Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left withown families, study says...

Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left with own
families, study says
By JOHN SHULTZ
The Kansas City Star

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/205399.html

Children on the brink of entering state custody are apt to fare far
better in the long run living in their own potentially troubled homes
than in foster care, a recent study suggests.

Those children who remained with their families were less likely to
experience juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy and often had better,
more consistent employment later in life than those who became foster
children, according to the study by MIT economics professor Joseph J.
Doyle. He studied some 15,000 Illinois children whose families had been
reported to the state for abuse or neglect.

Doyle’s research is the latest report to underscore the thought that
foster care should be looked at as an option of last resort to protect
children.

Some child advocates are lauding it as groundbreaking — both for the
breadth of the population studied and for raising empirical evidence
that supports theories that foster care may do more harm than good for
children whose cases could have gone either way.

“It confirms what observation and experience tell us: That kids need
families,” said Gary Stangler, the former head of Missouri’s Department
of Social Services and current executive director of The Jim Casey Youth
Opportunities Initiative based in St. Louis. “In my work now, especially
dealing with older youths getting ready for life, you can see the impact
of not having a family prepare them for that.”

Representatives from Kansas and Missouri child protection agencies said
the study wasn’t surprising. Both states, as well as others nationwide,
have refocused efforts in recent years on keeping families together.
Still, critics contend that states remain too quick to pull children
from their homes.

This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to
children. Doyle did not study cases of children whose homes were the
subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse,
reasoning that removing those children was necessary.

But, Doyle wrote, “The results suggest that children on the margin of
placement tend to have better outcomes when they remain at home,
especially for older children.”

The study follows another recent report that showed conflicting
benchmarks on the state of foster care.

A May report by the Pew Charitable Trusts said that while the nation’s
foster care rolls are shrinking — about 513,000 in 2005 compared with
560,000 in 1998 — the number and percentage of children who age out of
the system is rising. In 1998, it was about 17,000, a little more than 3
percent. Seven years later, more than 24,000 foster children, or 5
percent, outgrew state care without being adopted.

Doyle’s study keyed on Illinois because its abuse and neglect database
ties into other social service records, allowing him to track children
after they left state custody. The study looked at primarily older kids
in the system from 1990 through about 2000.

“I was surprised that the results were as large as they were,” Doyle said.

Doyle said the study is somewhat distinctive for suggesting that
disadvantages later in life may be caused by foster care. By comparison,
older studies — including ones that found 20 percent of young prison
inmates and more than a quarter of homeless persons spent some time in
foster care — correlated negative life outcomes to foster care without
being able to present it as a cause.

“There’s been a movement more recently toward family preservation, and
my work would tend to support that,” Doyle said. “I hope this encourages
a dialogue. But the academic in me would still like more work to
replicate my results.”

Richard Wexler, head of the Virginia-based National Coalition for Child
Protection Reform, reads the study as a condemnation of any state that
too quickly removes children from their homes.

“It tells us how toxic intervention like foster care is,” said Wexler.
“It found that, on average, children did better when left in their own
homes. It does indicate where the presumption should be, and that means
reversing the presumption that most child welfare agencies operate under.”

Spokeswomen for state social services in Kansas and Missouri countered
that in recent years, both states have strongly emphasized maintaining
families over removing children.

Abbie Hodgson, with Kansas’ Social and Rehabilitation Services, pointed
to the steep increase in cases handled by the state’s Family
Preservation Services. In 1997, the state served 1,800 such families,
she said. Last year, it was about 2,800. Over that time, the number of
children in foster care decreased.

“We’re well aware of the trauma that can be done to a child by removing
them from their home and their parents, and that’s always done as a last
resort and to preserve the safety of the child,” she said.

Missouri has seen a similar, though less pronounced, increase in
families being accepted into intensive in-home family preservation
programs over the past few years, said Department of Social Services
spokeswoman Sara Anderson. Missouri also had a similar reduction in the
foster care rolls.

Neither Hodgson nor Anderson expect the MIT study to have much immediate
impact on how the states manage their systems.

Pauline Abernathy, with the Pew Commission’s Kids are Waiting campaign,
said the study underscores the importance of state child welfare
services beyond foster care.

Lori Ross, head of the Midwest Foster Care and Adoption Association,
said in her experience, the recent shift to focus on family preservation
has taken a number of the marginal foster care cases more prevalent a
decade ago out of the system. She called the study’s results
unsurprising, and also cautioned that such reports shouldn’t be used to
never remove children.

“That would be very unfortunate for children if people did not use good
judgment,” Ross said. “That study is not saying that foster care is not
important for kids to be safe. That study is saying you need to do your
darnedest to prevent them from getting into foster care in the first place.”




CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...


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...

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:14:40 -0700, fx wrote:

[[[ among other things...]]]

......"This study never suggests that foster care is inherently
damaging to children".... pull quoted from the article below.

Hence, Michael's claim that CPS is not doing it's job is crap.

Society is NOT doing IT's job, and CPS is assigned the equivalent of
one man cleanup duty in a thousand head a day slaughterhouse...which
is an excellent metaphor for a society UNWILLING to meet the needs of
it's citizens more fully.

"This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to
children," tends, do you not think, to throw just a tad bit of cold
icy water on the following statement made by the headline:

Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left with own
families, study says


By JOHN SHULTZ
The Kansas City Star

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/205399.html

Children on the brink of entering state custody are apt to fare far
better in the long run living in their own potentially troubled homes
than in foster care, a recent study suggests.

Those children who remained with their families were less likely

Mmmmm, just who decided to leave them there based on the case
findings, folks?

