CPS agencies most secretive in gvt. NONE passed audit

On 07 Nov 2003 13:47:41 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

By the way, Tansy Ragwort, how is it you confined your response to
just aps when it was more a subject for ascps?

Here, I'll assist you. Apparently you are in your cups today. That
liquid fertilizer is obviously rotting you Cambium.

Not, now posted to ascps and just to show my good nature and charity
I'll post to asfp too.

After all, everyone should know what a fantastic flamer you are, and
how erudite as well.

You are welcome, Watermelon.

Kane



Kane reveals his ignorance:

By the way, what is a "bureaucratic decision matrices"?

That's PLURAL , Rockhead Trilobite.

Not for a phrase, oh Lonesome Pine.

It can be either singular, and as my response was a question, denoting
I do not know what you mean by the expression, singular it should be.

Or plural, if I already knew your meaning and it was a plural meaning.

You really are a stupid Nut.


should be " What are.?"

Nope. See if there are schools of english language in your garden plot
for Woodenheads please. You need some improvement.

Guess you'll be flummoxed by SDM.

As you might be by SLT, but I won't leave you insuspense. It stands
for Stupid Little Twig... `scuse, Twit.

Obscure references are the retreat of the terminally Vegetative.

What may be common terminology in one part of the country or about one
issue might be covered by something very different elsewhere,
elsewhen, or elseabout.

You small mean behavior becomes you.

Since you didn't mention it in the post you refer to below I'd presume
you are even smaller and stupider than usually today, Tarragon.

You have so little of merit or import to share you are reduced to
these little twitterings.


chuckle you're probably more familiar with the shorter version of
the above.


Having a piece of information someone else doesn't have, or doesn't
know what reference you are making thereby, is funny, chucklehead?
chuckle

Now where have I read that before? chuckle

snicker

Yes you would snicker. The device of the small and stupid. A schoolboy
trick.


Again, to Rock head, who can barely take keyboard to hand:


As a flamer you are a lamer. R R R R R

Bingo bango bongo,

Stoneman


Subject: CPS agencies most secretive in gvt. NONE passed audit
From: (Kane)
Date: 11/6/2003 8:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

(Fern5827) wrote in message
...
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centr...ws/7165169.htm

And yet folks would trust bureaucratic decision matrices, rather
than
parental
judgements?

By the way, what is a "bureaucratic decision matrices"?

Is it something made of Pine, or just your attempt to sound erudite,
Eucalyptus?

And then The Plant spouted Sap all over USENET with..........

On 07 Nov 2003 00:26:49 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

How do you deal with the book, excerpted above

Someone Plant you upside down? There is nothing "above" but the
header
to your message. And your prior message included. Is that the "book"
you "excerpted above"?

which states that CPS is a
do-nothing, bureaucratic boondoggle, which squanders time on
parents
spanking
yet lets CHILDREN DIE, in wretched, unsafe surroundings.

See George Thomas' book published by Haworth Press, which estimates
that 95% of
what CPS does is pointless, meaningless, hackdom. "Travels in the
Trenches."

People write lots of things that are questionable, as all things
claimed should always be questioned.

Yet when NJ or FL closes cases without ever EVEN SEEING THE CHILD,
then we know
that CPS is simply a jobs-making attempt to socially engineer
families.

Do you know what happens to states under federal assessment that
have
open cases that have NO child or clients available?

I've pointed this out to you before. If they cannot find the family
they cannot keep the file open. Well, they can but the taxpayers
might
just be really ****ed over it if they found out.

Read "The theraputic state."

There's tons of yellow journalism out there. One can find claims for
nearly any bias possible to express.

btw: Check out my video link to House Ways and Means Subcommittee
Hearing
today.

I don't click video links of others. How were you able to attach one
to a USENET message in a non binary ng?

I've already read plenty about it. As politicians are wont to do,
just
as you and your cohorts here do, they have jumped to assumptions
BEFORE the investigation is complete.

Nothing new in that for politicians.

