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

On Nov 12, 9:58 am, " krp" wrote:
"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.

Start right there with this claim. I'd like for you to substantiate
that claim because I don't believe the US HHS makes it. Give some
citation or method of verifying this because I suspect there is more
to this 66% number than you are stating.



I think the
anonymous report should send out a TRAINED case worker.

To do what? Investigate??? That is what I said. The incident should
be investigated. If some anonymous person calls the fire department
and says, "There is a house on fire and six kids are in it, and the
firemen get there and don't see smoke, you can bet they are going to
get the kids out of the house while they double check to make sure
everything is ok. From where I sit, child abuse is every bit as
dangerous as fire. I was raised with foster brothers and sisters. I
have heard stories that will make your toenails curl, padre gordo.


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.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Abusive parents can sometimes fake their way out of a situation like
that, show no signs that they are abusive and fool everyone around
them. One of my foster brothers lost his blood brother because of an
incident just like that. The case worker went to the scene after an
anonymous call, their dad smiled and laid claim to some cock and bull
story about how his ex wife was trying to harass him and as soon as
the convinced case worker left, he tried to kill all of the kids. He
succeeded with one of them and the other two ended up with my parents
taking care of them.

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 don't know what you're talking about, padre gordo. There are
signs. If someone suspects child abuse enough to report it, it is
worth making the effort to save the kids rather than take the chance
of not. If it turns out that the claim is false, too bad. The
children are the most important people in the situation, not their
parents. The children are the ones who need protection. The children
are the ones who do not have voices.

You are obviously without a clue on
child development. You'd make a good case worker

You are the one without a clue on child development, padre gordo. I
would not make a good case worker because I am not trained in that
line of work. You would not make a good case worker because you tell
lies and are ignorant. E.B.

On Nov 12, 9:59 am, "LK" wrote:
"Bearic" wrote in message

oups.com...



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

groups.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.

Do you have any understanding of the harm caused to the child by the
removal?

Do you know that most reports of child abuse or neglect are unsubstantiated?

Where would they keep all the kids that they remove until they could prove
otherwise? Isn't there already a shortage of GOOD foster homes?

Do you think that innocent parents would stand for having their children
removed from their care and placed with strangers while a babystealer
determines the safety levels of the children in their care?

How much would that number increase from what there already is?

Who would pay for it? Your ideas aren't even idealistic, just ignorantly
self-righteous.

Tell me. What would YOU do with the four abused kids of the crack
whore, all dirty and diseased and illiterate,maybe not English
speaking, with no one who is willing to take them in?

krp wrote:
"LK" wrote in message
...

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.

You are so sugar coating the issue. And you really have no ****ing clue
what you're talking about. You and your perfect little life view. It's
because of idiots like you that the system is in the sorry assed state
that it is in. It's because of idiots like you that innocent families are
destroyed for being poor.

No he's right he should be glad I'm not his parent. I'd have sent him to
his room to do some reading to learn how FOS he is.
He'd rather do Play Station 3.

I was raised by two parents who had foster kids from the time I
was two years old until I reached adulthood, padre gordo. They were
good to those kids and good to their bio kids. I had every
Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving and Fourth of July with families where
foster kids lived. I know from first hand experience that I am right
and I also know that pricks like you are too selfish to do anything
for kids besides sit there on your fat tushes and shoot off your big
mouths on subjects you don't understand. You are ignorant. It is
your attitude, padre gordo ,and the lies you have already told about
this all. You are the crazy man that all of those posts say you
are. I wouldn't be surprised to hear you were a child beater
yoursef. You would probably get some kind of sexual satisfaction from
that, prick.

As I understand it, on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:12:45 -0800, Dan Sullivan
wrote:

On Nov 13, 11:06 am, Bearic wrote:

Keeping a child in an abusive environment is worse. If the
parents are suspected of abuse, the child should be removed until it
has been determined that the child is safe.

If all it took was a suspicion of abuse anyone could call the hotline
and have all the children in the neighborhood placed in foster care.

I have been investigated more than 15 times.

Five times CPS claimed they had credible evidence that I abused or
neglected my children.

And all five times when I availed myself of challenging their claim of
credible evidence, they produced NOTHING!!!!

And CPS was forced by their own system and Judge's to reverse all five
of their decisions.

Those findings included sexual abuse, broken bones, inadequate
guardianship, emotional neglect, excessive corporal punishment... and
on and on.

I was founded once for hitting my son in the face on a weekend I was
denied visitation and I had a police report to prove that weekend I
didn't get my kids.

You are good. You can physically assault someone when they
aren't in proximity of you.
BTW, stop poking me in the shoulder

--
Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

As I understand it, on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:32:28 -0800, Greegor
wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:12 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Nov 13, 11:06 am, Bearic wrote:

Keeping a child in an abusive environment is worse. If the
parents are suspected of abuse, the child should be removed until it
has been determined that the child is safe.

If all it took was a suspicion of abuse anyone could call the hotline
and have all the children in the neighborhood placed in foster care.

I have been investigated more than 15 times.

Five times CPS claimed they had credible evidence that I abused or
neglected my children.

And all five times when I availed myself of challenging their claim of
credible evidence, they produced NOTHING!!!!

And CPS was forced by their own system and Judge's to reverse all five
of their decisions.

Those findings included sexual abuse, broken bones, inadequate
guardianship, emotional neglect, excessive corporal punishment... and
on and on.

I was founded once for hitting my son in the face on a weekend I was
denied visitation and I had a police report to prove that weekend I
didn't get my kids.

Eric, even the SYSTEM SUCKS on here disagree with
your theory that kids should be removed based only on
an abuse report called in on the hotline.

If your position was so, it would be a Public Relations disaster
that the Child Protection INDUSTRY would not survive.

Yes, it IS a huge INDUSTRY, with several tiers of beneficiaries.
What made you think it's not an INDUSTRY?

I didn't see the original post, so it's possible a comment
about it being an industry was made. However, there's nothing in the
part Dan quoted, or Dan's reply about any industry.

--
Kent
Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!

LK wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...

LK wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:34 pm, Ron wrote:
LK wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...
LK wrote:
" krp" wrote in message
news:AkHZi.3482$jH2.3284@trnddc01...
wrote in message
ups.com...
The real scandal in Kansas child welfare is not that the state is
oppressing Sedgwick County by giving authorities "only" 72 hours
to
keep
a child in limbo before a court decides if he ever needed to be
torn
from his family in the first place
Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. It is better to
"tear"
a child from a home whether it is safe there or not and check
things
out if there is a suspicion of abuse instead of keeping the child
in
an environment that can kill him.
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?????
Is this person a foster parent or something?
Trying to increase the monthly income?
Is it Ron in disguise? Sounds like him.
I dont use disguises, nym's, or any of that other crap. I leave that
to
kenny and others like him. I prefer honesty to lying.
Ron
That wasn't ment as an insult to you. My God!
And I didnt take it as such. The stance of the individual who wrote the
post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with.

Oh Ron has found a friend.

The story was written by someone like yourself, someone who believes
that
the system is totally corrupted and evil.
I can't believe you would think such a thing about me! I don't think
that
the system is corrupted and evil. Just the people running it and
profiting
from it.
The system IS the people. We both know that. One cannot be without the
other.

So...


As for profit, hmmm, other than the companies that provide services to
those in the system (companies are usually "For Profit" concerns) I cant
think of anyone who actually makes a profit.

The GAL's, therapists, drug companies, lawyers, adpotion agencies,
foster care agencies, you and Eric here.
The system is specifically designed to provide us with a level of
reimbursement that meets only 90% of the needs of the child on our care.
IOW, we loose 10% each and every month with each and every child.

Its easy math.

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.
But this isn't necessarily about Kenny, now is it? Please stick to the
topic.
He was an example. A pretty good one to. As such the comment was quite
"On Topic".

well he's not the one in here preaching that we should remove kids
based on an accusation to the hotline with no substantiation of abuse
or neglect either. If you believe that's the way things should be
done then you are pretty stupid. You would be no better then a common
babystealer just as he is.
Kindly read what I posted. Get back to me when you finish.

But do you believe that a child should be removed with no substantiation of
abuse or neglect based on a phone call to the Child Abuse Hotline? It's a
simple question. Yes or no would do.

Simple question I agree, but the answer cannot be as simple as yes or no.

Based solely on a phone call? No, not hardly. Based upon a call and
subsequent investigation or visitation by an investigating worker, if
called for then yes.

I'm also not interested in joining your personal attack squad. It is
wrong for you to publish anybodys personal information all over usenet
I never have, and never will. You might want to take a look at some of
gregg's posts though. Its pretty common for him to do that.

I dont have an "attack squad", personal or otherwise. I provide facts and
reasonable deductions based on those facts. I can support every single
one of my claims, with facts. So far, you have provided no facts, only
claims.


No you just follow along.

Not even that really. I base my opinions on observed fact. Observed
here and in other places. If that happens to coincide with the opinions
of others then so much the better. But I am no where near afraid to go
it on my own opinion wise, branch out into new areas of knowledge and
fact upon which to base an opinion.


no matter how much you dislike them. I'm interested in discussing the
issue. So be an adult about this. My god Ron. You are like a sheep
following the herd. I am well aware that you do not like Ken and Greg
and probably me too as well as a few others who you have mentioned.
I dont dislike the individuals (with the exception of kenny, he just cant
tell the truth about anything, and I dont like liars), only their
uneducated and ignorant positions. And they have many of them. When
challenged on these they run, hide, bluster, obfuscate, misrepresent, and
generally spin anything they can in attempts to support unsupportable
positions. Its laughable.

So you should just ignore us if you don't like us. Don't give us the
time of day. You probably don't like anybody who is critical of your
precious CPS. So be it. Ken made a point that I agree with.
Children are harmed by the removal so the children should not be
removed unless it is absoloutely necessary.
I have made that very same point many times. Amazing that kenny and I
actually agree on something. OTOH, there comes a point where removal IS
necessary, for the health and wellbeing of the child. CPS workers are
trained to know where that point is, not kenny or yourself.

The topic is regarding Eric's opinion that children should be removed based
on a phone call. Do you agree with Eric yes, or do you agree with myself
and kenny and even dragonsgirl seems to agree that there should be atleast
some level of substantiatable abuse before a remobal takes place?

Answer the simple yes or no. You can do it.

See above.

The problem with your question is who sets that level? For gregg,
unless it is him setting the level, whoever gets the assignment will get
it wrong. For others, well lets say that they use ignorance of the
facts as a shield of feathers.

Ron

--
Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of ****!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

krp wrote:
THE ADULT
"Ron" wrote in message
...

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?????

But you are wrong.

The FACTS dont support your conclusion kenny. Nothing new about that, but
I thought I'd just point it out.

Oh but the FACTS DO support me Ronny, your CPS BULL**** doesn't. They
have an entire field of psycholgy that supports my conclusions Ronny baby.

I'd ask a normal person to support that kind of a statement, but we all
know that you are not even close to normal kenny so I wont waste my time.

It's called "CHILD DEVELOPMENT." From its pioneers like John Bowlby on
studying the basics of "attachment and loss" the field has learned much
about trauma to children. Dispruting their envionment is now well
researched. Even children of military families. show SEVERE evelopmental
disruptions from the lack of attachments to communities and friends not to
mention devastation of ties to extrended families.

Now ROON- we all KNOW by this time that you consider yourself to be a
formidable EXPERT (maybe even Certified AAAAA+) on these subjects, you have
chosen a side here. Let me review to give you a last opportunity to correct
any misconceptions of what you are CLAIMING:

You have said I am TOTALLY WRONG and that the "facts don't support my
conclusions: let's list them from above.

1. I am statiing that there IS harm to children who are wrongly removed from
their families.

This means that YOU are claiming there is absolutely NO HARM of ANY kind
whatsoever! NONE!

Please, show me where I wrote that kenny. Other than in your seriously
screwed up mind that is.

2. I am saying that the "suspicion of abuse" whould be based on something
more substantial than an anonymous telephone call.

This means that YOU say no matter how obviously bull**** an anonymous call
is, they should send the SWAT team in to storm a house guns blazing yo
rescue the kiddies. (A little hype there just to illustrate a point you will
miss otherwise.)

And you say NO facts support me.....

Please, show me where I wrote that kenny. Other than in your seriously
screwed up mind that is.



Ron
--
Kenneth Pangborn is a lying sack of ****!

Proof at:

www.aboutken


Ron - you wish to be taken seriously? Remember the role you WERE playing
here along with Kane and Danny, was that YOU were here as "CHRIST" to save
parents facing abuse allegations. YOU were their MESSIAH! You were the
ADULT HERE! And YOU were going to devastate me.

My my kenny, what big lies you tell.

I am no messiah. Never claimed to be. But given what I have sen of
your web site for the "Ateam", the delusions of grandeur are certainly
coming from you.


Ron I have to ask you. As it stand right now in November of 2007, how
many folks facing false allegations do you think would now go to YOU to be
saved? How many do you think see you are a rational adult with your "lying
sack of ****" stuff?

After reading your posts? Your history? 100% kenny. 100%. My
credibility is quite healthy and flowing with life, whereas yours is
currently somewhere between your toilet and the waste water treatment
facility.

You think your image is pretty good, do you?

Compared to yours? Golden. Platinum. Diamond. Pure as the driven snow.

You and
Danny with some kelp from the Kook patrol have surely thrown lots of manure
on me.

No kenny. We didnt throw anything. Those huge piles of manure are of
your own making, we only point them out to others.

You need to ask yourself, who did it hurt most? Me? Ronny, baby, your
cover here is blown whether you realize it or not. Just about anybody has
been able to see that YOU are the "enemy." This just isn't the fox guarding
the henhouse Ronny, it is a chicken being dumb enough to walk into a pack of
foxes. Or in this case wolves in sheep's clothing.

Fox's? Hen houses? Do you now think you are a farmer kenny?

Lets be honest kenny (Something I do well, but something you completely
fail at). At the link below is a small, SMALL, list of your
transgressions against those who use Usenet. All of it verifiable as
far as I can tell. All of it pointing to the FACT that you are a lying
sack of ****. You can waffle and misdirect all you like kenny, but
anyone who takes the time to research what is available at that link can
and WILL come to the same conclusion.

As I said, my credibility is quite healthy and flowing with life. I'll
let others confirm my estimate of your credibility after they do their
own research.

Ron

--
Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of ****!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

Greegor wrote:
Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
be removed based on every report made?

Until the parents are proven innocent?



How many times have I answered that question for you gregg? Having
memory issues? Senility setting in?

Ron

--
Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of ****!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

G Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
G be removed based on every report made?
G Until the parents are proven innocent?

Ron How many times have I answered that
Ron question for you gregg?
Ron Having memory issues? Senility setting in?

Got a link? Yes or NO are just too difficult Ron?

You're still refusing to capitalize my name
or spell it right? Kind of a faggoty way
to insult somebody isn't it?

On Nov 13, 8:14 pm, "LK" wrote:
"Bearic" wrote in message

ups.com...



krp wrote:
"LK" wrote in message
.. .

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.

You are so sugar coating the issue. And you really have no ****ing
clue
what you're talking about. You and your perfect little life view.
It's
because of idiots like you that the system is in the sorry assed state
that it is in. It's because of idiots like you that innocent families
are
destroyed for being poor.

No he's right he should be glad I'm not his parent. I'd have sent him
to
his room to do some reading to learn how FOS he is.
He'd rather do Play Station 3.

I was raised by two parents who had foster kids from the time I
was two years old until I reached adulthood, padre gordo. They were
good to those kids and good to their bio kids. I had every
Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving and Fourth of July with families where
foster kids lived. I know from first hand experience that I am right
and I also know that pricks like you are too selfish to do anything
for kids besides sit there on your fat tushes and shoot off your big
mouths on subjects you don't understand. You are ignorant. It is
your attitude, padre gordo ,and the lies you have already told about
this all. You are the crazy man that all of those posts say you
are. I wouldn't be surprised to hear you were a child beater
yoursef. You would probably get some kind of sexual satisfaction from
that, prick.

So judgemental.

Admittedly, I am prone to harsh judgment against people such as
this krp dude who tells lies about me and accuses my parents of abuse.
I began my discourse with a respectful tone. He turned the discussion
into an abusive one. If he can't stand the heat, he should get out of
the kitchen. NO ONE talks to me that way and gets away with it.
Particularly not some ignorant blow hard who doesn't have a clue. And
besides, I have now been sent plenty of information about him to shed
light on the sickness he has in his head and I have now had the
opportunity to read some of his history, so if your two words about
being judgmental were intended to make me feel bad, you are barking up
the wrong tree.