All this is saying is that CPS CALLED IT RIGHT, or the court did.
Together then the JOB IS GETTING DONE.

Without a population randomized research longitudinal study this
amounts to more support for CPS sorting the cases, and their decision
making.

Just how stupid ARE you folks?

to
experience juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy and often had better,
more consistent employment later in life than those who became foster
children, according to the study by MIT economics professor Joseph J.
Doyle.

Who decided NOT to remove the children, based on case practice?

He studied some 15,000 Illinois children whose families had been
reported to the state for abuse or neglect.

Then CPS investigated, with CPS NOT randomly assigning children to
removal or in home, or no case and no removal.

They made the choices based on factors like the capacity of the
parents to respond to services, the severity and kinds of abuse or
neglect, the child's age...thus ability to deal with abuse and neglect
issues with less or more positive outcomes.

This IMMEDIATELY skews the demographic into nSubject SETS favoring
better outcomes for one group, and worse for the other NOT because of
foster or non-foster.

They ONLY possible way to get meaningful results that could find
cause, or at least strong correlation to foster care being in itself
detrimental and linked to poor longitudinal outcomes would to have a
statistically significant numbers in a pool of children who had nearly
the same circumstances...same kinds of abuse, same age, same household
make up, same income, education of child and family, etc., then assign
them WITHOUT INVESTIGATION by throwing little pieces of paper in the
air with their names on them, and sweeping them into two piles,
sending the children whose names are in one pile to foster care, and
NOT removing the children from the other pile from their families.

Do you seriously think that this would NOT result in move abuse and
deaths and lousy outcomes for the At Home crowd?

Doyle’s research is the latest report to underscore the thought that
foster care should be looked at as an option of last resort to protect
children.

Oh dear. The science of repeating what is and has been known for
decades and pretending it a brand new idea.

And running out to get research funding for it.

I can't help but wonder how dim the funders are to NOT bother to look
at prior research or commentary from social science on this subject of
foster care vs at home care.

The implication, in this study, of course, is that the kids left with
their families did this "better outcome" without any support at all.

They were SORTED INTO A MORE LIKELY SUCCESSFUL GROUP.

If you switched groups, as to assigned to home or foster care, can you
seriously expect this research outcome to be replicated?

Can you spell "bogus research," kiddies?

Some child advocates are lauding it as groundbreaking — both for the
breadth of the population studied and for raising empirical evidence
that supports theories that foster care may do more harm than good for
children whose cases could have gone either way.

"Some child advocates" as in, Greg:"A guy told me..."

R R R R R RR

In fact, if you read that paragraph you will see that each phrase has
that wonderful Greegorphorism in it.


Maybe, "supports," "may do"...yeah, there's a causal claim if ever I
saw one.

“It confirms what observation and experience tell us: That kids need
families,” said Gary Stangler, the former head of Missouri’s Department
of Social Services and current executive director of The Jim Casey Youth
Opportunities Initiative based in St. Louis. “In my work now, especially
dealing with older youths getting ready for life, you can see the impact
of not having a family prepare them for that.”

Which fails entirely to be meaningfully linked to the claims about the
study conclusions.

You could use Stangler's statement, AND this study, to support by
correlation that the sorting and deciding done by CPS investigation
and recommendations to the court HAVE PROVEN SUCCESSFUL.

And you could point to those cases where children WERE sent home, and
there were bad outcomes as CONFOUNDING the claims about this study.

Such as this data from USDHHS showing that there are many more factors
than foster versus bio homes as to bad or good outcomes...this of
course is a list of the worst POSSIBLE outcomes...child fatalities:


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_7.htm

Table 4-7 Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities, 2005
Child Maltreatment 2005
Fatality Victims
Whose Families Fatality Victims
Received Who Had Been
Preservation Reunited with
Services in the Their Families
State Fatalities Past 5 Years in the Past 5 Years

Alabama 24 14 3
Alaska 3 0 0
Arizona
Arkansas 17 0 0
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware 0 0 0
District of Columbia 2 0 0
Florida 117 36 5
Georgia
Hawaii 2 0
Idaho 0 0 0
Illinois 68 0 0
Indiana 29 0 0
Iowa 9 0 0
Kansas 6 1 0
Kentucky 29 0 0
Louisiana 21 0 0
Maine 1 0 0
Maryland 28 13 0
Massachusetts 8 0
Michigan
Minnesota 15 2 0
Mississippi
Missouri 42 2 1
Montana 2 0 0
Nebraska 6 0 0
Nevada 17 0 0
New Hampshire 2 0 0
New Jersey
New Mexico 12 1 0
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio 83 19 5
Oklahoma 41 3 0
Oregon 18 4 0
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island 5 0 0
South Carolina23 0 0
South Dakota 4 1 0
Tennessee 34 0 0
Texas 197 13 9
Utah 10 0 0
Vermont 0 0 0
Virginia 26 0 0
Washington 9 0 2
West Virginia 16 0
Wisconsin
Wyoming 2 0 0
Total 928 109 25
Percent 11.7 2.7
Number Reporting 38 35 38

Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities, 2005

This table first lists each State. The second column lists the number
of child victims who died as a result of maltreatment in States that
reported prior contact with CPS. Among the 38 reporting States, this
total was 928. The third column reports the numbers of child victims
who died from maltreatment and whose families received family
preservation services in the past 5 years. Among the 35 reporting
States, this total was 109. The fourth column lists the number of
child victims who died from maltreatment and had been reunited with
their families in the past 5 years. Among the 38 reporting States,
this total was 25 fatalities. ...

