with workers. Depends on what "cooperative" actually means. Doesn't it. No, not really. Not when, again, I am talking about parents in cases where CPS determined there was not sufficient evidence to suspect that their children were maltreated or were at risk of being maltreated. In these cases, the travesty against the nonvictim children exists regardless of what "uncooperative" behavior their innocent parents presented with. How is it even remotely justifyable to forcibly take children from their families and incarcerate them because their parents are not playing the game the way caseworkers want them to? "The Game?" Keeping children safe and demanding their parents do so is to you A GAME? You slimy creep. I said nothing about keeping children safe or demanding their parents do so. What I did say was that nonvictim children were being removed from unsubstantiated parents because those innocent parents did not "cooperate" with CPS caseworkers. This is punishing innocent children for the perceived discourtesy of their parents. This is systemic, institutional child abuse. Too many children are being placed into an already overcrowded and abusive foster care system for the wrong reasons. Nonsense. A single bad placement is too many, but we are not seeing vast numbers of children so placed. Yer a liar. Depends what you consider "vast." 96,000 children seems pretty vast to me. It is about 96,000 times worse than a single bad placement, which you say is too many. Must have been my imagination. No one here would lie, or be mistaken in such things. The institutional child abuse occuring in state care is far too staggering for anyone to be mistaken. One is "staggering." Yer a liar. Yes, one is staggering. 96,000 is 96,000 times more staggering. We may disagree as to the cause of the magnitude of abuse children suffer in state care, but none of us are mistaken as to its existance. You bet we disagree. YOU have tried to blame foster parents for losing it when children came into their home with behaviors to intense and upsetting. YOU are a liar and a 3 dollar bill. It is inappropriate and barbaric to blame children for their own victimization by adult foster carers, regardless of children's behaviors. Following the death of a 17-month-old child in an overcrowded foster home in Florida and the arrest of her foster mother for first-degree murder, national and local child advocacy groups are calling for an independent federal investigative Strike Force. The Strike Force would immediately investigate all foster homes with more than five children and monitor the safety of children placed in overcrowded foster homes by Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF). The coalition of child advocates says the conditions surrounding the toddler's death in foster care are not isolated but symptomatic of a failure by DCF to protect and care for foster children throughout the state. A federal audit of the Florida foster care system by the Department of Human Service begins this month. http://www.childrensrights.org/News/news.htm Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action. Children's Rights, the organization that runs the website you cited, has done much to seek a solution to the abuse of children by foster carers. Yep. Lot's of suing. That's gonna work when the state is strapped for money. Notice that some states, like Oregon, are saying they can't even see 50% of the events called into their hotline? And those are calls they would normally have gone out on. Are the families Oregon does not investigate or assess still guilty of child abuse? Your deal is that the parents are guilty of child abuse or neglect if the investigated cases are unsubstantiated or substantiated. I was wondering if that guideline extends to those cases not even investigated and given a disposition. http://www.shepherd-express.com/6_30...wsandviews.htm "Question 7: The child welfare system in Milwaukee was so bad that in 2002 the federal court ordered the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to provide better services. DHFS must attain specific outcomes on or before Jan. 1, 2006, just a few months away. Do you: A. Provide more money for training and support of foster parents, caseworker retention, domestic violence services for families and the creation of an ombudsman to look into complaints. B. Pick out just one new program to fund, in this case a family safety program, and disregard the other offers on the table. Neither. Neither plan will address the problems with child welfare system in Milwaukee. Problems so bad that the federal courts had to step in. If you think Plan B will work, hopefully you're right, because that's the only new foster care program that will receive additional funding. Gov. Doyle proposed option A." I don't think plan B will work. I don't think plan A will work, either. Here's what you lie about, constantly in this ng. You claim that federal money is free to be used for whatever the state wishes. That's either monumental ignorance, or blatant propagandistic lying. I can't imagine it's ignorance, not with your self appointed role of "expert." Ninety percent of federal child welfare funding is based upon the number of children from impoverished families placed into foster care. As your cut and pastes point out, when states get exclusions to draw down the federal funding for other reasons, the foster care population drops. Hmm. http://www.ctkidslink.org/media/pres...fostercare.pdf Read. Think. Why would just