Part three of three..... For many foster children, hard life begins as adults

.............part three of three........................
Any wonder "The (national foster care) expert could not explain
this
failing?" I know of course...because a real expert such as this
would
not confuse CASEWORKER, and assigned duties, with FOSTER CARE
WORKER,
and their assigned duties, which do not include "caseplanning."

Oh, he was a "real expert."

I presume so. Probably referred by folks that understood what he or she
would know, and not know,.

And he was, indeed, alarmed about the DCF
failing.

Oh? Where did it say that? Not a word about his "alarm."

He was not confused.

Oh? Then why couldn't this expert answer a simple question, why didn't
foster care worker do the client planning for the parents? Because,
Doug, he then became confused and likely thought the system was
different than his experience, much as mine, told him it should be.
Rather than be seen as ignorant he simply said he did not know why the
performance was not as they thought it should be.

Nor was the Grand Jury.

Sure they were. And so are you, Dougger. The idea that a client worker,
the family service worker, and a foster care worker are one and the
same shows clearly you are confused, and so were they.

You do know, I'm sure, that they are made up of citizens, not experts
in government or CPS operations. It's easy for them to mistake similar
looking roles, particulary if one of them is meeting kids in the foster
home and parents outside, and the other is only doing duties in and
around the foster home. They'd never catch on. Many that don't know,
don't...mmm..Doug, can you guess the question going through my mind
now? R R R R R or should I say "LOL!"


Want to explain why you didn't notice this, "caseworker?"

Nothing to notice, "non-caseworker."

Well, to someone that is from outside the system no. Someone that knows
and understands operations, it is easy to see. One of the workers does
parent and child client work. One does foster parent and foster child
work. The latter does NOT do caseplanning for parents..the thing that
confounded the expert when the GJ asked him to explain why the "foster
care worker" wasn't doing caseplanning work.

The Grand Jury mentioned the lack of accountability of DCF and the
failure
of its top officials to provide direction, leadership and
oversight.

Let me see now. There is a grand jury sitting. They cite data,
interviews, expert opinions solicited, yet they, with perfect
DouggieLogic, say that there is no oversight. Hmmm...interesting,
eh?

LOL! The Grand Jury noted what we see all over the country...the
lack of
accountability of child protective agencies.

"Reform Crusader Logic Again?" This is right up there with "everything
is hidden behind a veil of secrecy" spouted by someone quoting a media
article on ...you guessed it, what is BEHIND "THE VEIL OF SECRECY."

If child protective agencies are unaccountable, how is it they are
undergoing an evaluation by the GJ? Wouldn't that be a bit presumptuous
and wasteful?

Like the outcome of the GJ report is NOT going to factored into CPS
having to be ... well, how shall I say this so as not to embarrass you
and all the other assholes pundits across the land, ACCOUNTABLE.

The propagandists have take over the world, and the language. Logic is
turned on it's head so often it's like the chickens with the specially
fitted upside down vision goggles. For a day or so they missed on every
peck, then the brain turned the image over for them, and they hit every
time...but the glasses were still turning the world upside down.

Your job, propagandist, is to get us "chickens" to believe we are
looking at a rightside up world that you in fact have turned over.

If someone ISN'T accountable then they cannot, by the rules of english
language, be called to account.

They ARE accountable, and everyday the media proves it, I prove it, you
prove it with these very responses to what you call MALPRACTICE...or
you couldn't claim them. If they malpractice, you and others, and even
I, the supposed apologist (you liar) can't call them to account.

No lobby group, no legislative committee assigned to humanservices
oversight, not the stat'e AsG, not the governor. No one...if they are
truely "unaccountable."

Do you understand what I am saying, or have YOU been wearing the
goggles too long, Doug?

What precisely did the GJ mean?

You don't know? You are the one who cited it.

No, I do not know what they meant by "The Grand Jury mentioned the lack
of accountability of DCF and the failure of its top officials to
provide direction, leadership and oversight." And I asked for more
clarification to explain this paradox of an accountability institution,
as that IS what a Grand Jury IS by definition..they are there to fact
find and call to account, claiming CPS was NOT accountable.

And what does provide direction, leadership, and oversight actually
say? Nothing specific. It's jargon. It's political. It's trained
propagandist jargon so similar to yours.

Tell me, what does a leader do specifically that can be said he is not
doing?

What does an official do, precisely, that is defined as "direction?"
What IS direction? Is it goals setting? Did and official fail to state
a goal? I doubt that.