Representatives from Kansas and Missouri child protection agencies said
the study wasn’t surprising. Both states, as well as others nationwide,
have refocused efforts in recent years on keeping families together.
Still, critics contend that states remain too quick to pull children
from their homes.

Like critics are going to stop when the number drops below a certain
level, or the rate does...oh yeah.

This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to
children. Doyle did not study cases of children whose homes were the
subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse,
reasoning that removing those children was necessary.

Not only does CPS "sort and assign" but Doyle makes the statement
below after HE sorts to remove the critical n from the population?

Give me a break.

But, Doyle wrote, “The results suggest that children on the margin of
placement tend to have better outcomes when they remain at home,
especially for older children.”

Well DUH.

CPS has been practicing that for every year of their existence. They
KNOW damn well by RESEARCH...real research, and of course common
sense, that an older child can cope better, including punching their
drunken father out and leaving when things git to bad for the "child."

The study follows another recent report that showed conflicting
benchmarks on the state of foster care.

A May report by the Pew Charitable Trusts said that while the nation’s
foster care rolls are shrinking — about 513,000 in 2005 compared with
560,000 in 1998 — the number and percentage of children who age out of
the system is rising. In 1998, it was about 17,000, a little more than 3
percent. Seven years later, more than 24,000 foster children, or 5
percent, outgrew state care without being adopted.

Do you see any significant items above that would effect the claims by
Doyle, kiddies?

Doyle’s study keyed on Illinois because its abuse and neglect database
ties into other social service records, allowing him to track children
after they left state custody. The study looked at primarily older kids
in the system from 1990 through about 2000.

And Illinois, of course, it typical of all other areas of the U.S.,
right?

Now take southern Louisiana as an example of being just like
Illinois...oh, wait, Katrina.

Or those states that have enjoyed a massive increase in drug use, more
specifically meth, tagged as pushing sexual abuse numbers, and neglect
numbers up....yeah, Illinois is a perfect representative sample...oh
yeah.


“I was surprised that the results were as large as they were,” Doyle said.


Oh, you mean after doing this: "not study cases of children whose
homes were the subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical
or sexual abuse," then this: "reasoning that removing those children
was necessary."

Mmmm.... I hope in his actual study report he explained and convinced
other academics and researchers what made those removals in
particular, "necessary."

Doyle said the study is somewhat distinctive for suggesting that
disadvantages later in life may be caused by foster care. By comparison,
older studies — including ones that found 20 percent of young prison
inmates and more than a quarter of homeless persons spent some time in
foster care — correlated negative life outcomes to foster care without
being able to present it as a cause.

And this would suggest that HIS study IS PUCKERING CAUSAL IN OUTCOME?

“There’s been a movement more recently toward family preservation, and
my work would tend to support that,” Doyle said. “I hope this encourages
a dialogue. But the academic in me would still like more work to
replicate my results.”

It's called, "Walking the dog," in Yoyo tournaments. You don't qualify
if at the end of the 'walk' you can't recover the yoyo back to your
hand.

And so it goes, yo, yo, yo, yo, decade after decade...and the experts
such as Doyle continue to contribute, by questionable science and
claims, to the yo.

Richard Wexler, head of the Virginia-based National Coalition for Child
Protection Reform, reads the study as a condemnation of any state that
too quickly removes children from their homes.

Mmmmmmm... and this is NEWS?

“It tells us how toxic intervention like foster care is,” said Wexler.

He seems to have missed, and it is an indicator of bias, or careless
journalism (that IS Wexler's "qualification")the researchers own
statement:

"This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to
children. Doyle did not study cases of children whose homes were the
subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse,
reasoning that removing those children was necessary. "

In other words, Wexler is saying that the research says what the
researcher emphatically did NOT say.

“It found that, on average, children did better when left in their own
homes. It does indicate where the presumption should be, and that means
reversing the presumption that most child welfare agencies operate under.”

"most?" Most have for decades, right out of research from major social
science schools, that this IS the right presumption. And that IF IT
CAN BE FUNDED, up front services ARE the way to go.

Problem is, that the effective programs have a little thing going for
them.....THEY SORT OUT THE FAMILIES MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED to do the
pilot programs with...then report THOSE outcomes as though it is the
rule that would apply to all families reported for abuse and neglect.

People IN the field, DOING the work, WITH THE FAMILIES themseleves
know this...and they also know that it's pointless to try and should
down these pontificating bull**** artists, because THAT'S POLITICS and
their work is social work.

Spokeswomen for state social services in Kansas and Missouri countered
that in recent years, both states have strongly emphasized maintaining
families over removing children.

Well most states have strongly emphased that for years, but DID NOT
IMPLEMENT because the actual rates of abuse flooded them with cases
that drained all the funding into the enforcement portion of their
mandate.

Of course, they could, for a time, just ignore that, take ONLY cases
that had a high probability of good outsome...parents less troubled,
kids less damanged, type of abuse more easily treated, and let the
other kids die.

THEN it would look even better for this pontificating fools and their
bull****.

And frankly that IS something like what happens.

And the yo strikes again. Usually in a rough 10 year cycle.

First the move the money to the intervention end, then the incidence
of abuse and neglect goes up slowly in that population that would NOT
respond to interventions...hell, by LAW they don't have accept them
until the child is badly damaged any way...and they have to accept the
TPR "service."

The years mount up, the rates climb, the NEW set of pontificators (who
mysteriously often tend to be the OLD one's) claim that was the wrong
thing to do and we need to fund inforcement more.

yo.

