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
|
|||
|
|||
Plant Prattles HUGE destructive lie against relatives....
On 21 May 2004 13:59:42 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
Note the vicious liar: Plant, why did you confine your post to aps? Afraid to post where you might be challenged for your dangerous lies that might discourage kin from trying to foster their own relatives? Let's start with the truth, so we don't drive away any relatives that might be asked to foster or adopt...the states want you, will go out of their way to place with you, and will support the child with not just a cash subsidy but with rehabilitative and remedial services of many kinds. Now on to the lies that The Plant, yet another of the lying pack of Douggie's hyenas, tries to foist about kinship care. Kane Begin Fern5827's remarks, and mine following intersperced: You see, the way the Feds set up funding, Foster Care was one of the few options available for abused children. Few? So tell us, Tulip, what about the children returned to their parents under state supervision? Not only foster care, but STRANGER FOSTER CARE. Odd, I see figures only as low as 24% and up to 50% or more, going to relatives for foster care and adoption. And an aside: those kinship foster caregivers are NOT separated out of the "foster" demographic when abuse by "fosters" is counted. In other words, some of those relatives are themselves abusive. So stranger or kincare, children are abused by caregivers. Try not to lie so much. Your nose is too long already. I've also heard, first hand face to face, relatives refuse to take the children, and also I have witnessed them, by their own mouths, refuse to adopt those children who had nowhere else to go and insist on long term fostercare....so they would get the higher rate of monies. Familiar with that concept, Lavonne? If she isn't I certainly am. As it stands today, fewer than 27% of children supposedly abused or neglected are placed with kin or blood relatives. R R R R ..... careful exiting your car. ..you'll stab someone with that proboscis. You recently posted something very different about LA county. And I know you cannot provide proof of your 27% claim. Let's look at the post and today...and compare not only the past figures...but the trend to today......starting 6, that's 6 YEARS AGO.... http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/ "The Extent to Which Children in Foster Care Are Placed with Relatives In 1998, approximately 2.13 million children in the United States, or just under 3 percent, were living in some type of kinship care arrangement. In 1997, approximately 200,000 children were in public kinship care, well below 1 percent of all U.S. children but 29 percent of all foster children. Available evidence suggests that public kinship care has increased substantially during the late 1980s and 1990s (see Chapter 1). (gee, Geranium, it wasn't as low as 27% even 6 years ago) Three main factors have contributed to this growth. First, the number of non-kin foster parents has not kept pace with the number of children requiring placement, creating a greater demand for foster caregivers. Second, child welfare agencies have developed a more positive attitude toward the use of kin as foster parents. Today, extended family members are usually given first priority when children require placement. Third, a number of Federal and State court rulings have recognized the rights of relatives to act as foster parents and to be compensated financially for doing so. " Notice what it says about "Today?" (don'tcha just hate it when I do that? R R R R R R E E E E E E O O O O O R R R ....but you just keep posting lies without checking first.....) That was from: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children's Bureau June 2000 This report is available on the Internet at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/index.htm And that was 2,000....probably reporting numbers collected from 1999...and today it's 2004, and the placements with kin have gone up....so what have we here.....a stupid igorant Cacti, or a liar? I vote for both...but then you are a protege of Douggie the Magnificant Liar. Additionally, I can also assure you that states are not allowed to place with kin unless the kin can pass similar constraints as stranger foster caregivers (child safety being the issue) and even with cutting corners a bit on that constraint the state cannot find enough that ARE qualified in even minimal ways. Some have criminal backgrounds that disqualify...such as violence agianst children, or felony assault chargess. Some are druggies, some other kinds of criminals. Some haven't enough money to support themselves and would use the foster subsidy for themselves and other children in the home to live on. We tax payers don't approve of the latter. Some sickos' like you among "kin" are in deep denial about the parents, their sons, daughters, neices, nephews, sisters, brothers, even grandchildren, and the things they did to the children, and refuse to agree to keep the children well protected from their sick and dangerous "kin." And then there are the "kin" that are simply terrified of their monsterous relative and won't have the children and risk retaliation and more horror from the folks they wish they weren't related to by blood or inlaw status. You are just another one of Doug's lying crew, Coriopsis. Source: http://www.childrensrights.org R R R R .....really now. You present this as an objective reasonable source? Please. Here are some useful and less biased sources to study this very complex and difficult problem that CPS faces: http://www.futureofchildren.org/info...?doc_id=210484 http://www.childwelfare.com/kids/CYSR24/cysr241and2.htm http://library.adoption.com/Resource...le/3743/2.html http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8 http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_kinshi.cfm do a find on "barriers to" to see why relatives sometimes turn down placements of kin with them. I've hesitated to post direct sources for these things in the past because I am a strong advocate, and have been since 1994, for kin placement, and this information could be discouraging to relatives. I trust they will, if reading these sources, overcome their reluctance and do what needs to be done. Pay no mind to fern, The Plant, as the states welcome you if you are able, willing, and not disqualified...and they cut you lots of slack as a relative....go for it...you've nothing to lose and a great deal to gain in keeping children with their family. Best of luck, But not to Yew, Yew liar Yew . Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Plant Prattles HUGE destructive lie against relatives....
