If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
'Horrible' Home
"Doug" wrote in message hlink.net...
Dan Sullivan wrote: Every fosterchild with disabilities in NYC who hasn't been checked on in the last four weeks should IMMEDIATELY be visited by the supervising agency to ascertain their safety and living conditions. Absolutely! Is it mandated that fosterchildren be seen every four weeks? In many states, yes. You are such a bull****ter. You are either leaving the truth out from malice, or ignorance. The truth is that in permanent and group home, treatment centers, and medical placement it can be as much as 90 days. The case recently discussed here was a medical placement. I wonder what NY police is on visits in such circumstances. However, as the many newsstories posted to this newsgroup attest, I notice a dirth of news stories that point out when CPS workers are doing their jobs well. I wonder why that is? CPS workers are notoriously poor at conforming to home visit requirements in their own agency polices. The federal USDHHS investigators noted this failure in state audit after state audit. And why, pray tell do you conceal the reason for this notoriously poor performance about home visits? What you leave out is notorious in its own right for misleading the reader. Foster caregivers are very poorly supervised, which leads to a great deal of unreported child abuse and neglect. You could confine that to probably five states...yours apparently. Most states have extraordinary supervision of foster parents using special workers whose work is limited soley to certification and supervision of those foster parents. They are the ONLY families on the worker/certifier's case load. There is a distinct set of reasons for caseworker's relunctance to make homevisits to their foster caregiver caseload. Even though they are announced visits, some of the foster caregivers make little effort to straighten up before the visit. I've heard that certifiers can make either announced or unannounced visits. You still living in Lower Slobbovia are yah? If the caseworker notices some problems in the home or alarming behavior by the foster caregiver, they are supposed to report the situation to the special division of the agency charged with investigating foster establishments and group institutions. And there is a huge number of "out of home" investigations (jargon for foster home investigations) that are ongoing all the time. Ask real foster parents about this, folks, instead of swallowing Doug's crap. It's a standard rap from old time foster parents to newbies they mentor that the new foster parent will not go a year without an allegation and investigation. Such reports are frowned upon. I would imagine it does create a workload problem. Worse, cases that are reported are handled by the special division without any feedback to the caseworker -- they are, more or less, done in "secret." Yep, for sure....Lower Slobbovia. In fact that is not how it happens in most places. And investigation starts with a report, a written narration, by the worker that lodges the allegation or that they have received notice of an allegation from outside sources. And when the investigation is completed a report much be placed in the file of the foster parent. Are you seriously suggesting the worker won't have access to that file? Actually the worker, the investigators, and the foster parent get a copy of the final report, or the foster parent has their licensed jerked if the allegation is seen as founded. Why do you continue this crap when you know there are people in this and other ngs that know the truth, Doug? Just which of the fools here are you jerkin' off? The caseworker, who is trained in recognizing problems, becomes more than a little distraught when the special division does not appear to have done anything about the problem. How did the special division suddenly become the supervisor of the foster family? It is up to the worker or foster certifier to apply any corrective measures with the foster parent. If the special division (what a crock, you really aren't a CPS worker at all, are you....NO one calls it the special division anywhere in the country) Investigators don't DO anything about the problem, they just investigate and report. So, in a real way, many caseworkers dread home visits to fosters because they don't want to be in a position to see what they anticipate (often, wrongly) they may see. I can imagine that is true, but not for the reasons you state. They have the child to worry about and whether or not to pull the child out of the home, when there is a terrible shortage of places for the child to go to. They worry about the foster parent suing for a false accusation. They worry that the conditions might be so bad they'll have to not only take the foster children but the bio children of the foster parent as well. They worry about a lot, Doug, not just the little part you wish to relate that serves your sick purposes. Even though office talk about fosters is often very negative and blaming, it is politically incorrect to rock the boat formally. In some areas of the country it is not only negative and blaming. The workers misuse foster parents terribly, not informing them adequately about the children coming into their care, forcing the foster parent to bring the children to visits with hostile and dangerous bio family members present, requiring the foster parent to do other difficult and time consuming transport for which the foster parent gets no more than the current 35.5 cents per mile using federal guidelines. And there is a great deal more. Since foster caregivers are in short supply Yep, and that helps explain some of the problem, now doesn't it. and the agencies' funding is