It's looking more and more like there are highly conflicting
stories.
The eating disorder question is being very poorly handled. It
appears
the legislators are as misinformed or uninformed as you are.

Children who have eating disorders that include the kinds mentioned
for these children often produce serious emaciation...it's called
Bulimia and Anorexia. At least one of these children had an even
more
severe nutritional deficiency disorder as well. Eating non
nutritional
items, non food, is just such a disorder.

The fact they are eating now and gaining weight, if it is true, is a
product of close medical supervision and control. Something a parent
might find very hard to do 24/7. That doesn't prove them negligent
or
abusive.

We have to wait and see.

Billions of dollars going down the drain.

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

...and then Fritillaria comments, without referrence or attribute:

Audit can be accountancy types or verification types. E.g., ghost
workers,
records falsification, etc.

You really need to learn to write coherently. You and the strange
Greegor seem to be unable to understand that others might actually
try
to read and understand you and follow some logical thread.

This isn't your personal e-mail group.

But since I happen to be on your secret code I know to which you
refer.

The term "audit," in common useage (rather than weasel words) is
confined to accounting. If a particular examination included payroll
and bookkeeping issues then "audit" would be the correct term.

They are termed *audits* to fit into headline space.

Notice that "assess" takes exactly the same number of characters?

"Evaluate" only takes two characters more. No, Peanut, the choice of
words is meant to inflame and bias the reader, much like most of
what
you and your cohorts write.

Everyone has a gut reaction to "audit," as in "IRS audit," or
"Smith,
Smyth, and Smithy are here to do a surprize audit of your
department's
books."

Desperate aren't you to praise a universally reviled system?

I've rarely praised them. I try, as you do not, judge them on
evidence
and fact, fairly and equitably.

Sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes not...most probably with
you,
not.

The one clear instance I have praised them here has nothing to do
with
any evidence you or they supplied, but what the miscreant supplied
himself.

That CPS won't give the child back while he is a parasite on the
mother makes perfectly good sense to me. Hoorah for CPS in this
instance.

Ref: http://www.child-abuse.com

Gosh, that wouldn't be a website with just a teeny bias now would
it?

Even this site, dedicated to CPS activities,

It is not even handly dedicated to ALL CPS activities, just the ones
that support their onw sick child abusing parent supporting bias.

chooses to excerpt the book which
lays clear that CPS is WOEFULLY INADEQUATE.

There will never be an adequate agency to stop all the abuses and
negligence of parents toward their children. If you think it needs
fixing why not actually do something instead of **** all over the
place...oh, 'scuse me, that's Sap.

And supporting MORE of the feds control is sick. Which is YOU,
Pumpkin. Sick for suggesting the solution is at the federal level.
Tsk
tsk tsk.

I am referring of course to recent posts of yours that Tere nailed
you
for, as I did. MORE supervision of families by the feds or even the
local CPS in our schoools is NOT the answer.

btw, Wexler has written a book. Have you?

Yes.

Have you?

I won't tell you for the same reason you wouldn't tell me. It would
make both of us traceable and since I've been threatened for years
by
yahoos like you I think we'd both better drop the subject, no?

You've given away the game too many times already and I figured out
long ago who one of those were with your very helpful babbling. You
might want to cool your jets just a bit.

"Wounded Innocents"==the real victims in the child abuse game.
Prometheus
Press.

No bias there, nosiree.

Have you actually read the book?

Kane

Subj: Assault on American Civil Liberties growing at the expense of
our children...
Date: 11/9/03 10:42:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Tonyjsmith03
To:


Mr Gore, please read this, as god is my witness I'm telling the truth
about this matter. From one vet to another whom I have much respect
for. Stealing children for federal money is the worst kind of abuse to
children, parents, and to our system that was designed to help
children that really needed it, not destroy families because of the
monetary incentive.