Kane writes:
Now on to the lies that The Plant, yet another of the lying pack of Douggie's hyenas, tries to foist about kinship care. Kane Begin Fern5827's remarks, and mine following intersperced: Begin Fern5827's remarks, Kane replies, and my responses: Odd, I see figures only as low as 24% and up to 50% or more, going to relatives for foster care and adoption. In 2001, the average was 24% -- suggesting that there must be some states reporting in with less that the mean and some reporting more. Fern: As it stands today, fewer than 27% of children supposedly abused or neglected are placed with kin or blood relatives. R R R R ..... careful exiting your car. ..you'll stab someone with that proboscis. You recently posted something very different about LA county. And I know you cannot provide proof of your 27% claim. The basis of you doubting Fern's current figure may be your assumption that the percentage of foster children in kinship care is increasing. Let's stick to USDHHS statistics to double check Fern's figures. Kane: Let's look at the post and today...and compare not only the past figures...but the trend to today......starting 6, that's 6 YEARS AGO.... http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/ I went to this URL. This report was published and submitted to Congress in 2000 -- four years ago. It does not reflect the trend TODAY. "The Extent to Which Children in Foster Care Are Placed with Relatives In 1998, approximately 2.13 million children in the United States, or just under 3 percent, were living in some type of kinship care arrangement. In 1997, approximately 200,000 children were in public kinship care, well below 1 percent of all U.S. children but 29 percent of all foster children. Available evidence suggests that public kinship care has increased substantially during the late 1980s and 1990s (see Chapter 1). (gee, Geranium, it wasn't as low as 27% even 6 years ago) A year later, in 1999, only 26% of foster children were in kinship care. That is lower than 27%, even 5 years ago. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...s/june2001.htm In 2001, three years ago, only 24% of foster children were in kinship care. That is lower than 27%, even three years ago ago. And lower than in 1999, when it was 26%. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rs/report8.htm Oh, and in 2000 -- the year in between? Well, 25% of foster children were in the care of kin during that year. That's lower than 27%, even 5 years ago. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rs/apr2001.htm Your source claims 29% of foster children were in kinship care in 1998. To get an idea of trends, let's look at a breakdown of the years we have covered. These are the percentages of foster children in kinship care nationwide. 1998 29% 1999 26% 2000 25% 2001 24% Three main factors have contributed to this growth. First, the number of non-kin foster parents has not kept pace with the number of children requiring placement, creating a greater demand for foster caregivers. Second, child welfare agencies have developed a more positive attitude toward the use of kin as foster parents. Today, extended family members are usually given first priority when children require placement. Third, a number of Federal and State court rulings have recognized the rights of relatives to act as foster parents and to be compensated financially for doing so. " Notice what it says about "Today?" (don'tcha just hate it when I do that? R R R R R R E E E E E E O O O O O R R R ....but you just keep posting lies without checking first.....) That was from: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children's Bureau June 2000 This report is available on the Internet at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/index.htm And that was 2,000....probably reporting numbers collected from 1999...and today it's 2004, and the placements with kin have gone up....so what have we here.....a stupid igorant Cacti, or a liar? No, the report clearly states in the paragraph you cut and pasted that it is talking about 1998. In 1999, it was 26%. In 2000, 25%. In 2001, 24%. What source of information do you draw upon to conclude that placements with kin have gone up? I vote for both...but then you are a protege of Douggie the Magnificant Liar. Well, what basis do you have for your vote? The USDHHS data supports Fern's estimate -- in fact, the AFCARS data report lesser percentages that 27% for 1999, 2000, and 2001. This evidence contradicts your contention that Fern is "lying." There is no evidence of your claim that the trend of kinship care is an increase. You provide no evidence of current kinship care numbers. In fact, all you did provide was 1998 data and the percentage of foster children in kinship care decreased after that during 1999 -- 2001. Have a cool evening. Doug |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Oppps....Correction