based upon how many children it can keep in state custody, caseworkers perceive that administrators view them as sacred cows. Well then caseworkers are very very wrong, as investigations are reported at the management, and if founded, the administrative level, and they get their asses kicked out of fostering and maybe even do a little jail time. Caseworkers distinct bias against foster caregivers is not always legitimate. Ain't it d'truf. Further, the workers perceptions of these "team" members are often distorted views based upon an assumption that they oppose the goals (plan) the caseworker has for the child. Well, are you really going to pretend that this doesn't happen? One of the bones of contention, discussed by me recently, was the issue of moving children every few months. The reason is that foster parents have lobbied for and gotten intervenor status in many states. That means that even if a family member wishes to adopt they have to compete against a foster parent with such status. Think that doesn't create some friction? Well founded friction? It often boils down to this: the worker wants what's best for the child, while the foster parents thinks they know what's best and want the child to have the best. ... in other words they think that because they can give the child a better life than the parent they should have the child. Some foster parents are notorious for this and if they weren't in such short supply agencies would dump the asses of such selfish bio-parent enemies. The most common argument is that a foster caregiver is interfearing with reunification efforts. Like I said. Though you are off the mark. It isn't all that common, just common enough to be a pain in the ass to everyone concerned. Bios, workers, and other fosters that actually know how to foster and respect who the child really belongs to until such time as rights are terminated. Good foster parents also work well with relatives, helping with visits, and supporting their efforts to adopt. Again, the caseworker's constuction of meaning from what they observe in foster environments can be inaccurate. Oh, but the foster's would never be, right? By the way, you are lying. Most workers, unless they are brand new, make very accurate assessments of what is going on in foster care that supports or diminishes the direction of they case they must manage. Nonetheless, mention of foster care within the CPS office usually invites the language of the bordello. Liar. But the office gossip does not get formalized in documentation and is not exchanged when "higher ups" are around. Liar. It's a constant exchange between workers and their supervisors, both about lousy foster parents and about good ones. Publically, and among higher supervisors, caseworkers must maintain a demeanor that puts foster caregivers on a pedestal. Bull****. Consultations about problems with foster caregivers is an everyday part of the worker and their supervisors and managers. So are recognition of good foster caregivers. And, since they are so concerned about losing foster caregivers (they quit faster than they can be recruited), True. Most do so because they have trouble not wanting to wring the necks of the parents of the injured children they see. caseworkers maintain a "two-faced" approach to foster care. You maybe, if you really are a CPS worker. They are all smiles when a foster is around. Silly ass. That is standard social behavior for ALL human beings, not just workers. But if a foster parent is out of line professional behavior is the rule of the day. Ask any foster parent, asshole. They take their lumps when they have screwed up, just like anyone else under supervision in any field. Naturally, this perceived neccessity to put on masks takes its toll on caseworkers. None of us like feeling that we have to act artificially or refrain from saying what we would like to say. You need a shrink, badly. You just invoked the standard social skill required of us all and tried to pass it off as some special burden that only CPS workers have to shoulder. What an asshole. Many caseworkers are truly involved in the system to help children. Most, to my experience. Most are very good at it as well, despite cruds like you. Yet they know first hand the problems within the foster care system overall Wait a minute. You just got through saying they have trouble interpreting accurately what goes on in fostering. Which is it? Come to think of it I've rarely seen you post when you didn't trip yourself up this way. It show so clearly what you are about. and the damage it often does to its wards. They know that any taking of a child from his or her family, friends, surroundings, always has risk of harm. It's standard CPS worker training information. If they are MSW's with a speciality in child welfare there is considerable education on the subject. The trick is to way that harm against the possibility of greater harm including risking death of the child. You'd like people to believe (and you know you have a more than willing audience here) that CPS workers, and the system is some juryrigged off hand catch as catch can with no direction, no order, no education, and nothing but inexperienced ninnies running it and working at it. Liar. How did you learn to be so smarmy? In some cases, obviously, a child must be removed from her home and the caseworker makes the gut wrenching decision to do so not unmindful of the possible danger the child faces in state care. Hyperbolic nonsense, unless you are talking about the gut wrenching that happens to the parent and the child. CPS workers, like other professionals, develop skills of coping that preclude having their "guts wrenched." I don't like to think of people making such decisions as being so sensitive