Abbie Hodgson, with Kansas’ Social and Rehabilitation Services, pointed
to the steep increase in cases handled by the state’s Family
Preservation Services. In 1997, the state served 1,800 such families,
she said. Last year, it was about 2,800. Over that time, the number of
children in foster care decreased.

Aw right.

So, whats the obvious conclusion? That the one yo prevails now, and
the next yo is about 10 years down the road.

“We’re well aware of the trauma that can be done to a child by removing
them from their home and their parents, and that’s always done as a last
resort and to preserve the safety of the child,” she said.

NO NO NO....CPS is supposed to be ignorant of these things until
special studies are funded, such as Doyle's, and they get edikated out
of their ignorance. Mmmmmhmmmmm....

Missouri has seen a similar, though less pronounced, increase in
families being accepted into intensive in-home family preservation
programs over the past few years, said Department of Social Services
spokeswoman Sara Anderson. Missouri also had a similar reduction in the
foster care rolls.

And I got a little secret for yah. Regardless, the rate of child abuse
has steadily dropped just a little bit each year, trendwise, over some
time now. Little up, little down, end point tending to be lower every
few years.

ACROSS THE PUCKERING COUNTRY. So studies that claim more intervention
is the cause are on crusted over manure pits, and best not stomp their
little feetzies.

Neither Hodgson nor Anderson expect the MIT study to have much immediate
impact on how the states manage their systems.

Well, because they are where they have been for four to five decades,
and they are starting to get a clue about the yo, and the yo, and the
yo, and so they know.

Pauline Abernathy, with the Pew Commission’s Kids are Waiting campaign,
said the study underscores the importance of state child welfare
services beyond foster care.

"No no, look at MY issue, not their issue. My issue."

Not a caseworker of any years that does NOT know that the above is
important. And not a caseworker of any years experience that doesn't
know, by experience, that you cannot sell that to the legislature.

Money, kiddies, MONEY, PUCKERING MONEY.

Those late in the game programs cost tons. And any worker that's
worked with the about to graduate population (and every parent of a
teen) knows that return on the dollar isn't particularly high.

Lots of kids, foster and not, do not do all that well in those first
years on their own. Barring the occasional little entrepeneural
genius, or kiddie pop star.

Lori Ross, head of the Midwest Foster Care and Adoption Association,
said in her experience, the recent shift to focus on family preservation
has taken a number of the marginal foster care cases more prevalent a
decade ago out of the system. She called the study’s results
unsurprising, and also cautioned that such reports shouldn’t be used to
never remove children.

Excuse me? "RECENT" shift? I have heard the same thing for 30 years.
So I've seen three cycles.

I remember laughing to myself when ASFA was implemented in the field,
and one state changed it's mission statement from "support for
families and children," to "protect children and support families."

I figure it was a little sneaky way of trying to show a bit of
defiance of the feds (while of course having to bend over for them to
get the state's citizen's tax money back) by reversing the emphasis on
which end of the problem was being served by ASFA mandates.

ASFA, of course was to get children out of the system more quickly.
But of course that meant moving to TRP more often in less time.

“That would be very unfortunate for children if people did not use good
judgment,” Ross said. “That study is not saying that foster care is not
important for kids to be safe. That study is saying you need to do your
darnedest to prevent them from getting into foster care in the first place.”

Now let me see. Here is some research based info I can get my teeth
into.

The causes of abuse and neglect arise out of poverty, crime, mental
illness, crumbling infrastructure, health care inaccessibility, but
CPS policy is going to fix it with only the bandaid they are funded
for?

For as long as I can recall in the issue of child protection never
ONCE have I run across any mission statement, or imposed mandate by
the legislatures of any state, to run jobs programs, fight crime, run
our mental health services, run public transit, public utilities, or
hospitals and clinics.

Those mandates are ELSEWHERE. And the voices of THOSE systems
advocates are quite small and squeeky and ignored.

The under funding of THEM fills the CPS offices with children and
families.

CPS CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AN LOOK FOR ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN.

Does that indicate anything at all to you about the roll that society
has assigned it....PUCKERING CLEANUP CREW AT THE ZOO?

No read Michael's bull**** below and see if you can fit any claims he
makes into any system of factual social welfar structure.

CPS has never been mandated to solve the child endangerment problems
in this country. Only the cleanup. And they have one broom.


CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...


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...

I found this string very interesting. I was on the opposing side of CPS
nearly 10 years ago (well sort of)
My ex-wife had a number of issues and while I was with her I was unable to
get or keep the house up and she would leave the kids home in the middle of
the night to go party, or meet total strangers off the internet for "sexual
encounters" while I was working away from home.

Cps gave us services, which I told them upfront that I would cooperate but
knew that nothing would change in the home unless I took drastic changes
myself and got her out of the home, or got the children and I out of the
home away from her. After getting the children removed from the home (and
place with my family) and later returned 10 months later. They attempted to
work with us but nothing worked, my ex would only put on a show for them and
really did not change. When I tried to be honest with them I was called
narsistic and was told I was only trying to sabotage the "family"

Well its going on 10 years since all of that and I am now remarried to a
wonderful woman that is great with kids, I have full custody of my children
(17,16,12) and have for the last 3 years. My current wife has volunteered
for CPS and she now does child care out of our home. We are both constantly
looking out for children and making sure they are being cared for correctly
and do our best to work with new parents when they are unsure of what to do.

We recently had to report a family to CPS (after a few attempts to try to
get them to correct some issues in their home - trash all over, NO
power..ect) since my wife is licensed thru the state for child care it
appears that we may end up with the children in the next few days once CPS
checks out the home.

