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

On Nov 13, 10:29 pm, "LK" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

ps.com...

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

Until the parents are proven innocent?

I asked him that, he's running around the issue and resorting to personal
attacks against krp to support his refusal to answer directly. But Ron did
say...

"The stance of the individual who wrote the
post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...

Which would be a yes.

I am amused that Ron has an opinion
he won't stand up and be accounted for!

"LK" wrote in message
...

"Greegor" wrote in message
ps.com...
Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
be removed based on every report made?

Until the parents are proven innocent?



I asked him that, he's running around the issue and resorting to personal
attacks against krp to support his refusal to answer directly. But Ron
did say...

"The stance of the individual who wrote the
post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...4?dmode=source

Which would be a yes.

Hardly.
The poster didn't make it very clear what they meant, as I tried to point
out.
Ron, like I, believes that in cases of sufficient cause, removal during
further investigation is sometimes necessary.
He also pointed out that it depends on who's standard of abuse you are
referring to.
It's obvious that we don't all have the same standards.
he can't completely agree, or completely disagree because he doesn't know
exacts.
That's not a denial or confirmation on his part.

"LK" wrote in message
...

"Bearic" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 12, 9:42 am, "LK" wrote:
"Bearic" wrote in message


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

Saves lives on one level, destroys lives on the next. The kids are
alive
yes, but their lives are all ****ed up.

So is your point that since there exists the possibility of
emotional consequences, the child should be left to die? Nice.


The possibility of emotional consequences?

Emotional consequences would pretty much be a sure thing. The abuse,
neglect or potential for death is what is unsure in the senario based on
your claim that a child should be removed based on a phone call to the
hotline with no proof of abuse and have the safety factors determined
after the fact. The emotional consequences of such actions would be
devistating to the child as well as to the parents. The family unit would
be broken.



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

Just curious, what is YOUR definition of success? In your own words
please.
I can look in a dictionary myself.

Success meaning that the life of the child was saved when that child
would have otherwise died.

So every call to the hotline means that the child will die if they don't
take immediate action?


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.

So, what's your point?

That IS my point. There are dozens, hundreds and thousands of
children who have died or been abused at the hands of their biological
parents,

And yet the human race has survived for hundreds and thousands of years
prior to the creation of foster care. Some people suffer and some people
have the world handed to them on a silver platter. Some children are born
into extreme poverty so are you giving to the Christian Childrens Fund to
help rescue as many of them as you can? It's called life. And life is
fragile. **** happens. Children who aren't abused or neglected die also.

yet I won't make some outlandish claim that the system of
biological parenthood ****s up kid's lives.

Good.

And yeah, some foster
parents abuse the system and I advocate those sick people go to jail,
but those people do not comprise the whole of the foster care system,
L.K.

Maybe you just need to read or hear a few more of the horror stories. The
foster care system is in a sorry state. The system does not make a good
parent. You are either unwilling to see or just plain ignorant of the
facts.

There are good foster parents out here who care about and do
right by the children. Respectfully, E.B.


I never claimed there wasn't. I believe that most foster parents are well
intentioned people. But you know the old saying, the road to hell is
paved with good intentions.

Most of the foster parents that I have delt with seem to have adopted a
belief system that I personally find to be self-righteous and hypocritical
as well as repulsive. It's kind of like a "my **** don't stink,"
mentality.

Most of the ones I've met and personally known have attitude toward parents,
but I believe that, for the most part, that attitude is developed because of
the secretive nature of the cases of the children they deal with.
I've known of fosters being outright lied to about the children that they
foster, and the situations that brought them to foster care.
I really can't blame them for that sometimes.
If you bring a two year old child to my door and ask me to take care of that
child because their mother tried to poison them, I'm going on the defensive
about this parent. Who wants to like a child beater or baby killer?
But the fact is, what they are told, and what is truth is often...not really
the same.
They're in the dark on what's going on in the case, and all they really know
is that they can provide a home and support to the child.
That's really all they're supposed to do.
I've met a few that were very supportive to the parents. I've met a few
that acted like the family was the children of Manson.
Again, I think much of that depends on what they've been told by DFS.
And, some are just assholes who think their **** don't stink.

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

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.

Try using some!

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.

Your infantile argument begins with TWO false premises.

(discussion snipped)

You have clearly never engaged in formal debate, padre gordo,
because the only two false premises here are the ones that you're
making since I never said either of the things you are claiming below
and since I was not an abused child.

They are what your arguments boil down it.

1. That ALL family environments are "dangerous" for children.

When I first came to this group, I had to skip dozens of angry
posts about your character as a liar. Now I understand why they were
written by so many people. You really are an insane pig. Aren't
you? Did you extract this lie from your left nostril or your right
one or was it your butt cheeks, padre gordo? I did not write that I
feel all family environments are dangerous.