and reactive...just like the surgeon that operated on me. I wouldn't have let him had he been all emotional about what he was about to do. And I wouldn't want a CPS worker that was that unable to deal with his or her feelings OUT OUT OUT. It will get people hurt or killed just as surely as a quesy surgeon. Have you the least idea of how sick you are? The reaction to this classical "rock and a hard place" delemna is often to blame individuals within the foster care system. What a crock of ****. Most workers know perfectly well where the problem actually lies. It lies with abusive neglectful parents that create the situation in the first place. They know perfectly well that the foster parents are caught in the same meat grinder they are. Rather a lot of workers have extremely good working relationships with foster parents as they know they have to rely on each other to get through all the **** that comes with trying to clean up after the scum that abuse their children. Resentments toward certain institutions and group homes ("residential treatment centers") is even more pronounced among caseworkers. The caseworkers you know must be extremely low class scum. There is nothing but the usual professional respect and cautions attendant on using any service among the treatment people and workers I know. Some are good, some aren't, like in every other profession and business. In the end, caseworkers are responsible for each child in their caseload. They often feel uncomfortable about how some of the children are being treated in alternative care. They hate to learn any specifics about it, however, because there are no options available to rectify the situation. Rock and a hard place. Crock. A worker can pull a kid out of a treatment facility in the wink of an eye if they think it's the wrong place for the child. I counselled one to do that just a few months back. It took her 15 minutes to call and cancel all therapy and dispatch an aide to move the child. You are so full of it. That aside, if there is one issue that comes out more than any other during discussions of child welfare reform, it is the fact that CPS agency workers are not visiting foster children enough. And you've run out a line of **** that is supposed to explain that with blame to the worker, instead of discussing exactly why they have NO TIME to do all the visiting they are supposed to, plus court dates, plus in service training, plus paperwork deadlines, plus the number of cases they carry. The feds have insisted that audited states improve in this area or loose federal funding. It's call "jump higher or we'll break the other leg." The states where audits disclosed that visits were not being made often enough (almost, if not all the states audited thus far) must submit a written plan explaining how they are going to rectify the problem. Wait until the truth comes out. If it isn't, then it should be. How 'bout we all email staff writers Patricia Hurtado and Sean Gardiner at Newsday and let them know how ACS let this child fall through the cracks. Best, Dan Sullivan Once upon a time caseworkers had time to see all their clients in any given month. It was back about 1975. My first run in with a CPS worker took place about then and I was amazed at how much time she had for the case I was involved in. Astounding. Caseloads now typically run upwards of 35, 40, even in some areas, 65 or more cases. And the incidence of abuse isn't getting any better, though I note that in sex abuse and child deaths the workers seem to just be holding the line, nationally. Given the increases in population what does that tell you about the quality of worker and foster parent? You have no shame at all, do you Doug? Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
'Horrible' Home
"Kane" writes:
I notice a dirth of news stories that point out when CPS workers are doing their jobs well. I wonder why that is? Hi, Kane! I guess the answer would depend upon what criteria you would use to determine if a CPS worker has done his or her job well. Contributors to this newsgroup have very different ideas about what a good job entails. I have read plenty of news features on CPS workers -- many time "ride along" type stories where the reporter shadows a few workers. They are promoted by the agencies around the time their respective legislatures are considering the budget. CPS workers are notoriously poor at conforming to home visit requirements in their own agency polices. The federal USDHHS investigators noted this failure in state audit after state audit. And why, pray tell do you conceal the reason for this notoriously poor performance about home visits? What you leave out is notorious in its own right for misleading the reader. I explained some of the reasons thoughout the post. I did not leave out or "conceal" anything. You have. What assumptive element do you claim was left out? Foster caregivers are very poorly supervised, which leads to a great deal of unreported child abuse and neglect. You could confine that to probably five states...yours apparently. Most states have extraordinary supervision of foster parents using special workers whose work is limited soley to certification and supervision of those foster parents. They are the ONLY families on the worker/certifier's case load. Which five states? While states do vary in their approach, foster caregivers in most states are visited by a caseworker who performs generic duties. Why? Well, because the caseworkers are, rightfully, assigned to the child. So the caseworker follows the child as she goes into different alternative placement locales or remains home. In rural counties within all states, workers are likely to take on all the responsibilities of child welfare case