In reviewing my post in this thread, I discovered I made a mistake. I will
correct that error in this post. My sincere apologies to all. Referring to Kane's cut and paste of data, I wrote that the reference to 29% of foster children being in kinship care involved the year 1998. I was in error. Those figures were from 1997, as his source clearly states. The following corrections should be made (IN CAPS AND PARENTHESIS) "Doug" wrote in message ... Kane writes: Now on to the lies that The Plant, yet another of the lying pack of Douggie's hyenas, tries to foist about kinship care. Kane Begin Fern5827's remarks, and mine following intersperced: Begin Fern5827's remarks, Kane replies, and my responses: Odd, I see figures only as low as 24% and up to 50% or more, going to relatives for foster care and adoption. In 2001, the average was 24% -- suggesting that there must be some states reporting in with less that the mean and some reporting more. Fern: As it stands today, fewer than 27% of children supposedly abused or neglected are placed with kin or blood relatives. R R R R ..... careful exiting your car. ..you'll stab someone with that proboscis. You recently posted something very different about LA county. And I know you cannot provide proof of your 27% claim. The basis of you doubting Fern's current figure may be your assumption that the percentage of foster children in kinship care is increasing. Let's stick to USDHHS statistics to double check Fern's figures. Kane: Let's look at the post and today...and compare not only the past figures...but the trend to today......starting 6, that's 6 YEARS AGO.... http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/ I went to this URL. This report was published and submitted to Congress in 2000 -- four years ago. It does not reflect the trend TODAY. "The Extent to Which Children in Foster Care Are Placed with Relatives In 1998, approximately 2.13 million children in the United States, or just under 3 percent, were living in some type of kinship care arrangement. In 1997, approximately 200,000 children were in public kinship care, well below 1 percent of all U.S. children but 29 percent of all foster children. Available evidence suggests that public kinship care has increased substantially during the late 1980s and 1990s (see Chapter 1). (gee, Geranium, it wasn't as low as 27% even 6 years ago) (TWO YEARS LATER) A year later, in 1999, only 26% of foster children were in kinship care. That is lower than 27%, even 5 years ago. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...s/june2001.htm In 2001, three years ago, only 24% of foster children were in kinship care. That is lower than 27%, even three years ago ago. And lower than in 1999, when it was 26%. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rs/report8.htm Oh, and in 2000 -- the year in between? Well, 25% of foster children were in the care of kin during that year. That's lower than 27%, even 5 years ago. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...rs/apr2001.htm Your source claims 29% of foster children were in kinship care in 1998 (1997). To get an idea of trends, let's look at a breakdown of the years we have covered. These are the percentages of foster children in kinship care nationwide. 1998 (1997) 29% 1999 26% 2000 25% 2001 24% Three main factors have contributed to this growth. First, the number of non-kin foster parents has not kept pace with the number of children requiring placement, creating a greater demand for foster caregivers. Second, child welfare agencies have developed a more positive attitude toward the use of kin as foster parents. Today, extended family members are usually given first priority when children require placement. Third, a number of Federal and State court rulings have recognized the rights of relatives to act as foster parents and to be compensated financially for doing so. " Notice what it says about "Today?" (don'tcha just hate it when I do that? R R R R R R E E E E E E O O O O O R R R ....but you just keep posting lies without checking first.....) That was from: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children's Bureau June 2000 This report is available on the Internet at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/kinr2c00/index.htm And that was 2,000....probably reporting numbers collected from 1999...and today it's 2004, and the placements with kin have gone up....so what have we here.....a stupid igorant Cacti, or a liar? No, the report clearly states in the paragraph you cut and pasted that it is talking about 1998 (1997). In 1999, it was 26%. In 2000, 25%. In 2001, 24%. What source of information do you draw upon to conclude that placements with kin have gone up? I vote for both...but then you are a protege of Douggie the Magnificant Liar. Well, what basis do you have for your vote? The USDHHS data supports Fern's estimate -- in fact, the AFCARS data report lesser percentages that 27% for 1999, 2000, and 2001. This evidence contradicts your contention that Fern is "lying." There is no evidence of your claim that the trend of kinship care is an increase. You provide no evidence of current kinship care numbers. In fact, all you did provide was 1998 (1997) data and the percentage of foster children in kinship care decreased after that during 1999 -- 2001. Have a cool evening. Doug |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Oppps....Correction
Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of foster
care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers for 1998 were the same as 1997. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm 1997 29% 1998 29% 1999 26% 2000 25% 2001 24% |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Plant Prattles HUGE destructive lie against relatives....
Kane wrote refering to Fern:
So tell us, Tulip, what about the children returned to their parents under state supervision? This an interesting aside. What is the percentage (or number) of children returned to parents under state supervison vice those returned absent supervision? bobb |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Oppps....Correction
"Doug" wrote in message ... Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of foster care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers for 1998 were the same as 1997. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm 1997 29% 1998 29% 1999 26% 2000 25% 2001 24% Kinship care has taken a beating because CPS fears it cannot control family associations and has set unrealistic barriers to prevent licensing. Even a marijuana bust 15 years ago will prevent and aunt or uncle, now with children of their own, from caring for their neice or nephew. I'm willng to be 99.9 percent of all foster kids try to reestablish relationship with their families or relatives, prior to, and after emancipation... however, depending on how long they've been wards of the state.. they become strangers. Kinship care should not be viewed simply as having a biological connection but I'd suggest friends of the family (or child) should also be considered and sought out prior to foster care with a stranger. Many years ago.. I sought a foster kid who was known to me.. but because I was known to the family I, too, was ineligible even thought I was licensed and avaibable. bobb |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Oppps....Correction
"bobb" wrote in message ...
"Doug" wrote in message ... Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of foster care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers for 1998 were the same as 1997. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm 1997 29% 1998 29% 1999 26% 2000 25% 2001 24% Kinship care has taken a beating because CPS fears it cannot control family associations and has set unrealistic barriers to prevent licensing. Even a marijuana bust 15 years ago will prevent and aunt or uncle, now with children of their own, from caring for their neice or nephew. I'm willng to be 99.9 percent of all foster kids try to reestablish relationship with their families or relatives, prior to, and after emancipation... however, depending on how long they've been wards of the state.. they become strangers. Kinship care should not be viewed simply as having a biological connection but I'd suggest friends of the family (or child) should also be considered and sought out prior to foster care with a stranger. Many years ago.. I sought a foster kid who was known to me.. but because I was known to the family I, too, was ineligible even thought I was licensed and avaibable. bobb A few years ago, I saw that in one state, I think it was either Washington or Oregon, had set up a special program to recruit friends and family members of black children to step forward and provide homes for black children when they were taken into the system. This was apparently in response to heavy criticism from the black community regarding the disproportionate number of black children in the foster care system. Essentially, the black community asked CPS if they thought that black parents were "three times as abusive" as white parents, since black children were three times more likely to be in foster care. Anyway, they had a separate website set up extolling the virtues of maintaining children's bonds to the community, and they were specifically assuring people who had a long-term bond with black children, whether they were actual relatives by birth or marriage or not, to step forward, and promising them a streamlined approval process. In the meantime, over at the main website, the "standard" rule was clearly laid out -- preference for placement was only offered to