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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
Greegor wrote:
"A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, break in context of all children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or less." They got it Doan. That the states, 84.2% of them have met or exceeded the federal requirements of what you fools used to call the "failed audit" in the matter of incidences of abuse happening in foster care? Yes, we get it. The remainder of the states have not been able to report sufficiently to determine their status fully yet. But given the success of the other states.....who knows? 0:- They just hope they can get the truth about this to go away. No, we want the truth to get out. The abuse by all others, other than foster parents and residential staff, is 99% of all abuse. For parents, it's 1.+ percent. based on the population. That is almost twice what it is for foster parents. Tsk. The damnable break in context makes their intentions very clear. There was no break in context. That was Doan's usually public masturbation, Greg. When you do it, we call it "Explanation." They want to pretend that the unmet standard is what the stats actually report, which is a HUGE lie. Proof please? If I can "get it" it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist. R R R R R ..... kiddo, you aren't a 4th of July Sparkler scientist. 0:- Doan, Can you imagine people with this mindset and dishonesty coming to your home to decide whether you abused your own child? Well, no, I wouldn't wish either of you on the population Greg, not even those like you. Even WORSE, can you imagine they drag you into their special court where the US Constitution does NOT protect you? Nonsense. You have yet to answer my challenge to show us where the civil courts violate constitutional rights. Go to the constitution. Point out where it says what you claim. Where the JUDGE is a complete sucker for everything they say? That's not how the judges see it, and it's not reality, Greg. Where they don't need to prove actual ABUSE or NEGLECT at all? (Merely that the child is "at risk of" something?) That's because risk of abuse, is one kind of abuse. If you have a molester, for instance, living in the household, he does not have to have done anything YET to be a risk to the child. Or wouldn't you and Doan agree? Did you notice how worried they are about the "Constitutional Defense" or the high court rulings against caseworker hearsay in CRIMINAL court? You bet we are worried. It's been misused repeatedly by assholes like you, and Ruth and Brian are sitting in jail, lost their children, precisely because they were convinced they had "rights" that in fact they did NOT have under the constitution, and were NOT told that their children (NOT told by their lying "buddies" like you that lab ratted them) HAD CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS WELL. The one thing you KNOW to avoid discussing. Never, when I have pointed this out, have YOU even stepped up to try and prove me wrong. Show us how children do not have constitutional, that is, Civil Rights, Greg. Go for it. And their rights trumps the parent's "rights" most especially when you argue children are a possession like a dog or cat. To do with as they please. Most people would have never GUESSED that caseworkers WERE actually helping to convict on CRIMINAL cases by testifying ""for"" the child... How could that possibly be hidden, Greg? The criminal cases are immediate news, since they do not fall under confidentiality guidelines. Please explain what you mean by caseworkers testifying for the child? Kane sees no ethical or moral problem with that. Where is the problem with the scenario you mention above? In a criminal trial people don't have a choice of NOT testifying if the court agrees they must, upon the petition of either the defense or the accused's attorneys. You certainly have lost your mind today. But then, we know that. Does that tell you how he decides whether a situation "ethically or morally" calls for a lie? You don't have to guess. I've state plainly, so you are lying, Greg, yet again, that in court the question of lying is put immediately to rest as the protection of everyone is in the hands of the court. I would not lie either by commission or omission. I've said that. You little Doananating liar. As for when I would lie to mislead, it would be only if someone were in physical danger for their body or lives. I've said that before. So you cannot make and argument without lying, obviously. Neither can Doan or other of your buddies. You people are quite the pack of little jackals. Did you like that part about how when they go into court they are actually told NOT to recall the exact words of statements but to rephrase or recast what was actually said, AS TESTIMONY! What are you referring to? To most of the free world that means TELLING LIES. No it doesn't. It means giving their impression of the meaning of what was said to them. How many people do you know, without it being written down, that can recall word for word what was said in a past conversation....even an hour old? To caseworkers it is written, instructed Standard Operating Procedure. ( Totally without any "ethical or moral" purpose other than to win in court. ) Show us your proof. 0:- |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
Caseworkers LIE all the time. One of their industry manuals actually