Is it pointing out the path to be followed (one definition is to give
direction on how to reach an objective). Policy addresses that very
thing, and it's a legislative, and AG duty. AsG help interpret law into
policy. Is that who the GJ was referring to?

We don't know which "officials." That is polical avoidance but high
sounding political babble to confuse the public. Nasty stuff.

Did I mention to you some courses I used to teach...oh, never mind.

Quality Service Review
team,
the foster child had lived in the care of DCF for five (5) of her
seven (7)
years. She had been separated from her siblings and had been
relocated
frequently. Her placement history reflected "a steady decline in
her
quality
of life over the course of DCF's involvement". She began foster
care
in a
relatively problem free existence in a foster home. She now lives
in
a
residential treatment facility, one of the most expensive
facilities
in the
out-of-home care system."

Did they read her caserecord? Did they see any early entry
psychevals?
How do we know this ONE child in fact represents others, and her
case
was in its particulars pretty obviously NOT the fault of CPS?

Yes.

No they didn't. They read the Quality Review Team opinion of the
record.

"Quality Service Review team." You haven't noticed yet they are the
reporters the GJ is viewing the reports of, even a video or videos.
This is all third hand, as far as I can decipher. And you would be
guessing when you say they read the caserecord.

Yes.

No, there is NO proof they saw early entry psych evals and it's highly
unlikely since this is all second hand from the contracted "Quality
Service Review team."

They MIGHT incedently see it. They might not, and more likely. Wanna
guess who has sat on a GJ, between the two of us? It's not a long drawn
out examination of a lot of first hand info. It is testimony, evidence
examined and explained by others. Otherwise they'd sit there endlessly
trying to sort out what they hell it all meant. It is a citizen board
of reveiw essentially, not a panel of experts. That is who comes to
answer to them...various experts...like that consultant on foster care.


No.

Oh, and what exactly sir, tells you that it has to be the fault of CPS
when we do NOT know if they have the entire caserecord in front of
them, or anything at all except what THEY keep referring to: Quality
Service Review team report.

Hell, you are going on imagination. You think you know what happens in
a GJ and you haven't much of an idea at all. Watching a lot of movies?

Children that are moved often, often have behaviors that bring
about
the moves.

Gimme an "oh."

Oh.

0:-

It's perfectly true. I hope no one takes your "oh" for the doubts of an
"expert" about that. Children, do in fact blow out of foster homes,
leaving behind them injured animals, other children injured, house a
wreck for their wild tantruming, even injured foster parents (I've seen
them with their front teeth knocked out by a rather small foster child
using a plate), and a few with fire scorched walls.

Not nice of CPS to put children there like that, but there are so many
very much like that.

This shows their Douglike clarity and thinking in about the same
way as
they did not knowing the difference between foster care worker and
caseworker, which confounded their national foster care worker.

Boy, that Grand Jury is just as bad as all of the media people,

No, they are simply who they are. A group of lay citizens, listening to
testimony of experts, some of whom have their own agendas 0:- to
peddle, and some that can't answer a question because the GJ doesn't
know how to ask it.

the
researchers,

I just ran across some very credible researchers on sexual abuse that
are going to put YOUR experts in their place on the issues of sexual
abuse reporting and actual incidences of sexual abuse. Don't try that
on me. Some researchers are full of **** and you know it. Some aren't,
and I know it. I also tend to know which is which, rather than pick the
ones I like.

I say "oh ****" about once a week because I hear or see something I
don't like..just as you accuse me of, but I do NOT turn my back. Like
YOU DO.

the cops and all those other people that are against CPS.

The "cops?" What cops? What "other people?" I didn't say anyone was
"against" CPS. Most of the time, 0:-, Douggery, folks, even cops, even
researchers, even the GJ, do not have the facts straight. If they did
we wouldn't have these wonderful tete a tete, now would we?

The world would be perfect.

Why
did you cite the Grand Jury, Kane?

You didn't read my commentary?

For all the reasons I pointed out as I went along through it. Why did
you think? I don't have any hidde motives. You?

We do take some encouragement from DCF's willingness, at least as
expressed to us and to the federal court in its most recent
pleadings, to be
judged on its performance. Specifically, DCF has requested in its
pleadings
that the federal court hold it accountable for the following
criteria: (1)
whether the median length of stay in out-of-home care has
decreased;
(2)
whether more children in care achieve permanency within twelve
(12)
months
and whether they maintain that permanency without being abused or
neglected
again; (3) whether children in care are safer from abuse or
neglect
than
previously; (4) whether foster caseworkers visit their client
children in
care regularly; and (5) whether the foster children, where
appropriate,
visit their biological families regularly. These criteria,
according
to the
testimony of several child welfare experts, are critically
important
to the
quality of care of foster children. Improvements in these areas
correlate to
overall improvement. It seems that this is the first time DCF has
been
willing to be so specifically accountable."