management, including child abuse investigation/assessment, in-home family services, alternative care (foster care), adoption, and intake. There is a distinct set of reasons for caseworker's relunctance to make homevisits to their foster caregiver caseload. Even though they are announced visits, some of the foster caregivers make little effort to straighten up before the visit. I've heard that certifiers can make either announced or unannounced visits. You still living in Lower Slobbovia are yah? Never did live there. Where is lower slobbovia? If the caseworker notices some problems in the home or alarming behavior by the foster caregiver, they are supposed to report the situation to the special division of the agency charged with investigating foster establishments and group institutions. And there is a huge number of "out of home" investigations (jargon for foster home investigations) that are ongoing all the time. Ask real foster parents about this, folks, instead of swallowing Doug's crap. Yes. My point was that many caseworkers feel that there are many homes that should be investigated by the special units and are not. It's a standard rap from old time foster parents to newbies they mentor that the new foster parent will not go a year without an allegation and investigation. Such reports are frowned upon. I would imagine it does create a workload problem. Well, agencies have a problem investigating their own system, yes. The bottom line is that the agencies are responsible for foster children, so when one is maltreated by a member of the "treatment team" the state incurrs considerable legal liability. There is an inherent conflict of interest in investigating oneself. Agencies are very concerned about the public relations problems of foster care abuse that is made public. Worse, cases that are reported are handled by the special division without any feedback to the caseworker -- they are, more or less, done in "secret." Yep, for sure....Lower Slobbovia. In fact that is not how it happens in most places. And investigation starts with a report, a written narration, by the worker that lodges the allegation or that they have received notice of an allegation from outside sources. What I stated was that many workers are relunctant to fill out these reports. There is a pronounced chilling effect against it, for understandable reasons. In my jurisdiction, others making allegations would be told to call the hotline and the report would be screened out or screened in for investigation by hotline people. And when the investigation is completed a report much be placed in the file of the foster parent. Are you seriously suggesting the worker won't have access to that file? The foster caregiver's personnel file? Actually the worker, the investigators, and the foster parent get a copy of the final report, or the foster parent has their licensed jerked if the allegation is seen as founded. Not in the states that I am aware of. I will make some phone calls and try to get a run down on how many jurisdictions provide a copy of the report to the caseworker. Why do you continue this crap when you know there are people in this and other ngs that know the truth, Doug? Just which of the fools here are you jerkin' off? I know full well that there are people in this newsgroup that know the truth about the child abuse industry. Most of them rarely post. Those who do know the truth about the child welfare system would not find my current post inconsistant with what they know to be true. What you are really saying is that you disagree with what I have said and you feel that your opinion is the sole truth. People who disagree with you are "not telling the truth." The caseworker, who is trained in recognizing problems, becomes more than a little distraught when the special division does not appear to have done anything about the problem. How did the special division suddenly become the supervisor of the foster family? They are NOT the supervisor of the foster caregiver. I never stated that workers in the specialized units are supervisors. I stated that they did the investigation of foster caregivers and institutions. It is up to the worker or foster certifier to apply any corrective measures with the foster parent. Yes, it is up to the caseworker to act in the best interests of his or her child client, which could involving relying upon information he or she knows about the foster caregiver. It is the caseworker's responsibility to supervise the foster caregiver. And, yes, caseworkers can and often do take immediate corrective action to remove their client from risk situations in foster homes or to refuse to place their clients with a given foster caregiver. If the special division (what a crock, you really aren't a CPS worker at all, are you....NO one calls it the special division anywhere in the country) The special units go by many different names throughout the county. I used a generic term to describe them. In some states, the special investigators do work for a seperate division under the same parent Department for CPS. In other states, the units are a subdivision of the CPS division. Investigators don't DO anything about the problem, they just investigate and report. Exactly. Just as I said. So, in a real way, many caseworkers dread home visits to fosters because they don't want to be in a position to see what they anticipate (often, wrongly) they may see. I can imagine that is true, but not for the reasons you state. They have the child to worry about and whether or not to pull the child out of the home, when there is a terrible shortage of places for the child to go to...... Yes, precisely. ........They worry about the foster parent suing for a false accusation..... No, I disagree. I don't