directs them to "recast" everything you say. Translation: LIE giovinazzo wrote: seeing as you may not have been following from the start ROn, the reason I lost my kids is that the CAS/CPS worker went to her manager and lied. She told them I hadn't taken my children to appointments such as the dentist and counselling at a place called pathways for my oldest daughter. The fact is that I did take my children to these appointments, dental work does not do its own you know, they don't just appear there, and I had to sign the papers for the coverage which my daughter had 2 crowns, cost around 300 each. I have the proof, have shown it to the worker and manager, they say to sort it out in court. I don't think you realise the workers do lie to you, thinking you aren't smart enough to catch on. They take children because there is a demand for children for adoption here where they get about 35,000 each child. Trust me I know I have seen many a friend lose their children to the agency I am involved with. More kids die in foster care than in their own homes. Others that need the CAS/CPS involvement don't get it because their kids are screwed up so therefore unadoptable. I was abused in my foster homes as well as at home, no workers came to help they didn't care. I know another man who went through hell on earth in care. Hes really messed up over it. You may be a great foster parent and the caring kind. If so keep it up there are kids that truly need you, but my children don't need to be in the system, they need to come home. They ask me every week when I get my visit when can I come home mommy? I just tell them I want them home, we are working on that honey. We are doing everything we can. Im lucky I know who the people are that are looking after her. I found out today that they are family friends, so easier to deal with. Anyway get over it, CAS/CPS workers do lie...the ones you know just haven't got caught yet. Lisa 0:- wrote: Greegor wrote: Lisa, Ron knows that Fosters who adopted kids have been lied to so much and so badly that there was a RASH of law suits because some of these kids were a DANGER to other kids in Foster Care and beyond. The cliche' story is that after adopting a kid they find out the kid is a sexual predator or has dangerous psychiatric problems and molests their birth daughter or later Foster kids. There have been several of these reported in the news media and in some cases there have been some HUGE damage settlements. First it's "a RASH," now it's "several." Fact is it's very very few compared to the number of children adopted, Greg. And you have proof that the suing party is not lying how, Greg? In the article at the tope of this message thread a person representing Fosters puts forth the MYTH that all the foster kids are "abused" which is factually not true according to the government statistics and the legal standards which only require "AT RISK OF" abuse, not actual abuse. "AT RISK OF" with no actual abuse accounts for the VAST MAJORITY of kids in Foster Care. This assumption of yours, perpetrated by others as well, is that "AT RISK" mean not abused. It does NOT mean that. The child could have been abused, and continue to be AT RISK, hence it will say so in the record and be counted as both. Is it not logical to assume that if a child has been abused, and is not removed or is returned they are at risk? Do you know what "AT RISK" actually means, stupid? What those conditions are that constitute cause to make such a determination? One of them would be a live in boyfriend that has an inordinate amount of time with the child or children UNSUPERVISED. Especially if he does not work. Especially if he is charged with child care of the children. That puts children at risk automatically, stupid. Those are the circumstances that so often DO result in injury and sometimes death to a child. YOU like to use the media as a source, Greg. Try READING those cases. You KNOW how common they are. The reps reference to the kids as all abused didn't happen because the workers told THEM the truth about "AT RISK OF" etc... What are you talking about? Did you notice how Dan and Kane resisted challenging you? Nope. The response to Lisa is continually an expression of hope she will stay focused, something that Dan and I both know very well is essential to winning a case, while we know that failure to do so, and to become engaged with posters such as you, Greg, is almost a sure death knell to a case. You and your cronies have repeatedly been part of or celebrated failure of families, to dance in their blood as a way of excusing your own failures. You are a predator. They still hope to claim you. Neither of us have the least profit in "claiming" anyone. There is no money in it, and no need to make someone lose, as you have. Both Dan and I are winners. He has won dozens of difficult and seemingly impossible cases, while I have helped thousands of extended family sort out and deal with CPS and keep their kin related children in the family. Once they find out they can't, they will be considerably more confrontative when you testify about things like this. That is a perfect projection, Greg. Take Betty, for example. She caught on to you, when she first came here with one of the classic Kinship cases I am so familiar with. You have been flaming high dugeon ever since, attacking her at every turn, lying through your teeth about here, threatening her repeatedly. Abusive, mean, vindictive. You have never seen Dan or I, when someone went down the wrong path attack them, or in any way try to hurt them. And we have commiserated with them sincerely over their loss rather than blame them. Hell, YOU blame the winners, like Betty, but for things that are not true. All Lisa has to do is take ONE quick look at your posts and exchanges with Betty to see how a strong