|
| 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
May 31st 05, 11:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Is Oregon in the Child Welfare Dark Ages? - Richard Wexler's Opinion
IN MY OPINION Richard Wexler
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...360.xml&coll=7 Ignoring the elephant in the room won't protect kids The recent report on child protection in Oregon proves the adage that "you get what you pay for." The state paid nothing for the report, and that's pretty much what it got. It included the following stunning revelations: Caseloads should be lower. Training should be better. In convoluted language it calls for more clarity. In broad terms it says policies should be more specific. But the biggest problem with the report is what's missing. The report only hints at "the elephant in the room," the overarching problem that is driving all the other failures in Oregon child welfa Oregon takes away too many children. Oregon's caseworkers are overwhelmed because Oregon takes proportionately more children than all but 14 other states. It removes children at a rate more than 50 percent above the national average. To some, that may sound like good news. After all, if a child is wrongfully removed, it is argued, the parents might suffer, but we have to "err on the side of the child." There probably is no phrase in the English language that has done more harm to children. When a child is needlessly thrown into foster care, he loses not only mom and dad but often brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers, friends and classmates. He is cut loose from everyone loving and familiar. The emotional trauma can last a lifetime. A recent study of Oregon and Washington state foster care "alumni" found that one-third said they were abused in foster care itself and only 20 percent were "doing well." How can we throw children into a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five and call it "erring on the side of the child?" Although it is the cases involving parents who beat, rape and torture their children that, rightly, get attention, far more common are cases in which a family's poverty is confused with "neglect." In these cases, a child is taken from a home where there was no abuse and placed in a system where the odds of abuse are at least one in three. Jordan Knapp was thrown into foster care in the name of "erring on the side of the child" -- and she nearly died. But even that isn't the worst of it. The more that workers are overwhelmed with children who don't need to be in foster care, the less time they have to find children in real danger, children such as Ashton Parris, for example. There is, of course, a one-word excuse for the high rate of removal in Oregon: methamphetamine. But Oregon takes, proportionately, nearly 50 percent more children than California, another state with a huge meth problem. And Oregon has been taking children at this incredibly high rate at least since 1985, before anyone had heard of meth. Some will wonder why we should even bother with treatment for parents who use drugs. But the reason to "bother" is not for the sake of the parents, but for their children -- as we learned from the last drug plague -- crack. University of Florida researchers studied two groups of infants born with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. It is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad parents" without the blow landing on their children. A few states and counties have learned this lesson. They take far fewer children than Oregon, yet independent court-appointed monitors say child safety has improved. Oregon once embraced such reform, but those reforms atrophied over the past several years. Now, the state stumbles around in the child welfare dark ages because no one is willing to say there's an elephant in the room. Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. 
|
|
#3
June 1st 05, 02:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arlene McDermott wrote: IN MY OPINION Richard Wexler Tuesday, May 31, 2005 http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...360.xml&coll=7 Ignoring the elephant in the room won't protect kids Hmmmmmmmmm. Is Ramona the 'elephant in the room'? I seen her picture. Could be. The recent report on child protection in Oregon proves the adage that "you get what you pay for." The state paid nothing for the report, and that's pretty much what it got. It included the following stunning revelations: Caseloads should be lower. Training should be better. In convoluted language it calls for more clarity. In broad terms it says policies should be more specific. But the biggest problem with the report is what's missing. The report only hints at "the elephant in the room," the overarching problem that is driving all the other failures in Oregon child welfa Oregon takes away too many children. Oregon's caseworkers are overwhelmed because Oregon takes proportionately more children than all but 14 other states. It removes children at a rate more than 50 percent above the national average. To some, that may sound like good news. After all, if a child is wrongfully removed, it is argued, the parents might suffer, but we have to "err on the side of the child." There probably is no phrase in the English language that has done more harm to children. Actually, that's what makes CPS types so dispicable - they swear the abuse they heap on the children is for their own good. When a child is needlessly thrown into foster care, he loses not only mom and dad but often brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers, friends and classmates. He is cut loose from everyone loving and familiar. The emotional trauma can last a lifetime. A recent study of Oregon and Washington state foster care "alumni" found that one-third said they were abused in foster care itself and only 20 percent were "doing well." How can we throw children into a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five and call it "erring on the side of the child?" CPS grinds up innocent children and families for profit. That the foster system turns out walking wounded four times out of five is no surprise. Folks make a lot of money "erring on the side of the child". In fact, many communities have come to depend on CPS "erring on the side of the child", packing them into foster care and gloating over all the federal bucks they brought home. Although it is the cases involving parents who beat, rape and torture their children that, rightly, get attention, far more common are cases in which a family's poverty is confused with "neglect." In these cases, a child is taken from a home where there was no abuse and placed in a system where the odds of abuse are at least one in three. Jordan Knapp was thrown into foster care in the name of "erring on the side of the child" -- and she nearly died. Parents who abuse their children are a rare breed. Do a google news search. Whattsamatta??? Is there a news blackout on all the horrible abuse that happens 716 times a second especially on weekends?? Where's the abuse? Where's the injury? Broken bones? Hospitalizations? Whattsamatta? News blackout? It happens all the time ya know. 5000 children were abused in the time it took you to think I'm nuts. But even that isn't the worst of it. The more that workers are overwhelmed with children who don't need to be in foster care, the less time they have to find children in real danger, children such as Ashton Parris, for example. There is, of course, a one-word excuse for the high rate of removal in Oregon: methamphetamine. But Oregon takes, proportionately, nearly 50 percent more children than California, another state with a huge meth problem. And Oregon has been taking children at this incredibly high rate at least since 1985, before anyone had heard of meth. Shhhhhhhhh. Don't be tellin folks it's not Meth's fault. You'll mess up the plans for extra billions to deal with the meth 'epidemic'. OMG, OMG, meth babies, crack babies, quick give us 500 million or the po chillin will suffer. Hahahahahaha. Some will wonder why we should even bother with treatment for parents who use drugs. But the reason to "bother" is not for the sake of the parents, but for their children -- as we learned from the last drug plague -- crack. University of Florida researchers studied two groups of infants born with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. It is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad parents" without the blow landing on their children. A few states and counties have learned this lesson. They take far fewer children than Oregon, yet independent court-appointed monitors say child safety has improved. Oregon once embraced such reform, but those reforms atrophied over the past several years. Now, the state stumbles around in the child welfare dark ages because no one is willing to say there's an elephant in the room. How 'bout it Ramona. What's up with the elephant and the dark ages and stuff. Don't you grease painted 9-5 frozen in time CPS darkhearts even want a clue? Do you ever think of the destruction you leave in your wake when you're spendin da cash?? Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