think that is one of their concerns. ....They worry that the conditions might be so bad they'll have to not only take the foster children but the bio children of the foster parent as well..... Yes, absolutely. However, again, they would not take the children but make the report you spoke of above and an investigator from a seperate unit would investigate. But the worry that a visit may lead to this is absolutely a component in their relunctance. They worry about a lot, Doug, not just the little part you wish to relate that serves your sick purposes. I summarized in my initial statement to include these details. I appreciate you adding them, however, for clarity. I have indicated above which I agree with. Even though office talk about fosters is often very negative and blaming, it is politically incorrect to rock the boat formally. In some areas of the country it is not only negative and blaming. The workers misuse foster parents terribly, not informing them adequately about the children coming into their care, forcing the foster parent to bring the children to visits with hostile and dangerous bio family members present, requiring the foster parent to do other difficult and time consuming transport for which the foster parent gets no more than the current 35.5 cents per mile using federal guidelines. And there is a great deal more. Absolutely. I agree that all of the exploitations you have mentioned above occur. Most especially, the caseworker's failure to give foster caregivers complete information about the children coming into their care. I agree with you that there is a great deal more situations where caseworkers fail foster caregivers. Since foster caregivers are in short supply Yep, and that helps explain some of the problem, now doesn't it. No. My suggestion would be that the same root dysfunction leads to both the problems we have been discussing and the high turnover of foster caregivers. Like their younger wards, foster caregivers vote with their feet. and the agencies' funding is based upon how many children it can keep in state custody, caseworkers perceive that administrators view them as sacred cows. Well then caseworkers are very very wrong, as investigations are reported at the management, and if founded, the administrative level, and they get their asses kicked out of fostering and maybe even do a little jail time. As I stated, the foster investigative process begins with the caseworker filing a written allegation (which you confirmed.) I have stated that some caseworkers are relunctant to do so, partially for the reasons I stated above. You responded to that reason with the statement immediately above. To follow the process further, I stated previously that some caseworkers are frustrated that they never hear anything after filing a report (except that it was either unsubstantiated or screened out). To follow the process further, and address your statement, little is known about how these investigations are processed and how unsubstantiated findings are reached. I have seen foster caregivers disclipined without a substantiation or report of investigation. Caseworkers distinct bias against foster caregivers is not always legitimate. Ain't it d'truf. Further, the workers perceptions of these "team" members are often distorted views based upon an assumption that they oppose the goals (plan) the caseworker has for the child. Well, are you really going to pretend that this doesn't happen? No, not at all. It happens all the time and it is very disruptive for the child. What I said was that workers can also harbor a false perception that this may be occurring when it is not. One of the bones of contention, discussed by me recently, was the issue of moving children every few months. The reason is that foster parents have lobbied for and gotten intervenor status in many states. That means that even if a family member wishes to adopt they have to compete against a foster parent with such status. I recall your comments in that discussion and agree with you wholeheartedly. I believe that granting foster caregivers intervenor status is a grave mistake responsible for a great deal of disharmony in child welfare cases. I think ASFA's concept of "concurrent planning" is one of the cruelest doctrines ever introduced into child welfare practice. Think that doesn't create some friction? Well founded friction? A great deal of well-founded friction that does inmeasurable harm to children and their families. But there are also cases where friction is caused by a caseworker's misperceptions. It often boils down to this: the worker wants what's best for the child, while the foster parents thinks they know what's best and want the child to have the best. ... in other words they think that because they can give the child a better life than the parent they should have the child. Some foster parents are notorious for this and if they weren't in such short supply agencies would dump the asses of such selfish bio-parent enemies. Just so. And they are enemies of parents and, in the long run, the children themselves. The most common argument is that a foster caregiver is interfearing with reunification efforts. Like I said. Though you are off the mark. It isn't all that common, just common enough to be a pain in the ass to everyone concerned. Bios, workers, and other fosters that actually know how to foster and respect who the child really belongs to until such time as rights are terminated. Good foster parents also work well with relatives, helping with visits, and supporting their efforts to adopt. Again, the caseworker's constuction of meaning from what they observe in foster environments can be inaccurate. Oh, but the foster's would never be, right? No, foster caregivers