a few states have to get "waivers" to use federal dollars on services to families to intervene if it could only be used, as you claim, as a general fund for such programs. You idiot. You liar. You fool. That they cannot use federal funding for services to families is the very reason why, without the waivers, states put so many children in foster care, as your cut and paste suggests. Read just below: "The report outlines how current federal financing rules favor keeping children in foster care over providing services that can help keep children at home or support other permanent, stable arrangements for children like legal guardianship. States are currently reimbursed by the federal government for caring for children in foster care, but extremely limited in their ability to spend those same federal dollars on services like mental health and substance abuse treatment or alternatives like subsidized guardianship that give abused and neglected children more stable, permanent homes. Nevertheless, despite these current federal funding restrictions, the report shows that some states, when granted flexible use of federal funding through "waivers," have succeeded in reducing the number or length of stay of children in foster care in part by using federal funds to pay for these alternative services" And any thinking honest human being that looks closely at the problem KNOWS that the problem is parental abuse of chidlren. The problem outlined in the newsstory you pasted in this message thread and what we are discussing involved the alleged murder of a child by a foster carer. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Doug wrote: Kane writes: No, Doug cons. Hi, Kane, I see you have run out of beef again. I delivered "the beef," long ago in this ng. Starting over three years ago, Doug. Proving again and again you are ignorant, and full of bull****. Lacking any substantative reply to the number of children removed from homes CPS unsubstantiates for any childmaltreatment or risk of maltreatment, you cite an article that has absolutely no relevance to the post to which you reply. It has great relevance to your propagandist ways. And I said so. So once again you are using exactly those tactics of dodging and weaseling. The issues concerning children that are removed as 'unsubstantiated' I have answered, and you have failed to counter. ...And childish name-calling of course. No, it's quite adult name calling. You are an asshole. And a liar. Yours is an understandable preoccupation, since it is impossible to excuse much of current CPS practice with substance or authorities. The literature abounds with empirical evidence of its failure. The literature abounds, as I have pointed out, with even authorities that YOU cite, that says plainly enough that the scope of child abuse is far greater than is currently being addressed...much more of it than is responded to sufficiently. The system is overburdened, and always has been and THAT is what the authorities say...even your own citation choices. And here's just one of the ways he pulls the wool over your eyes, if you are a reader in this ng. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=997688 Thieves live in terror of being robbed. You that afraid are yah? The article you cite talks about methodology in the junk science that feeds some of your Type II errors. No, it is exactly the opposite. But then that's the favorite first ploy of the weasel and liar. I think most of us in this forum would wholeheartedly agree with what the author has to say about small studies, self-reported situations (like prisoners complaining that they are there because, afterall, they were spanked as kids -- we all know that it's not the criminal's fault, but his parents and everyone else). So do you wish to call the reports and surveys of those even YOU have cited that include, but you ignore, clear and uncontrovertable claims of a massive overload of the system by virtue of the amount of abuse going on? Or do you wish to call those folks liars? But the article does not address anything in the post to which you reply (and you quote below). You continue: Subtle changes in wording, shifting the meanings of claims and statements by "experts," No comments exist in my post about so-called experts, their claims, or anything close to it. Why do you insist on this weaseling then? You know perfectly well I am addressing your general propagandist methods and messages here. This is why I call you a liar. Because you do such things to misled, and that IS lying. avoiding reality by taking claims out of context -- such as data sets to measure one thing being used to make claims about things that appear related but in themselves are not being examined. Nothing out of context in this post to which you reply. In fact, to the contrary, I quoted exactly the entire section on CPS findings directly from USDHHS' "Child Maltreatment, 2002." I was, and you know it, referring to ALL you lies and subterfuges, not just this one. The quoting, while ignoring all the postings that I have shown why those findings do NOT fit the assumptions you promote and have in the past, is a simple lie. The cleverness of the propagandist. These latter are Doug's stock in trade as a propagandist. None of these things you descibe appear in the post to which you reply. You are a liar. The very act of ignoring my past posts that answered questions the validity of the term "unsubstantiated" is sufficient to show you as a liar. You are playing with an