wDnnSCPS

Kane writes:

Yes. So can you. So can anyone that can read and understands
probability. For instance, if there is a rise in unemployment there is
an accompanying rise, shortly after in domestic violence. Can you
figure that out? Cause and effect?

Hi, Kane,

These population wide probabilities do not extend to individual cases. The
most basic lesson learned in research 101 is that one cannot apply
statistics of an overall population to an individual case. In other words,
if there is a rise in unemployment, a CPS worker should not determine that
the particular family she is working with is any more likely to be
experiencing domestic violence. The employed father is no more likely to be
an abuser than another father. In times of low unemployment, on the other
hand, the unemployed father is no more likely to be an abuser than anyone
else.

The very reason for investigations and assessments is to take the guess work
and projections out of child abuse and neglect. Risk assessments and other
unproven instruments that try to prove the specific with the general are
experiments in witch craft. If you want to discover if a family has abused
its young, investigate them and find the evidence.

Interestingly, there is an accompanying rate of substance abuse, and
lower incomes. I've heard, 0:- , that both of these and other factors
connected to being out of work, tends to stress folks in a household,
even the kiddies.

Yet many families do not abuse under tremendous stress. Identification of
stressors does not equal abuse. To project abuse based on stressors is to
deny the very utility and dignity of a human being.

I've heard also that stress levels coorelate to abuse rates. What do
you think, Jack? No connection?

Not in any particular home. To find out if abuse occurs in a specific home,
you need to investigate and find out. A family that is experiencing all the
stress in the world may well be a family that is not under any standard
abusing its children. In fact, that is the more common situation.

But can CPS predict crime BEFORE it happens? We already know domestic
violence is bad for the kiddies.

Yes, just as I said above. And the assessment instruments, contrary to
your unsupported claim, and MY previously posted report on one that was
criticized in this ng, but recognized as one of the most excellent, do
work.

No, CPS or anyone else CANNOT predict crime BEFORE it happens. The answer
is obvious.

A risk assessment recognized as one of the most excellent was inherently and
clearly flawed. Readers got to see that themselves. And THAT was one of
the GOOD ones. LOL! Imagine what one of the bad ones must be like.

You may be thinking of, since you apparently don't know much about such
things, how ANY TOOL CAN BE MISUSED. In fact, my fact finding
adventures, then subsequent threads on assessment tools in this ng,
began with a small debate over the definition of "substantiated," and
"unsubstantiated" findings by CPS workers and their supervisors.

The risk assessment shared in the group was inherently flawed and destined
to produce error no matter how it is applied -- short of ignoring its
findings. You suggested a good determination would be made by the worker if
she ignored the score developed by the risk assessment.

Any instrument that gives a mother points tallying to neglect of her
children for being under 30 years old and a single mother is inherently
flawed.

My worthy opponent, who shall go nameless so I do not embarrass him
with what he might mistake as an accolade in his favor, posited that
the rate of unsubstantiated abuse was a varifiably correct number,
based on both the feds definition of "substantiated," and the field
application of it by line workers and their supers.

The rate of unsubstantiated and substantiated abuse is published yearly by
the USDHHS. These numbers are submitted by the state child protective
agencies themselves. The new defination of unsubstantiated is a finding
where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying evidence to SUSPECT that a
child may be at future risk of maltreatment or has actually been neglected
or abused. SUSPECT. So, understanding which families are unsubstantiated
is a simple task. However, determining just how many substantiated families
are really neglectful or abusive is next to impossible. We don't know who
are enveloped into the substantiated finding, since families are
substantiated for being "at risk" of future problems using the assessment
tools we have been discussing. Many innocent parents have been
substantiated.

Fact is, the feds themselves, USDHHS, were so concerned that the
definition was NOT being applied correctly, that they commissioned a
study. And guess what it found? That indeed, unsubstantiated did NOT
mean the child was NOT injured or at risk of injury, but other factors
were considered.

The feds themselves came up with the defination of unsubstantiated AFTER the
results of one of thousands of studies they finance was published.
Obviously, USDHHS found nothing in the study you reference to influence
their defination...or the current one reflects the findings of the study.
Nonetheless, there is NO evidence that USDHHS was "so concerned that the
previous defination was not being applied correctly that they 'commissioned'
a study." We now have a new defination of unsubstantiated, created after
that study. It is a finding where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying
evidence to SUSPECT that a child may be at future risk of maltreatment or
has actually been neglected or abused.

If you read the MI assessment form that was provided for argument here,
you can readily see how easy such a tool could be misused. I protest
it. I said, in the debate, that finding it was NOT used correctly was
in itself the issue.

By your analogy of the example we used, the only way to use the tool
correctly was to ignore its results. You suggested that a good CPS worker
would bypass the assessments findings. Boy, that makes the assessment an
excellent instrument, doesn't it? "It is accurate only to the extent you
are willing to ignore it."

My worthy opponent still seems to think that the definition by the feds
applies as accurate to the data coming out of the states. Isn't that
laughable?

It is accurate according to both the states and the feds. The defination
was made after the study you talk about was published. That study showed
that many families were SUBSTANTIATED because the worker did not get along
with her supervisor or other unrelated variables.