often misperceive the process and their own home environments. It happens both ways. By the way, you are lying. Most workers, unless they are brand new, make very accurate assessments of what is going on in foster care that supports or diminishes the direction of they case they must manage. Nonetheless, mention of foster care within the CPS office usually invites the language of the bordello. Liar. Well, given that you have resorted to name-calling, I will assume you have no information to challenge this particular statement. But the office gossip does not get formalized in documentation and is not exchanged when "higher ups" are around. Liar. It's a constant exchange between workers and their supervisors, both about lousy foster parents and about good ones. Among their immediate supervisors? Yes. A common member of the office conversations. By the term "higher ups" I meant second and third level supervisors and/or administrators. I can see now that I could have been more clear -- "higher ups" is a slang term around those same office conversations and is too vague. Publically, and among higher supervisors, caseworkers must maintain a demeanor that puts foster caregivers on a pedestal. Bull****. Consultations about problems with foster caregivers is an everyday part of the worker and their supervisors and managers. So are recognition of good foster caregivers. See above. And, since they are so concerned about losing foster caregivers (they quit faster than they can be recruited), True. Most do so because they have trouble not wanting to wring the necks of the parents of the injured children they see. This is incorrect. There has been some research done on this question. There are, of course, a host of reasons foster caregivers give for leaving the system. The hyperbolic one you provide is not among them. caseworkers maintain a "two-faced" approach to foster care. You maybe, if you really are a CPS worker. They are all smiles when a foster is around. Silly ass. That is standard social behavior for ALL human beings, not just workers. But if a foster parent is out of line professional behavior is the rule of the day. Ask any foster parent, asshole. They take their lumps when they have screwed up, just like anyone else under supervision in any field. Naturally, this perceived neccessity to put on masks takes its toll on caseworkers. None of us like feeling that we have to act artificially or refrain from saying what we would like to say. You need a shrink, badly. You just invoked the standard social skill required of us all and tried to pass it off as some special burden that only CPS workers have to shoulder. What an asshole. Actually, the remark about needing a shrink is not off topic when we are discussing child welfare. Unfortunately, lay "diagnosis" of children and their parents are often done by CPS in the same slipshod manner. "If you disagree with me, you are sick." Naturally, I was not talking about standard social skills in my comments above. I was talking about being two-faced. There is a difference. Many caseworkers are truly involved in the system to help children. Most, to my experience. Most are very good at it as well, despite cruds like you. CPS caseworkers continue to do their work -- good or bad -- despite either one of us, of course. The problem is there is no accountability...no way for the public to exercise its vested right in determining those who are doing the bad work. A system that lacks checks and balances is destined to produce tyrants. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yet they know first hand the problems within the foster care system overall Wait a minute. You just got through saying they have trouble interpreting accurately what goes on in fostering. Which is it? It is both, of course. In the real world, some stakeholders can see clearly the problems in the foster care system and some can misperceive what they are observing. Apologists of the system, for instance, overlook glaring problems because they are inconsistent with their bias. All of us are capable of viewing things through rose-colored glasses or through the harsh lens of a microscope. In general, caseworkers probably have a very good vantage point to view the problems in foster care. They are among the system's harshest critics. Come to think of it I've rarely seen you post when you didn't trip yourself up this way. It show so clearly what you are about. LOL! Obviously, both situations can happen. A particular person can be biased in one set of cirumstances, objective in another. This is the real world. I haven't "tripped up" at all. I am glad you noticed that it is rare for me not to present both...or more...possibilities. I would hope EVERY one of my posts would do so. and the damage it often does to its wards. They know that any taking of a child from his or her family, friends, surroundings, always has risk of harm. It's standard CPS worker training information. It causes harm. No risk of. It harms the child. Hopefully, they know that. This is why caseworkers would be wise to follow the golden rule adopted by professionals decades ago -- "At first, do no harm." The physicians code would work well in child welfare. If they are MSW's with a speciality in child welfare there is considerable education on the subject. The trick is to way that harm against the possibility of greater harm including risking death of the child. A very small percentage of CPS caseworkers are master's level social workers. I agree with you that the correct measure to apply in child removal decisions is balancing the harm done to the child by removal against the harm done to the child in her home. A determination should be made as to which harm is greater and action taken to do the least