If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with childabuser in Tucson arizona....
CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser
May 4, 2007 04:57 PM http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035 Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients. The client is a convicted child abuser. The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that month of a 4 year old by his father. Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to child abuse. But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months before the abuse occurred. And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002. The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are just some of the details: * In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing." * September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002. * August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with their father. Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse, and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the children in her presence." We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this. Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case has ended, relationships are discouraged." State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS. News 4 has learned the father will be on probation, convicted of child abuse, until 2008. His three children were returned to him last August. News 4 spoke with the CPS supervisor in question. She turned down my request for an interview. We'll will bring you any new developments in this story when they happen. CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....
"0:-]" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:04:56 -0700, fx wrote: CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser May 4, 2007 04:57 PM http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035 Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients. The client is a convicted child abuser. The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that month of a 4 year old by his father. Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to child abuse. But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months before the abuse occurred. And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002. The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are just some of the details: * In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing." * September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002. * August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with their father. Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse, and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the children in her presence." We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this. Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case has ended, relationships are discouraged." State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS. It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts if need be. Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a CPS supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least find it troublesome? Then it is defended by saying it is "freedom of association." IMHO a rather warped reading of the Bill of Rights. Kane misses that the "people" who employ this individual, CAN, as a "condition of employment" impose rules and expectations of conduct on the people hired for a job which is NOT, Kane, to screw the perverts! I can't find that in the Bill of Rights. Of course one has to believe in some standard of ethics for public employees. I was treated to an interesting quip from one of the users on the Falseacc list today that I'll share he ============================================ Dear God: Why didn't you save the school children at: Virginia Tech Amish Country, PA Columbine High School Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96 Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97 Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97 West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97 Stam P, Arkansas 12/15/97 Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98 Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98 Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98 Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98 Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98 Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99 Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99 Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99 Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99 Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99 Santee, California 3/ 5/01 and El Cajon, California 3/22/01? Sincerely, Concerned Student ----------------------------------------------------- Reply: Dear Concerned Student: I am not allowed in schools. Sincerely, God |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....
On May 9, 5:37 am, " krp" wrote:
"0:-]" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:04:56 -0700, fx wrote: CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser May 4, 2007 04:57 PM http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035 Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients. The client is a convicted child abuser. The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that month of a 4 year old by his father. Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to child abuse. But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months before the abuse occurred. And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002. The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are just some of the details: * In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing." * September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002. * August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with their father. Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse, and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the children in her presence." We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this. Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case has ended, relationships are discouraged." State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS. It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts if need be. Why did you stop there, after leaving everything else, and remove what showed that I was not defending the agency or the supervisor? Hmmmm....kenny? Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a CPS supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least find it troublesome? "Killer?" You will provide proof of my having killed anyone immediately, Ken. And how do you know what I find troublesome or not, liar? Why did you snip the rest of my post that more clearly showed my position? There is a special place in Hell (well you're a believer aren't you?) for those that will take a portion of what someone says, and base a false accusation or claim about the person or his views on the portion alone. You make a habit of this, and have paid dearly for it when caught. You ran when I caught you. Then it is defended by saying it is "freedom of association." No it isn't. I am defending freedom of association, not the actions of this person in particular. I am explaining why the state cannot stop this person from hanging with who she wishes. Pointing out a fact, unless I clearly state that it defends the action, as I did not, is not defending anything but the rights recognized by our constitution and BOR. Did you see me say I approved of the supervisors actions? Show us. Here's my statement: "It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts if need be. Hence, the state lacks statute to prevent it (probably at the insistence of the state's AG who understands constitutional issues) and CPS can ONLY control associations with active current clients. This is yet another bogus attempt of yours, by finding someone in agreement with illogical and in this case blatantly ILLEGAL attempts to tell a person who they may associate with. Yer a real constitutional and "rights" fount of wisdom you are. Just as the state Rep Paton, who of course is doing a political Hail Mary play. He KNOWS that he is standing on thin air, but boy, does it LOOK good to claim CPS isn't doing what they cannot by law do. He just leaves out the latter part of that idea. Like you. " ... That is it in full..so short that it's more than obvious you chopped it to make libel. So, where is the defense of the supervisor, or of CPS, Ken the Liar? IMHO a rather warped reading of the Bill of Rights. Your opinion is warped, Ken. We know that about you by now. Kane misses that the "people" who employ this individual, CAN, as a "condition of employment" impose rules and expectations of conduct on the people hired for a job which is NOT, Kane, to screw the perverts! Of course they can be so restrained by their employer, as long as it does NOT violate their rights. Unless the article is wrong, that would have been the case had they ordered her not to see someone that was NOT a client at the time she did associate with him. You, who claim to be a trial consultant, don't know the BOR. Go ahead and show me were what I "missed" in the BOR exists, Ken. In a democratic republic with carefully designed law to maintain the power of the people over the government and it's agents, sometimes bad people do bad things that take advantage of those protected rights. The supervisor is protected by the US Constitution, Ken, and you know it. We don't have to like it or approve of it to point out a political and legal fact. And we cannot blame CPS for not being able to do anything about it, as long as the supervisor did not "see" him privately while he was her client. I can't find that in the Bill of Rights Of course you can't. But you can find the part about freedom of association, if you look. It was so vital to our founders it ended up in AMENDMENT ONE of the BOR. Of course one has to believe in some standard of ethics for public employees. Yep. Where is that in the law? In fact, CPS stated very much the same thing. But your 'new' posting buddy seemed to have suggested they didn't. And exactly when did it extend to associations with people who are NOT CLIENTS of CPS at the time of the association? You aren't very bright but I'd expect you to read the article for content, Ken, rather than risk being caught again, lying. Here's your 'opps!' Ken. "... there's been a "relationship" between a Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients...." That is from the first paragraph of the article and I took it from the attributions of THIS post of yours. "...there's been," is a contraction and a word meaning "in the past." You can tell by the word "former." Now was she seeing him while he was HER client? Then you got her. Where does it say she was? Here is what the poster tries to ignore and claim some kind of evil intent or malpractice concerning: " Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case has ended, relationships are discouraged."" Oh, "once the case has ENDED..." They can discourge, Ken, but if they do not want to be criminally charged, and perforce sued they cannot forbid or punish or otherwise violate WHAT AMENDMENT KEN? Hint, it's the First. The right of assembly is in fact a right, with caselaw supporting it, for people to associate with who they will, unless for criminal intent, Ken. How the hell do you make a living doing court consultation? You were supposed to learn about the BOR in the Eight Grade. Now if the supervisor is found to have in any way aided, abetted, or participated in the abuse of a child there goes that right. But so far as the news article stated, that has not been established. So the state cannot legally tell her not to associate, unless he is HER client. He isn't, so far as we know. He WAS. But is no more. Tell me again how I am excusing her actions, Ken. I want everyone here to see what a thoroughgoing liar you are. I was treated to an interesting quip from one of the users on the Falseacc list today that I'll share he It's not a "quip." And the punch line isn't he least clever. If there were a God she would not be so impressed with non believers as to make decisions of this importance based on their acceptance or not. The truth is that in many instances the reason the shooters, if guns were used, able to do what they did is because no one was allowed to be armed to stop them. In a few instance, in fact, guns were retrieved, or showed up by someone rushing to the scene and stopping the carnage, using a gun. "God," or the lack thereof, hadn't a damn thing to do with it. You just wanted to make some kind of impression on the readers pretending you couldn't possibly lie or have malevolent motives, Ken. That in itself is a lie. 0:] ============================================ Dear God: Why didn't you save the school children at: Virginia Tech Amish Country, PA Columbine High School Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96 Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97 Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97 West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97 Stam P, Arkansas 12/15/97 Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98 Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98 Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98 Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98 Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98 Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99 Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99 Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99 Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99 Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99 Santee, California 3/ 5/01 and El Cajon, California 3/22/01? Sincerely, Concerned Student ----------------------------------------------------- Reply: Dear Concerned Student: I am not allowed in schools. Sincerely, God |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....