I know why, ehehehe...they want federal court accountability,
Douggie,
do you?

But, as the Grand Jury also says, DCF has made promises to reform
before and
has failed to do so.

No, Doug. You still have your head up...well, in the sand. Deep, very
deep. They want what that will bring. A very close examination,
hopefully with less politics..something judges are supposed to avoid if
they can..and when that happens the real problems can be addressed.

Like how impossible it is to get a caseworker with high loads doing
perfect work. How difficult it is with undertrained workers to do
perfect work.

How, even at a 300% increase (which is kind of funny, since a
percentage is not representative of a need, just an amount....they
might need twice THAT, Doug, we just don't know) isn't enough at times.


Florida DCFS was a pit of long standing. It was so badly underfunded
that the breakdowns may take years, with huge funding, to ever fix some
of the damanges.

Just think, for instance, of the time it takes to recruit workers that
other states want...educated workers. Just think of how long it will
take to train them..and the nearly impossibly task to retrain those
that have lived with and practiced hysterical reactionary brushfire
caseworker practice for years. Some will have to be fired, and the
unions will fight that.

This is a HUGE problem you hide, or don't understand, Doug. I still
can't figure out if you are truly just another of those stinking
"spoilers" or you really ARE stupid and ignorant of operations.

A culture of emergency reactions does not change it's practices
overnight. It takes three years minimum to train even a well educated
MSW to be a highly effective CPS caseworker. The complexity of the job
is far more than you have admitted to the posters here that wallow in
their ignorance.

I can't figure out why you hide it and even minimize worker tasks
sometimes. Weird.

And don't ask me for citations, you twit. It's logic. And knowledge
of
the system historically that tells me this...though I did provide
some
leads for you in that in fact funding DID come right after circuit
court takeover.

Logic? Well, if it is logical, then you should be able to cite a
source for
the information.

Why should I be able to? "Logic" does not mean it's cited somewhere.
Lots of logic is totally undocumented. You are word gamin' us again,
Douggie.

Much of the operations is NOT detailed out in writing showing the
interactions clearly, as I know them to be, and you seem repeatedly to
miss.

Like how they hell a client caseworker does foster parent management
but moves kids away from one foster parent to another, and has none
currently in the first foster home, or how a foster parent, with kids
from mulitiple workers are managed by the "caseworker." Really dumb of
you, Doug. Really. Dumb.

Two problems with out-of-home care practice came to our attention
in
the
Quality Service Review. The first concerns the use of involuntary
hospitalization to prevent the child from harming himself or
others
("Baker
Acts") and the prescription of psychotropic medication for foster
children
apparently as a means of behavioral control. In one case studied
by
the
Quality Service Review, the reviewer noted, "the child has been
Baker
Acted
so often that it has lost its meaning and has become a tool to
manage

behavior". In another case reviewed by the Quality Service Review,
the child
had been Baker Acted four times without receiving clinical mental
health
treatment. It appears that the Baker Act may be used far too
often.

It appears, but for one child, or more? Which do they mean? I'd
like to
see a little better discipline in language usage, wouldn't you? Or
does
it suit you they fall into these vagueries?

More. More than one child. Of course.

I don't think so. Read it again, this time take off those googles. Or
can't you see the world right side up anymore...odd thing, when they
took the googles off the chickens (you remember psych 101 right?) the
damn birds ran around for a few days peckin' at nothing, missing the
grain, and then their brains flipped the image for them and all was
right with the world. Now if I could just pry those propagandists
googles off you that tell you that "not accountable" means ah, well, I
don't have the logic for what it means to YOU.

I like to mean one can't be called to account. But I digress.

Here's the statement that you think means more than one child is being
examined by the GJ:

"Quality Service Review, the reviewer noted, "the child has been Baker
Acted so often that it has lost its meaning and has become a tool to
manage
behavior". In another case reviewed by the Quality Service Review, the
child
had been Baker Acted four times without receiving clinical mental
health treatment."

This is them, the GJ, viewing a report on "the child." Last I heard
"the" meant singular. Unless we are reading a grand epic on humans in
the early years, as in a title, "The Child, and what it means" or
similar.