A scalpel or fire or an LEO's gun, all tools, can be misused, or they
can be used correctly.

Or they can be ignored, like you suggest a good worker would have ignored
the findings of this award-winning assessment tool.

Doug

Doug wrote:

.........in his droning lecture format...that rarely addresses the
actual issue or subject under discussion.............

Kane writes:

Yes. So can you. So can anyone that can read and understands
probability. For instance, if there is a rise in unemployment there
is
an accompanying rise, shortly after in domestic violence. Can you
figure that out? Cause and effect?

Hi, Kane,

These population wide probabilities do not extend to individual
cases.

yawn

The
most basic lesson learned in research 101 is that one cannot apply
statistics of an overall population to an individual case.

Yep. No point, of course, but do go on. Did I say one could?

In other words,
if there is a rise in unemployment, a CPS worker should not determine
that
the particular family she is working with is any more likely to be
experiencing domestic violence.

Yep. Did I say they should?

Unemployment would be one factor in risk, not proof of injury. That
comes with assessing the child.

The employed father is no more likely to be
an abuser than another father.

Sorry. Probability theory says you are wrong. If the other father is
not unemployed each has different probabilities. If for no other reason
the opportunity by proximity.

I've always contended that's why women are seen as having abused more
often than men. They are with kids more.

Carpenters are more likely to suffer from splinters. They are around
wood more.

In times of low unemployment, on the other
hand, the unemployed father is no more likely to be an abuser than
anyone
else.

Really?

So when jobs are easy to get, "times of low unemployment," an
unemployed father is more likely to abuse?

Can you explain that for us in the first row of lecture hall seats?
Those in the back are sleeping, of course. 0:-

And while you are at it, why that would, when you get it sorted out
which is which, be something a worker would note in their family
assessment, "father is unemployed, staying home with the children,
while mother works overtime at the laundry where she is employed."

Would that be a dishonest assessment or malpractice on the part of the
worker to so note? And possibly include, "father has not spent the long
periods of time in directly caring for the children, and claims he's
feeling considerable stress?"

The very reason for investigations and assessments is to take the
guess work
and projections out of child abuse and neglect.

may I be excused to go to the bathroom, teach?

Risk assessments and other
unproven instruments that try to prove the specific with the general
are
experiments in witch craft. If you want to discover if a family has
abused
its young, investigate them and find the evidence.

Yep...are you really going to suggest that the ONLY investigation is
going to be the "assessment" (and they are NOT unproven, they are
MISUSED, as the study provided by one of your sock friends yesterday
supported --- and I have complained, teach, of their misuse for two
reasons...the one you bring up...and the one that ****s up the data on
"substantiated" and "unsubstantiated").

Please, Doug. I don't think even your little ass kissing buddies here
would fall for that. Here in this ng all kinds of intervention "events"
have been criticized, some justifiably, some not, not just
assessments...so obviously more than "assessments" are going on.

Interestingly, there is an accompanying rate of substance abuse,
and
lower incomes. I've heard, 0:- , that both of these and other
factors
connected to being out of work, tends to stress folks in a
household,
even the kiddies.

Yet many families do not abuse under tremendous stress.

Yet many families are not CAUGHT abusing, under tremendous stress.

Lots of drunk drivers don't have a single wreck....yet.

Identification of
stressors does not equal abuse.

Yep. It's called, "risk" just like chemically impaired drivers.

To project abuse based on stressors is to
deny the very utility and dignity of a human being.

In those instances where that is done, you would be correct. Without
corroborating evidence, it would be pointless to claim the child was
"abused."

Are you suggesting, because a child might be simply dirty, as yet
untested for chemically induced injury, and the meth lab in the family
bathroom is all the evidence available, that the child shouldn't be
removed? That the assessment that just covers the things YOU made up
for a fictitious "client," would be ALL that was used to open a case?

The projection isn't "abuse" Doug, and you know it. It's RISK or abuse
and or neglect.

But enough factors together and the incidence level goes very high
indeed.

In fact, some of the media reports I've been posting showed where CPS
FAILED, Doug, failed, to act when risks were reported. And children
died.

I don't know why they didn't act, but I suspect your kind has a lot to
do with that. The pressure NOT to intervene until the injuries are
sufficient to hold up in criminal court. Hell, kids get fall down and
play injuries all the time. So surface bruises, even broken skin need
not be seen as indicators of abuse, right, Doug?

And until the child is gasping for air, and their hair is falling out,
let's not check on them to see if the family in fact does have a meth
lab in the bathroom.

I've heard also that stress levels coorelate to abuse rates. What
do
you think, Jack? No connection?

Not in any particular home.

Now that has to be proof to any professionals that come here that you
aren't one.

Are you seriously saying you can prove that heightened stress in a
family does NOT correlate with higher rates of abuse?

That in families, specific familes, that have abused that there is no,
or rarely, any stress as a precursor?

To find out if abuse occurs in a specific home,
you need to investigate and find out.

prof, my bladder seems to be full again...and I'm feeling this urge to
go. D you suppose this could be boredom or something? 0:-


A family that is experiencing all the
stress in the world may well be a family that is not under any
standard
abusing its children. In fact, that is the more common situation.