|
|
#4
June 1st 05, 02:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I couldn't read most of this, but your expounds are
mostly without merit and baseless. Kids don't lose even a tiny percentage of what you claim they lose, and that's where I got too bored to read it any further. I disagree highly with you, agree pretty well with that Wex w posted, and even think it was an intelligent, well reasoned decision to post it. But you, well, I'm not sure what the heck your'e trying to say. "Arlene McDermott" wrote in message news:1117533675.d50a4e60e3b38b89b2b00d79279d426a@t eranews... IN MY OPINION Richard Wexler Tuesday, May 31, 2005 http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...360.xml&coll=7 Ignoring the elephant in the room won't protect kids The recent report on child protection in Oregon proves the adage that "you get what you pay for." The state paid nothing for the report, and that's pretty much what it got. It included the following stunning revelations: Caseloads should be lower. Training should be better. In convoluted language it calls for more clarity. In broad terms it says policies should be more specific. But the biggest problem with the report is what's missing. The report only hints at "the elephant in the room," the overarching problem that is driving all the other failures in Oregon child welfa Oregon takes away too many children. Oregon's caseworkers are overwhelmed because Oregon takes proportionately more children than all but 14 other states. It removes children at a rate more than 50 percent above the national average. To some, that may sound like good news. After all, if a child is wrongfully removed, it is argued, the parents might suffer, but we have to "err on the side of the child." There probably is no phrase in the English language that has done more harm to children. When a child is needlessly thrown into foster care, he loses not only mom and dad but often brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers, friends and classmates. He is cut loose from everyone loving and familiar. The emotional trauma can last a lifetime. A recent study of Oregon and Washington state foster care "alumni" found that one-third said they were abused in foster care itself and only 20 percent were "doing well." How can we throw children into a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five and call it "erring on the side of the child?" Although it is the cases involving parents who beat, rape and torture their children that, rightly, get attention, far more common are cases in which a family's poverty is confused with "neglect." In these cases, a child is taken from a home where there was no abuse and placed in a system where the odds of abuse are at least one in three. Jordan Knapp was thrown into foster care in the name of "erring on the side of the child" -- and she nearly died. But even that isn't the worst of it. The more that workers are overwhelmed with children who don't need to be in foster care, the less time they have to find children in real danger, children such as Ashton Parris, for example. There is, of course, a one-word excuse for the high rate of removal in Oregon: methamphetamine. But Oregon takes, proportionately, nearly 50 percent more children than California, another state with a huge meth problem. And Oregon has been taking children at this incredibly high rate at least since 1985, before anyone had heard of meth. Some will wonder why we should even bother with treatment for parents who use drugs. But the reason to "bother" is not for the sake of the parents, but for their children -- as we learned from the last drug plague -- crack. University of Florida researchers studied two groups of infants born with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. It is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad parents" without the blow landing on their children. A few states and counties have learned this lesson. They take far fewer children than Oregon, yet independent court-appointed monitors say child safety has improved. Oregon once embraced such reform, but those reforms atrophied over the past several years. Now, the state stumbles around in the child welfare dark ages because no one is willing to say there's an elephant in the room. Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
|
|
#5
June 1st 05, 02:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... Arlene McDermott wrote: One of the things that no one ever brings up about the author, Wexler, is that he is not a child protection veteran of any kind. He is, above all else, a journalist with an investment in being read. No journalist's work will be read unless a publisher WANTS it, and the === And YOU are jealous as hell, aren't you? It's pretty obvious why YOU aren't currently being published. It's easy to get published in yellow papers, but harder in good bond, ain't it? You're pathetic the way you take anything and try to make a debate out of it, sans any form of support, and then simply argue all the more, flailing around like a fish out of water. Can YOU say "SUPPORT for Foster Parents"? No, you can'tl; the words would stick in your throat, which is probably as closed as your mind. popular media is ravenous for blood spattering attention getting stories...not matter if they got that way more by slanting, and bias, than if they were truely objective. In fact, objective stories are usually far too boring and do NOT sell to publishers of popular media. It MUST be, first and foremost, even over the objective truth, ATTENTION getting. Wexler is, to be kind, an "issue peddler." Here is a short bio: http://www.nccpr.org/board_staff/wexler.html "Richard Wexler Executive Director Richard Wexler's interest in the child welfare system grew out of 19 years of work as a reporter for newspapers, public radio and public television. During that time, he won more than two dozen awards, many of them for stories about child abuse and foster care. He is the author of Wounded Innocents: The Real Victims of the War Against Child Abuse (Prometheus Books: 1990, 1995). Wexler has testified before Congress and State Legislatures and advised the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families in its 1995 rewrite of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Wexler's writing about the child welfare system has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and other major newspapers, and he has been interviewed by The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, the Associated Press, USA Today, 60 Minutes, National Public Radio, CBS This Morning, Today, ABC World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News, CBS News Nigh****ch, and other media. Wexler is a graduate of Richmond College of the City University of New York and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, where