Subj: (no subject)
Date: 10/29/03 5:20:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Tonyjsmith03
To:




This is a letter that I have sent to attorneys, you get the idea. I'm
reporting CPS abuse. I'm not just whining and complaining. My
families constitutional rights were violated as well as my family was
destroyed before my eyes. I am retaining an attorney next week. I
will be filing a Federal suit. My attorney feels my case is very
valuable and has merit as he has experience in suing in these
proceedings.


I have complained to the local social services office and was ignored.
They are all covering up for each other and refused to correct the
situation. They purposely did not include documents that were
favorable to me that would have cleared up my situation after they
seized my kids because they knew they screwed up when they yanked my
kids out of their schools. I have never been accused of any sort of
physical injuries to my children and there was never any evidence that
my children were ever neglected. In fact I volunteered at my childrens
schools. I had even gone to the local omsbudsmens office and her hands
are tied.

CPS seized my children from school,no warrant,court order,imminent
danger of any physical harm, what danger would they be in while
attending school? I'm a disabled vet getting 1300 a month
disability.My constitutional rights have been violated I have no
doubt. My case mirrors WALLIS VS. SPENCER in the 9th circuit Ca. I
have a 3 year restaining order preventing me from any sort of contact
with my children, for what I do not know? This is severing the family
bond and relationship I have enjoyed. I had full sole legal custody of
my children who were 7 and 4 at the time of the removal.My son was
attending head start which is state funded and the teachers are
mandated reporters who reported nothing. I have never been found
guilty of hurting my children in any physical manner in the past.I
have raised my children since birth. I cannot use dependency legal
services to represent me as they will not appeal anything. Read this
article which the owner gary proctor says just this. Here is a small
portion of the injustice I have already endured! Please help.

Below is an e-mail to the presiding judge in which I detail the
incompetent counsel, the CPS abuse etc... and yet I get not one
response to any of my many e-mails that I have sent him concerning
this most important matter. (Children)

Get a lot of complaints that the social workers lie or twist the
truth?
Gee...I wonder why...They can write whatever they want in those
reports
that you the judges look at and no one contests them. Waive. Waive.
Waive.
That is not Justice your Honor. That is wrong. Ethically and morally
wrong. Do you get why parents would get angry when you have no
representation? Ask any of them that have legal dependency or
ADA...Why
are there more parents with no money stuck in your system?
Waive...Waive...Waive...

Here's some advice (ask other parents who have ADA or DLS)....Two
minutes
before your first hearing after your children have been ripped out of
your
home you are advised by your "competent" attorney's assistant who is
working in your "best interest" tells you to waive all of your rights.
"You'll never win. If you want your kids back, just waive. And if
they
ask you about any medications that you are on just don't say anything.
I
understand that you were just released from the hospital and you're
taking
vicodin, but don't say anything. It will just hold things up.
(Although
you tell the attorney's assistant what is in the report is not true
they
tell you don't fight, you can't win.) Really? What they really should
have
told me is, that they can't win because they don't have time to fight
for
anyone. They are so overloaded with cases that they can't even return
a
phone call for two months. It's all about the money isn't it? It's not
for
the protection of the children. The system is abusing the parents and
children. All it would have taken was the police report showing that I
was
the victim of a violent crime and had my back fractured. I was put on
Demerol in the hospital and yes it made me loopy. It was not true what
the
social workers had written, that I was hospitalized for having
delusions
that gang members were after me and for back pains. Nice twist social
workers to justify why they had no warrant, no court order, no
interview
with me or anyone else. Just an allegation made by my sister in law
who
was angry with me because my brother had sex with a girlfriend I had.
They said that the police were concerned. The only police concern was
that
they asked the police to accompany them to remove my children from
their
schools. Really...where was the imminent danger of great bodily
injury?
Thanks to my DLS lawyer who never informed me that once we waived my
rights, although something that wasn't true was now true and forever
true.
I tried calling repeatedly and I wanted to appeal. I finally found out
my
public "defender" no longer worked there and by that time it was too
late
to appeal.