"0:-" wrote in message oups.com... CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser May 4, 2007 04:57 PM http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035 Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients. The client is a convicted child abuser. The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that month of a 4 year old by his father. Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to child abuse. But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months before the abuse occurred. And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002. The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are just some of the details: * In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing." * September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002. * August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with their father. Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse, and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the children in her presence." We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this. Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case has ended, relationships are discouraged." State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS. It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts if need be. Why did you stop there, after leaving everything else, and remove what showed that I was not defending the agency or the supervisor? Hmmmm....kenny? Could have fooled me Kane. Sure as hell seemed like you were grasping at EXCUSES. Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a CPS supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least find it troublesome? "Killer?" You will provide proof of my having killed anyone immediately, Ken. A nickname for the Internet's BADDEST badass at debate. And how do you know what I find troublesome or not, liar? Do you find it troublesome for a CPS SUPERVISOR to be GEWTTING IT ON with a SEX OFFENDER??? Huh, Kane, DO YA? Why did you snip the rest of my post that more clearly showed my position? There is a special place in Hell (well you're a believer aren't you?) for those that will take a portion of what someone says, and base a false accusation or claim about the person or his views on the portion alone. I will only wade in bull**** so deep Kane. You make a habit of this, and have paid dearly for it when caught. You ran when I caught you. On your WETTEST of all possible dreams pantywaist. Then it is defended by saying it is "freedom of association." No it isn't. I am defending freedom of association, not the actions of this person in particular. I am explaining why the state cannot stop this person from hanging with who she wishes. Yes master... Now take your bull**** elsewhere. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....
"0:-]" wrote in message ... You just wanted to make some kind of impression on the readers pretending you couldn't possibly lie or have malevolent motives, Ken. That in itself is an act of misleading...the classic lie. Like beating your chest and CLAIMING FALSELY to have driven me off with your rapier sharp wit! Still waiting to see PROOF that spanking turns kids into homicidal maniacs! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....
" krp" wrote in message news:Vfj0i.8427$Q96.7733@trnddc04... "0:-]" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:04:56 -0700, fx wrote: CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser May 4, 2007 04:57 PM http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035 Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients. The client is a convicted child abuser. The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that month of a 4 year old by his father. Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to child abuse. But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months before the abuse occurred. And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002. The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are just some of the details: * In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing." * September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002. * August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with their father. Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse, and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the children in her presence." We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this. Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case has ended, relationships are discouraged." State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS. It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts if need be. Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a CPS supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least find it troublesome? Then it is defended by saying it is "freedom of association." IMHO a rather warped reading of the Bill of Rights. Kane misses that the "people" who employ this individual, CAN, as a "condition of employment" impose rules and expectations of conduct on the people hired for a job which is NOT, Kane, to screw the perverts! I can't find that in the Bill of Rights. Of course one has to believe in some standard of ethics for public employees. Gee, kenny's back, how ..... surprising. 1. You can call the law a rationalization if you like kenny, I honestly don't mind it when you make yourself look like an idiot. It saves me the effort. 2. No one is telling you what kind of life form you can date, but you presume that the courts (our nations guardians of freedom) should have the right to say who can associate with whom because of their job. Nice. Lets extend it to you for example kenny. Should the courts be able to decide who you can associate with? Of course, you have admitted to breaking many laws in your time in Usenet, and SHOULD have a long term relationship with the criminal justice system, but should the courts tell you that you are not allowed to associate with parents working with the system just because you have bilked them time and again of their hard earned money? 3. As a matter of LAW kenny, once again I make an attempt to educate, an employer cannot extend job expectations beyond hours of duty and into an individuals personal life, except in very rare and specific circumstances. Right of Association is NOT one of those areas. 4. I find it totally hilarious that you, given your record here in Usenet, can even THINK about the term "ethics" much less presume to instruct anyone else about it. Personally, I'd laugh in your face even if you tried to explain it to Charles Manson, much less anyone associated with the topic under discussion. 5. You have no "humble opinions" kenny. Your ego gets in the way. Ron I was treated to an interesting quip from one of the users on the Falseacc list today that I'll share he ============================================ Dear God: Why didn't you save the school children at: Virginia Tech Amish Country, PA Columbine High School Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96 Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97 Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97 West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97 Stam P, Arkansas 12/15/97 Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98 Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98 Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98 Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98 Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98 Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99 Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99 Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99 Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99 Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99 Santee, California 3/ 5/01 and El Cajon, California 3/22/01? Sincerely, Concerned Student ----------------------------------------------------- Reply: Dear Concerned Student: I am not allowed in schools. Sincerely, God |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....
