A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Comments on this Story



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 3rd 07, 06:12 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
fx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,848
Default Comments on this Story


Comments on this Story
Write a letter to the Editor
3 Total Comments — See All Comments
1. Comment by Lori S. (Loris) — August 3,2007 @ 8:23AM

Before these deaths, deaths of children in cps custody and under
their watch was already this bad. This is not a new problem. It is
ongoing and has gotten worse since Governor Napolitano threw more money
at the agency and instilled her policy encouraging the removal of children.
This would include the deaths of Emily Mays and Dwight Hill. Not
reported lately, but not forgotten to those watching this agency's
blunders and fatal oversite.

Death Watch - The latest report on child fatalities is in and it's
even worse than you thought
By Sarah Fenske December 14, 2006
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2006-...ath-watch/full

...The bad news is really bad. There was nearly a 10 percent leap
in child fatalities in 2005. Even allowing for population growth, that's
alarmingly high. "Preventable" deaths were higher than ever, notching a
25 percent increase from 2004.
The researchers also concluded that 50 children died because of
maltreatment. That's the highest number of maltreatment deaths Arizona
has ever recorded.
But what makes the deaths particularly tragic is that Child
Protective Services had prior contact with almost half of the kids who
died because of abuse or neglect, according to the report. And 14 of the
50 kids actually had open cases at the time of their deaths. That, too,
is a state record — albeit one you're never going to see touted in a
press release.

In 2003, at Governor Janet Napolitano's urging, the Legislature
approved a mammoth funding increase for CPS, and funding has only
continued to grow. Last year, the state earmarked $163 million for the
Department of Children, Family, and Youth Services, almost double its
allocation prior to Napolitano's election
And though more kids than ever are in foster care, deaths from
child abuse and neglect have continued to rise
The 2005 statistic isn't an anomaly, it's part of a steady uptick
that began in 2002. See Suffer the Children October 26, 2006
"More than two times the number of kids have died from abuse on
Napolitano's watch" than in a similar period under Governor Jane Hull.
Even more troubling for the agency, more kids are being killed while
their CPS files are still open.

State Senator John Huppenthal, a Chandler Republican, says that the
funding increases and putting more kids in foster care were supposed to
prevent just that.
"Their solution was, 'Pull out more kids, and the kids will be
safer,'" he says. "But we've found there's no correlation between
removal rates and safety None at all
Nine of the kids who died in 2005 were in foster care at the time
of their deaths.
2. Comment by Clouds 4. (customcloud) — August 3,2007 @ 9:09AM

