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

"dragonsgirl" wrote in message
t...
"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.

Betty I disagree. Eric made himself VERY clear. Don't defend Ron. Eric
was/is as subtle as a 50 megaton bomb. He's hard to miss, he straight
forward with what he believes, even if he doesn't always see it in its most
simple ramifications.

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. 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.

I appeal to you one more time. I want to see a source for that 66%
figure. It is not on the US HHS web site so where did you get it? I
want to read the data analysis on that and assuming it is true (which
I don't) tell me what you would do with the other percentage, the ones
who played out as actually being in danger. The children 4 or 5 of
them of the drunk father or the crack whore mother who don't have a
sista to pawn them off of, the kids whose throats would be slashed if
they stayed. Are your spare rooms full of needy children? I doubt
it. 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. Sounds like that's fine by you, that the kids die. E.B.

On Nov 12, 9:59 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.

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

I don't care what you think. If doing this saves the life of even
one kid, it is worth it, at least to me, it is and to a lot of the
foster parents it is too. You seem more concerned with being "right"
or at least giving the appearance of being "right" than you seem to
care anything about kids. My ego isn't that big. I care more about
the kids. 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, and I did say TEMPORARILY and I did say IF THERE IS
REASON TO THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG.

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?

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.



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

Yeah I know that some abusive parents cover their trails fairly well
after they abuse their kids, because they don't want to be caught.



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?

No thanks to people like you who do all the bashing. Did you ever
stop to think that being a foster parent might attract more good
foster parents if people like you didn't campaign against it so much.
It is YOU who are hurting these kids as much as their abusers.



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?

Innocent parents should be cleared quickly, because abused kids are
obvious about their abuse even when they don't speak it. There are
signs and trained experts can tell.



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




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

How are they "self" righteous? I advocate for the kids. There
isn't one thing in this for me, liar. My kids have never been abused
and I am self-assured enough about my parenting skills to know I won't
ever be reported as an abuser. I can say the same for my wife. There
isn't any smoke. We are good parents. Our kids know it. Our friends
know it. Our community knows it, because we put our family first.

On Nov 12, 10:00 am, " krp" wrote:
"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!

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.

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

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.

Let's start with this Eric. The things you do NOT know would fill the
Library of Alexxandria.

START HERE!!!!!
www.hhs.state.ne.us/jus/memos/HdbkPnts.pdf

www.hhs.state.ne.us/cha/2004Report.pdf

http://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/article...article_id=234

www.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/H8050/A001-2004.pdf

state.nj.us/.../Final Child Abuse Neglect Statistical Report CY04.pdf

hhs.csus.edu/homepages/sw/title-ive/Division_31_CWS_Regulations_II.pdf

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.

You seem NOT to understand what country you live in. You'd have really
fit in in Nazi Germany or today in Venezuela. The concept of our legal
system is that it is better that a thousand guilty walk free than even ONE
innocent lose their liberty wrongly. Now somewhere between ideals is where
we need to be, and that is that an anonymous call is not enough to grab
kids. There has to be SOME indication on the investigator's visit to base
removal on. Bruises, the child saying "mommy hits me" something more than an
anonymous report.!

"Bearic" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

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?


So all mothers are crack whores because "somebody" calls and claims they
are? Statistics on false reporting indicate otherwise.

"Bearic" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

That's wonderful. Many faster families are not so good. And many times the
biological parents did nothing wrong.
You simply don't understand the consequences of yanking children when it
wasn't necessary.

When it IS - fine. But I am speaking of when it ISN'T!

"LK" wrote in message
...

"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.


Sanctimonious boor!

krp wrote:
"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!

You and I have been through this discussion before kenny, and you were
proven wrong then quickly and clearly. So if I were you, I'd drop it.
No need for you to be embarrassed again, is there?

Ron

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

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com