"0:-]" wrote in message ... CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser May 4, 2007 04:57 PM http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035 Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients. The client is a convicted child abuser. The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that month of a 4 year old by his father. Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to child abuse. But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months before the abuse occurred. And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002. The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are just some of the details: * In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing." * September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002. * August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with their father. Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse, and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the children in her presence." We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this. Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case has ended, relationships are discouraged." State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS. It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts if need be. Why did you stop there, after leaving everything else, and remove what showed that I was not defending the agency or the supervisor? Hmmmm....kenny? Could have fooled me Kane. Sure as hell seemed like you were grasping at EXCUSES. A great many things that aren't so seem like they are to you, Ken. We see a lot of that with you. Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a CPS supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least find it troublesome? "Killer?" You will provide proof of my having killed anyone immediately, Ken. A nickname for the Internet's BADDEST badass at debate. 0:] And how do you know what I find troublesome or not, liar? Do you find it troublesome for a CPS SUPERVISOR to be GETTING IT ON with a SEX OFFENDER??? Huh, Kane, DO YA? Sure. Don't you? I found other things I disapproved of as well. There is ONE main thing to disapprove of, that is a CPS Suprevisor boffing a CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER there Kane. NOT changing the saubject and ranting about her "FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!" My point was that the poster, and the representative are full of **** to blame CPS for it. No the blame is right on. It is the agency's DUTY because of what they DO to police themselves. These are people who have LIFE AND DEATH ocntrol over children and the FULL and TOTAL coercive power and authority of the state. They damn well had better be above reproach. These are people who snatch kids from parents for the SAME THING! Why did you snip the rest of my post that more clearly showed my position? There is a special place in Hell (well you're a believer aren't you?) for those that will take a portion of what someone says, and base a false accusation or claim about the person or his views on the portion alone. I will only wade in bull**** so deep Kane. In other words, you'll manipulate another's post to create a lie. Yes, we know. No I deal with the ISSUE I wish to deal with not the rest of the **** you have thrown against the wall Kane. You really gotta get the hell over youirself and the idea that YOU run the internet and YOU dictate terms for discussion. I answered what I wanted to answer, you have a problem with that I suggest you take a course at Kripy Kreme aviation and fo take a flying fukkk at a rolling donut! YOU do NOT issue ORDERS Mister BLOWHARD! Yes master... Now take your bull**** elsewhere. I didn't post this to adu, little man. YES, you DID! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....
"0:-]" wrote in message ... You just wanted to make some kind of impression on the readers pretending you couldn't possibly lie or have malevolent motives, Ken. That in itself is an act of misleading...the classic lie. Like beating your chest and CLAIMING FALSELY to have driven me off with your rapier sharp wit! Nope. Just the facts. I was amused yesterday when my previous comment drew TWO of your ANGRY responses BADASS. I am even more amused today at how you continue to delude yourself with your overestimate of your intelligence and debate prowess. You wouldn't know a "FACT" if it bit you on the ass and hung on! Still waiting to see PROOF that spanking turns kids into homicidal maniacs! Still waiting to see where I claimed that. What was the title of your ANGRY post? What was the title of the ARTICLE you tried to quote? "Spanking leads to violence in children." Toi any NORMAL person, in that sentence "LEADS TO" means exactly the same thing as "CAUSES" only a jackass like you TRIES(and fails) to parse it differently from what ANY reputable source on English defines it as meaning. Your source did NOT support your claims. In fact if you actually had read it, the SOURCE, weak as it is, contradicts that spanking CAUSES aggression in kid - PERIOD! I'm also waiting to see the proof you have for your claim, WHICH YOU DID MAKE, STUPID, that not spanking creates sociopathic children. Got any yet? I have always had it dip****, but I laid out my conditions for posting it. That was that YOU prove your original claiim FIRST! You ain't come even close. You always DEFLECT such things. And you LIE your ass off, what I ACTUALLY said was; "there is anecdotal evidence that not spanking is responsible for an increase in sociopathy in children." I would like to invite a BRAIN DEAD CLOWN like you to examine the remourseless killings on school campuses accross this country and ask yourself if there isn't some message in those incidents? To a moron these things occur in a vacuum Was a lack of spanking the ONLY cause? Nope! Was it a contributor? It sure as hell looks that way when you examine the backgrounds on the perps. Let me see now. Didn't you promise, at here insistence, that you weren't going to post here any more? Again your typical INACCURACY. I said I would refrain from posting for a time. TIME'S UP JACKASS!!!!!! Where's your BUDDY?? Want to see that post too, or has she seen the light and gone back to Cuba? She's right here. Where's your PAL your SAVIOR? Time to call for help again? It may not so you much good. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....
"0:-]" wrote in message ... You must be DESPERATE for your buddy to come save your pathetic BLOW HARD ass again Kane. You keep ADDING ADRU in your pathetic desperation for help. Pretty much a confession. I removed your RECRUITING NOTICE AGAIN!!! ach tim e you add it Kane it will be taken as a confession of: "I AM A LOSER AND NEED HELP." CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser May 4, 2007 04:57 PM http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035 Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and a confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients. The client is a convicted child abuser. The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that month of a 4 year old by his father. Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called, and an investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to child abuse. But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months before the abuse occurred. And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the family's case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002. The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here are just some of the details: * In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched [his daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing." * September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors asking for food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three kids were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002. * August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on the right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with their father. Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was questioned about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged abuse, and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at the children in her presence." We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified. She said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of this. Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules. A CPS spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics in which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a professional relationship with families while they are involved in the investigation of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in providing on-going support and services to children and families. Once the case has ended, relationships are discouraged." State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document that was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management of CPS. It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of association barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the courts if need be. Why did you stop there, after leaving everything else, and remove what showed that I was not defending the agency or the supervisor? Hmmmm....kenny? Could have fooled me Kane. Sure as hell seemed like you were grasping at EXCUSES. A great many things that aren't so seem like they are to you, Ken. We see a lot of that with you. Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize a CPS supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least find it troublesome? "Killer?" You will provide proof of my having killed anyone immediately, Ken. A nickname for the Internet's BADDEST badass at debate. 0:] TRULY A LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND AND ONLY IN HIS OWN MIND!! And how do you know what I find troublesome or not, liar? Do you find it troublesome for a CPS SUPERVISOR to be GETTING IT ON with a SEX OFFENDER??? Huh, Kane, DO YA? Sure. Don't you? I found other things I disapproved of as well. As I said, I certainly would, based on YOUR wording, failing to point out the sex offense in THIS CASE, I would find it troublesome for a CPS supervisor getting it on with a sex offender. DO SAY? Trouble is, there was no sex offense mentioned in the article. Do you know something about the case I don't? The man was a CONVICTED sex offender KANE wuit trying to RATIONALIZE IT! I also, and much more importantly, because it is accurate, is that I'm troubled by a supervisor associating intimately with a CHILD ABUSER. GOOD FOR YOU - YOU are a HERO KANE! The question now would be, was she his client. If not, despite my, and your, indignation, nothing much can be done about it. Not according to the US Constitution. No Kane that would NOT be the question. Only to a CPS whore like you would THAT diversion be THE question. So you are arguing that a CPS Superviosor has a "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" to hold that job AND screw a CONVICTED sex offender??? ONLY YOU KANE! ONLY YOU and the whore you travel with. Why have you not commented on that aspect when I brought it up, other than to making a false claim I am excusing CPS and the supervisor by mentioning that fact? You are overworking RATIONALIZATION trying to obfuscate the issue as hard as you can. How can we trust the JUDGMENT of somebody who has the TOTAL life and death LEGAL AUTHORITY over children who is SCREWING a CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER? Top YOU that is FANTASTIC JUDGMNENT! Great qualificationfs for the job. How much I expected that of you Kane. There is ONE main thing to disapprove of, that is a CPS Suprevisor boffing a CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER there Kane. NOT changing the saubject and ranting about her "FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!" Problem is, ranter, there was no sex offense involved. Just the one he was CONVICTED of ! I didn't change the subject. The subject was blaming CPS. My comment went to the fact they could not legally do much about it, unless they could get a judge to give an order concerning it. I doubt many judges are as stupid as you, and they would not make a constitutional error as gross as that. What can they DO about it? 1. FIRE her! 2. Move her to a job NOT involving children! You are such a WHORE for the insane child savers you will rationalize ANYTHING! God help any parent ANY PARENT who ever listens to a word YOU have to say Kane. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with child abuser in Tucson arizona....