grandparents, aunts, uncles, and adult siblings. I have heard that when young, adoptable children are involved, local grandparents who ask to take the children are told that they are "too close" and can't be counted on to keep the children away from the bio parents, while out-of-state grandparents are "too far away," and can't be given the children because that would interfere with the stated goal of reunification. As far as background checks go, this seems to be all over the place. "Rilya" was given to grifters who claimed to be blood relatives of some sort or another, while, as you say, some people asking to have young relatives placed with them are turned down for "ancient history" which would NOT have prevented them from becoming foster parents to children who were unknown to them. Even in cases in which CPS knows that it will be forced to turn the children over to the grandparents at some point, they will often drag their feet for as long as possible. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Oppps....Correction
"Beth" wrote in message om... "bobb" wrote in message ... "Doug" wrote in message ... Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of foster care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers for 1998 were the same as 1997. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm 1997 29% 1998 29% 1999 26% 2000 25% 2001 24% Kinship care has taken a beating because CPS fears it cannot control family associations and has set unrealistic barriers to prevent licensing. Even a marijuana bust 15 years ago will prevent and aunt or uncle, now with children of their own, from caring for their neice or nephew. I'm willng to be 99.9 percent of all foster kids try to reestablish relationship with their families or relatives, prior to, and after emancipation... however, depending on how long they've been wards of the state.. they become strangers. Kinship care should not be viewed simply as having a biological connection but I'd suggest friends of the family (or child) should also be considered and sought out prior to foster care with a stranger. Many years ago.. I sought a foster kid who was known to me.. but because I was known to the family I, too, was ineligible even thought I was licensed and avaibable. bobb A few years ago, I saw that in one state, I think it was either Washington or Oregon, had set up a special program to recruit friends and family members of black children to step forward and provide homes for black children when they were taken into the system. This was apparently in response to heavy criticism from the black community regarding the disproportionate number of black children in the foster care system. Essentially, the black community asked CPS if they thought that black parents were "three times as abusive" as white parents, since black children were three times more likely to be in foster care. Anyway, they had a separate website set up extolling the virtues of maintaining children's bonds to the community, and they were specifically assuring people who had a long-term bond with black children, whether they were actual relatives by birth or marriage or not, to step forward, and promising them a streamlined approval process. In the meantime, over at the main website, the "standard" rule was clearly laid out -- preference for placement was only offered to grandparents, aunts, uncles, and adult siblings. I have heard that when young, adoptable children are involved, local grandparents who ask to take the children are told that they are "too close" and can't be counted on to keep the children away from the bio parents, while out-of-state grandparents are "too far away," and can't be given the children because that would interfere with the stated goal of reunification. As far as background checks go, this seems to be all over the place. "Rilya" was given to grifters who claimed to be blood relatives of some sort or another, while, as you say, some people asking to have young relatives placed with them are turned down for "ancient history" which would NOT have prevented them from becoming foster parents to children who were unknown to them. Even in cases in which CPS knows that it will be forced to turn the children over to the grandparents at some point, they will often drag their feet for as long as possible. Very well stated. Perhaps this is an law-makers should be made aware of as well. There are many rules or policies that go unnoticed.. such as kinship care... which needs not only a new definiation but a different name to include non-relatives that may be close to the child. God-parent,perraps? bobb |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Oppps....Correction
On Sat, 22 May 2004 11:03:25 -0500, "bobb"