harm. Until that determination can be made, the caseworker should bear the burden carried by followers of the hyppocratic oath, "at first, do NO harm." You'd like people to believe (and you know you have a more than willing audience here) that CPS workers, and the system is some juryrigged off hand catch as catch can with no direction, no order, no education, and nothing but inexperienced ninnies running it and working at it. Liar. Well, I see you have passed judgement on your own assumption. It is, indeed, inaccurate. Not all CPS workers are "inexperienced ninnies" with no education. I have never written anything here that would call myself or others those kinds of names. That's your line. Some caseworkers are experienced. Some are not. Some have college degrees in social work, child development, etc. and some do not. I have not complained that the childwelfare system has no direction, but rather objected to the direction it has taken. I don't think it is a situation of "catch as catch can" but of "catching" the wrong kids and wrongfully placing them into state custody, overcrowding a struggling foster care system. How did you learn to be so smarmy? LOL! The name-calling suggests I am making headway, then. In some cases, obviously, a child must be removed from her home and the caseworker makes the gut wrenching decision to do so not unmindful of the possible danger the child faces in state care. Hyperbolic nonsense, unless you are talking about the gut wrenching that happens to the parent and the child. CPS workers, like other professionals, develop skills of coping that preclude having their "guts wrenched." I don't like to think of people making such decisions as being so sensitive and reactive...just like the surgeon that operated on me. I wouldn't have let him had he been all emotional about what he was about to do. No, I was talking about CPS workers, most of whom are not licensed, not required to follow a code of ethics of an independent professional organization and not required to keep current on the knowledge base of their disclipline -- the recognized components of a professional. Many of these workers do consider the decision to remove a gut-wrenching one. While you may not like to think of them that way, they are likely to go on feeling the way the feel regardless of your thoughts. CPS workers are human beings. So their responses individually differ. So do their coping skills. Your generalization above, like all generalizations, fails on its face. And I wouldn't want a CPS worker that was that unable to deal with his or her feelings OUT OUT OUT. It will get people hurt or killed just as surely as a quesy surgeon. CPS workers have different approaches to their work. A lot of the variance is dependent upon their disciplines. For instance, social workers are taught that their internal feelings are bound to be a factor in decision making. Therefore, social work practice classes stress learning skills to recognize those inner feelings and make allowances for them rather than to attempt ignore or eliminate them. "Use of self" is a standing tenent in social work practice. But, like I said earlier, the majority of CPS caseworkers are not social workers. Have you the least idea of how sick you are? I have a strong idea about the virtue of diagnosis made on the basis of newsgroup discussions and those who would make them. This happens too often in child welfare practice. Children and their families are determined to be "sick" because they hold different ideas or take a position that differs from the mainstream. This is why the medical model should not be applied to child welfare cases. No, I am not sick, Kane. I just disagree with you sometimes. It may be more healthy to concentrate on the issues being discussed in this newsgroup instead of perceived motives or mental condition of the authors. Name-calling and childish digressions into newsgroup psychiatry does nothing to contribute to the discussion. It certainly does not challenge the positions taken by those to which you respond. The reaction to this classical "rock and a hard place" delemna is often to blame individuals within the foster care system. What a crock of ****. Most workers know perfectly well where the problem actually lies. It lies with abusive neglectful parents that create the situation in the first place. They know perfectly well that the foster parents are caught in the same meat grinder they are. Many workers know perfectly well the overwhelming systemic problems with the foster care system and child welfare practice overall. They are among the harshest critics of the present foster care system because they see it first hand. Many have published their critiques of the system. Some of the most active reformers are former CPS workers or presently employed within the social services. Rather a lot of workers have extremely good working relationships with foster parents as they know they have to rely on each other to get through all the **** that comes with trying to clean up after the scum that abuse their children. ....And, as I have stated above, are many times frustrated with their attempts to protect their young client from institutional abuse or maltreatment in alternative care. Resentments toward certain institutions and group homes ("residential treatment centers") is even more pronounced among caseworkers. The caseworkers you know must be extremely low class scum. There is nothing but the usual professional respect and cautions attendant on using any service among the treatment people and workers I know. Some are good, some aren't, like in every other profession and business. The caseworkers I know may disagree with you, but they most certainly are not scum. They are, by and