person with a built in **** detector sets you off into your rages. You are a little ****ant. Nothing more. Below is the string of posts attributed (slipping boy?) that shows what a lying little **** you are. You took Ron's comment about not being lied to by caseworkers and tried to make people believe other than what he said at the time. I have some comments, in fact, about Ron's post, from my 30Plus years experience helping people deal with CPS successfully. Read on, stupid: [[[ comments in square brackets as usual ]]] Ron wrote: "giovinazzo" wrote in message oups.com... Hey Ron, the case workers do lie to you foster parents....that is what you are right? I am indeed a foster parent. But I have never been lied to by a caseworker. I have had them refuse to answer questions, tell me that they are not allowed to tell me, and just stare me in the eye, but never lied to. Not after more than 200 foster children. [[[ He just eloquently described what I have pointed out to you and you called "caseworker lying" little ****ant. They cannot tell what they cannot tell. ]]] The point I was making is that the case managers are not allowed to tell us specifics of the case's we provide care for. [[[ I have said in the past that to do so can be construed in court by the opposition as collusion against the client. YOU have complained that various opponents colluded against you, stupid. Now you lie about why foster's are allowed to know some things directly from the worker...calling the worker liar. ]]] We CAN go to the court hearings and listen to what is said, we can also speak with the kids. We can also network with other foster parents who may have cared for the children in the past, or read accounts of the case in the news paper (i.e. Parent 'A' was arrested for child abuse, 4 children all in care). About the same as everyone else I guess. We can also talk to teachers, doctors, therapists, and other professionals associated with the case since we are now providing care for the child and have a valid need for the information. [[[ Less caring and effective foster parents don't bother with this as Ron obviously does care and bother to do. ]]] Well my case worker told the foster parents my kids are abused, didn't tell them that they are an at risk group of children that I have never done anything to my children, though my kids have told the fosters that mom never hits them and hasn't done anything to hurt them. More likely the foster parent was told that they were removed for abuse. Not the same thing. They were not told specifics of the case, but reasons for removal is information we as foster care providers need to properly care for the children. [[[ That is accurate. Very. Less astute foster parents don't get it, or complain about it because they do not understand it. ]]] My kids are good about that, they tell the foster parents everyday how they want to come home. I hear it as there is one good foster parent. The other however calls my oldest her birth daughter which is a lie.... I find that difficult to believe, but not completely impossible. Now, there are less than stellar foster parents out there, and some who should never have been given a license, but CPS cant tell who those are until they are in the system working with kids. All the tests in the world are never going to be able to screen out all the improper foster parents, it just cant happen, but they do what they can. One must also remember that kids do not always tell the truth. The older the child the more complex the untruth. She may be responding to your state of emotion and is telling you what you want to hear, trying to make you feel better. More investigation on your part is warranted before you go making claims based on what your children are telling you. [[[ Having worked with children, mostly foster children, in mental health I can assure you that Ron is telling it like it is. The children, very much like in a divorce situation, are trying to take care of their parents. YOU, Greg, would have them lying, OR being "coached." Because you are a vile self absorbed little asshole. ]]] Yes some kids are abused but alot are not. From your previous posts I'd say you are in Canada, right? Here, most of the children in the system are not physically abused. More are neglected than abused. Neglect kills more children in this country than does abuse. [[[ The absolute truth. What Ron didn't mention is that nearly every case of "abuse" includes abuse by both other means, (physical, emotional, sexual, developmental, psychological) and by neglect. (nutritional, medical, developmental, emotional). ]]] Here they remove children in my case biggest issue because I was a crown ward and went through abuse as a child. Did you suffer abuse as a chilD? If so watch out....you won't be allowed kids if you let them know, after all as their steretype goes we will possibly abuse our own children. Did I? I'm sure that at the time I would have said yes, but all in all my mom did a pretty good job raising 3 boys on her own. Not even in Canada is that enough reason to remove your children. Sorry, there is more to the case that you are not telling us. Not that you have to, privacy is your right, but to expect us to believe that this is the sole reason your children have been removed says that you think we are a bunch of idiots. gregg may be, but the rest of us (Doan and Doug included) are not. [[[ The latter have their own brand of idiocy....R R R R. And note, I'm not admonishing Ron for "confronting," so obviously you are mistaken, Greg, if you think I wish to "claim" Lisa. I wish her only the best in getting her children back. Which