he was awarded the school's highest honor, a Pulitzer Traveling Fellowship. He was formerly Assistant Professor of Communications at The Pennsylvania State University -- Beaver Campus." The above is from the board of directors page of an organization that posts this as their mission...just the opening paragraph should give you an idea of their rigor in use of language, or lack of it: "For decades, America has engaged in a public monologue about child abuse. One group of think-alike self-proclaimed "experts" has sought and received enormous public attention. They have painted a distorted picture of child maltreatment and encouraged us to create the failed system we have today." Tell me, how does a country, and it's public, engage in a "monologue?" That MEANS one talking to one's self. And requires there be only one person present. They go on to say they are for a dialogue and that is their goal. Isn't it sweet that they deny everyone ELSE in the country who has an investment in CPS reform their presence in the fray? And in fact attempt to usurp it for themselves, as the ONLY one that can open "dialogue?" "We do not seek this change because the system hurts parents. We seek this change because the system hurts children. Our hope is to turn the public monologue about child abuse into a dialogue." What IS a public "monologue?" Is that not minimizing, or in fact, denying that others are as invested as they? Or is their lie to be believed....that there is an unamed, you notice, "group" that they name call, that is responsible for this "failed system?" Why be coy? How is their information to be considered objective, if they remove and hide the very source of the PROBLEM, this "group?" Now let's take an objective look at this "report." IN MY OPINION Richard Wexler [[[[ First of all, it is admitted by the author to be his opinion. Most folks won't stop and consider what that means, and the kind of license that gives the speaker with the facts. It means he does NOT have to varify, and support his claims...they are, after all, just opinions...and a very smart way to avoid having to confront incorrect conclusions, or even factual data that is incorrect. ]]]] Tuesday, May 31, 2005 http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...360.xml&coll=7 Ignoring the elephant in the room won't protect kids The recent report on child protection in Oregon proves the adage that "you get what you pay for." The state paid nothing for the report, and that's pretty much what it got. It included the following stunning revelations: Caseloads should be lower. Training should be better. In convoluted language it calls for more clarity. In broad terms it says policies should be more specific. I've read the report, and if you follow this ng, you have as well. YOU in this newsgroup accepted that report in it's criticisms of Oregon. Now you are being told the report lacked value because it was not fee based. You are being set up by a well schooled and experienced journalist- a reporter, to buy what will come later in this opinion piece. Let me assure you, when anyone wants to denounce the authenticity of a work product they have two fabulous choices, based on whether or not it was paid for. One - free equals "no incentive to produce a quality product" (Wexler's choice above) and that good ol' "They are obviously being paid to produce a report that is complimentary to the BUYER," which more than one of YOU have used as an argument more than once...and so have I, if it was appropriate. What makes such a claim appropriate? Not the pay or lack of it, but: The quality of such a report lies in it's objectivity. Hence it's going to sound trite because it's going to tell us somethings we already know to be true. The authenticity of a report isn't based on it's astounding revelations quotient...though there may be some. But on factual accuracy and bonifide logic. But the biggest problem with the report is what's missing. [[[ Oh? How could the fact that it's free and thus flawed at the get go top something missing, for "biggest problem? ]]] The report only hints [[[ "Hints?" It did not "hint." It flat out said so. Ranking it right along with each of the points it covered. I wonder if the NRCCPS, that produced the report, yet another CPS reform group, is in any way seen as a competetor to Wexler's group, where he is on the board of directors, NCCPR? 0:- And HERE is what the "Hint" actually said, from the report Dan Sullivan posted in this ng - The report lists the following challenges facing Oregon's system: 1)methamphetamine; 2) workload demand; 3) local influence and determination; 4) staff configuration; 5) worker authority to remove children; 6) group decision making; 7) legal custody and in-home supervision; 8) threat of harm; 9) strengths and needs-based interventions." Unless of course each of these ranks as a "hint." What balls Wexler has to so slant the facts. What BALLS. You will see later in this opinion piece where Wexler slides imperceptibly from discussing work load, to taking children from parents..these are NOT mutually inclusive. Workload includes the cases where children and families are given in home services. What BALLS! ]]] at "the elephant in the room," the overarching problem that is driving all the other failures in Oregon child welfa Oregon takes away too many children. [[[ See? Numbers of children removed is NOT the critical issue, but numbers of children removed and all OTHER cases and requirements of workers. Do you detect a theme here...and is, using the familiar argument, this not what Wexler keeps being able to sell his commentary with? Of course it is. It amounts to a One Trick Pony. Why is HIS opinion piece of any more value than the state report, considering he gets paid for his words? Isn't he required to produce what will SELL? ]]] Oregon's caseworkers are overwhelmed because Oregon takes proportionately more children than all but 14 other states. It removes children at a rate more than 50 percent above the national average. [[[ R R R .... and you twits will fall for that. An "average" puts half the states on one side, and half on the other. That means 25 states are above the averate and 25 below...and it has pretty much no significance, other than to rank a set. There will always, when averaging, be HALF ABOVE AND HALF BELOW. So Oregon shares this dubious honor....R R R R ...of being above the midpoint. What is the actual NUMBER? And why ISN'T shown with the comparision numbers of other states, so we can see if this is such a major issue or not for ourselves? What would it be in numbers that would show some significance? Why didn't Wexler share something so easily obtained, and in fact, unless he took someone's word for it, he'd have to have to make such a claim? Citing an average, sans the numbers involved is the same ol' same ol' that Madison avenue created long ago to sell products. Starting to see how journalists do their thing? Read Marshall Mcluhan someday, and learn how any competent producer for the popular media, be it print or vision or sound, can frame the any kind of claims, blocking out surrounding context, to manipulate you and I into believing just about anything they wish. One can show only the video frames with the closeup of the hand holding the gun, and leave out the police officer the person is handing it to who is actually well out of the line of possibly fire, and you have identified the WRONG MAN AS THE PERP. Same with such things as Wexler's claims. (Ask a black man how this midea twisting works...but stand well clear when you do, if you are white.) Certainly you KNOW this already if you can observe and think. ]]] To some, that may sound like good news. After all, if a child is wrongfully removed, it is argued, the parents might suffer, but we have to "err on the side of the child." There probably is no phrase in the English language that has done more harm to children. [[[ Hyperbole. Stop and think. WHO, beyond the stereotype that has been carefully crafted, falsely, over