wrote: "Doug" wrote in message ... Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of foster care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers for 1998 were the same as 1997. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm 1997 29% 1998 29% 1999 26% 2000 25% 2001 24% Kinship care has taken a beating because CPS fears it cannot control family associations and has set unrealistic barriers to prevent licensing. Lies and bull****. Anyone reading the data and bothering to think can see that available relatives are being siphoned off to voluntary child care before CPS intervention, or even afteward, so they are NOT counted in the lastest data. Even a marijuana bust 15 years ago will prevent and aunt or uncle, now with children of their own, from caring for their neice or nephew. Crock of ****. I've sat in as an advocate for them on just such problems and it is NOT the bust that matters, but the aftermath. Did they get and stay clean? Have they left "the life?" Out of string of them over the years I've never seen ONE turned down for a simple possession charge if they could show they had done as I say above. In fact they are invited to be evaluated and ****tested, it's called a drug eval, and if they can pass it and they have not had any use for the past 3 years they are in like flynn. You are a ****in' liar. States are crying for more of these folks but cannot get them because the pool is too small. The fantasy that they are lined up waiting for the kiddies is a crock as well. Workers spend month cultivating these folks and working to convince them to take the children. You are a ****ing liar. I'm willng to be 99.9 percent of all foster kids try to reestablish relationship with their families or relatives, prior to, and after emancipation... Like that's a great big discovery. however, depending on how long they've been wards of the state.. they become strangers. Crock. Children separated from parents and sib as AT BIRTH and adopted reintegrate with their families successfully. Kinship care should not be viewed simply as having a biological connection but I'd suggest friends of the family (or child) should also be considered and sought out prior to foster care with a stranger. And they are. Get yourself educated. About 30 to 40% of the "strangers" doing foster care were never fosters before the one child their own kids brought home, or they knew through school or church connections came into their home. In some states it's referred to as "special cert," and is exceedingly common. You lie, or are ignorant as a stump. YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN A FOSTER PARENT BECAUSE NO FOSTER PARENT IS UNAWARE OF THE SPECIAL CERT SITUATION. And many special certs (and it just means they were certified to foster that one child) chose to later become a regular and take other children because of how deperate they see the children are for a safe home away from thug parents that abused and neglected them, sometimes to the edge of death. Many years ago.. I sought a foster kid who was known to me.. but because I was known to the family I, too, was ineligible even thought I was licensed and avaibable. Liar. They damn well saw what a twit you were, how twisted your belief system, as I've discussed here, and any children place with you would have to fit a certain profile that would be easier to foster without as much risk of harm. YOUR kind of foster parent is well known to workers and to other foster parents. They sneer at you behind you back for your small minded bigotry and **** thinking. Not only do you lie. ...even when you tell the truth from your perspective it's incorrect because they HIDE THINGS FROM YOU knowing you'd be a threat to children and their parents if you actually knew the truth about much. You've blabber and **** up cases where children should be removed permanently, or vise versa, **** up cases where children should be returned. You'd screw over bio parents...who you seem to want to excuse when they are torturing their children, and damn when they really haven't done anything but be ignorant. You hate therapy and therapists, and rehab and healing,...one of the prime resources for teaching parents to understand their own and the child's inner life adn what is really going on (instead of your insane twisted thinking error filled crappola) so they parent safely and successfully, and get their lives together. You deny the damage done and want people, little childern mind you, to just pick up and carry on. You're so damned warped I have trouble believing it even when I read you plainly saying so. Yer a menace bobb. Sadly. And you actually would like to help, I can tell, but you won't listen to anyone that doesn feed your biases. You deserve the ****in' Doug gives you. And you lead other borderline folks along with you and spoil THEIR lives. **** you, bobb. bobb Kane |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Oppps....Correction
(Beth) wrote in message . com...