Then the social workers painted me violent. I "threatened" them and
frightened the entire office. What does that sound like? Does it sound
anything close to the truth? I threatened to sue them. That is all.
Wouldn't they have slapped a restraining order on me if I threatened
them
with anything else?

In a review hearing that they held a restraining order was thrown in.
Here's how the "hearing" went. First there was nothing filed as to why
they were filling a restraining order. I wasn't given notice nor shown
any
paperwork concerning the matter. Commissioner Schwartz just asked me
if I
minded. I said, I dunno. (As my public "defender" is telling me to say
no
you don't mind)I guess not. There was something said that I was a
flight
risk, because I moved from Oregon to California with my children. I
had
sole legal and physical custody of my children which of course my
divorce
paperwork was never presented by my attorney or by my social worker
who
had the information. They said my ex-wife said I ran off with our
children. I thought they were restraining me from taking my children
out
of California. Not some three year full blown ridiculous restraining
order
to keep me away from my babies. Is this justice? (I have never been
found
to abuse my children. I also went through a battery of psych exams
which I
never should have had to have done. They showed I wasn't delusional.
Something so simple turned into something ridiculous. Have you ever
been
on Demerol?

We wouldn't be having this problem if I had been properly defended. We
wouldn't have this problem if the social workers knew that they
couldn't
just make stuff up. It's true that they do that. They're out of
control
because there's no one to keep them in check. I wouldn't be writing
you if
things were just.

I understand that you must have a lot of angry people out there. But
please, look into this matter no just for me, but for the other
parents.
If I would have known what I know now and what I didn't know then, I
think
the outcome of this situation would have been 100% different.

What if they had written that I was a heroin addict (which I'm not)? I
would have then been considered a heroin addict because I was advised
to
waive my rights.


Even after I hired Mr.Guerin Provini, it was too late. He could tell
by
then that the social workers hated me. He knew I was being railroaded.
We
tried to present new and material evidence such as the police report
showing I was a victim of a violent crime which Commissioner Schwartz
refused which denied me due process. (Which the social workers had but
would never present evidence that was favorable to me, which is
wrong.)Knowing that I was going to lose, I tried to fire my attorney
because I couldn't afford him any longer. Commissioner Schwartz made
him
proceed in my behalf. I had hoped that she would stand by her word in
the
beginning of the trial, that she would make sure there was a
visitation
order. But I guess I was punished for not showing up. I just couldn't
take
the humiliation anymore. I had been beaten down.

The only excuse that I can understand as to why things are so wrong is
because of money.

I'm sure there are other families, father's, mother's that have been
railroaded also. This needs to be investigated. Why do you think the
social workers never give you their reports in advance? So you can't
defend yourself and the public defenders won't stick up for you or
fight
for you.

Thank you for your compassion and justice.



Subj: here is the article...nothing has changed
Date: 9/17/03 8:20:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Tonyjsmith03
To:











PARENTS LACK SAVVY LAWYERS DEPENDENCY COURT: THOSE TRYING TO REGAIN
CUSTODY OF CHILDREN OFTEN ARE REPRESENTED BY INEXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS.
December 5, 1999
Section: Local
Edition: Morning Final
Page: 1B
HOWARD MINTZ, Mercury News Staff Writer
Memo: RELATED STORY: page 6B

Illustration: Photos (2), Chart

Caption: PHOTO: JUDITH CALSON -- MERCURY NEWS
Santa Ana lawyer Gary Proctor, above,
secured a contract to provide legal representa-tion to
parents trying to regain custody of their children in Santa Clara
County.

PHOTO: JUDITH CALSON -- MERCURY NEWS
Left, Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards says Proctor's project is
doing
a good job with limited resources.


On most mornings, the three waiting rooms in Santa Clara County's
juvenile dependency court are a jumble of activity. Social workers
huddle
with families. Mothers and fathers, accused of neglect or abuse and
facing
the prospect of losing their children, sit and listen. Some bury their
heads in their hands. Others, like one mother who keeps jabbing a
finger
at her case file, become animated and angry.