And a family that is abusing it's children might be experiencing all
the stress in the world, and not even be counted..since no one has
reported the abuse.

And is your scenario more common? Do you recall the recorded phone msg
by a grandma that went to an LDS answering machine and the police
investigated that I posted recently? THAT is the more common
situation, Doug. That when people feel stressed they DO tend to take it
out on the kids and each other.

It's the indicator for domestic abuse and child abuse that is MOST
common. A family with high stress levels.

Are you suggesting that a family with low stress indicators is as
likely to abuse and those with high ones?

There has to be a study somewhere, prof, can you point to it please.

But can CPS predict crime BEFORE it happens? We already know
domestic
violence is bad for the kiddies.

Yes, just as I said above. And the assessment instruments, contrary
to
your unsupported claim, and MY previously posted report on one that
was
criticized in this ng, but recognized as one of the most excellent,
do
work.

No, CPS or anyone else CANNOT predict crime BEFORE it happens. The
answer
is obvious.

Sure it can. I did not say in specific instances, other than the
likelihood, the risk.

Do you tend to drive around traffic jams if you hear of them on the
radio? I do. Why? Please, don't be silly.

If someone has a high level of stress and those factors that lead to,
by actuarial methods, more incidences of abuse of children in the
household, are you suggesting it be ignored?

A risk assessment recognized as one of the most excellent was
inherently and
clearly flawed.

BS

Readers got to see that themselves.

Nah...you rewrote the scenario and ignored to highly relevant points.

And THAT was one of
the GOOD ones. LOL! Imagine what one of the bad ones must be like.

It's not the instruments entirely. Some are good. Some not. As the
report posted yesterday by a sockpuppet, and an old poster to this ng
that you know, 0:-, the misuse, even to the point of changing the
content and application, are the real problems.

And I too have pointed that out when I posted for you the WA report on
how the USDHHS definition for substantiation was being ignored. I
assume the assessment tools being misused were very likely a part of
that misuse.

You may be thinking of, since you apparently don't know much about
such
things, how ANY TOOL CAN BE MISUSED. In fact, my fact finding
adventures, then subsequent threads on assessment tools in this ng,
began with a small debate over the definition of "substantiated,"
and
"unsubstantiated" findings by CPS workers and their supervisors.

The risk assessment shared in the group was inherently flawed and
destined
to produce error no matter how it is applied -- short of ignoring its

findings.

That is either the stupidest thing you could think of to say, or you
are a liar. It's nothing of the sort...since "how it is applied" could
be partial, fully, not at all, or rigidly, or sloppily. My own
complaint, but the way, and as I've said so in the past.

You suggested a good determination would be made by the worker if
she ignored the score developed by the risk assessment.

Unnhh...no, *I* don't suggest that. The tool itself gives here and by
consultation with her supervisor, that very opportunity...and there is
no LAW with penalties that forces her to use it any particular way.

Any instrument that gives a mother points tallying to neglect of her
children for being under 30 years old and a single mother is
inherently
flawed.

Any asshole like you that thinks that a single item is the lone
deciding factor in the outcome....whether or not to open a case....is
full of BS and working to become king of the ****pile.

My worthy opponent, who shall go nameless so I do not embarrass him
with what he might mistake as an accolade in his favor, posited
that
the rate of unsubstantiated abuse was a varifiably correct number,
based on both the feds definition of "substantiated," and the field
application of it by line workers and their supers.

The rate of unsubstantiated and substantiated abuse is published
yearly by
the USDHHS.

R R R ...here we go again folks. I have shown you repeatedly why this
argument is bogus. You just keep repeating yourself, rather than
answering my rebuttal.

These numbers are submitted by the state child protective
agencies themselves.

The are NOT meeting the USDHHS definition of "unsubstantiated and
substantiated" hence the numbers are misleading...especially those that
you claim show that "unsubstantiated" cases are being opened at huge
rates when there is no injury or risk. The WA study makes plain what
the USDHHS was concerned about and what I know...that many cases that
are "unsubstantiated" in fact still have risk and injury.

The new defination of unsubstantiated is a finding
where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying evidence to SUSPECT
that a
child may be at future risk of maltreatment or has actually been
neglected
or abused. SUSPECT.

Oh, now we go to the NEW definition, which still does not PROVE the
states and the workers FOLLOW that definition either. Brilliant.

So, understanding which families are unsubstantiated
is a simple task.

R R R...no it isn't if the worker, as in so many cases, as found by the
WA study, does NOT stick to the "new" definition any more than they did
with the old.

However, determining just how many substantiated families
are really neglectful or abusive is next to impossible.

R R R ....did you forget what this will do to the claim of "8 to 10
times more likely in foster care?"

R R R ...toooooo much. Keep it up.

It's like the infinite number of monkey on infinite keyboards
claim....if I let you go on indefinately you will eventually destroy
all your own arguments and claims. What a delightful day this is.

We don't know who
are enveloped into the substantiated finding, since families are
substantiated for being "at risk" of future problems using the
assessment
tools we have been discussing. Many innocent parents have been
substantiated.

I doubt that. But I do know that many NOT innocent parents have been
"unsubstantiated" and cases openned anyway...your last big fart fest of
complaint, that I rebutted with the study.