the years, would believe and advocate that it's alright for an innocent parent to suffer to "err on the side of the child?" He, like that organization he's on the board of, is creating a strawman....or more, a man made of fog. Some "group" that goes nameless by has declared widely and frequently that it's okay to hurt innocent parents in the name of child safety. Line 'em up. I want to see how many Wexler and YOU can produce of these persons that have said that. Now he's got THAT thought implanted in your head....that there is a massive number of families that are innocent and their children taken away...but stop....that's NOT the true premise. The REAL premise was CASELOAD EXCESSES..not child removals. But he tried to make removals the ONLY caseload issue. Why did he not mention, as the report said "Not only do Oregon caseworkers have large caseloads, but they are also asked to directly represent their cases in court. The report said the practice was unique to Oregon and it increased the workload." and was reported by KATU television? That "child removals being the caseload sole case of overload" is far from the truth. Each year 60% of those removed go HOME. Roughly 30% (vary state to state) in fact receive home based services. But here comes, as greegor likes to say, 'the pathos.']]] When a child is needlessly thrown [[[ "Thrown?" "THROWN?" anybody in child protection that throws a child is in serious trouble indeedy. R R R ...well, he don't lack the balls, that's for sure. ]]] into foster care, he loses not only mom and dad but often brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers, friends and classmates. He is cut loose from everyone loving and familiar. [[[ No he isn't. -- there are built in practices to keep him connected, including trying to place him in his own neighborhood, transport to his school, placement with siblings, belongings moved with him, etc. And if this nonsense hyperbolic rant were true it would also be true that when he was NOT "needlessly thrown" (don't you just love journalists and how they play on your emotions with loaded words such as "thrown" instead of the accurate but tame, "placed?" but in fact safely placed to stop abuse and risk, HE STILL WOULD BE HAVING LOSES. ]]] The emotional trauma can last a lifetime. [[[ So can the emotional trauma, often much more powerful and long lasting, of an abusive parent inflicting pain on a child. And what also can last a lifetime is that he was gotten out in time, given care and attention by a foster parent, and either his own parents got with the program or other parents found for him...THAT IS WHAT LASTS A LIFETIME, much more likely. ]]] A recent study of Oregon and Washington state foster care "alumni" found that one-third said they were abused in foster care itself and only 20 percent were "doing well." How can we throw children into a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five and call it "erring on the side of the child?" [[[ Yes, I love surveys using self reporting...and as far as I know, there is no connection between "throw children into a system" and calling it anything in particular. He cannot, and neither can you, show that there is any general or widespread claim by CPS or other child welfare advocates that we must err on the side of the child. That's left over from the last century and decades back in it, for that matter. The alluded to study was full of holes as a report of provable facts. ]]] Although it is the cases involving parents who beat, rape and torture their children that, rightly, get attention, far more common are cases in which a family's poverty is confused with "neglect." In these cases, a child is taken from a home where there was no abuse and placed in a system where the odds of abuse are at least one in three. Jordan Knapp was thrown into foster care in the name of "erring on the side of the child" -- and she nearly died. [[[ Bull****, plain and simple. Consider, from an article on this issue, and referring to Jordan Knapp, "It's too early to tell if mistakes were made in two Clackamas County cases that made headlines this month. Both children came from homes affected by meth, crime and poverty." Oh, "meth, crime and poverty." Well there's just a tad more to that quote above that shows how far off the mark Wexler really is. The OTHER child was returned to home -- and died at the hands of his parents. You just got, from Wexler a major shot of bull****. ]]] But even that isn't the worst of it. The more that workers are overwhelmed with children who don't need to be in foster care, the less time they have to find children in real danger, children such as Ashton Parris, for example. [[[ Yes, the other child sent home. And an easy claim to make, regardless of the numbers. It's always hard to play psychic. And how does HE know that Jordan would not have been "in real danger" had she been sent home as well? Crap. That's what this is, crap. Shame. Shame. Shame. ]]] There is, of course, a one-word excuse for the high rate of removal in Oregon: methamphetamine. But Oregon takes, proportionately, nearly 50 percent more children than California, another state with a huge meth problem. [[[ Are you taken in? I hope not. What does "proportionally, nearly 50 percent more" actually mean? What is the rate per 1000 of meth involvement in both states? What does "with a huge meth problem" actually mean, regarding California? And what makes him think that Oregon isn't a destination resort for the meth trade and for users? It happens to be just that. It's forests and deserts are far less heavily population and patrolled by LE than California. It's concentrated target populations for meth dealer and manufacturers more accessible. Under funding police departments...HUGE cuts in state police in recent years, that continue a trend started in the early 90's. And Oregon has been taking children at this incredibly high rate at least since 1985, before anyone had heard of meth. [[[ But not before anyone heard of cocaine -- which quickly morphed into crack cocaine....a major epidemic from Eugene to Seattle in WA state, when the LA gangs came north with it...oddly, starting in about 1982 or 83, just about the time of my practicum in CPS in Oregon. Oregon had a meth problem back then as well. He's full of bull****. Biker clubs (the naughty boy types) were running meth, and manufucturing meth as early as 1968...yes, that's NOT a typo, from California, and in Oregon, when I saw my first death from meth in a "hippy" campground in the Illinois Valley in Southern Oregon. For a journaist, he's badly misinformed on this issue. ]]] Some will wonder why we should even bother with treatment for parents who use drugs. But the reason to "bother" is not for the sake of the parents, but for their children -- as we learned from the last drug plague -- crack. [[[ Hold your breath...here it comes, the BIG LIE by removal from context. See if before you read my response, leave it off screen while you read the next item, you can see the hole in this outrageous claim. ]]] University of Florida researchers studied two groups of infants born with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. [[[ Ask yourself one question for the answer to this piece of frequently peddled TRUE, but bull**** claim. Was a comparison made between bio mothers as CPS CLIENTS RECEIVING SERVICES AND ENROLLED IN DRUG REHAB PROGRAMS compared to those in the population NOT so enrolled and engaged by CPS? The argument is great for making the claim that WHEN A MOTHER CAN BE PERSUADED TO SIGN A CONTRACT...SAFETY OR SERVICE PLAN...and they show they can stick to it, it's better than foster care...that HAS NEVER BEEN IN DISPUTE, for any type case. The argument is in fact one of those tricks to lead you to conclusions using information that in fact isn't addressing the problem the conclusion is asking about. It's not foster vs meth mom, it's meth mom IN vs meth mom OUT of the system. For the foster parents that have a child of a meth mom who is NOT participating