It is usually in one of these drab waiting rooms, or in the hallways
outside court, that the mothers and fathers first meet their lawyers.
Parents thrust into the child welfare system, most of them poor and
unfamiliar with the legal terrain, might then get a few minutes to
tell
their story before they find themselves in front of a judge.

To juvenile law experts, this fleeting encounter between parents and
their court-appointed lawyers illustrates a serious problem provoking
debate in Santa Clara County and across California. Critics say
overworked, underpaid and often inexperienced lawyers are
shortchanging
parents in a near-invisible but crucial corner of the justice system.

''The memory for me will always be that we weren't represented in a
way we should have been,'' said a Campbell mother who has been
fighting
since early 1998 to get her four children back, and who spoke on
condition
of anonymity. ''I've had three different attorneys who come in and
don't
know anything about your case, and then tell you they can't do much.
It's
scary.''

The account is all too common in the secret world of child dependency
law, according to experts. Whether it is Silicon Valley or the Central
Valley, in today's legal system a lawyer is likely to spend more time
with
a client involved in a lawsuit over an auto accident than with a
parent
who might be forced by the state to surrender a child.

''It's safe to say that too often, the very worst representation in
juvenile court is the representation provided to parents,'' said
Howard
Davidson, director of the American Bar Association's Center on
Children
and the Law. ''That's an issue that has to be addressed.''

Legal representation for parents -- many of them accused of the type
of neglect society despises most -- has taken on unprecedented
importance
in recent years as a result of tough new child welfare laws.

Private program
Debate flares over
hiring of law firm

Concerns about such representation have percolated to the surface in
Santa Clara County, where the local judges this fall renewed a
contract
for acontroversial, for-profit Santa Ana-based outfit hired three
years
ago to handle the task.

To its supporters, including Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards,
perhaps California's leading expert on juvenile law, Santa Clara
Juvenile
Defenders is a successful, cutting-edge experiment that is doing a
good
job with limited resources. Juvenile Defenders handles about 2,500
cases a
year with 14 attorneys who are working in a tense legal environment
many
lawyers shun.

''Frankly, I've been pleasantly surprised by what we've seen,''
Edwards said. ''It's clear to me that (the dependency firm) has
delivered
legal services better than any entity we've had in this county.''

But to its critics, the experiment has failed hundreds of parents
filtering through the system each year.

It is difficult to evaluate individual cases because of strict
confidentiality laws governing dependency proceedings. Attorneys are
reluctant to speak on the record because of those laws, as are parents
who
fear they will jeopardize their cases. But there are widespread
reports of
frazzled, ill-prepared lawyers who don't have the resources or
training
they need to protect their clients' rights.

Complaints range from failing to challenge the findings of social
workers to declining to appeal cases. And some of these reports are
from
lawyers who once worked for the dependency firm, which has been
plagued by
high turnover.

Five former members of the office interviewed for this article
described frustration with the operation and admitted that they could
have
done more for their clients.

''We had so many clients at one time that I didn't know my clients'
names until I'd look in the file just before court,'' said Elisabeth
Hansen, who worked for Juvenile Defenders in 1997, shortly after law
school. ''I didn't feel they were getting the representation they
deserved.''

Added another recently departed lawyer: ''(The) way dependency legal
services is set up, no one is keeping the system honest.''

The new federal and state child-welfare laws make it is easier than
ever for agencies to take a child away from parents in cases involving
allegations of abuse and neglect. Parents who choose to fight for
their
rights now face an uphill climb, and experts say they need good
lawyers to
protect them in court.

It is against this backdrop that the debate over legal services is
taking place. If nothing else, experts say, these parents -- most of
whom
don't have the means to hire a lawyer on their own -- need a savvy
legal
guide to walk them through the process. Although Santa Clara County's
dependency court as a whole is considered a model in the state, there
is
profound disagreement over one aspect: whether the lawyers most often
representing parents here are doing an adequate job.