Fact is, the feds themselves, USDHHS, were so concerned that the
definition was NOT being applied correctly, that they commissioned
a
study. And guess what it found? That indeed, unsubstantiated did
NOT
mean the child was NOT injured or at risk of injury, but other
factors
were considered.

The feds themselves came up with the defination of unsubstantiated
AFTER the
results of one of thousands of studies they finance was published.

Gosh, "The feds?" I'm so impressed.

What has the definition got to do with the accuracy of the data? This
is a constant problem in data gathering and analysis. Consistency in
what the data sources really are.

One "unsubstantiated" might met the definition, and another not....as
the WA report showed you, Doug, and you are in deep denial of.

Obviously, USDHHS found nothing in the study you reference to
influence
their defination...or the current one reflects the findings of the
study.

You mean to tell us that you think the reason for the study was to
examine the DEFINITION, and not the field practice, to determine the
accuracy and reliability of the data? R R R R ....

Nonetheless, there is NO evidence that USDHHS was "so concerned that
the
previous defination was not being applied correctly that they
'commissioned'
a study."

I took that from the wording of the study itself. It has nothing do
with the "definition" accuracy ... only with the concern the field
practice wasn't meeting it.

Something that every real worker out there, and those that are
interested enough to be paying close attention to facts, and not busy
looking for propaganda mill fodder, KNOWS.

It's always been this way. Workers make their determinations in many
ways, for many reason, not a little cut and paste style "assessment,"
or limiting themselves to the "definition" of the feds. I doubt they'd
get a thing done if they did. And they'd unfairly treat many families
that don't quite fit the definition, and they'd very likey cause MORE
deaths and injuries to children if they stuck to closely to a formula.

We now have a new defination of unsubstantiated, created after
that study. It is a finding where CPS workers fail to find any
qualifying
evidence to SUSPECT that a child may be at future risk of
maltreatment or
has actually been neglected or abused.

And that changes field practice, and the accuracy of the reported data
how?

R R R ...yer a pip, yesireebob.

If you read the MI assessment form that was provided for argument
here,
you can readily see how easy such a tool could be misused. I
protest
it. I said, in the debate, that finding it was NOT used correctly
was
in itself the issue.

By your analogy of the example we used, the only way to use the tool
correctly was to ignore its results.

What analogy are you referring to? I see none.

And no, I made no such argument. You are playing at "all-inclusive" and
"excluding YOUR choice" in that wonderful paradoxical thinking error
habit of yours.

You suggested that a good CPS worker
would bypass the assessments findings.

No I didn't. I suggested that a good CPS worker would make a judgement
case by case, and where specific conditions prevailed, just as the
accompanying guidelines for the tool said, to consider those conditions
in addition to the line by line items. And to consult with their
supervisor.

In other words NOT lock the client into the very scenario YOU
fanticized to create the lie you wished to foist on the reader.

Boy, that makes the assessment an
excellent instrument, doesn't it? "It is accurate only to the extent
you
are willing to ignore it."

And you can try and prove that's what I said, and that it's not your
fantasy.

I'll wait right here. 0:-]

My worthy opponent still seems to think that the definition by the
feds
applies as accurate to the data coming out of the states. Isn't
that
laughable?

It is accurate according to both the states and the feds.

Oh. Where does it say the data was now being collected according to the
definition?

The defination
was made after the study you talk about was published. That study
showed
that many families were SUBSTANTIATED because the worker did not get
along
with her supervisor or other unrelated variables.

Ah...yes...the "other unrelated variables." I notice you avoided and
actual quote. And I know why.

Because those "other," "variables" are NOT unrelated, and in fact
except for that supervisor problem, were in fact very MUCH related.

Go back and read the study.

A scalpel or fire or an LEO's gun, all tools, can be misused, or
they
can be used correctly.

Or they can be ignored, like you suggest a good worker would have
ignored
the findings of this award-winning assessment tool.

I suggest they weigh more than the line by line items, since no
"assessment tool," that it won't take four gig to store on a laptop,
can be used for a final answer as the ONLY tool for assessing the need
or lack for services to a family.

And that is made plain, even by the critique done by the study offerred
yesterday on this very ng.

"Jack" can help you out, Doug. Give him a buzz.

http://www.ihs-trainet.com/CCWP/RA%20for%20PDF.pdf

Doug

Enjoy, 0:-

http://www.ihs-trainet.com/CCWP/RA%20for%20PDF.pdf

Thanks for the link, Kane!

It contains EVEN MORE DISCLAIMERS about the
reasons it contains GIANT HOLES and some that
even disclaim against being used in the
VERY WAY THAT IT IS BEING USED!

As a proof of the validity of these
assessment "instruments", Kane basically
shot himself in the foot with this link to a PDF!

It speaks AGAINST the VERY USES that states
are putting the "tools" to!

This makes the abuse CULPABLY NEGLIGENT!
The states are knowingly MISUSING the things,
although I think it's funny that the CREATOR
idiots would put this stuff out as
"Structured Decision Making" and preach about
it's "uniformity" while at the same time
offering these MONUMENTAL disclaimers against
the very DECISIONS they seem to be intended for!