What some people don't get is they give more thought to bringing a puppy
home from the pound then they give to bringing a child into the world!!
Just today I read about a woman that went to work left her infant child in
the car ALL day, when they found it the baby was dead! If people are not
able to care for children be honest and give them up to someone that can
care for them.






"0:-]" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:14:40 -0700, fx wrote:

[[[ among other things...]]]

....."This study never suggests that foster care is inherently
damaging to children".... pull quoted from the article below.

Hence, Michael's claim that CPS is not doing it's job is crap.

Society is NOT doing IT's job, and CPS is assigned the equivalent of
one man cleanup duty in a thousand head a day slaughterhouse...which
is an excellent metaphor for a society UNWILLING to meet the needs of
it's citizens more fully.

"This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to
children," tends, do you not think, to throw just a tad bit of cold
icy water on the following statement made by the headline:

Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left with own
families, study says


By JOHN SHULTZ
The Kansas City Star

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/205399.html

Children on the brink of entering state custody are apt to fare far
better in the long run living in their own potentially troubled homes
than in foster care, a recent study suggests.

Those children who remained with their families were less likely

Mmmmm, just who decided to leave them there based on the case
findings, folks?

All this is saying is that CPS CALLED IT RIGHT, or the court did.
Together then the JOB IS GETTING DONE.

Without a population randomized research longitudinal study this
amounts to more support for CPS sorting the cases, and their decision
making.

Just how stupid ARE you folks?

to
experience juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy and often had better,
more consistent employment later in life than those who became foster
children, according to the study by MIT economics professor Joseph J.
Doyle.

Who decided NOT to remove the children, based on case practice?

He studied some 15,000 Illinois children whose families had been
reported to the state for abuse or neglect.

Then CPS investigated, with CPS NOT randomly assigning children to
removal or in home, or no case and no removal.

They made the choices based on factors like the capacity of the
parents to respond to services, the severity and kinds of abuse or
neglect, the child's age...thus ability to deal with abuse and neglect
issues with less or more positive outcomes.

This IMMEDIATELY skews the demographic into nSubject SETS favoring
better outcomes for one group, and worse for the other NOT because of
foster or non-foster.

They ONLY possible way to get meaningful results that could find
cause, or at least strong correlation to foster care being in itself
detrimental and linked to poor longitudinal outcomes would to have a
statistically significant numbers in a pool of children who had nearly
the same circumstances...same kinds of abuse, same age, same household
make up, same income, education of child and family, etc., then assign
them WITHOUT INVESTIGATION by throwing little pieces of paper in the
air with their names on them, and sweeping them into two piles,
sending the children whose names are in one pile to foster care, and
NOT removing the children from the other pile from their families.

Do you seriously think that this would NOT result in move abuse and
deaths and lousy outcomes for the At Home crowd?

Doyle's research is the latest report to underscore the thought that
foster care should be looked at as an option of last resort to protect
children.

Oh dear. The science of repeating what is and has been known for
decades and pretending it a brand new idea.

And running out to get research funding for it.

I can't help but wonder how dim the funders are to NOT bother to look
at prior research or commentary from social science on this subject of
foster care vs at home care.

The implication, in this study, of course, is that the kids left with
their families did this "better outcome" without any support at all.

They were SORTED INTO A MORE LIKELY SUCCESSFUL GROUP.

If you switched groups, as to assigned to home or foster care, can you
seriously expect this research outcome to be replicated?

Can you spell "bogus research," kiddies?

Some child advocates are lauding it as groundbreaking - both for the
breadth of the population studied and for raising empirical evidence
that supports theories that foster care may do more harm than good for
children whose cases could have gone either way.

"Some child advocates" as in, Greg:"A guy told me..."

R R R R R RR

In fact, if you read that paragraph you will see that each phrase has
that wonderful Greegorphorism in it.


Maybe, "supports," "may do"...yeah, there's a causal claim if ever I
saw one.

"It confirms what observation and experience tell us: That kids need
families," said Gary Stangler, the former head of Missouri's Department
of Social Services and current executive director of The Jim Casey Youth
Opportunities Initiative based in St. Louis. "In my work now, especially
dealing with older youths getting ready for life, you can see the impact
of not having a family prepare them for that."

Which fails entirely to be meaningfully linked to the claims about the
study conclusions.

You could use Stangler's statement, AND this study, to support by
correlation that the sorting and deciding done by CPS investigation
and recommendations to the court HAVE PROVEN SUCCESSFUL.

And you could point to those cases where children WERE sent home, and
there were bad outcomes as CONFOUNDING the claims about this study.

Such as this data from USDHHS showing that there are many more factors
than foster versus bio homes as to bad or good outcomes...this of
course is a list of the worst POSSIBLE outcomes...child fatalities:


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_7.htm

Table 4-7 Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities, 2005
Child Maltreatment 2005
Fatality Victims
Whose Families Fatality Victims
Received Who Had Been
Preservation Reunited with
Services in the Their Families
State Fatalities Past 5 Years in the Past 5 Years

Alabama 24 14 3
Alaska 3 0 0
Arizona
Arkansas 17 0 0
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware 0 0 0
District of Columbia 2 0 0
Florida 117 36 5
Georgia
Hawaii 2 0
Idaho 0 0 0
Illinois 68 0 0
Indiana 29 0 0
Iowa 9 0 0
Kansas 6 1 0
Kentucky 29 0 0
Louisiana 21 0 0
Maine 1 0 0
Maryland 28 13 0
Massachusetts 8 0
Michigan
Minnesota 15 2 0
Mississippi
Missouri 42 2 1
Montana 2 0 0
Nebraska 6 0 0
Nevada 17 0 0
New Hampshire 2 0 0
New Jersey
New Mexico 12 1 0
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio 83 19 5
Oklahoma 41 3 0
Oregon 18 4 0
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island 5 0 0
South Carolina23 0 0
South Dakota 4 1 0
Tennessee 34 0 0
Texas 197 13 9
Utah 10 0 0
Vermont 0 0 0
Virginia 26 0 0
Washington 9 0 2
West Virginia 16 0
Wisconsin
Wyoming 2 0 0
Total 928 109 25
Percent 11.7 2.7
Number Reporting 38 35 38

Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities, 2005

This table first lists each State. The second column lists the number
of child victims who died as a result of maltreatment in States that
reported prior contact with CPS. Among the 38 reporting States, this
total was 928. The third column reports the numbers of child victims
who died from maltreatment and whose families received family
preservation services in the past 5 years. Among the 35 reporting
States, this total was 109. The fourth column lists the number of
child victims who died from maltreatment and had been reunited with
their families in the past 5 years. Among the 38 reporting States,
this total was 25 fatalities. ...

Representatives from Kansas and Missouri child protection agencies said
the study wasn't surprising. Both states, as well as others nationwide,
have refocused efforts in recent years on keeping families together.
Still, critics contend that states remain too quick to pull children
from their homes.

Like critics are going to stop when the number drops below a certain
level, or the rate does...oh yeah.

This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to
children. Doyle did not study cases of children whose homes were the
subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse,
reasoning that removing those children was necessary.

Not only does CPS "sort and assign" but Doyle makes the statement
below after HE sorts to remove the critical n from the population?

Give me a break.

But, Doyle wrote, "The results suggest that children on the margin of
placement tend to have better outcomes when they remain at home,
especially for older children."

Well DUH.

CPS has been practicing that for every year of their existence. They
KNOW damn well by RESEARCH...real research, and of course common
sense, that an older child can cope better, including punching their
drunken father out and leaving when things git to bad for the "child."

The study follows another recent report that showed conflicting
benchmarks on the state of foster care.

A May report by the Pew Charitable Trusts said that while the nation's
foster care rolls are shrinking - about 513,000 in 2005 compared with
560,000 in 1998 - the number and percentage of children who age out of
the system is rising. In 1998, it was about 17,000, a little more than 3
percent. Seven years later, more than 24,000 foster children, or 5
percent, outgrew state care without being adopted.

Do you see any significant items above that would effect the claims by
Doyle, kiddies?

Doyle's study keyed on Illinois because its abuse and neglect database
ties into other social service records, allowing him to track children
after they left state custody. The study looked at primarily older kids
in the system from 1990 through about 2000.

And Illinois, of course, it typical of all other areas of the U.S.,
right?

Now take southern Louisiana as an example of being just like
Illinois...oh, wait, Katrina.

Or those states that have enjoyed a massive increase in drug use, more
specifically meth, tagged as pushing sexual abuse numbers, and neglect
numbers up....yeah, Illinois is a perfect representative sample...oh
yeah.


"I was surprised that the results were as large as they were," Doyle said.


Oh, you mean after doing this: "not study cases of children whose
homes were the subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical
or sexual abuse," then this: "reasoning that removing those children
was necessary."

Mmmm.... I hope in his actual study report he explained and convinced
other academics and researchers what made those removals in
particular, "necessary."

Doyle said the study is somewhat distinctive for suggesting that
disadvantages later in life may be caused by foster care. By comparison,
older studies - including ones that found 20 percent of young prison
inmates and more than a quarter of homeless persons spent some time in
foster care - correlated negative life outcomes to foster care without
being able to present it as a cause.

And this would suggest that HIS study IS PUCKERING CAUSAL IN OUTCOME?

"There's been a movement more recently toward family preservation, and
my work would tend to support that," Doyle said. "I hope this encourages
a dialogue. But the academic in me would still like more work to
replicate my results."

It's called, "Walking the dog," in Yoyo tournaments. You don't qualify
if at the end of the 'walk' you can't recover the yoyo back to your
hand.

And so it goes, yo, yo, yo, yo, decade after decade...and the experts
such as Doyle continue to contribute, by questionable science and
claims, to the yo.

Richard Wexler, head of the Virginia-based National Coalition for Child
Protection Reform, reads the study as a condemnation of any state that
too quickly removes children from their homes.

Mmmmmmm... and this is NEWS?

"It tells us how toxic intervention like foster care is," said Wexler.

He seems to have missed, and it is an indicator of bias, or careless
journalism (that IS Wexler's "qualification")the researchers own
statement:

"This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to
children. Doyle did not study cases of children whose homes were the
subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse,
reasoning that removing those children was necessary. "

In other words, Wexler is saying that the research says what the
researcher emphatically did NOT say.

"It found that, on average, children did better when left in their own
homes. It does indicate where the presumption should be, and that means
reversing the presumption that most child welfare agencies operate under."

"most?" Most have for decades, right out of research from major social
science schools, that this IS the right presumption. And that IF IT
CAN BE FUNDED, up front services ARE the way to go.

Problem is, that the effective programs have a little thing going for
them.....THEY SORT OUT THE FAMILIES MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED to do the
pilot programs with...then report THOSE outcomes as though it is the
rule that would apply to all families reported for abuse and neglect.

People IN the field, DOING the work, WITH THE FAMILIES themseleves
know this...and they also know that it's pointless to try and should
down these pontificating bull**** artists, because THAT'S POLITICS and
their work is social work.

