RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED

"Ron" wrote in message
...

The story was written by someone like yourself, someone who believes that
the system is totally corrupted and evil. Stupidity has its own rewards.
I'm sure that kenny knows this very well, but is just to dam stupid to
stop using his usual tactics.

Totally? Nobody said that. That is corrupt is a point many of us are
prepared to argue successfully Ronny!'

"Bearic" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his family
if
there is nothing wrong? What about the 'suspicion" abuse having to have
some REALISTIC component to it before you grab kids and run?????

I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an
investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
be dead. Better to be safe than sorry.

But you are wrong.

"Bearic" wrote in message
oups.com...

Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting
up in the morning and going to work way. All I'm saying is that if
there is reason to suspect abuse, get the child out of the environment
until it can be determined one way or the other. Respectfully, E.B.


And to you an ANONYMOUS call to the hot line is sufficient "reason" to
yank a child from its family?

On Nov 12, 4:42 am, " krp" wrote:
"Bearic" wrote in message

oups.com...

Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his family
if
there is nothing wrong? What about the 'suspicion" abuse having to have
some REALISTIC component to it before you grab kids and run?????

I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an
investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
be dead. Better to be safe than sorry.

But you are wrong.

Oh? So you believe that when there is a reported possibility of
danger or abuse, it is better to leave the kid in the situation where
he can get killed rather than ruffle the feathers of the parents and
maybe cause them some humiliation if the charges are false? Me, I'd
rather see the child safe. Out of all the people concerned, the
children are the ones who do not have a choice in the matter.

I'm glad you weren't my parent.

On Nov 12, 4:43 am, " krp" wrote:
"Bearic" wrote in message

oups.com...

Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting
up in the morning and going to work way. All I'm saying is that if
there is reason to suspect abuse, get the child out of the environment
until it can be determined one way or the other. Respectfully, E.B.

And to you an ANONYMOUS call to the hot line is sufficient "reason" to
yank a child from its family?

A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a
home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place,
yes. Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.
Things happen in families.

On Nov 12, 10:27 am, Bearic wrote:
On Nov 12, 4:43 am, " krp" wrote:

"Bearic" wrote in message

roups.com...

Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting
up in the morning and going to work way. All I'm saying is that if
there is reason to suspect abuse, get the child out of the environment
until it can be determined one way or the other. Respectfully, E.B.

And to you an ANONYMOUS call to the hot line is sufficient "reason" to
yank a child from its family?

A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a
home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place,
yes. Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.
Things happen in families.

I think intake workers need to be well trained in culling out false
reports.

"Bearic" wrote in message
ps.com...

I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an
investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
be dead. Better to be safe than sorry.

But you are wrong.

Oh? So you believe that when there is a reported possibility of
danger or abuse, it is better to leave the kid in the situation where
he can get killed rather than ruffle the feathers of the parents and
maybe cause them some humiliation if the charges are false? Me, I'd
rather see the child safe. Out of all the people concerned, the
children are the ones who do not have a choice in the matter.

Since 66% prove out to be "unfounded" (according to US HHS) I feel the
"possibility" needs to me more than an ANONYMOUS REPORT. I think the
anonymous report should send out a TRAINED case worker. However - at that
point unless they SEE something or come across some evidence to suggest
something more than the "mere possibility" of abuse, that you shouldn't just
yank the kid just because of some remote possibility of abuse. IF we yanked
the children from their parents on just the thinnest "possibility" that they
might be abused, than we should get ALL children rounded up and placed in
state crèches because it might be possible that the parents some day might
abuse them, even if we have no evidence they actually have been. You just
seem incapable of understanding that it is the CHILDREN who are harmed by
yanking them away from their families. You are obviously without a clue on
child development. You'd make a good case worker.

"Bearic" wrote in message
oups.com...

Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting
up in the morning and going to work way. All I'm saying is that if
there is reason to suspect abuse, get the child out of the environment
until it can be determined one way or the other. Respectfully, E.B.

And to you an ANONYMOUS call to the hot line is sufficient "reason"
to
yank a child from its family?

A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a
home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place,
yes. Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.
Things happen in families.


You'd have easily made promotion in the Gestapo to the rank of
"groupenfuehrer!"

"ASSmonkey" wrote in message
oups.com...

Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard
getting
up in the morning and going to work way. All I'm saying is that if
there is reason to suspect abuse, get the child out of the
environment
until it can be determined one way or the other. Respectfully,
E.B.

And to you an ANONYMOUS call to the hot line is sufficient "reason"
to
yank a child from its family?

A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a
home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place,
yes. Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.
Things happen in families.

I think intake workers need to be well trained in culling out false
reports.

What he's saying is that an anonymous accusation is enough to TAKE the
kids until you PROVE you did NOT abuse your child!

On Nov 12, 3:30 am, Greegor wrote:
On Nov 12, 1:59 am, Bearic wrote:

The system does experience some corruption, as all systems do to
one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.

GOT PROOF?

Logic is proof.

If a child is in a dangerous environment and is then removed to a safe
environment, logic speaks to that fact. The child is safer. There
are instances in which the child protection services have been abused
just as there are instances in which the traditional family has seen
abuse, but CPS is not a conspiracy in which there is a plot to cause
harm to children. It was created to help them and it does.





The Child Protection INDUSTRY has never proven
that they reduced child mortality or abuse one bit.
Cherry picked anecdotal stories are used for PR purposes.
(Note how below you blow off anecdotal stories...)