The system changed in 1997, when the board of supervisors, on a 3-2
vote, approved a little-noticed $1.3 million contract for Juvenile
Defenders, a group headed by Gary Proctor, a prominent Santa Ana
lawyer.
The county, among other things, picked Proctor's group because it
would
save nearly $1 million a year.

The contract rankled local lawyers. For one thing, it involved
abandoning the old system of using the public defender's office and a
panel of local lawyers to represent parents. The small circle of
dependency lawyers in the county also viewed Proctor as a carpetbagger
who
would spend more time on his law practice in Santa Ana than in San
Jose.
And Proctor was chosen over local candidates, including the Legal Aid
Society.

''Any time you have an outsider coming in and displacing the local
(system), there is going to be anger and discontent,'' said Howard
Siegel,
a former chief of the public defender's dependency unit who was hired
by
Proctor to supervise one of his two offices. ''In this case, I'm
satisfied
most of the criticism is sour grapes.''



With Edwards' endorsement, the Superior Court in September decided to
renew Proctor's contract. The three-year deal is worth roughly $1.76
million per year, although it may be cut short if more state funding
does
not come through in 2000. Legal Aid left out
Lack of public debate
draws criticism

Critics say the Superior Court judges should have opened up the
matter for public debate before renewing Proctor's contract. Legal
Aid,
which now has the local contract to provide court-appointed lawyers in
criminal cases, wanted the dependency work, but didn't know about the
renewal until told by the Mercury News.

''We were interested in doing that work,'' said Susan Sutton,
president of Legal Aid's board of directors. ''I'm not sure we've got
the
circumstantial guarantee that (the current setup) is the best we can
do.''
Judge Edwards, asked about the bidding issue, replied: ''I think
(Legal
Aid) would be a good contract bidder next time. But we just decided to
go
ahead and roll it over this year.''

Sutton and other dependency experts say Proctor's office has cut too
many corners, leaving parents without recourse against the findings of
social workers.

Opposing lawyers also express concern that Proctor's staff, while
energetic and dedicated, often is overburdened and green. The county
counsel's office, which represents the social services department, and
the
district attorney's office, which represents children, both staff
dependency court with experienced lawyers who make substantially more
money than the attorneys appearing for parents. Starting salaries for
Proctor's lawyers are often $10,000 a year less than a starting salary
for
DAs or a county counsel.

Until recently, Proctor's office was staffed primarily with lawyers
fresh out of law school or with little legal experience. By
comparison,
other counties, such as San Mateo and San Francisco, have panels of
lawyers with years of experience in dependency court.

''The individual attorneys are very bright, very conscientious, but
they don't have the type of experience I think would make for better
representation,'' said Deputy District Attorney Penny Blake, who has
represented children in dependency matters for 11 years.

''There is a problem with a lack of visible advocacy,'' adds Michael
Kresser, director of a San Jose appellate project that inherits cases
from
Proctor's office and reviews their work. ''We see a lot of these cases
submitted . . . without any evidence or any argument in favor of the
client. They are not contesting anything.''

Admitting problems
More experienced lawyers added

Proctor concedes his original plan backfired. As a result, he has
gradually replaced rookies with more experienced lawyers, although
many of
them still have limited experience in dependency work.

''It didn't work out up here,'' Proctor said. ''This is a much more
adversarial, litigious courthouse than Orange County.''

Proctor and his supporters say he is getting a bum rap. In many
quarters he is considered an innovator in the world of dependency law.
He
has embraced a philosophy that judges such as Edwards and San Diego
Superior Court Judge James Milliken, another juvenile-law leader,
consider
groundbreaking.

Proctor maintains lawyers for parents should act as social workers to
help reunify families, many torn apart by drug addiction; he pushes
his
staff to abandon the confrontational approach used in other areas of
the
court system.

While critics say this approach leads to poor advocacy, Proctor
insists it benefits parents and their children if his lawyers can get
services for clients instead of spending their time fighting in court.

''There is no question in my mind that across the board (this
program) is providing a higher level of representation than the old
(panel
of attorneys),'' said Siegel. ''It is working as well as it possibly
can
with our budgetary restraints.''