"0:-]" wrote in message ... I was amused yesterday when my previous comment drew TWO of your ANGRY responses BADASS. We know how you amuse yourself, Ken. Yeah I read YOUR screwball posts on the intener where you play the role of REAL BADASS! I am even more amused today at how you continue to delude yourself with your overestimate of your intelligence and debate prowess. You wouldn't know a "FACT" if it bit you on the ass and hung on! I take that as your idea of a debate? No it is my idea of deling with an IDIOT. Still waiting to see PROOF that spanking turns kids into homicidal maniacs! Still waiting to see where I claimed that. What was the title of your ANGRY post? What was the title of the ARTICLE you tried to quote? "Spanking leads to violence in children." Yep. Show us the PROOF Kane! Still waiting and stilld ealing with your FEEBLE attenpts to DIVERT the issue and shift it to me. To any NORMAL person, Nope. Normal people would have not confined their argument to ONLY the subject title, and would have honored my point made clearly that the body of the article, and the abstract, which I provided a link to as well as the authors of the article doing, NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM AT ALL. Your reason to POST that was to claim that spanking CAUSES kids to be agressive. It blew up in your face Kane and you are STILL trying desperately to LIE your way out of it. As you ALWAYS do when your bull**** is exposed. You are a liar, and you will do it again. Watch: in that sentence "LEADS TO" means exactly the same thing as "CAUSES" only a jackass like you TRIES(and fails) to parse it differently from what The title was the only part of the article you wished to debate. You ran when I presented the rest of it, circling back ONLY to try and claim the title was the sum total of the claims. Kane you tried to use that article to support your argument against spanking. It flatly did NOTY support wehat you said, and at one point even YOU had to asmit it. But you are LYING again now. The ARTICLE contradicted its title and YOU rather DUMB claims for it. You TRIED to use it to make your claim that spanking kids is harmful to them and it backfired. You refused to discuss the actual research except in those terms. Since the abstract of the research said NO SUCH THING nor was it's title the same as the magazine article (though it quoted more accurately in it's actual article content). Your problem is that I *DID* discuss the actual article which was NOT "research" as such but a "SURVEY" of mothers. Your problem is compounded by the ***FACT*** Killer Kane that the article contradicted the claims showing a profound difference in the "EFFECTS" in cultures where spanking is accepted as normal, and Kane you lack the ability to have even remote understanding of the significane of that FACT! It is father over your head than the sun. YOU - Mr. Dumbass was the guy trying to makle the argument here on Usenet and offered it as PROOF of YOUR claims that spanking is bad. In other words, Ken, you lied by weasel. You and your hysterical monkeyboy crony. No I just proved that YOU were full of **** AGAIN! ANY reputable source on English defines it as meaning. Yep....for the title. Your source did NOT support your claims. I pointed that out by simply posting the entire article, and making sure the link in it was active (cut and paste did not do that, so I typed in the full URL, to make it active in readers and browsers). And it proved YOUR conclusions 100% WRONG to boot but you didn't realize that when you first posted it as a BRAGGARD! In fact if you actually had read it, the SOURCE, weak as it is, contradicts that spanking CAUSES aggression in kid - PERIOD! That's not what the source did. It did not mention "causes," or "leads to," Ken. Again you show your ILLITERACY. "Leads to" is a statement in CAUSALITY! Take a remedial science course and then a remedial ENGLISH course. Onl;y YOU would define it as NOT being cause and effect - ONLY you Kane. It did, as most reputable researchers do in their