Spokeswomen for state social services in Kansas and Missouri countered
that in recent years, both states have strongly emphasized maintaining
families over removing children.

Well most states have strongly emphased that for years, but DID NOT
IMPLEMENT because the actual rates of abuse flooded them with cases
that drained all the funding into the enforcement portion of their
mandate.

Of course, they could, for a time, just ignore that, take ONLY cases
that had a high probability of good outsome...parents less troubled,
kids less damanged, type of abuse more easily treated, and let the
other kids die.

THEN it would look even better for this pontificating fools and their
bull****.

And frankly that IS something like what happens.

And the yo strikes again. Usually in a rough 10 year cycle.

First the move the money to the intervention end, then the incidence
of abuse and neglect goes up slowly in that population that would NOT
respond to interventions...hell, by LAW they don't have accept them
until the child is badly damaged any way...and they have to accept the
TPR "service."

The years mount up, the rates climb, the NEW set of pontificators (who
mysteriously often tend to be the OLD one's) claim that was the wrong
thing to do and we need to fund inforcement more.

yo.

Abbie Hodgson, with Kansas' Social and Rehabilitation Services, pointed
to the steep increase in cases handled by the state's Family
Preservation Services. In 1997, the state served 1,800 such families,
she said. Last year, it was about 2,800. Over that time, the number of
children in foster care decreased.

Aw right.

So, whats the obvious conclusion? That the one yo prevails now, and
the next yo is about 10 years down the road.

"We're well aware of the trauma that can be done to a child by removing
them from their home and their parents, and that's always done as a last
resort and to preserve the safety of the child," she said.

NO NO NO....CPS is supposed to be ignorant of these things until
special studies are funded, such as Doyle's, and they get edikated out
of their ignorance. Mmmmmhmmmmm....

Missouri has seen a similar, though less pronounced, increase in
families being accepted into intensive in-home family preservation
programs over the past few years, said Department of Social Services
spokeswoman Sara Anderson. Missouri also had a similar reduction in the
foster care rolls.

And I got a little secret for yah. Regardless, the rate of child abuse
has steadily dropped just a little bit each year, trendwise, over some
time now. Little up, little down, end point tending to be lower every
few years.

ACROSS THE PUCKERING COUNTRY. So studies that claim more intervention
is the cause are on crusted over manure pits, and best not stomp their
little feetzies.

Neither Hodgson nor Anderson expect the MIT study to have much immediate
impact on how the states manage their systems.

Well, because they are where they have been for four to five decades,
and they are starting to get a clue about the yo, and the yo, and the
yo, and so they know.

Pauline Abernathy, with the Pew Commission's Kids are Waiting campaign,
said the study underscores the importance of state child welfare
services beyond foster care.

"No no, look at MY issue, not their issue. My issue."

Not a caseworker of any years that does NOT know that the above is
important. And not a caseworker of any years experience that doesn't
know, by experience, that you cannot sell that to the legislature.

Money, kiddies, MONEY, PUCKERING MONEY.

Those late in the game programs cost tons. And any worker that's
worked with the about to graduate population (and every parent of a
teen) knows that return on the dollar isn't particularly high.

Lots of kids, foster and not, do not do all that well in those first
years on their own. Barring the occasional little entrepeneural
genius, or kiddie pop star.

Lori Ross, head of the Midwest Foster Care and Adoption Association,
said in her experience, the recent shift to focus on family preservation
has taken a number of the marginal foster care cases more prevalent a
decade ago out of the system. She called the study's results
unsurprising, and also cautioned that such reports shouldn't be used to
never remove children.

Excuse me? "RECENT" shift? I have heard the same thing for 30 years.
So I've seen three cycles.

I remember laughing to myself when ASFA was implemented in the field,
and one state changed it's mission statement from "support for
families and children," to "protect children and support families."

I figure it was a little sneaky way of trying to show a bit of
defiance of the feds (while of course having to bend over for them to
get the state's citizen's tax money back) by reversing the emphasis on
which end of the problem was being served by ASFA mandates.

ASFA, of course was to get children out of the system more quickly.
But of course that meant moving to TRP more often in less time.

"That would be very unfortunate for children if people did not use good
judgment," Ross said. "That study is not saying that foster care is not
important for kids to be safe. That study is saying you need to do your
darnedest to prevent them from getting into foster care in the first
place."

Now let me see. Here is some research based info I can get my teeth
into.

The causes of abuse and neglect arise out of poverty, crime, mental
illness, crumbling infrastructure, health care inaccessibility, but
CPS policy is going to fix it with only the bandaid they are funded
for?

For as long as I can recall in the issue of child protection never
ONCE have I run across any mission statement, or imposed mandate by
the legislatures of any state, to run jobs programs, fight crime, run
our mental health services, run public transit, public utilities, or
hospitals and clinics.

Those mandates are ELSEWHERE. And the voices of THOSE systems
advocates are quite small and squeeky and ignored.

The under funding of THEM fills the CPS offices with children and
families.

CPS CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AN LOOK FOR ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN.

Does that indicate anything at all to you about the roll that society
has assigned it....PUCKERING CLEANUP CREW AT THE ZOO?

No read Michael's bull**** below and see if you can fit any claims he
makes into any system of factual social welfar structure.

CPS has never been mandated to solve the child endangerment problems
in this country. Only the cleanup. And they have one broom.


CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...


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...

On Aug 3, 11:15 pm, "news.att.net" wrote:
I found this string very interesting. I was on the opposing side of CPS
nearly 10 years ago (well sort of)
My ex-wife had a number of issues and while I was with her I was unable to
get or keep the house up and she would leave the kids home in the middle of
the night to go party, or meet total strangers off the internet for "sexual
encounters" while I was working away from home.