YOU do not. You are the predator here, Greg, and don't you forget it. ]]] What a stupid childish way for them to think, just because it happened to me doesn't mean im going to do it. Just like the idoit that breaks your door down and steals from you, doesn't mean you are going to go out and do it does it? Sorry had bad experience with foster parents of my autistic son, they kept lying to the cas so they could keep my son. I know there is the odd good one but more abusive foster homes. Here in the US the facts do not support your position. There are far more good foster homes than abusive ones. 20 years ago I was not a foster parent so I cant vouch for what happened in the system then, but as of right now your theory would be incorrect. [[[ And that is the fact. The great majority of people involved in fostering, from foster certifiers, to case managers, to the foster parents themselves, do very good work. Like all fields of work you will find some few that do not do good work. There is constant pressure to weed them out, usually by simply not placing with them. I note that Ron has had a very large number of children placed with him. 0:-] ]]] Anyway fact is they do lie...they want you on their side not ours. Lisa I'm not on anyone's side but the kids Lisa. I don't interact with the case managers much, other than to get what the children need from the system or to get instructions concerning visitation and the like. In any case I am certainly not on the side of the State. I have run into more than my share of ****-poor case managers, and I usually end up going to supervisors or directors to get the children's needs met. [[[ I found this a consistitent attitude among the better foster parents. They are far too busy to be playing games with the system or incompetence. They are some of the best resources superviors have in terms of dealing with both new workers, or less than sterling workers. Good foster's tend to keep workers in line. Come to think of it, it worked both ways. ]]] I am also a professional in the field, and get a chance to interact with vast numbers of children in the system in my state. Most are quite happy where they are, some are not. Usually its the kids in the group homes that have issues with their care providers. That stand to reason since the kids in these types of placements are not suited to placement in actual foster homes by reason of temperament or psychological problems. [[[ These often are the children that were so damaged by parents, and often repeatedly (which IS a system failure) by those parents, that even therapeutic help could not reach them. So they would be taught life skills and placed with group home managers that tend NOT to take a lot of ****, and tend to be very clear about boundaries...something teens never are all to happy with, at least vocally. R R R R R ]]] Ron Greegor wrote: Ron wrote caseworkers don't lie to us They've been CAUGHT AT IT Ron! There you are you lying little ****ant, Greg. You completely removed that he was talking about all the other sources they have for information about the children. What a scumbag you are, Greg. 0:- Ron wrote It is not the place of the foster parents to judge the reasons for removal. We don't have all the information, we were not there, we don't have the training and in most cases the education to make these judgments. That's what caseworkers are for. And the police of course. Isn't that the argument the death camp guards and villagers used? Plus you implied that caseworkers DO have the training or education to know diddly, which even KANE acknowledges is not true. Ron wrote 3. Most removals for "At Risk" children are made by law enforcement officers. Not caseworkers. I notice that both of you tend to place all the blame on the caseworkers, when in fact in many cases they just get handed a case by the police and the actual removal has already been made. Interesting that you don't blame the officers for making these decisions. I do, but the CPS agency justifies to itself MAINTAINING dominion and control over the children. The cops are not responsible for the months of foot dragging by the agencies. Dominion and Control over a child is the legal issue for good reason. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
Greegor wrote: Caseworkers LIE all the time. One of their industry manuals actually directs them to "recast" everything you say. Translation: LIE So Greg, I'm waiting for the link to that one industry manual that tells workers to lie by "recast" of "everything you say." Am I going to have to wait much longer? I'd hate to think you were misinformed, or possibly lying. That wouldn't do, now would it? ...snip... Kane |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
Greegor wrote:
Caseworkers LIE all the time. One of their industry manuals actually directs them to "recast" everything you say. Translation: LIE Kane wrote So Greg, I'm waiting for the link to that one industry manual that tells workers to lie by "recast" of "everything you say." Will your OWN words do? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...f4d75b4da932a7 I found myself frustrated at what I too thought were ass covering lies, until I had dealt with CPS long enough to figure out that elements of the case must be help in confidence, often even from the players, lest someone "spill the beans" and a smart attorney use those for various ways to turn the case. And I don't mean the parents attorney. Too often I saw attorneys look out for the best LEGAL interests of the child than for the real child him or herself. Workers often cannot, by law, tell certain things and when asked a question would be giving up the answer (I KNOW how to ask those questions in that form myself) by not answering at all, so give the closest approximation that will lead away from the answer. Is it "lying?" In the strictest sense yes. But it's more akin to the lie that is told to protect others from harm. Most workers would rather take the abuse they do by this tactic, than give up the interests of the child. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