empty hand, I played those hands months and even years ago here, and you systematically ignore them or wish to argue them again to the same end...that you finally dodge the truth. so you call the author of information you cannot challenge childish names. Liar is not a childish name. You are a liar. You attempt to and do mislead. If the information below is "propaganda", so us some beef -- some documented information that challenges the facts I have provided. I have in the past. Again and again. You simple with to exercise me as a weasel tactic. Enjoy being conned by him, if you wish, or do your own thinking and especially watch out for him when he says the same thing but loads you up with HIS biases and HIS agenda first. I am sure the readers here are doing their own thinking. You have working them like a carney on the midway. YOu appeal to the biased, fears, and dysfunctions of character and ignorance like the pro I think you are. They have since the beginning of their involvement in this newsgroup and will continue to do so. Nonsense. You have been playing to their vulnerabilities from as far back as I've looked at your postings. If you want them to consider any rebuttal you may have to what I have written in the post to which you reply, then give them some substance...some information they can use their own thinking to consider as refuting the substance of my post. They've seen my posts in reply to you for over three years. In some part of their biased brains resides some capacity for truth and they KNOW in that part of themselves that you are a bull**** artist of great skill. Again and again you made claims, or attempted to refute mine, that ended in your ignominous defeat shown by just such tactics as these....pretending we hadn't argued it out and pretending I hadn't shown how wrong you were, or how much a liar you were, or how stupid you are. From who does CPS investigations, to the use of FBI systems for background checks, to how jobs are specialized or not in CPS, again and again you've been shown to be a clever fool and liar. Live with it. By simply calling those who post information you don't like to see names, That in itself is a lie. There are plenty of posts here that I do not like the information in wherein I do not call the poster a liar. I only call liars liars. you are not giving readers a chance to think about what you have to say. Three years of posting on the same topics over and over, at instigation by lying AGAIN about something that you were refuted over repeatedly. Instead, you leave them no alternative but to think of what the name-calling says about you. I quite agree with you that most do have the capacity to think, and that those few who cannot, for themselves, have some place in them that isn't foul and full of your ****. They know the truth. It will just take time for them to grow out of their biases. Most of what he babbles below is just more of his monumental phony balony CPS reform crusader garbage. He's just out to destroy. What appears below -- and the substance of the post to which you now reply -- is: 1) The entire quoted narrative from USDHHS defining the findings made by CPS workers. USDHHS is the agency that publishes the data on how many children are subject to each of these findings. I responded to this nonsense again and again. You ignore my posts pretending it never happened. That is what makes you a liar. And THAT is what long time readers here know. 2) The fact that 96,000 children were removed from families CPS caseworkers themselves unsubstantiated because they found no reason to suspect that those children were at risk of maltreatment or actually maltreated. And that has been explained fully with authoritative reports that show that unsubstantiated do NOT mean what you claim it means. It is a definition NOT in use in the field. 3) The fact that child advocacy groups in Florida are seeking a federal investigation of overcrowded foster homes after a foster carer was charged with murdering a foster child. Yep. And the truth is that YOU claimed that foster placements were DOWN. They are not. 4) That foster care systems in more than a dozen jurisdictions are under the stewardship of the federal courts because of the maltreatment of foster children by state agencies. And you refuse to acknowledge the posts I put here with citations that judges have made the first order of business MORE FUNDING...NOW!!! 5) That Children's Rights, an organization founded by a family court specialist from ACLU, has successfully won every class action suit it has brought in federal courts against foster care systems across the nation. Of course. They sue for the things that are caused by lack of funding. Stop playing stupid. No one here, not even your pets are unaware of that. 6) That a variable other than child abuse or neglect or risk of either is the causal agent for the removal of a large percentage of children from their families. That is a lie. Plain and simple. The very wording is a mass of weasel talk. ...snip more of your bull****.... But do have nice day. 0:- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT but for all Foster Parents: NFPA Position Statements | PopInJay | Foster Parents | 1 | June 10th 05 03:06 AM |
What if a foster parent is a bad parent? | angryandsad | Foster Parents | 10 | September 13th 04 06:51 AM |
'Horrible' Home | Kane | General | 1 | July 16th 03 02:29 AM |
| Database should audit high $$ in Foster Care system | Kane | General | 3 | July 15th 03 06:43 AM |