5/23/2006
State Kidnapping Financial Incentives -Incentive Payments to States
SEC. 458. [42 U.S.C. 658a] (a) IN GENERAL
In addition to any other payment under this part, the Secretary
shall, subject to subsection (f), make an incentive payment to each
State for each fiscal year in an amount determined under subsection (b).
(b) AMOUNT OF INCENTIVE PAYMENT (1) IN GENERAL.—The incentive payment
for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the incentive payment pool for
the fiscal year, multiplied by the State incentive payment share for the
fiscal year. (2) INCENTIVE PAYMENT POOL (A) IN GENERAL.—In paragraph
(1), the term “incentivepayment pool” means— (i) $422,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000; (ii) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; (iii) $450,000,000
for fiscal year 2002; (iv) $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; (v)
$454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; (vi) $446,000,000 for fiscal year
2005; (vii) $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; (viii) $471,000,000 for
fiscal year 2007; (ix) $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and (x) for
any succeeding fiscal year, the amount of the incentive payment pool for
the fiscal year that precedes such succeeding fiscal year, multiplied by
the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for such preceding fiscal year
exceeds the CPI for the secondpreceding fiscal year. (B) CPI. For
purposes of subparagraph (A), the CPI for a fiscal year is the average
of the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period ending on September
30 of the fiscal year. As used in the preceding sentence, the term
“Consumer Price Index” means the last Consumer Price Index for all-urban
consumers published by the Department of Labor. (3) STATE INCENTIVE
PAYMENT SHARE In paragraph (1), the term “State incentive payment share”
means, with respect to a fiscal year(A) the incentive base amount for
the State for the fiscal year; divided by (B) the sum of the incentive
base amounts for all of the States for the fiscal year. (4) INCENTIVE
BASE AMOUNT In paragraph (3), the term “incentive base amount” means,
with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the sum of the applicable
percentages (determined in accordance with paragraph (6)) multiplied by
the corresponding maximum incentive base amounts for the State for the
fiscal year, with respect to each of the following measures of State
performance for the fiscal year: (A) The paternity establishment
performance level. (B) The support order performance level. © The
current payment performance level. (D) The arrearage payment performance
level. (E) The cost-effectiveness performance level. (5) Maximum
incentive base amount.— (A) IN GENERAL. — For purposes of paragraph (4),
the maximum incentive base amount for a State for a fiscal year is— (i)
with respect to the performance measures described in subparagraphs (A),
(B), and © of paragraph (4), the State collections base for the fiscal
year; and (ii) with respect to the performance measures described in
subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph(4), 75 percent of the State
collections base for the fiscal year. (B) DATA REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETE
AND RELIABLE. Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the maximum incentive
base amount for a State for a fiscal year with respect to a performance
measure described in paragraph (4) is zero, unless the Secretary
determines, on the basis of an audit performed under section
452(a)(4)©(i), that the data which the State submitted pursuant to
section 454(15)(B) for the fiscal year and which is used to determine
the performance level involved is complete and reliable. © STATE
COLLECTIONS BASE.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the State
collections base for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of(i) 2 times the
sum of (I) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year
under the State plan approved under this part in cases in which the
support obligation involved is required to be assigned to the State
pursuant to part A or E of this title or title XIX; and (II) the total
amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan
approved under this part in cases in which the support obligation
involved was so assigned but, at the time of collection, is not required
to be so assigned; and (ii) the total amount of support collected during
the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in all
other cases. (6) DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE PERCENTAGES BASED
ONPERFORMANCE LEVELS. (A) PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT.— (i) DETERMINATION OF
PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENTPERFORMANCE LEVEL.—The paternity establishment
performance level for a State for a fiscal year is, at the option of the
State, the IV-D paternity establishment percentage determined under
section 452(g)(2)(A) or the statewide paternity establishment percentage
determined under section 452(g)(2)(B). (ii) DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE
PERCENTAGE. The applicable percentage with respect to a State's
paternity establishment performance level is asfollows: If the paternity
establishment performance level is:
The applicable percentage is:
More on link - your social security funds -
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm

And as above, they have incentive to collect child support -
Paternity- (of course parents should pay, the point is the state is
enforcing it for money and bonuses...or they would not give a hoot)
3. Comment by Clouds 4. (customcloud) — August 3,2007 @ 9:18AM

SOCIAL SECURITY TITLE IV D - TITLE IV GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND
SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND

FOR CHILD-WELFARE SERVICES
DHS Agencies (ADES-DCYF-CPS) and Courts (Pima County Juvenile and
Superior Courts) do Not get bonus money when they help families, unless
they are adoptive families Read the DHS Adoption Incentives Brochure and
Adoption Assistance Brochure published by the state DHS agency.

The Clinton Administration's Adoptions and Safe Families Act of
1997 and subsequent changes by the Bush Administration:
The Clinton Administration passed the Adoptions and Safe Families
Act of 1997 which gives DHS agencies Bonus Money for children they
adopt. At first, they were required to double their adoptions to get the
Bonus Money.
President Bush changed the ASFA so that NOW the DHS agency must
adopt only ONE more than the 'mean' adoption rate to qualify for the
Bonus Money. That was done so that more states could qualify for the
Bonus Money. (It was NOT designed to help children in any way. It was
advertised that it was to adopt children who had been in foster care for
several years, but that's NOT what it is being used for)
President Bush also extended the Adoptions and Safe Families Act
from 2002 through 2008. Then, he announced that our Social Security Fund
would be broke.

The Bonus Money and Awards from the ASFA come from our Social
Security Fund (FICA Taxes). Read the Adoptions and Safe Families Act. If
a child is twelve or older, they get an additional Bonus Money.
In October 2005, DHS agencies were given more than $17 Trillion
Dollars for 2004.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One women's comments ... 0:-> Spanking 0 November 18th 06 11:59 PM
Toddler comments Donna Metler Breastfeeding 0 December 2nd 05 12:29 AM
Need Comments on Situation WiseSarah Child Support 0 July 4th 04 01:33 PM
Looking for comments ... John Sambrook General 0 May 19th 04 07:47 AM
any comments KEITH CRABILL Single Parents 55 July 9th 03 02:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.