Greegor wrote:
http://www.ihs-trainet.com/CCWP/RA%20for%20PDF.pdf

Thanks for the link, Kane!

It contains EVEN MORE DISCLAIMERS about the
reasons it contains GIANT HOLES and some that
even disclaim against being used in the
VERY WAY THAT IT IS BEING USED!

You missed me saying, for months, and again recently, that I criticized
the way in which it was misused? Odd, you don't see what is in front of
your face.

But then, you tend to see what you wish, and interpret that only one
way...yours.

As a proof of the validity of these
assessment "instruments", Kane basically
shot himself in the foot with this link to a PDF!

Unnhh...I did not provide that link originally. I was here yesterday
from one of your old buddies wearing a sock over his
head...hand...s'cuse.

It is, in it's way, a very useful call to continue working on
establishing standards across the country.

Have you seen me speak against such a move? Did you miss in those many
coversations with Doug, where I have said I decried the lack of
"practice standards" and even harrassed CPS in my area for a number of
years, and lobbied the state legislature to work toward producing
same...with the help of the better colleges of graduate social work?

Like I said above, you see what you wish and nothing else.

It speaks AGAINST the VERY USES that states
are putting the "tools" to!

No, it speaks out to the fact they must do SOME kind of assessment.
That IS what the worker is paid to do and it's in their job
description, and in policy and statute. They do NOT just pick kids up
off the street and keep them for fun and profit. Though you and your
cronies keep trying to imply, and occasionally in the past have said
so, implicitely (Dear Fern, we miss "it" so).

This makes the abuse CULPABLY NEGLIGENT!

You mean that child abuse isn't real?

The states are knowingly MISUSING the things,
although I think it's funny that the CREATOR
idiots would put this stuff out as
"Structured Decision Making" and preach about
it's "uniformity" while at the same time
offering these MONUMENTAL disclaimers against
the very DECISIONS they seem to be intended for!

Well, as I said, and the paper you cite says (it's not a scientific
study, just a review of materials and literature) the instruments
themselves can be good, or bad, but any can be misused by their
misapplication, including not using them as rendered at all.

Please go back and read the paper again. It's full of just such
agreement with what I've claimed all along about them.

If the worker, and the agency do not use them correctly, of course they
are not working correctly.

And what would YOU use to assess a family suspected of and reported for
abuse and or neglect?

Please create a useful assessment tool that would be universally
appliable, and we could convince the states not to misuse. I'm all for
that, and have said so in many ways in the past.

I came here with claims, three years ago, plus or minus, that I was for
CPS reform. I haven't changed in the least. I refuse though to lie to
work toward that end. You and others here are quite willing to lie
toward their "reform" which often takes the form of very dangerous, or
expensively foolish and failed ideas being run out again, from two
decades ago.

Now, produce.

And while you are at it, do you support the use of lethal force by
parents to take their children from state custody? If so, under what
circumstances?

Thanks for your long study on this last issue. What, about three to
four months now? I know your answer, when you produce it, will be
filled with your wit, wisdom, and intellectual prowess demonstrated for
us all.

0:-

Doug wrote:
Kane writes:


Yes. So can you. So can anyone that can read and understands
probability. For instance, if there is a rise in unemployment there is
an accompanying rise, shortly after in domestic violence. Can you
figure that out? Cause and effect?

Hi, Kane,

These population wide probabilities do not extend to individual cases. The
most basic lesson learned in research 101 is that one cannot apply
statistics of an overall population to an individual case.

What one learns in research 101 is that a well designed study can be
applied to an individual case. The methodology employed in a well
designed research study does indeed generalize.

In other words,
if there is a rise in unemployment, a CPS worker should not determine that
the particular family she is working with is any more likely to be
experiencing domestic violence.

If several well designed studies have identified independent variables
that correlate with dependent variables, and the variable of
unemployment is positively correlated with domestic violence, then the
CPS worker is certainly able to view this family as being at risk for
domestic violence. This is especially true since in order for a CPS
worker to be involved, there is already a red flag.

The employed father is no more likely to be
an abuser than another father.

If several well designed studies have studied the relationship between
father's employment and abuse, and have consistently demonstrated a
positive correlation between unemployed fathers and abuse, then yes, the
unemployed father is more likely to be an abuser. I'm not saying this
is true, I'm just trying to explain how research works.

In times of low unemployment, on the other
hand, the unemployed father is no more likely to be an abuser than anyone
else.

Unless you have research to demonstrate this claim, again this is
nothing more than your opinion.

The very reason for investigations and assessments is to take the guess work
and projections out of child abuse and neglect. Risk assessments and other
unproven instruments that try to prove the specific with the general are
experiments in witch craft. If you want to discover if a family has abused
its young, investigate them and find the evidence.

I don't know what Risk Assessment you are talking about. Do you have a
reference to the tool that was used?

You are correct when you state that investigations are important.
However, research can help identify families that may be at increased
risk, especially when the family is already in the CPS system, as in
your examples above.

LaVonne


Interestingly, there is an accompanying rate of substance abuse, and
lower incomes. I've heard, 0:- , that both of these and other factors
connected to being out of work, tends to stress folks in a household,
even the kiddies.