For better or worse, Proctor's experiment in Santa Clara County may
not last much longer if those budgetary restraints don't loosen.
Sounding
frustrated, Proctor says the courts must find a way to provide better
funding for legal representation or he might pull out of the county
next
year, which the contract allows him to do.

''This isn't a cash cow,'' says Proctor. ''The court has got to do
everything it can to get the money from the state. If it doesn't
happen,
they may need to find a different way of doing business. It's not fair
to
our parents to be in a battleground where we're so outnumbered.''


(Kane) wrote in message . com...
On 07 Nov 2003 13:47:41 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

By the way, Tansy Ragwort, how is it you confined your response to
just aps when it was more a subject for ascps?

Here, I'll assist you. Apparently you are in your cups today. That
liquid fertilizer is obviously rotting you Cambium.

Not, now posted to ascps and just to show my good nature and charity
I'll post to asfp too.

After all, everyone should know what a fantastic flamer you are, and
how erudite as well.

You are welcome, Watermelon.

Kane



Kane reveals his ignorance:

By the way, what is a "bureaucratic decision matrices"?

That's PLURAL , Rockhead Trilobite.

Not for a phrase, oh Lonesome Pine.

It can be either singular, and as my response was a question, denoting
I do not know what you mean by the expression, singular it should be.

Or plural, if I already knew your meaning and it was a plural meaning.

You really are a stupid Nut.


should be " What are.?"

Nope. See if there are schools of english language in your garden plot
for Woodenheads please. You need some improvement.

Guess you'll be flummoxed by SDM.

As you might be by SLT, but I won't leave you insuspense. It stands
for Stupid Little Twig... `scuse, Twit.

Obscure references are the retreat of the terminally Vegetative.

What may be common terminology in one part of the country or about one
issue might be covered by something very different elsewhere,
elsewhen, or elseabout.

You small mean behavior becomes you.

Since you didn't mention it in the post you refer to below I'd presume
you are even smaller and stupider than usually today, Tarragon.

You have so little of merit or import to share you are reduced to
these little twitterings.


chuckle you're probably more familiar with the shorter version of
the above.


Having a piece of information someone else doesn't have, or doesn't
know what reference you are making thereby, is funny, chucklehead?
chuckle

Now where have I read that before? chuckle

snicker

Yes you would snicker. The device of the small and stupid. A schoolboy
trick.


Again, to Rock head, who can barely take keyboard to hand:


As a flamer you are a lamer. R R R R R

Bingo bango bongo,

Stoneman


Subject: CPS agencies most secretive in gvt. NONE passed audit
From: (Kane)
Date: 11/6/2003 8:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

(Fern5827) wrote in message
...
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centr...ws/7165169.htm

And yet folks would trust bureaucratic decision matrices, rather
than
parental
judgements?

By the way, what is a "bureaucratic decision matrices"?

Is it something made of Pine, or just your attempt to sound erudite,
Eucalyptus?

And then The Plant spouted Sap all over USENET with..........

On 07 Nov 2003 00:26:49 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

How do you deal with the book, excerpted above

Someone Plant you upside down? There is nothing "above" but the
header
to your message. And your prior message included. Is that the "book"
you "excerpted above"?

which states that CPS is a
do-nothing, bureaucratic boondoggle, which squanders time on
parents
spanking
yet lets CHILDREN DIE, in wretched, unsafe surroundings.

See George Thomas' book published by Haworth Press, which estimates
that 95% of
what CPS does is pointless, meaningless, hackdom. "Travels in the
Trenches."

People write lots of things that are questionable, as all things
claimed should always be questioned.

Yet when NJ or FL closes cases without ever EVEN SEEING THE CHILD,
then we know
that CPS is simply a jobs-making attempt to socially engineer
families.

Do you know what happens to states under federal assessment that
have
open cases that have NO child or clients available?