Greegor wrote: Greegor wrote: Caseworkers LIE all the time. One of their industry manuals actually directs them to "recast" everything you say. Translation: LIE Kane wrote So Greg, I'm waiting for the link to that one industry manual that tells workers to lie by "recast" of "everything you say." Will your OWN words do? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...f4d75b4da932a7 I found myself frustrated at what I too thought were ass covering lies, until I had dealt with CPS long enough to figure out that elements of the case must be help in confidence, often even from the players, lest someone "spill the beans" and a smart attorney use those for various ways to turn the case. And I don't mean the parents attorney. Too often I saw attorneys look out for the best LEGAL interests of the child than for the real child him or herself. Workers often cannot, by law, tell certain things and when asked a question would be giving up the answer (I KNOW how to ask those questions in that form myself) by not answering at all, so give the closest approximation that will lead away from the answer. Is it "lying?" In the strictest sense yes. But it's more akin to the lie that is told to protect others from harm. Most workers would rather take the abuse they do by this tactic, than give up the interests of the child. I haven't found a single instance of the term you used, "recast." Nor have I seen a link to that manual you claim exists. Let me once again, since you seem to wish so much to discuss this issue, educate you a little. Do you know what "reframing" is in relation to explaining what has taken place and what others say about it? It's making your best explanation of what you beleive you heard, and what you believe is meant. OR, it can be misused and made into a lie. The problem you have Greg, is you don't know how to, and have not, shown that they are lying, but not in fact simply describing what they think they heard and saw. YOU do this all the time, but most often to formulate a scenario that is your error filled delusion. One of the reasons we have courts is to sort out what people think happened from what, hopefully, actually did happen. Dealing with evidence "is da name of dat game," as little Bobby used to say. The "One of their industry manuals actually directs them to "recast" everything you say. Translation: LIE" statement needs backing. The manual please. Or I might presume you are lying about it. I can assure you you are mistaken about it though. I've never seen the word "recast" ever used in practice manuals, instructions, training, or even graduate school educational sources, or policy, which sets how workers are supposed to go about their tasks. If you were ordered to NOT reveal case information, Greg, how would you go about doing that, but still engage the people involved, as caseworkers must? Give us an example, right after you produce this "manual." 0:- |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
"Greegor" wrote in message oups.com... Greegor wrote: Caseworkers LIE all the time. One of their industry manuals actually directs them to "recast" everything you say. Translation: LIE Kane wrote So Greg, I'm waiting for the link to that one industry manual that tells workers to lie by "recast" of "everything you say." Will your OWN words do? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...f4d75b4da932a7 I found myself frustrated at what I too thought were ass covering lies, until I had dealt with CPS long enough to figure out that elements of the case must be help in confidence, often even from the players, lest someone "spill the beans" and a smart attorney use those for various ways to turn the case. And I don't mean the parents attorney. Too often I saw attorneys look out for the best LEGAL interests of the child than for the real child him or herself. Workers often cannot, by law, tell certain things and when asked a question would be giving up the answer (I KNOW how to ask those questions in that form myself) by not answering at all, so give the closest approximation that will lead away from the answer. Is it "lying?" In the strictest sense yes. But it's more akin to the lie that is told to protect others from harm. Most workers would rather take the abuse they do by this tactic, than give up the interests of the child. Absolutely - and it's this unbridled hubris - this unabashed narcissism that makes CPS workers the scum they are - Every CPS employee I've ever met believed their criminal behavior was excused by their delusions of grandure. Of course, CPS administration encourage this Narcissistic Personality Disorder because it up's the kiddie count and put's them in line for a raise and mo money. lol. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | August 3rd 05 01:07 AM |
Children benefit from relationships between birth parents and foster parents | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | June 28th 04 04:54 PM |
HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY | Malev | Foster Parents | 0 | December 12th 03 03:53 PM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Spanking | 11 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |