South stands alone...

LaVonne Carlson writes:

Children who were corporally punished are significantly more likely to
experience problems of substance abuse,

Hi, LaVonne!

You are incorrect. The study that draws this conclusion has been challenged
on many fronts, among them the failure to control for other variables.
Researchers have been unable to duplicate the results. If you would cite
your source, we can look at the research and its social science detractors.

depression, suicide,

I am not sure which study you are relying upon, but citing it would help us
see where you base your claim.

and are significanly more likely to abuse their own children than are
children who were parenting
without corporal punishment.

Given the nature of CPS founded "abuse," which is often discussed in this
newsgroup, it would be helpful to learn how child abuse was established to
have occurred in the study you rely upon here for your claim.

For example, former foster children are claimed to be significantly more
likely to abuse their own children than parents raised in the general
population. Is this because former foster children are more abusive or
because CPS targets former foster children in their risk assessment
instruments as being at risk of abusing their own children. As a
consequence, a higher percentage of former foster children are
substantiated, while parents themselves, for "abuse." Most CPS cases are
substantiated on the basis of risk rather than actual abuse.

Again, citing the authority for your claim will allow us to look at what the
researcher looked at.




Robert T McQuaid
Orangeville Ontario Canada
Love does not come out of the barrel of a gun

Nor, Robert, does love come out of a hand hitting and hurting a child.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Doug wrote:

LaVonne Carlson writes:

Children who were corporally punished are significantly more likely to
experience problems of substance abuse,

Hi, LaVonne!

You are incorrect. The study that draws this conclusion has been challenged
on many fronts, among them the failure to control for other variables.
Researchers have been unable to duplicate the results. If you would cite
your source, we can look at the research and its social science detractors.

This is true. The studies also didn't take in the effects of non-cp
alternatives. Common-sense would tell you that parents just don't use
spanking exclusively. Most parents don't like to spank (this hurts me
more than it hurts you) but rely on it because the non-cp alternatives
don't work. Studies that looked at both spanking and non-cp alternatives
found that the correlations between non-cp alternatives and negatives
effects are even stronger than with spanking. Straus & Mouradian (1998)
showed this. Do you think LaVonne would ever admit this? ;-)

depression, suicide,

I am not sure which study you are relying upon, but citing it would help us
see where you base your claim.

She wouldn't dare! She knows that these studies just don't stand up to
scientific scrutiny. Look at how she has been dodging me all these
months. She claimed to have a Ph.D. but just can't debate to a kid
like me. :-)

and are significanly more likely to abuse their own children than are
children who were parenting
without corporal punishment.

Given the nature of CPS founded "abuse," which is often discussed in this
newsgroup, it would be helpful to learn how child abuse was established to
have occurred in the study you rely upon here for your claim.

For example, former foster children are claimed to be significantly more
likely to abuse their own children than parents raised in the general
population. Is this because former foster children are more abusive or
because CPS targets former foster children in their risk assessment
instruments as being at risk of abusing their own children. As a
consequence, a higher percentage of former foster children are
substantiated, while parents themselves, for "abuse." Most CPS cases are
substantiated on the basis of risk rather than actual abuse.

Again, citing the authority for your claim will allow us to look at what the
researcher looked at.

And children that went to juvenile halls are more likely to commit crimes
as adult. Correlation is not cause! This is basic. Do you think LaVonne
grasped this???

Doan

Not that Doug needs much help, but a connected idea about
foster kids having a higher incident of removal:
Doug suggests that they are ""watched"" more and I agree.
I have seen indications and attitudes that go even further.
CPS caseworkers PRESUME matter of fact that anybody who
was a foster kid will abuse their own kids. It's not so,
but it's one of those INDICATORS on the rotten lists
of INDICATORS that unlicensed untrained caseworkers use
when they practice their voodoo to "get the child abusers."

LaVonne:
You'd like to see spanking banned to create fear in parents.
What do you think that will breed?