Just the ones where "anonymous allegations" are made. Ad Hominem noted.

2. That ALL state care environments are SAFE for children.

Another lie, I see. How old were you when you gained that reputation
you have for lying, padre gordo? I have written in just about every
post that I didn't think this was true.

Oh so now we have something to work on. Not "ALL" families are bad and
not all state care environments are safe. Now all we have to do is argue
about numbers.

Want to re-think that at all?

Tell me Eric, how badly did your mother treat you?

How badly did my mother HEAT me? roflmao~ You are as illiterate
as the others say, too. Is there anything behind all that hot, rancid
air you spew, or are you ready to admit the kind of low-life,
malicious, dim-witted weasel that you are? I have, possibly, the
best, kindest parents in the world, people who extended their hearts
and homes to help dozens of children through the years and gave me the
first hand experience and knowledge that I have with foster children.
You are as full of **** as everyone says, paper tiger. You need help,
badly. I pray to God above that you don't have children of your own.

Hope you have something better going for you than personal attacks like
some others around here.

"Ron" wrote in message
...

See? It didnt take him all that long to alienate another possible
client/supporter. kenny is our resident spaz, we try and treat him nicely
but he will have none of that. Which of course forces us to treat him
like exactly what he is.

Ron he's no more a "potential client" or supporter than you are.

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

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.
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.

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.

Thank you HERR HITLER!

"dragonsgirl" wrote in message
...

Maybe we have a misunderstanding here about the process by which child
abuse is investigated and removal is made?

No - no misunderstanding Betty. He thinks that kids should be removed
until the parents can prove their home is SAFE. He was clear; "where there's
smoke there's fire!"

EB said that children should be removed when a hotline call is made.

He also said that; "Where there's some, there's fire!"

The hotline, EB, is nothing more than an allegation made by someone for
some reason.
Could be harrassment, could be the old 'divorce and custody' trick, could
be a misunderstanding, could be abuse, and could be nothing.

Eric seems to believe that almost all reports are true.

The allegations are either screened out, or sent to the local office for
an investigator to be assigned.
The investigator, in an effort to determine if abuse or neglect exists,
interviews the child, the parents, sometimes the caller (especially if
they are a mandated reporter), interviews neighbors or other significant
persons in the case, such as other parents to the child or paramours to
the parent, etc.

Using this information the investigator can usually determine whether or
not there exists immediate harm.
If so, the child is removed, if not, then the investigation may continue
and a determination made within a designated period of time.
I can give you an example that might help you understand this process.

Would that this were so. As they say betty, "in a perfect world." My
point is right along with yours. The case investigator comes out, speaks to
everyone, takes notes. My point is that is the investigator sees nothing to
support the allegation, they should not remove the children. They should
have some substantive reason for snatching the kids. THAT is where Eric and
I disagree. His point is that even when the investigator sees nothing, the
children should be removed until that family environment is "PROVED" to be
safe.

"LK" wrote in message
...

I think maybe if you had said 'removed on FOUNDED allegations' there
would not be controversy concerning your opinions. I think you may also
have meant that...removal upon a founded determination, or while further
necessary investigation is done.



He repeatedly claims that a phone call to the hotline is all that is
needed. No founded determination necessary. A call is all they should
need. Shoot first and ask questions later. He minimizes the harm caused
to the child by the removal as if it's practically non-existent. Claims
it's better to be safe then sorry. And he probably thinks that if the
accusations are unsubstantiated, that everything will simply be just
wonderful again as if the experience were no big deal.


While he doesn't like it, his argument must rest on two premises;

1. That biological family units are always (or almost always) bad.

2. That state care systems are always (or almost always) good.

What do we see? His parents were foster parents. So any suggestion that
foster parents might not be perfect is going to set Eric off.
BOO HOO!

He seems not to understand the logic of his own arguments.

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

That's PRECISELY what happened in Jordan, Minnesota Danny!

"Ron" wrote in message
...

The following paragraph is far more TELLING than Ronny can possible know:
CONFESSION TIME:

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.

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.

I disagree CPS workers RARELY have ANY "training" that would prepare
them to make such evaluations. Nationally few CPS caseworkers actually have
a degree that is related to such decisions. Most have educations in
completely unrelated fields. As to training, in most places, new CPS case
workers are shoved out on the streets with little or no real training. Some
is OJT, some is laughable "in-service" training. An hour or maybe a few
hours. The notion of well trained case workers is a joke. Which is why a
well schooled lawyer can induce them to implode on the witness stand when
asked the right questions. You and I don't agree Ron because we come at the
issue from vastly different planes. I'm not a whore for the status quo, you
are!