in a safety plan can't be compared. In fact if the foster parent was doing BETTER THAN THE METH MOM ON A SAFETY PLAN then the damn safety plan would be a poor one. This study proves that workers that enroll moms in such programs are doing a damn good job of assessing who can and cannot make it. OR, fellow humble observers, ALL THE METH MOMS WOULD BE ON THE PROGRAM. Think they are? R R R R R ]]] It is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad parents" without the blow landing on their children. A few states and counties have learned this lesson. They take far fewer children than Oregon, yet independent court-appointed monitors say child safety has improved. Oregon once embraced such reform, but those reforms atrophied over the past several years. [[[ Once again, the sly little slide away from context. ... you are to assume that conditions in Oregon and those other states are identical, thus comparibable. Conditions in Oregon changed, drastrically. And not the funding stream so much as the population. Oregon enjoyed a period of relative prosperity in the the years that move upfront services were offered. From CAPTA to about the early 80s. Man, the 80's were hell on wheels. The economy began to falter...Regean creamed Oregon with the Luxury Import tarrifs, the Gangs from LA found a new target. Meth had been boiling under the surface on a smaller scale for a long time and began to move out more. The first meth lab I heard of in my neighborhood (at time I live in a very upscale region) was 1986. And things got worse. There was no "atrophied," there was a "burying" by the extremity of rising proverty and drugs. And the beginning of cutbacks in funding. ]]] Now, the state stumbles around in the child welfare dark ages because no one is willing to say there's an elephant in the room. [[[ And Wexler isn't willing to point to the elephant's ****, as in dope, poverty in the weakening economy, influx if Californians bringing their problems with them, (huge northward flow -- including drug culture....and by that I mean meth labs, to the north country). Anyone that interviews other journalists or in fact reviews the media on this issue finds out immediately what the elephant really looks like and the stink of reality that it brought. ]]] Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. Yes, we know. And I think there is some of the straw man phenomena going on as well...with the building of a monster that isn't truly the size and shape pretended. Or intended for us to believe. The real problem? Child abuse. Nothing more or less. And it's not made of straw. As the public is learning. It won't be long now. 0:-
|
|
#6
June 1st 05, 02:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And this one's just pure Bullcock; no redeeming value
at all. "Jurassic Pierogi" wrote in message ups.com... Arlene McDermott wrote: IN MY OPINION Richard Wexler Tuesday, May 31, 2005 http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...360.xml&coll=7 Ignoring the elephant in the room won't protect kids Hmmmmmmmmm. Is Ramona the 'elephant in the room'? I seen her picture. Could be. The recent report on child protection in Oregon proves the adage that "you get what you pay for." The state paid nothing for the report, and that's pretty much what it got. It included the following stunning revelations: Caseloads should be lower. Training should be better. In convoluted language it calls for more clarity. In broad terms it says policies should be more specific. But the biggest problem with the report is what's missing. The report only hints at "the elephant in the room," the overarching problem that is driving all the other failures in Oregon child welfa Oregon takes away too many children. Oregon's caseworkers are overwhelmed because Oregon takes proportionately more children than all but 14 other states. It removes children at a rate more than 50 percent above the national average. To some, that may sound like good news. After all, if a child is wrongfully removed, it is argued, the parents might suffer, but we have to "err on the side of the child." There probably is no phrase in the English language that has done more harm to children. Actually, that's what makes CPS types so dispicable - they swear the abuse they heap on the children is for their own good. When a child is needlessly thrown into foster care, he loses not only mom and dad but often brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers, friends and classmates. He is cut loose from everyone loving and familiar. The emotional trauma can last a lifetime. A recent study of Oregon and Washington state foster care "alumni" found that one-third said they were abused in foster care itself and only 20 percent were "doing well." How can we throw children into a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five and call it "erring on the side of the child?" CPS grinds up innocent children and families for profit. That the foster system turns out walking wounded four times out of five is no surprise. Folks make a lot of money "erring on the side of the child". In fact, many communities have come to depend on CPS "erring on the side of the child", packing them into foster care and gloating over all the federal bucks they brought home. Although it is the cases involving parents who beat, rape and torture their children that, rightly, get attention, far more common are cases in which a family's poverty is confused with "neglect." In these cases, a child is taken from a home where there was no abuse and placed in a system where the odds of abuse are at least one in three. Jordan Knapp was thrown into foster care in the name of "erring on the side of the child" -- and she nearly died. Parents who abuse their children are a rare breed. Do a google news search. Whattsamatta??? Is there a news blackout on all the horrible abuse that happens 716 times a second especially on weekends?? Where's the abuse? Where's the injury? Broken bones? Hospitalizations? Whattsamatta? News blackout? It happens all the time ya know. 5000 children were abused in the time it took you to think I'm nuts. But even that isn't the worst of it. The more that workers are overwhelmed with children who don't need to be in foster care, the less time they have to find children in real danger, children such as Ashton Parris, for example. There is, of course, a one-word excuse for the high rate of removal in Oregon: methamphetamine. But Oregon takes, proportionately, nearly 50 percent more children than California, another state with a huge meth problem. And Oregon has been taking children at this incredibly high rate at least since 1985, before anyone had heard of meth. Shhhhhhhhh. Don't be tellin folks it's not Meth's fault. You'll mess up the plans for extra billions to deal with the meth 'epidemic'. OMG, OMG, meth babies, crack babies, quick give us 500 million or the po chillin will suffer. Hahahahahaha. Some will wonder why we should even bother with treatment for parents who use drugs. But the reason to "bother" is not for the sake of the parents, but for their children -- as we learned from the last drug plague -- crack. University of Florida researchers studied two groups of infants born with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. It is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad parents" without the blow landing on their children. A few states and counties have learned this lesson. They take far fewer children than Oregon, yet independent court-appointed monitors say child safety has improved. Oregon once embraced such reform, but those reforms atrophied over the past several years. Now, the state stumbles around in the child welfare dark ages because no one is willing to say there's an elephant in the room. How 'bout it Ramona. What's up with the elephant and the dark ages and stuff. Don't you grease painted 9-5 frozen in time CPS darkhearts even want a clue? Do you ever think of the destruction you leave in your wake when you're spendin da cash?? Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