I've pointed this out to you before. If they cannot find the family
they cannot keep the file open. Well, they can but the taxpayers
might
just be really ****ed over it if they found out.

Read "The theraputic state."

There's tons of yellow journalism out there. One can find claims for
nearly any bias possible to express.

btw: Check out my video link to House Ways and Means Subcommittee
Hearing
today.

I don't click video links of others. How were you able to attach one
to a USENET message in a non binary ng?

I've already read plenty about it. As politicians are wont to do,
just
as you and your cohorts here do, they have jumped to assumptions
BEFORE the investigation is complete.

Nothing new in that for politicians.

It's looking more and more like there are highly conflicting
stories.
The eating disorder question is being very poorly handled. It
appears
the legislators are as misinformed or uninformed as you are.

Children who have eating disorders that include the kinds mentioned
for these children often produce serious emaciation...it's called
Bulimia and Anorexia. At least one of these children had an even
more
severe nutritional deficiency disorder as well. Eating non
nutritional
items, non food, is just such a disorder.

The fact they are eating now and gaining weight, if it is true, is a
product of close medical supervision and control. Something a parent
might find very hard to do 24/7. That doesn't prove them negligent
or
abusive.

We have to wait and see.

Billions of dollars going down the drain.

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

...and then Fritillaria comments, without referrence or attribute:

Audit can be accountancy types or verification types. E.g., ghost
workers,
records falsification, etc.

You really need to learn to write coherently. You and the strange
Greegor seem to be unable to understand that others might actually
try
to read and understand you and follow some logical thread.

This isn't your personal e-mail group.

But since I happen to be on your secret code I know to which you
refer.

The term "audit," in common useage (rather than weasel words) is
confined to accounting. If a particular examination included payroll
and bookkeeping issues then "audit" would be the correct term.

They are termed *audits* to fit into headline space.

Notice that "assess" takes exactly the same number of characters?

"Evaluate" only takes two characters more. No, Peanut, the choice of
words is meant to inflame and bias the reader, much like most of
what
you and your cohorts write.

Everyone has a gut reaction to "audit," as in "IRS audit," or
"Smith,
Smyth, and Smithy are here to do a surprize audit of your
department's
books."

Desperate aren't you to praise a universally reviled system?

I've rarely praised them. I try, as you do not, judge them on
evidence
and fact, fairly and equitably.

Sometimes they are wrong, and sometimes not...most probably with
you,
not.

The one clear instance I have praised them here has nothing to do
with
any evidence you or they supplied, but what the miscreant supplied
himself.

That CPS won't give the child back while he is a parasite on the
mother makes perfectly good sense to me. Hoorah for CPS in this
instance.

Ref: http://www.child-abuse.com

Gosh, that wouldn't be a website with just a teeny bias now would
it?

Even this site, dedicated to CPS activities,

It is not even handly dedicated to ALL CPS activities, just the ones
that support their onw sick child abusing parent supporting bias.

chooses to excerpt the book which
lays clear that CPS is WOEFULLY INADEQUATE.

There will never be an adequate agency to stop all the abuses and
negligence of parents toward their children. If you think it needs
fixing why not actually do something instead of **** all over the
place...oh, 'scuse me, that's Sap.

And supporting MORE of the feds control is sick. Which is YOU,
Pumpkin. Sick for suggesting the solution is at the federal level.
Tsk
tsk tsk.

I am referring of course to recent posts of yours that Tere nailed
you
for, as I did. MORE supervision of families by the feds or even the
local CPS in our schoools is NOT the answer.

btw, Wexler has written a book. Have you?

Yes.

Have you?

I won't tell you for the same reason you wouldn't tell me. It would
make both of us traceable and since I've been threatened for years
by
yahoos like you I think we'd both better drop the subject, no?

You've given away the game too many times already and I figured out
long ago who one of those were with your very helpful babbling. You
might want to cool your jets just a bit.

"Wounded Innocents"==the real victims in the child abuse game.
Prometheus
Press.

No bias there, nosiree.

Have you actually read the book?

Kane