Cps gave us services, which I told them upfront that I would cooperate but
knew that nothing would change in the home unless I took drastic changes
myself and got her out of the home, or got the children and I out of the
home away from her. After getting the children removed from the home (and
place with my family) and later returned 10 months later. They attempted to
work with us but nothing worked, my ex would only put on a show for them and
really did not change. When I tried to be honest with them I was called
narsistic and was told I was only trying to sabotage the "family"

Well its going on 10 years since all of that and I am now remarried to a
wonderful woman that is great with kids, I have full custody of my children
(17,16,12) and have for the last 3 years. My current wife has volunteered
for CPS and she now does child care out of our home. We are both constantly
looking out for children and making sure they are being cared for correctly
and do our best to work with new parents when they are unsure of what to do.

We recently had to report a family to CPS (after a few attempts to try to
get them to correct some issues in their home - trash all over, NO
power..ect) since my wife is licensed thru the state for child care it
appears that we may end up with the children in the next few days once CPS
checks out the home.

What some people don't get is they give more thought to bringing a puppy
home from the pound then they give to bringing a child into the world!!
Just today I read about a woman that went to work left her infant child in
the car ALL day, when they found it the baby was dead! If people are not
able to care for children be honest and give them up to someone that can
care for them.

Your story is eerily like the kind of comments that Kane
posts to shill for the Child Protection INDUSTRY.

In the first part of the story your own description makes
you sound like some kind of complete IDIOT.

You stayed home and took care of the kids while your
wife went out partying and whoring?

You made no mention of why the kids were removed
from BOTH of you. What did YOU do to have your
kids taken away?

And with a record like that you went on to
become Mr. Wonderful in the eyes of CPS?

They use ten year old MISDEMEANORS against people.

They fabricated a ""Sex Abuse History"" to lord over my family.

You're saying that you had kids removed from
you yet they still certified you for baby sitting??

Your preaching about licensing parents is
straight out of the socialist social worker agenda.

Either you are one of the dumbest people on the
face of the earth, virging on being retarded (which would
explain being beholden to the damned agencies!) or
the whole post was a complete fake designed
by the CPS idiots in a sad attempt to regain
some Public Relations that is not heading toward
the complete end of the Child Protection INDUSTRY.

Your text kind of implies that you lack testicles.

On Aug 4, 11:50 am, Greegor wrote:
On Aug 3, 11:15 pm, "news.att.net" wrote:

I found this string very interesting. I was on the opposing side of CPS
nearly 10 years ago (well sort of)
My ex-wife had a number of issues and while I was with her I was unable to
get or keep the house up and she would leave the kids home in the middle of
the night to go party, or meet total strangers off the internet for "sexual
encounters" while I was working away from home.

Cps gave us services, which I told them upfront that I would cooperate but
knew that nothing would change in the home unless I took drastic changes
myself and got her out of the home, or got the children and I out of the
home away from her. After getting the children removed from the home (and
place with my family) and later returned 10 months later. They attempted to
work with us but nothing worked, my ex would only put on a show for them and
really did not change. When I tried to be honest with them I was called
narsistic and was told I was only trying to sabotage the "family"

Well its going on 10 years since all of that and I am now remarried to a
wonderful woman that is great with kids, I have full custody of my children
(17,16,12) and have for the last 3 years. My current wife has volunteered
for CPS and she now does child care out of our home. We are both constantly
looking out for children and making sure they are being cared for correctly
and do our best to work with new parents when they are unsure of what to do.

We recently had to report a family to CPS (after a few attempts to try to
get them to correct some issues in their home - trash all over, NO
power..ect) since my wife is licensed thru the state for child care it
appears that we may end up with the children in the next few days once CPS
checks out the home.

What some people don't get is they give more thought to bringing a puppy
home from the pound then they give to bringing a child into the world!!
Just today I read about a woman that went to work left her infant child in
the car ALL day, when they found it the baby was dead! If people are not
able to care for children be honest and give them up to someone that can
care for them.

Your story is eerily like the kind of comments that Kane
posts to shill for the Child Protection INDUSTRY.

The operative statement is "If people are not able to care for
children be honest and give them up to someone that can care for
them."

That seems reasonable to me.

In the first part of the story your own description makes
you sound like some kind of complete IDIOT.

I don't think that's true..

You stayed home and took care of the kids while your
wife went out partying and whoring?

That's not what he said.

He said the mother left the kids alone while he was at work.

It's right there in plain English, Greg.

You made no mention of why the kids were removed
from BOTH of you. What did YOU do to have your
kids taken away?

And with a record like that you went on to
become Mr. Wonderful in the eyes of CPS?

They use ten year old MISDEMEANORS against people.

Now Greg's gonna start changing the subject to his girlfriend's case!

They fabricated a ""Sex Abuse History"" to lord over my family.

Here he goes again!

You're saying that you had kids removed from
you yet they still certified you for baby sitting??

That's not what he said.

Your preaching about licensing parents is
straight out of the socialist social worker agenda.

That's not what he said.

How many stupid pills did you take this morning, Greg?

Either you are one of the dumbest people on the
face of the earth, virging on being retarded (which would
explain being beholden to the damned agencies!) or
the whole post was a complete fake designed
by the CPS idiots in a sad attempt to regain
some Public Relations that is not heading toward
the complete end of the Child Protection INDUSTRY.

Or you just read it wrong, Greg.

Your text kind of implies that you lack testicles.

Greg likes people without testicles... mainly naked little girls from
the ages of five to seven.