Yet many families do not abuse under tremendous stress. Identification of
stressors does not equal abuse. To project abuse based on stressors is to
deny the very utility and dignity of a human being.


I've heard also that stress levels coorelate to abuse rates. What do
you think, Jack? No connection?


Not in any particular home. To find out if abuse occurs in a specific home,
you need to investigate and find out. A family that is experiencing all the
stress in the world may well be a family that is not under any standard
abusing its children. In fact, that is the more common situation.


But can CPS predict crime BEFORE it happens? We already know domestic
violence is bad for the kiddies.

Yes, just as I said above. And the assessment instruments, contrary to
your unsupported claim, and MY previously posted report on one that was
criticized in this ng, but recognized as one of the most excellent, do
work.


No, CPS or anyone else CANNOT predict crime BEFORE it happens. The answer
is obvious.

A risk assessment recognized as one of the most excellent was inherently and
clearly flawed. Readers got to see that themselves. And THAT was one of
the GOOD ones. LOL! Imagine what one of the bad ones must be like.


You may be thinking of, since you apparently don't know much about such
things, how ANY TOOL CAN BE MISUSED. In fact, my fact finding
adventures, then subsequent threads on assessment tools in this ng,
began with a small debate over the definition of "substantiated," and
"unsubstantiated" findings by CPS workers and their supervisors.


The risk assessment shared in the group was inherently flawed and destined
to produce error no matter how it is applied -- short of ignoring its
findings. You suggested a good determination would be made by the worker if
she ignored the score developed by the risk assessment.

Any instrument that gives a mother points tallying to neglect of her
children for being under 30 years old and a single mother is inherently
flawed.


My worthy opponent, who shall go nameless so I do not embarrass him
with what he might mistake as an accolade in his favor, posited that
the rate of unsubstantiated abuse was a varifiably correct number,
based on both the feds definition of "substantiated," and the field
application of it by line workers and their supers.


The rate of unsubstantiated and substantiated abuse is published yearly by
the USDHHS. These numbers are submitted by the state child protective
agencies themselves. The new defination of unsubstantiated is a finding
where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying evidence to SUSPECT that a
child may be at future risk of maltreatment or has actually been neglected
or abused. SUSPECT. So, understanding which families are unsubstantiated
is a simple task. However, determining just how many substantiated families
are really neglectful or abusive is next to impossible. We don't know who
are enveloped into the substantiated finding, since families are
substantiated for being "at risk" of future problems using the assessment
tools we have been discussing. Many innocent parents have been
substantiated.


Fact is, the feds themselves, USDHHS, were so concerned that the
definition was NOT being applied correctly, that they commissioned a
study. And guess what it found? That indeed, unsubstantiated did NOT
mean the child was NOT injured or at risk of injury, but other factors
were considered.


The feds themselves came up with the defination of unsubstantiated AFTER the
results of one of thousands of studies they finance was published.
Obviously, USDHHS found nothing in the study you reference to influence
their defination...or the current one reflects the findings of the study.
Nonetheless, there is NO evidence that USDHHS was "so concerned that the
previous defination was not being applied correctly that they 'commissioned'
a study." We now have a new defination of unsubstantiated, created after
that study. It is a finding where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying
evidence to SUSPECT that a child may be at future risk of maltreatment or
has actually been neglected or abused.


If you read the MI assessment form that was provided for argument here,
you can readily see how easy such a tool could be misused. I protest
it. I said, in the debate, that finding it was NOT used correctly was
in itself the issue.


By your analogy of the example we used, the only way to use the tool
correctly was to ignore its results. You suggested that a good CPS worker
would bypass the assessments findings. Boy, that makes the assessment an
excellent instrument, doesn't it? "It is accurate only to the extent you
are willing to ignore it."


My worthy opponent still seems to think that the definition by the feds
applies as accurate to the data coming out of the states. Isn't that
laughable?


It is accurate according to both the states and the feds. The defination
was made after the study you talk about was published. That study showed
that many families were SUBSTANTIATED because the worker did not get along
with her supervisor or other unrelated variables.


A scalpel or fire or an LEO's gun, all tools, can be misused, or they
can be used correctly.


Or they can be ignored, like you suggest a good worker would have ignored
the findings of this award-winning assessment tool.

Doug

Kane's Komments

Kane:
As I warned Doug, long ago, that a desire to move child abuse
incidences from civil, family court, to criminal court will simply
result in harsher penalties for more people. Here's dad I personally
don't agree with and wish he'd try expanding his awareness and
repertoire somewhat (as though hitting will teach "respect") who should
NOT be going to criminal court and in CPS by investigation he'd like,
unless there were in fact marks, never even make it to family court.

CPS would likely, if he was willing to admit he could learn more and
that his choice might not have been appropriate, would leave the child
in the home, and work out a service plan, with at worst a few sessions
of parenting classes, and possibly an anger management session ro two.

Instead, look at what he's facing....

Councilmember Arrested For Allegedly Beating Son
Malone Says He Was Disciplining Teen For Incident At School

POSTED: 6:59 am EDT May 15, 2005
UPDATED: 9:38 am EDT May 16, 2005

CINCINNATI -- Cincinnati City Councilmember Sam Malone said he was
disciplining his son, but police called it domestic violence and
arrested him for allegedly beating the 14-year-old, News 5 reported.