Child protection isn't an industry. There are important controversies
about how to define abuse and neglect and your religion or personal
belief system might say, for example, that hitting a child or dousing
it with iced water is acceptable whereby mine doesn't. Since this is
a forum for opinion and not a court of law, I am stating my
opinions. In my opinion, removing a child from a situation where it
is even suspected that he is in danger is better than the child ended
up dead because he wasn't removed.




The instances
of children being killed and abused in foster care are less than the
success stories.

They had better be, because the RATE is higher than
if they stayed home DESPITE the abuse!

In my opinion, a child should not be left in an abusive situation.



Parents could argue the "instances" of abuse are
less than the success stories also, but it's a lame argument!

What brought you to this discussion and what is your
actual experience with the Child Protection INDUSTRY
Eric? When somebody shills for the disgraced
BUREAUCRACY it's usually because they are a
beneficiary of it somehow. Caseworker, contractor,
foster or adopter, somebody who is getting something somehow.

What brought me to this discussion is my opinion and my actual
experience with child protection services is the direct observation of
seeing my son's three friends' lives saved from domestic abuse by the
CPS. I was raised by parents who took in foster children throughout
my entire childhood and I witnessed first hand that those children
were treated well, with love and respect and that they were better off
than the environments they came out of. Both of my parents interacted
with and worked closely with other foster parents in the
organizational capacity and so I had a lot of exposure to other
foster families and never witnessed even one incident of abuse by the
foster families. Some of the kids were pretty ****ed up with physical
injuries and the like, but they were treated with respect and love and
I am in touch with many of them today who are grateful that my parents
came into their lives. Sure, not every situation is the same, but
from my personal experience, there was not any abuse by fostercare.
The system that placed these kids with my family always checked up on
them and did their best to provide as good quality services as their
poor budgets would allow.


Donald Fisher lied about his "in" as a caseworker
for around 6 years before I proved he is a retired
Oregon state caseworker who resides just across
the border in WA state.

I don't know who Donald Fisher is.


Apparently he thought this denial was advantageous
in discussions! Gosh, I can't imagine why! LOL

I don't know who Donald Fisher is.

Children in normal two-parent homes are killed by
their mothers and fathers sometimes, too, but you can't judge all
families harshly based on random anecdotal examples. Resptectully,
E.B.

Actually, the Child Protection INDUSTRY very much
THRIVES on emphasizing the few horrific cases to
justify their funding, in propaganda, PR and legislative
appeals they work to create the mythology that the
horror stories are the bulk of their caseloads.


Social workers make **** for salaries, so money can't be a motivating
factor for what you claim. There are far too many abuse cases for
anyone to make much of anything monetarily. The funding is sparce and
spread thin so what possible motivation would CPS have to lobby for
reform unless it would be to protect the children?


Cases involving blood, broken bones or sex abuse
are actually less than one % based on the Fed stats.

So, did you find one web site that substantiates your claim and
decide to use that as basis for what you are saying? You don't care
about abused kids. Statistics are collected by human beings and for
each study that shows one result, you can find one that shows a
different one, so when you state something as you just have as fact,
rather than opinion, you look like an idiot. Definitions of abuse
used in official government studies are based on laws, because
government definitions are needed for more than research purposes.
They are also needed for determining whether or not suspected abuse
should be reported, investigated, "substantiated" and lead to action
by a social service agency or court. All of that takes money but in
the long run, it is being done for the kids. On the other hand,
independent researchers can use different definitions because they
have different purposes than government agencies, like understanding
the different angles and prevention of emotional, physical, and/or
sexual abuse. Regardless of what kind of study it is, small changes
in definitions can result in big differences in statistics on abuse
and neglect and those stats are used by people such as yourself to
portray abuse as less than it is.




A bigger bunch is drug addicts.

But 80% never were removed for reasons that meet the
required imminent danger standard.

Who said anything about imminent danger and whose 80% stat are you
quoting? Hair splitting according to your strict definition doesn't
place an in danger child out of danger. One of the kids who stayed
with us, the one I am closest to now as an adult, still speaks about
his father holding his head under the water in the bathtub until he
blacked out. When CPS came to investigate, the pop was all smiles and
the investigation showed no signs of the kid being in "imminent
danger". As soon as CPS left, the dad was all over the kids again.
One didn't make it. The other two were eventually removed from the
home, but not before they had scars that would last for the rest of
their lives. The whole time, the dad claimed, "I was just spanking
them and that is my right." There are some sick ****s out there. I
say get the kids out if there is any doubt about their safety.



Would you like to be arrested because somebody
looked at you and decided you were thinking about
robbing a bank?

Wouldn't like it one bit, but if I gave others enough ammo to make
that assumption about me, it might not be a bad idea to get me checked
out rather than risk someone getting hurt or killed. The point I make
with this is that no one would suspect me of being a bank robber
because I lead an exemplary life. If I behaved in a way that would
cause someone to suspect that, maybe I should be checked out. I
wouldn't like it, but if it saved lives, why not? That is the greater
good.


And they called it in and so you have to go to jail
""until it's sorted out"". (BUREACRATIC HELL)

Removing a child is supposed to be done with
more care and legal safeguards than a jailable
offence, not fewer safeguards.

To "Err on the side of safety" has been ruled
as flagrantly unconstitutional, it generally only
makes sense to the people working for the
bureaucracy.

And to the child whose life has been saved . Respectfully, E.B.