|
|
#7
June 1st 05, 05:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arlene McDermott" wrote in message news:1117533675.d50a4e60e3b38b89b2b00d79279d426a@t eranews... IN MY OPINION Richard Wexler Tuesday, May 31, 2005 http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...360.xml&coll=7 Ignoring the elephant in the room won't protect kids The recent report on child protection in Oregon proves the adage that "you get what you pay for." The state paid nothing for the report, and that's pretty much what it got. It included the following stunning revelations: Caseloads should be lower. Training should be better. In convoluted language it calls for more clarity. In broad terms it says policies should be more specific. But the biggest problem with the report is what's missing. The report only hints at "the elephant in the room," the overarching problem that is driving all the other failures in Oregon child welfa Oregon takes away too many children. Oregon's caseworkers are overwhelmed because Oregon takes proportionately more children than all but 14 other states. It removes children at a rate more than 50 percent above the national average. To some, that may sound like good news. After all, if a child is wrongfully removed, it is argued, the parents might suffer, but we have to "err on the side of the child." There probably is no phrase in the English language that has done more harm to children. When a child is needlessly thrown into foster care, he loses not only mom and dad but often brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers, friends and classmates. He is cut loose from everyone loving and familiar. The emotional trauma can last a lifetime. A recent study of Oregon and Washington state foster care "alumni" found that one-third said they were abused in foster care itself and only 20 percent were "doing well." How can we throw children into a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five and call it "erring on the side of the child?" Thanks, for the very insightful thought. It's the same conconclusion I've used (as have others) but we have too many people here who are probably employed by Oregon and fight against us. Although it is the cases involving parents who beat, rape and torture their children that, rightly, get attention, far more common are cases in which a family's poverty is confused with "neglect." In these cases, a child is taken from a home where there was no abuse and placed in a system where the odds of abuse are at least one in three. Jordan Knapp was thrown into foster care in the name of "erring on the side of the child" -- and she nearly died. But even that isn't the worst of it. The more that workers are overwhelmed with children who don't need to be in foster care, the less time they have to find children in real danger, children such as Ashton Parris, for example. Ya know, some states spend millions of dollars on studies only to come to the same conclusion. How much did you get paid? Probably the same as, Doug. Zero. Ziltch. Nothing. There is, of course, a one-word excuse for the high rate of removal in Oregon: methamphetamine. But Oregon takes, proportionately, nearly 50 percent more children than California, another state with a huge meth problem. And Oregon has been taking children at this incredibly high rate at least since 1985, before anyone had heard of meth. Some will wonder why we should even bother with treatment for parents who use drugs. But the reason to "bother" is not for the sake of the parents, but for their children -- as we learned from the last drug plague -- crack. University of Florida researchers studied two groups of infants born with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. I do hope 'others' read this. They're trapped in their own preconceptions... inside a little box. Hmmm... inside a little box that should have rubber walls. :-) bobb It is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad parents" without the blow landing on their children. A few states and counties have learned this lesson. They take far fewer children than Oregon, yet independent court-appointed monitors say child safety has improved. Oregon once embraced such reform, but those reforms atrophied over the past several years. Now, the state stumbles around in the child welfare dark ages because no one is willing to say there's an elephant in the room. Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
|
|
#8
June 1st 05, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jurassic Pierogi" wrote in message ups.com... Arlene McDermott wrote: IN MY OPINION Richard Wexler Tuesday, May 31, 2005 http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...360.xml&coll=7 Ignoring the elephant in the room won't protect kids Hmmmmmmmmm. Is Ramona the 'elephant in the room'? I seen her picture. Could be. The recent report on child protection in Oregon proves the adage that "you get what you pay for." The state paid nothing for the report, and that's pretty much what it got. It included the following stunning revelations: Caseloads should be lower. Training should be better. In convoluted language it calls for more clarity. In broad terms it says policies should be more specific. But the biggest problem with the report is what's missing. The report only hints at "the elephant in the room," the overarching problem that is driving all the other failures in Oregon child welfa Oregon takes away too many children. Oregon's caseworkers are overwhelmed because Oregon takes proportionately more children than all but 14 other states. It removes children at a rate more than 50 percent above the national average. To some, that may sound like good news. After all, if a child is wrongfully removed, it is argued, the parents might suffer, but we have to "err on the side of the child." There probably is no phrase in the English language that has done more harm to children. Actually, that's what makes CPS types so dispicable - they swear the abuse they heap on the children is for their own good. When a child is needlessly thrown into foster care, he loses not only mom and dad but often brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers, friends and classmates. He is cut loose from everyone loving and familiar. The emotional trauma can last a lifetime. A recent study of Oregon and Washington state foster care "alumni" found that one-third said they were abused in foster care itself and only 20 percent were "doing well." How can we throw children into a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five and call it "erring on the side of the child?" CPS grinds up innocent children and families for profit. That the foster system turns out walking wounded four times out of five is no surprise. Folks make a lot of money "erring on the side of the child". In fact, many communities have come to depend on CPS "erring on the side of the child", packing them into foster care and gloating over all the federal bucks they brought home. Although it is the cases involving parents who beat, rape and torture their children that, rightly, get attention, far more common are cases in which a family's poverty is confused with "neglect." In these cases, a child is taken from a home where there was no abuse and placed in a system where the odds of abuse are at least one in three. Jordan Knapp was thrown into foster care in the name of "erring on the side of the child" -- and she nearly died. Parents who abuse their children are a rare breed. Do a google news search. Whattsamatta??? Is there a news blackout on all the horrible abuse that happens 716 times a second especially on weekends?? Where's the abuse? Where's the injury? Broken bones? Hospitalizations? Whattsamatta? News blackout? It happens all the time ya know. 5000 children were abused in the time it took you to think I'm nuts. Damn. How'd you know that? I just did the search. Saw lots of orgs that exist on the notion of child abuse, but couldn't find one parent who'd been