"bobb" wrote in message ... "Doug" wrote in message ... Here is the trend of kinship foster care, expressed in percentage of foster care population, after the correction. As it turns out, the numbers for 1998 were the same as 1997. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...99/ar0199a.htm 1997 29% 1998 29% 1999 26% 2000 25% 2001 24% Kinship care has taken a beating because CPS fears it cannot control family associations and has set unrealistic barriers to prevent licensing. Even a marijuana bust 15 years ago will prevent and aunt or uncle, now with children of their own, from caring for their neice or nephew. I'm willng to be 99.9 percent of all foster kids try to reestablish relationship with their families or relatives, prior to, and after emancipation... however, depending on how long they've been wards of the state.. they become strangers. Kinship care should not be viewed simply as having a biological connection but I'd suggest friends of the family (or child) should also be considered and sought out prior to foster care with a stranger. Many years ago.. I sought a foster kid who was known to me.. but because I was known to the family I, too, was ineligible even thought I was licensed and avaibable. bobb A few years ago, I saw that in one state, I think it was either Washington or Oregon, had set up a special program to recruit friends and family members of black children to step forward and provide homes for black children when they were taken into the system. It was in a number of states. It was called One Church One Child. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...h+one+child%22 This was apparently in response to heavy criticism from the black community regarding the disproportionate number of black children in the foster care system. Almost, but not quite a bullseye. If anyone knows the problems in the black community with the causes of child abuse and neglect it is black community members. Their beef was black children placed with white families. Blacks in America, if I may be so bold, according to what I've observed and was told when I was involved with OCOC, had been for some years attempting to recover their children...ethnically. And just plain common sense should have told workers that whites are completely incapable by knownledge or experience to KNOW what a black child needs to know culturally to thrive and survive. I agree...and saw many examples of alienated black kids in lockup and mental facilities that could not operate in black or white society very well. Essentially, the black community asked CPS if they thought that black parents were "three times as abusive" as white parents, since black children were three times more likely to be in foster care. You are claiming that the black community is saying that CPS is wrong to remove the children at all....and you are either misled, or misleading. In five years of monthly or more often interaction with the black community on this issue I never ONCE heard any such complaint or question...only that CPS workers had been insensitive to the special needs of the black child, culturally and specifically. Hell, whites, for the most part, haven't the faintest idea of what hair care is about for black kids, and they though the kids with darker skin had a disease, when all they needed was the simple skin care black mothers know to give there children as the normal exfoliation we ALL experience shows up on the child's skin as "ashey." The flakes do not carry melonine, the dark color, with them and unless they are removed and a light application of oil is applied the child looks ashy again in a few hours...as we all would if the flakes could be seen on our skin against a dark background. This makes the cared for darker skinned black child MORE cared for then white kids, when it comes to careful cleanliness. Black children are more likely to have allergic reactions to dairy products than white kids. Black kids are more likely to devalue themselves and other blacks because of the media and the long history of bigotry they run into so often. How often does a white kid get called derogatory names related to his race or color? Black kids aren't likely to go more than the first few years of life without it. Black parents know how to deal with these things. White parents give platitudes and sympathy...neither of much use, as far as I can see. Anyway, they had a separate website set up extolling the virtues of maintaining children's bonds to the community, Yep, and it's very true. Just as white kids naturally have bonds to their community. and they were specifically assuring people who had a long-term bond with black children, whether they were actual relatives by birth or marriage or not, to step forward, and promising them a streamlined approval process. Yep, and they delivered. Training was separate and a bit shorter. 4 or five weekly sessions instead of the more standard 6 to eight weeks. Usually 3 hours sessions. In the meantime, over at the main website, the "standard" rule was clearly laid out -- preference for placement was only offered to grandparents, aunts, uncles, and adult siblings. What "main web site?" If you mean the one for everyone, including whites blacks etc, yes, that would be pretty standard in most states. The closest relatives first, especially if they had cared for the child in any capacity before, the less and less intimate and more remote, gradually. I have heard that when young, adoptable children are involved, local grandparents who ask to take the children are told that they are "too close" and can't be counted on to keep the children away from the bio parents, while out-of-state grandparents are "too far away," and can't be given the children because that would interfere with the stated goal of reunification. Oddly, that is correct. SOME grandparents are turned down because of that very thing...but not just because they are