Now we have two cases. As in "another case." So your "of course" would,
if I'm not mistaken, presume lots of children. We don't know that. We
can HOPE they GJ understands the evidence presented by the Quality
Review team, and that it's clear. But we don't know how many children
are being considered. Is this the same as my "severe abuse" accusation
from your cronies? Or is it truely representative, and have they...and
this is MOST important, confused correlation for causation. I find a
lot of it in YOUR posts and in the political arena...and waaaaaaay too
much planning and proposals and bills voted into law.

The
question of the alleged misuse of psychotropic medication is also
currently
under review by a State panel of experts, however, we are
disturbed
by the
allegations of questionable usage.

They just hit my hotbutton. I've seen far too much abuse in this
area,
but I am ****ed these people are so sloppy. It detracts from the
very
real problem when they are likely NOT accurate in other areas, and
they
NEED TO BE IN THIS ONE.

Yes, there is a lot of abuse in this area of foster care. A state
panel is
currently investigating the use of psychotropics on children to
control
their behavior.

There is. I have spoken on this and my advocacy in this area. I am not
held in very high esteem among certain school teachers and paediatric
nurses because of it. I think both are not being responsible. In the
state I did my ranting they were in cahoots on getting doctors to
prescribe or not allow the children in the classroom.

I've worked with dope controlled children and I hate it. I'd rather
have a child at my throat, kicking and screaming, than to work with
doped kids. There's too little to work with, and it's...well, it's
just
an insult to the humanity of the child. Funny, I had easy chidlren
to
raise (what sweeties they were and are as adults) and yet I chose
for
so many years to work with some of the most difficult of
children...many of them CPS clients.)

CPS clients are often doped up.

That is waaay too funny, and too sad at the same time to do a big take
off on. I'll let you read it again and get the irony in the use of the
word, "clients."

The second problem deals with District 10's apparent proclivity to
place
young children in shelters for long periods of time.

Yeah, that sucks. If they are going to be moved, they need a very
short
stay in the place they are going to be moved from. I wonder, given
the
tremendous profit foster parents make, they didn't have homes lined
up
with thousands of empty beds just waiting.

MONEY, YOU TWIT. Money. Things cost money. They always will.

Every child welfare
system participant who testified said that long-term shelter for
children
under the age of six (6) is undesirable. We heard that these young
children
who are placed in shelters cannot as easily form attachment bonds
as
children placed with appropriate foster families.

Ah, someone is correctly informing them. I wish they understood
better
what they were hearing.

"The backbone of the child welfare system is still DCF and its
family

services workers. According to the testimony of one member of the
judicial
system, there has been no discernible improvement yet in the
quality
of the
DCF workers who appear before the court even with the reduction in
caseloads. In addition, there appears to be almost no adverse
consequences
for these caseworkers who either do not do their jobs or do them
poorly. The
following examples illustrate this point:

I found this to be one of the most funny parts of this Quality
review.

Odd that you would find it funny.

Find what funny? This?

"According to the testimony of one member of the judicial system, there
has been no discernible improvement yet in the quality of the DCF
workers who appear before the court even with the reduction in
caseloads."

You actually want people to believe that I meant "funny ha ha" and not
"funny peculiar" don't you, you low life scum?

I found it tragic as does, I would
imagine, the foster children who are institutionally abused.

Well, given my next question, both the "funny peculiar" and my own
question below, which you answer very incorrectly, compute?

Tell me, Doug. How does money produce a better worker (and you say
they
aren't getting any money anyway..that it's all going to out of home
care)?

It doesn't.

It takes no money, time that money buys, more workers to cover each
other while training, smaller caseloads with mentors to shephard
newbies while they gain skills, or to attract better workers from long
distances?

What does produce a better worker, Doug? A magic wand?

Which has been my point all along.

Which has been your point all along..that it doesn't take money to
produce a better worker, or that money can't produce a better worker?

What does then? And see if you can come up with things that do NOT cost
any money.

Have a great day, Kane.

Well, given that I've caught you at terrible ignorance, and the usual
spinning BS with logic turned upside down, yes, this has been a great
day, but now I must sleep if I can....mmmmphhh......R R R R R R

I think I'll need a Hot Toddy tonight. Or just have to stay up in the
library and giggle all night long. My wife get's a bit disgusted with
me after one of my encounters with your more entertaining posts like
this one. I keep waking up giggling and her pokin' me to be quite.

If you interfer with my marriage, Douggi.....R R R R R .... you are
Toooo much.

Doug

nighty nite.