arrested, charged, or convicted of child abuse - unless I include China and Africa like Kalamity does. Doesn't CPS seize a thousand children a day? Where's the abuse? But even that isn't the worst of it. The more that workers are overwhelmed with children who don't need to be in foster care, the less time they have to find children in real danger, children such as Ashton Parris, for example. There is, of course, a one-word excuse for the high rate of removal in Oregon: methamphetamine. But Oregon takes, proportionately, nearly 50 percent more children than California, another state with a huge meth problem. And Oregon has been taking children at this incredibly high rate at least since 1985, before anyone had heard of meth. Shhhhhhhhh. Don't be tellin folks it's not Meth's fault. You'll mess up the plans for extra billions to deal with the meth 'epidemic'. OMG, OMG, meth babies, crack babies, quick give us 500 million or the po chillin will suffer. Hahahahahaha. Some will wonder why we should even bother with treatment for parents who use drugs. But the reason to "bother" is not for the sake of the parents, but for their children -- as we learned from the last drug plague -- crack. University of Florida researchers studied two groups of infants born with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. It is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad parents" without the blow landing on their children. A few states and counties have learned this lesson. They take far fewer children than Oregon, yet independent court-appointed monitors say child safety has improved. Oregon once embraced such reform, but those reforms atrophied over the past several years. Now, the state stumbles around in the child welfare dark ages because no one is willing to say there's an elephant in the room. How 'bout it Ramona. What's up with the elephant and the dark ages and stuff. Don't you grease painted 9-5 frozen in time CPS darkhearts even want a clue? Do you ever think of the destruction you leave in your wake when you're spendin da cash?? Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
|
|
#9
June 1st 05, 04:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
bobb wrote: "Arlene McDermott" wrote in message news:1117533675.d50a4e60e3b38b89b2b00d79279d426a@t eranews... IN MY OPINION Richard Wexler Tuesday, May 31, 2005 http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...360.xml&coll=7 Ignoring the elephant in the room won't protect kids The recent report on child protection in Oregon proves the adage that "you get what you pay for." The state paid nothing for the report, and that's pretty much what it got. It included the following stunning revelations: Caseloads should be lower. Training should be better. In convoluted language it calls for more clarity. In broad terms it says policies should be more specific. But the biggest problem with the report is what's missing. The report only hints at "the elephant in the room," the overarching problem that is driving all the other failures in Oregon child welfa Oregon takes away too many children. Oregon's caseworkers are overwhelmed because Oregon takes proportionately more children than all but 14 other states. It removes children at a rate more than 50 percent above the national average. To some, that may sound like good news. After all, if a child is wrongfully removed, it is argued, the parents might suffer, but we have to "err on the side of the child." There probably is no phrase in the English language that has done more harm to children. When a child is needlessly thrown into foster care, he loses not only mom and dad but often brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers, friends and classmates. He is cut loose from everyone loving and familiar. The emotional trauma can last a lifetime. A recent study of Oregon and Washington state foster care "alumni" found that one-third said they were abused in foster care itself and only 20 percent were "doing well." How can we throw children into a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five and call it "erring on the side of the child?" Thanks, for the very insightful thought. You are replying to a copy and paste from an article by Wexler posted here by someone else. Whom are you thanking? As for insightful..yes, based on the paucity of information you bring to this ng and... It's the same conconclusion I've used (as have others) How have you used this "same conclusion?" Are you suggesting that Wexler's "four times out of five" "walking wounded" he appears to be claiming CPS is the cause of? No mention of the origins of these children? I doubt there's a foster parent present or past, that would agree with you, as they see the children come in as often carried "wounded." but we have too many people here who are probably employed by Oregon and fight against us. This statement is on a par with Wexler's lack of precision and deficiency of support for claims. Exactly who do you think is emplyed by Oregon in this ng, and what would they be doing fighting "against you" other than telling you the facts as they know them...if they were here? It's you that suffers from lack of information, and misinterpretation of what you do see. As for myself, I am not employeed by anyone, other than my own company. Which I own with one partner. And we do not contract with anyone, let alone the state of Oregon. We are producers not in any service business. So who's left, Doug? Does he work for the state of Oregon? Although it is the cases involving parents who beat, rape and torture their children that, rightly, get attention, far more common are cases in which a family's poverty is confused with "neglect." In these cases, a child is taken from a home where there was no abuse and placed in a system where the odds of abuse are at least one in three. Jordan Knapp was thrown into foster care in the name of "erring on the side of the child" -- and she nearly died. But even that isn't the worst of it. The more that workers are overwhelmed with children who don't need to be in foster care, the less time they have to find children in real danger, children such as Ashton Parris, for example. Ya know, some states spend millions of dollars on studies only to come to the same conclusion. How much did you get paid? Probably the same as, Doug. Zero. Ziltch. Nothing. Wexler is a journalist that is on the board of directors of a group that has a boner for CPS and those who do studies....just like HIS organization. And they most assuredly get paid. They would be in competition with the group that just did the Oregon study referred to by Wexler in his article. There is, of course, a one-word excuse for the high rate of removal in Oregon: methamphetamine. But Oregon takes, proportionately, nearly 50 percent more children than California, another state with a huge meth problem. And Oregon has been taking children at this incredibly high rate at least since 1985, before anyone had heard of meth. Some will wonder why we should even bother with treatment for parents who use drugs. But the reason to "bother" is not for the sake of the parents, but for their children -- as we learned from the last drug plague -- crack. University of Florida researchers studied two groups of infants born with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. I do hope 'others' read this. They're trapped in their own preconceptions... inside a little box. Hmmm... inside a little box that should have rubber walls. :-) The fact is Wexler, just as you folks love to do, cites out of context. There is a decided difference in four populations that actually would and should be compared. One -- meth mothers who qualify for a client program and service plan that would undoubtedly include getting clean, staying clean, being closely monitored; two -- meth mother clients who could not qualify...may not have wanted to qualify, whose children might well have been so compromised by exposure to drugs they are special needs with severe health complications; three -- foster parents who would be like to take these more severely compromised children (hence the developmental disparity); and finally, four -- those meth mothers who have not as yet been discovered and are not in the system....how would THIER children test? This, bobber, is a prime example of the game of journalism, which Wexler "works for" as in sells his writting to....to create a bias that appeals to a particular purchasing demographic....media that feeds it to the public for READERSHIP TO SELL ADVERTISING. The greater the distribution, the more in demand the ad space the greater the dollar per inch they get for it. Do you not think the media would not be looking for the most "gee ain't it awful" slant on any issues? Wexler fills that slot nicely. And that's not a criticism of him. It is simply recognition that if I want information that has real weight to it, that I can winkle out some facts from that meet some logical tests, like CONTEXT, I usually do not go to the popular media. In fact, I blush to post some of the articles on parental abuses that come through the that media, because the majority are NOT about convictions but about charges....two disaparate things. I try to watch for the outcomes, and if I found someone later found innocent and I had posted the article where they had only been charged, I would post the followup. Problem is, those have less "bleeding" so they don't, even though printed, rise to the front page or top of the bottle to find as easily as the gory first exposures of outrageous treatment of children. You, as usual, are easily taken in by less than rigorous reporting. Keep up the good work. You make an excellent example to point to when I take such articles apart, as I did in my other response to this bit of slanted journalism. Check out the title of the author below. Do a look up on the organization. Even their mission statement reeks of empty rhetoric. The even start it with the construction of some mythical "other" group that is claimed to do things no evidence if forthcoming to support. The refuse to identify "the bad guys," and that, bobber, in debating parlance, is called the logical fallacy of The Strawman.....we can all agree something is wrong, so, to keep your attention off the fact no proofs are forthcoming, you are invited to join in the beating and flailing of straw. When that's over, you are then ripe, all flushed with your great heroism, to believe just about anything that will continue to support your puffed up indignation...and NOT demand proofs. Enjoy yourself, as you always do, at this little games. bobb 0:- It is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad parents" without the blow landing on their children. A few states and counties have learned this lesson. They take far fewer children than Oregon, yet independent court-appointed monitors say child safety has improved. Oregon once embraced such reform, but those reforms atrophied over the past several years. Now, the state stumbles around in the child welfare dark ages because no one is willing to say there's an elephant in the room. Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
|
|
#10
June 1st 05, 09:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"bobb" bob@somewhere wrote in message ... "Arlene McDermott" wrote in message news:1117533675.d50a4e60e3b38b89b2b00d79279d426a@t eranews... IN MY OPINION Richard Wexler Tuesday, May 31, 2005 http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...360.xml&coll=7 Ignoring the elephant in the room won't protect kids The recent report on child protection in Oregon proves the adage that "you get what you pay for." The state paid nothing for the report, and that's pretty much what it got. It included the following stunning revelations: Caseloads should be lower. Training should be better. In convoluted language it calls for more clarity. In broad terms it says policies should be more specific. But the biggest problem with the report is what's missing. The report only hints at "the elephant in the room," the overarching problem that is driving all the other failures in Oregon child welfa Oregon takes away too many children. Oregon's caseworkers are overwhelmed because Oregon takes proportionately more children than all but 14 other states. It removes children at a rate more than 50 percent above the national average. To some, that may sound like good news. After all, if a child is wrongfully removed, it is argued, the parents might suffer, but we have to "err on the side of the child." There probably is no phrase in the English language that has done more harm to children. When a child is needlessly thrown into foster care, he loses not only mom and dad but often brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers, friends and classmates. He is cut loose from everyone loving and familiar. The emotional trauma can last a lifetime. A recent study of Oregon and Washington state foster care "alumni" found that one-third said they were abused in foster care itself and only 20 percent were "doing well." How can we throw children into a system that churns out walking wounded four times out of five and call it "erring on the side of the child?" Thanks, for the very insightful thought. It's the same conconclusion I've used (as have others) but we have too many people here who are probably employed by Oregon and fight against us. Although it is the cases involving parents who beat, rape and torture their children that, rightly, get attention, far more common are cases in which a family's poverty is confused with "neglect." In these cases, a child is taken from a home where there was no abuse and placed in a system where the odds of abuse are at least one in three. Jordan Knapp was thrown into foster care in the name of "erring on the side of the child" -- and she nearly died. But even that isn't the worst of it. The more that workers are overwhelmed with children who don't need to be in foster care, the less time they have to find children in real danger, children such as Ashton Parris, for example. Ya know, some states spend millions of dollars on studies only to come to the same conclusion. How much did you get paid? Probably the same as, Doug. Zero. Ziltch. Nothing. There is, of course, a one-word excuse for the high rate of removal in Oregon: methamphetamine. But Oregon takes, proportionately, nearly 50 percent more children than California, another state with a huge meth problem. And Oregon has been taking children at this incredibly high rate at least since 1985, before anyone had heard of meth. Some will wonder why we should even bother with treatment for parents who use drugs. But the reason to "bother" is not for the sake of the parents, but for their children -- as we learned from the last drug plague -- crack. University of Florida researchers studied two groups of infants born with cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine. I do hope 'others' read this. They're trapped in their own preconceptions... inside a little box. Hmmm... inside a little box that should have rubber walls. :-) bobb It is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad parents" without the blow landing on their children. A few states and counties have learned this lesson. They take far fewer children than Oregon, yet independent court-appointed monitors say child safety has improved. Oregon once embraced such reform, but those reforms atrophied over the past several years. Now, the state stumbles around in the child welfare dark ages because no one is willing to say there's an elephant in the room. Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Spanking is Violence in the Netherlands now. | Kane | Spanking | 23 | March 23rd 05 01:21 AM |
| Are OBs Bible-based? Is home schooling child abuse? | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | March 15th 05 03:38 AM |
| Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
| Sample US Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 28 | January 21st 04 06:23 PM |
Linear Mode