release of information, simply list the things they found, in outcomes and proceeding circumstance, and those following as well. Let the reader draw their own conclusions. No jerk off it did NOT "find outcomes" it was a FRIGGING SURVEY of the mothers OPINIONS! Chnrist - WHY can't you understand that? WHY is it that the significance of that just sails over your head? KILLER KANE'S BIG POINT: Want to see that post too, or has she seen the light and gone back to Cuba? She's right here. Where's your PAL your SAVIOR? Time to call for help again? It may not so you much good. You forget that I asked him NOT to intervene in the debate on the subject of what spanking "leads to" or doesn't. That why every time your PATHETIC ASS is backed into a corner you start TROLLING for him where you think he hangs out and BEG for his help? Every time you do it is a CONFESSION that you know your ass is being kicked and you NEED to divert the issues with PERSONAL **** like bringing my wife into it. What a desperate little CREEP you are! YOU, on the other hand, constantly solicited Doan's help on that subject. And you both found out as liars. And unethical in debate by refusing to accept the full argument of your opponent...me. I have never spoken to Doan - PERIOD! I never go looking for him or BEG HIM like you BEG my stalker to come RESCUE you. I can produce dozens of posts to that effect, and you can produce NOT ONE from the person you are referring to on the same subject. He seemed not to care for you, but made no mention of the subject of spanking. So I am responsible for others seeing you as full of **** on the subject too? The FACT that your HERO only posts personal attacks on me you think makes YOU credible? Kane you are really fukkekd-up. About the most your nemesis did was post the URL to his web page regarding you and your various exploits. His bull**** URL Kane. Got rid of that "diploma" yet? R R RRRRR..R.R.R.RR No reason to, your HERO wasn't telling the truth. POOR YOU. Why are you so afraid of him, Ken? So afraid that you removed the addy of the dad's newsgroup that fx placed there in the first post for this thread? First because this thread is OFF TOPIC for ADRU, and secondly because YOU are hysterical in your search for help. It's funny to make you jump through hoops. Do you think people miss your desperation seeking help? Help of a whack job? Where is he right now? Do you KNOW? Just like bringing up this subject of our debate on spanking research. Let's see the "RESEARCH" Kane. You are desperate to NOT attract his attention. Hell, stupid, he's likely got a yahoo or google alert on you for ANY posting by you. Or even about you. Well where is he? I can't help but wonder what you might have done that makes him so dogged in confronting you with the truth about yourself. TGoo bad it is NOT the "truth" clown. alt.dads-rights.unmoderated Yep, it's BAAAACK. And he need not, and I request he not, address any of OUR debated issues. DESPERATION - admission you KNOW you are losing and calling up the reserves. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A conversation with arizona's Terry Goddard,Tucson, Arizona | Published:04.22.2007 by The Arizona Daily Star | fx | Spanking | 0 | April 29th 07 08:59 AM |
Arizona Child Protective Services foiled mom's custody bid, 2 kidsremained with dad accused of killing them Although she had a court ordergiving her sole custody | fx | Spanking | 1 | April 28th 07 09:29 PM |
Arizona Child Protective Services foiled mom's custody bid, 2 kidsremained with dad accused of killing them Although she had a court ordergiving her sole custody | fx | Foster Parents | 1 | April 28th 07 09:29 PM |
Child Protective Services [Public Enemy Number One]: She went afterCPS -- but now the state of arizona may be coming after her... | fx | Spanking | 0 | March 27th 07 08:08 AM |
Child Protective Services [Public Enemy Number One]: She went afterCPS -- but now the state of arizona may be coming after her... | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | March 27th 07 08:08 AM |