large, remarkable people very dedicated to their work. They are displeased with those treatment centers, vendors and service providers who are not good -- and take what steps they can to keep their clients away from them -- and complimentry of those who do a good job. In the end, caseworkers are responsible for each child in their caseload. They often feel uncomfortable about how some of the children are being treated in alternative care. They hate to learn any specifics about it, however, because there are no options available to rectify the situation. Rock and a hard place. Crock. A worker can pull a kid out of a treatment facility in the wink of an eye if they think it's the wrong place for the child. Yep, workers can and often do take their clients out of a given placement instantly. It happens all the time. Never did I suggest otherwise. It is often difficult, however, to find another placement locale. And all too often a caseworker is faced with choosing the "lesser of two evils" as a home for his or her client. A rock and a hard place. I counselled one to do that just a few months back. It took her 15 minutes to call and cancel all therapy and dispatch an aide to move the child. What do you do that calls upon you to "counsel" caseworkers on how to do their job? You are so full of it. That aside, if there is one issue that comes out more than any other during discussions of child welfare reform, it is the fact that CPS agency workers are not visiting foster children enough. And you've run out a line of **** that is supposed to explain that with blame to the worker, instead of discussing exactly why they have NO TIME to do all the visiting they are supposed to, plus court dates, plus in service training, plus paperwork deadlines, plus the number of cases they carry. That is not the entire answer, either. There are time restraints. It has to be budgeted. But many caseworkers fit into their schedules time to do it all and make the visits they are required to make. It is just the bad ones that don't. The feds have insisted that audited states improve in this area or loose federal funding. It's call "jump higher or we'll break the other leg." No, it's called, "Congress has repeatedly called for accountability of state CPS agencies and the time has come at long last to live up to our responsibility to monitor outcomes." Now that the state CPS agencies are being audited, major problems are being detected. The agencies are being held accountable. Interestingly, the problems the audits are disclosing have been pointed out by critics for years. The states where audits disclosed that visits were not being made often enough (almost, if not all the states audited thus far) must submit a written plan explaining how they are going to rectify the problem. Wait until the truth comes out. It appears it is the truth as disclosed in the audits that bothers you. If it isn't, then it should be. How 'bout we all email staff writers Patricia Hurtado and Sean Gardiner at Newsday and let them know how ACS let this child fall through the cracks. Best, Dan Sullivan Once upon a time caseworkers had time to see all their clients in any given month. It was back about 1975. My first run in with a CPS worker took place about then and I was amazed at how much time she had for the case I was involved in. Astounding. Caseloads now typically run upwards of 35, 40, even in some areas, 65 or more cases. Yes. In many jurisdictions, less. As long as state CPS agencies are driven by CAPTA and ASFA mandates, caseloads will remain high. A huge percentage of those cases involve children and families that never should have been in the system to begin with. As long as the system concentrates on the absurd cases, it will have little time for the major, problematic ones. And the incidence of abuse isn't getting any better, though I note that in sex abuse and child deaths the workers seem to just be holding the line, nationally. Reported incidents of child sexual abuse has decreased steadily over the past few years, partially in response to the Wenatchee, McMartin, and Wee-Care witch hunts of the 1980-1990's. Given the increases in population what does that tell you about the quality of worker and foster parent? Incidence of substantiated foster care abuse has increased during the past few years. That tells me a lot about the problems in our overcrowded foster care system. The foster care population is growing at increasing rates, which tells me a lot about the quality of CPS work. And the outcomes for former foster children remain horrendous enough to alarm us all. You have no shame at all, do you Doug? I have nothing to be ashamed of concerning the positions I have taken in this newsgroup, no. Shame is a product of guilt internalized to the point of thinking less of oneself. Your childish name-calling certainly does not make me, or any of your other targets, think less of themselves. I do feel guilty about mistakes I have made in this forum -- using too vague a term for administrators above, for instance -- but I try to correct for those errors and not repeat them in the future. As long as I can keep doing that, I suppose I don't run the risk of the guilt turning to shame. I try to participate in the discussion of child welfare issues in this forum. I try to consider principals before personalities in that effort. I bear no guilt for those who would do otherwise. I do blame myself for feeling delighted everytime one of my points reduces you to name-calling rather than refuting the information I have shared. I realize this is a character defect of mine. I am working on it. Have a great day, Kane! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I'm home! | Clisby Williams | General | 44 | July 17th 03 02:27 PM |