grandparents, but because they have demonstrated, or even stated, they will not maintain safe boundaries for the child...and yes, there IS a thing called concurrent planning that requires the state CPS to plan for both reuniting and separation at the same time. It is down so that of ONE cannot happen all the bits and pieces for the other are in place NOW....or the time would stretch out forever for the child. As far as background checks go, this seems to be all over the place. BG checks have a standardization within the state, and seem remarkably similar from state to state. Roughly it goes like this: an in agency check first, with a local police and then state level crim records check. If the person lived out of the state within the past five year, then a national (FBI does them) bg crim check is done. That is why it seems to the uninitiated, "all over the place." That's because the circumstances are different. If crimes that would disqualify are found then broader checks are done, the person is given a chance to interview and explain the circumstances, and sometime it's not enough (they didn't clean up their act) or it is seen to be worked out well and they DO get chosen. The amount of misinformation is directly proportionate to the lack of information. Folks need to stop trying to fill in the gaps. It's like trying to self diagnose...it can lead to complications. What you think is a rash, can be the first sign of a deadly disease, or conversally what you go running to the doctor screaming for help for can be nothing mroe serious than indigestion. It pays to ask someone that knows...like a worker, or those that have worked with the system long enough, even as an adversary, to know what is actually happening. "Rilya" was given "was" placed. Children are not "given" for foster carers, unless one wishes to use hyperbolic propagandistic emotion laden language to incite....are you doing that? to grifters They did NOT turn up any crimes in a crim bg check. You cannot blame CPS for something it cannot know that it did not. who claimed to be blood relatives of some sort or another, Yep. No reason not to believe them. Do you think each g'parent that steps up to do a foster care should submit to a DNA test to prove it? Okay, pay the bill. The Rilya case was that of a single worker's malfeasance and a couple's criminal behavior, or so the latter is believed. While I want CPS to be psychic and NEVER ever make such mistakes, I'm sure I'll be disappointed, just as I am with cops, doctors, and my plumber, that each proves to be less than perfect individually and as a class. while, as you say, some people asking to have young relatives placed with them are turned down for "ancient history" He's as full of **** as a xmas goose. He knows from nothing and spouts the same ignorance that I'm cutting you more slack on. He presumes all the time, things that are not inevidence, about races, genders, children, loss, sexuality, damn near anything he discusses he manages to get either a little bit wrong, or hugely, and if people believe him, dangerously wrong. People commit suicide under circumstances that he would approve.....like being in depression from loss, and just "picking up and getting on with it," that could have been saved had they known that this does NOT always work. which would NOT have prevented them from becoming foster parents to children who were unknown to them. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Relatives are cut far more slack than strangers applying for foster care certification. I've helped relatives with just such problems get their little g'kids, or neices etc. Even in cases in which CPS knows that it will be forced to turn the children over to the grandparents at some point, they will often drag their feet for as long as possible. Abosolute crappola. In cases where they relatives are being considered, but do NOT have the child in their physical custody the number ONE reason for not placing the child right away and "dragging their heels" is that they want to have the g'parent show true commitment and NOT later change their mind and ask the child be moved YET AGAIN AND DO MORE HARM TO THE CHILD. Too many years of too many of just such events taught CPS workers NOT to assume a relative was goning to be a permanent placement just because they at first clamored to be. Many a granny has found out these little darlings had learned some seriously grotesque, frightening, and dangerous survival skills living with mommy druggest and daddy drunkest. **** smearing, wetting and soiling under the slightest duress, language like a drunken sailor, and very very sadly, withdrawal into states nearing catatonia. Lots of acting out. EVen to the point of threatening the carer's lives...and trying to carry it out. By the way, we are talking 2 and 3 year olds here....the more difficult child to workwith..really. Trust me. Coming at granma wiht a kitchen knife kind of stuff. You'd be amazed what living in a drug house teaches a child. The relatives caved many a time...until CPS started the practice of holding them back BEFORE placement, giving adequate training in the things I mention above, and what it's about, and how to deal wiht it successfully.....it's called, "Love Is NOT enough with these children." What some g'parents are ****ing about was nothing more than a worker trying to get through to them that they did NOT AUTOMATICALLY have the skills to work with these extremely damanged children...not matter how much they might love them or feel family obligated to take them. Thanks for the opportunity to inform. Have a nice day. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PLANT AND WHO WAS Hey Fern! Show me where I said it's "OK." | Kane | General | 2 | January 22nd 04 05:42 PM |
Sarah Key's huge balls (also: Kids can SQUAT motionless for hours) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 2 | August 4th 03 10:24 PM |