Police said Malone hit the boy with a belt, and the boy suffered welts
to his back, arms and chest.

Video: Malone Talks Exclusively To News 5

The boy was treated at Children's Hospital and released. The boy is
staying with an uncle.

Malone pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance.
He'll be back in court later this month.

Malone said he was disciplining his son for an incident at school.

"Under the advice of my attorney, I cannot discuss the specific facts
of the offense at this time, but as a responsible parent I am aware
that proper discipline is an important and necessary component of good
parenting," Malone said in a statement...........

[[[ Let's here if for family court and NOT make criminals with records
out of parents that are misled or need some parenting information....or
was this, Doug, a "crime," as you claim all "child abuse" is, and not
treatable? ]]]

The rest is at:

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/new...02/detail.html

Doan
ISD - Data Network Operations
(213) 821-5238
http://www.usc.edu/isd/services/feedback


On 16 May 2005 wrote:

Kane's Komments

Kane:
As I warned Doug, long ago, that a desire to move child abuse
incidences from civil, family court, to criminal court will simply
result in harsher penalties for more people. Here's dad I personally
don't agree with and wish he'd try expanding his awareness and
repertoire somewhat (as though hitting will teach "respect") who should
NOT be going to criminal court and in CPS by investigation he'd like,
unless there were in fact marks, never even make it to family court.

CPS would likely, if he was willing to admit he could learn more and
that his choice might not have been appropriate, would leave the child
in the home, and work out a service plan, with at worst a few sessions
of parenting classes, and possibly an anger management session ro two.

Instead, look at what he's facing....

Councilmember Arrested For Allegedly Beating Son
Malone Says He Was Disciplining Teen For Incident At School

POSTED: 6:59 am EDT May 15, 2005
UPDATED: 9:38 am EDT May 16, 2005

CINCINNATI -- Cincinnati City Councilmember Sam Malone said he was
disciplining his son, but police called it domestic violence and
arrested him for allegedly beating the 14-year-old, News 5 reported.

Police said Malone hit the boy with a belt, and the boy suffered welts
to his back, arms and chest.

Video: Malone Talks Exclusively To News 5

The boy was treated at Children's Hospital and released. The boy is
staying with an uncle.

Malone pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance.
He'll be back in court later this month.

Malone said he was disciplining his son for an incident at school.

"Under the advice of my attorney, I cannot discuss the specific facts
of the offense at this time, but as a responsible parent I am aware
that proper discipline is an important and necessary component of good
parenting," Malone said in a statement...........

[[[ Let's here if for family court and NOT make criminals with records
out of parents that are misled or need some parenting information....or
was this, Doug, a "crime," as you claim all "child abuse" is, and not
treatable? ]]]

The rest is at:

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/new...02/detail.html


I would let the law run its course in this case. I think they can find
twelve "reasonable" person in their community to determine if the line
has been crossed.

"In Ohio, parents are allowed to spank their children, but the law draws a
line at punishment that creates a "substantial risk of serious physical
harm." That includes hospitalization, putting the child's life in danger
and putting the child at risk of being permanently incapacitated or
disfigured.

In Kentucky, spanking your own child is legal, but you may cross the line
if you leave a mark or use something other than your hand.

In Indiana, the law is written to allow "reasonable corporal punishment"
when disciplining a child."

Oops! There were that "reasonable" standard again; something that
anti-spanking zealotS never understood. ;-)

Doan

bobb wrote:
"Pop" wrote in message
...

...

Only if you beleive the state and the researchers. I don't.

bobb

...

And there we have it: You don't believe the 'state', and you don't
believe 'researchers'. Only a "researcher" as you call it, could collect
anything more than anecdotal evidence, which is much the way you do, and
you end up entirely wrong. But you know that don't you? You would rather
believe other ignorants than to know the truth, so you can conintue into
the oblivion you are destined for.

Gee, pop.... don't you read or listen research data?

Alcohol was not good for you... neither was marijuana.

Alcohol in excess causes liver damage, increased risk of high blood
pressure, heart disease, and stroke. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy
increases the infants' risk of being born premature or with low birth
weight. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can result in a child born
with Fetal Alcohol Effects or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, both irreversible
conditions. We know this from research.

Marijuana is especially problematic for teenagers. We know this from
brain development research.

Eggs, coffee and
butter were foods items to be avoided.

And still are. Eggs contain an incredible amount of cholesterol.
Coffee should not be consumed in excess, and for people with high blood
pressure, not at all, unless the coffee is decaf. Butter is extremely
high in fat. Individuals with high cholesterol, high fat diets are at
risk for high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease. We know this
from research.

.00007 people get skin cancer...
soooo stay out of the sun or slosch yourself with expensive sun screen lest
you end up a statistic.

I don't know where you got the .00007 percentage, but the percentage is
actually a lot higher. If you spend a great deal of time outdoors,
sunscreen and/or covering skin is recommended. We know this from research.

Don't smoke either... but just today it was
announced woman of smoking mothers almost never suffer breast cancer.

Smoking significantly and positively correlates with lung cancer,
emphysema, high blood pressure, and a myriad of other health related
problems. We know this from research. Even if it is true that smoking
mothers almost never suffer breast cancer, their children are far more
likely to suffer from asthma and other respiratory conditions. We know
this from research.

Look at all those great pain drugs .... that cause heart attacks in
adult.... or those behavior drugs that induce suicide in children.... all
fully supported by years of testing by the government.

We don't know this. We have correlational data coming in that has
resulted in certain medications from being pulled, and other medications
to carry warnings.

Homosexuality was a mental disease, and masturbation probibited for much the
same reason.

Neither of the above was based on research. This was based solely on
opinion.

Keep beleiving the government...and research, pop. :-)

bobb, it would be good if you understood and read research. Your
examples of alcohol, marijuana, eggs, butter, coffee, and sunscreen
actually strengthen the position for research.

Without research, you have nothing but an uninformed opinion. There was
a time when popular opinion held that the earth was flat. Research
demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. Yet there was a time when
certain individuals rejected the research and continued to believe the
earth was indeed, flat.

This is called an uninformed opinion.

LaVonne

bobb

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
bobb wrote:
"Pop" wrote in message
...

...

Only if you beleive the state and the researchers. I don't.

bobb

...

And there we have it: You don't believe the 'state', and you don't

believe 'researchers'. Only a "researcher" as you call it, could
collect
anything more than anecdotal evidence, which is much the way you
do, and
you end up entirely wrong. But you know that don't you? You would
rather
believe other ignorants than to know the truth, so you can conintue
into
the oblivion you are destined for.

Gee, pop.... don't you read or listen research data?

Alcohol was not good for you... neither was marijuana.

Alcohol in excess causes liver damage, increased risk of high blood
pressure, heart disease, and stroke. Drinking alcohol during
pregnancy
increases the infants' risk of being born premature or with low birth

weight. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can result in a child born

with Fetal Alcohol Effects or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, both
irreversible
conditions. We know this from research.

Marijuana is especially problematic for teenagers. We know this from

brain development research.

Eggs, coffee and
butter were foods items to be avoided.

And still are. Eggs contain an incredible amount of cholesterol.
Coffee should not be consumed in excess, and for people with high
blood
pressure, not at all, unless the coffee is decaf. Butter is
extremely
high in fat. Individuals with high cholesterol, high fat diets are
at
risk for high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease. We know
this
from research.

.00007 people get skin cancer...
soooo stay out of the sun or slosch yourself with expensive sun
screen lest
you end up a statistic.

I don't know where you got the .00007 percentage, but the percentage
is
actually a lot higher. If you spend a great deal of time outdoors,
sunscreen and/or covering skin is recommended. We know this from
research.

Don't smoke either... but just today it was
announced woman of smoking mothers almost never suffer breast
cancer.

Smoking significantly and positively correlates with lung cancer,
emphysema, high blood pressure, and a myriad of other health related
problems. We know this from research. Even if it is true that
smoking
mothers almost never suffer breast cancer, their children are far
more
likely to suffer from asthma and other respiratory conditions. We
know
this from research.

Look at all those great pain drugs .... that cause heart attacks in

adult.... or those behavior drugs that induce suicide in
children.... all
fully supported by years of testing by the government.

We don't know this. We have correlational data coming in that has
resulted in certain medications from being pulled, and other
medications
to carry warnings.

Homosexuality was a mental disease, and masturbation probibited for
much the
same reason.

Neither of the above was based on research. This was based solely on

opinion.

Keep beleiving the government...and research, pop. :-)

bobb, it would be good if you understood and read research. Your
examples of alcohol, marijuana, eggs, butter, coffee, and sunscreen
actually strengthen the position for research.

Without research, you have nothing but an uninformed opinion. There
was
a time when popular opinion held that the earth was flat. Research
demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. Yet there was a time when
certain individuals rejected the research and continued to believe
the
earth was indeed, flat.

This is called an uninformed opinion.

LaVonne

bobb

R R R R R ..... LaVonne, it's pretty obvious, and I don't know why I
didn't catch on sooner. bobber doesn't know how to configure a spam
filter, and believes that if it comes in an e-mail, in print, he's got
to read it because it's an important research based NEW finding.

In other words, bobbers reads all his spam. Ever read any? Sounds just
like his claims.

0:-

Kane's Komments

Kane:

Comparing these figures to civilian deaths. Hmmmm....


CHILD Abuse Death Risk High in Military Families
Forbes - USA
.... Researchers at the North Carolina Child Advocacy Institute examined
cases of child abuse murders in North Carolina from 1985 to 2000. ...
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/05/17/hscout525689.html


Kane:

Gee, I wonder if bobber will step up, try this case before the courts
can, declare this guy innocent, and blame 'CPS' for making him a
criminal and filling him so with fear that he'd shoot at police
officers. Stranger things have happened. 0:-

MAN charged with child abuse shot by police during Woodlawn ...
Baltimore Sun - Baltimore,MD,USA
By Anica Butler. A man accused of child sexual abuse was shot early
yesterday
by a Baltimore County police officer during a four-hour ...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.standoff17may17,1,6473273.story?coll=bal-local-headlines