And you seem to think that making it illegal will NOT
mean that kids will be removed. You are really "full of it"
in that regard because they remove right now for things that
are not illegal now. Look at Tere's case of "emotional abuse".
You must have your nose in too many textbooks to realize
what horrors such a law can unleash that make spanking
look like a complete farce. That's a good example of the
"Ivory Tower" complex I mentioned before. Out of touch.

You operate on THEORY, which is BS out here in the REAL world.

WHY do you suppose that Walter Mondale HIMSELF has said that
he wishes he never would have created the CAPTA monster and
this wretched Child Abuse Industry?

I know you will choose NOT to believe this, but my family's
case actually started based on CLUTTER in a mobile home.
Not filth, not buckets of feces, no biohazard.
More like what many college professor's offices look like.
And several attorney offices we have been in.
And even Child Protection offices.
And my favorite is a local school has a large storage
facility full of clutter, behind large windows, on display!

Don't get me wrong, I could see clutter as a complaint
if the child were 7 months old, and being in the human
vacuum cleaner stage clutter could easily be dangerous.
But this child was 7 YEARS old and a very bright child.

In other words, LaVonne, if they can use CLUTTER
to remove a child from their home, they have
really gone INSANE in their application of
"imminent danger".

That other stuff that Dan and Kane like to harp on, that
came up after much more WITCH HUNT, done because these
caseworkers KNEW THEY DID SOMETHING STUPID, and were
climbing the walls trying to justify their stupid act.
Why, these people were ORDERING this and that when
they had absolutely NO legal rights to do so, and
they did not even file for a removal order for 21 days.

Does it make sense to you that it took them 21 days
to find something to call "imminent danger"?

How about dictating without LEGAL AUTHORITY?
One caseworker actually SAID I should take some
materials to the child at school one morning, and
then wrote it up as if I had violated some no
contact order! This is WEEKS before the caseworker
even had a removal order.

Yet another way they "stepped in it" and had to
find something, anything, to make themselves look
less stupid in court.

Part of this is what Kane calle Hero complex.
My family has termed it "rescue fantasy".

Somewhere I heard a rumor that somebody actually
proposed a version of Munchhausens syndrome for
lawyers and caseworkers in Juvenile Court cases.

REMOVAL to feed the crusaders "rescue fantasy" sure fits!

Perverts and Voyeurs also like being caseworkers.
When they caught one here, they kept it out of news
media completely, and the pervert caseworker went down
to Colorado and got a job as a caseworker there until
he got caught sexually molesting little kids again!

A can't stress it enough, LaVonne, theory is fine,
but if you don't know how the laws get misused or
abused in the REAL world, your good intentions
can become something truly evil.

Did you ever look up Judge Roland Friesler?
He was a very reasonable man, very sharp legal mind.
Extremely professional. Do you know what he did?

I never advocated for removal for spanking. I advocate
for a law that legally bans spanking and removes the

KIDS!

ambiguity that parents and social workers experience.
Unless the child appears to be in danger, this law
would send a clear message to parents that spanking is
illegal.

Therefore they will REMOVE the child, it's what they DO.

Attached to this law would be resources to help parents
raise their children in more productive ways.

Family Preservation! They got lots of grant money,
and the misused and twisted it to be more WITCH HUNT.
How much HELP is a witch hunt going to be?
A classic perversion of a well intentioned program.
This is what happens in the REAL world, when caseworker
wish to wield that absolute power that currupts so.
Here's how the scam worked in our case.
Kid not in home, though legally should have been.
DHS controlling kid, without legal right to.
DHS says they need a 21 day evaluation period.
Family Pres policy says it can't continue if the child
is not in the home in two weeks. DHS says kid can't
participate before their 21 day evaluation period ends.
The two bureaucratic policies collide, taking
a huge dump on our family. Social Worker recommends
DHS do two things, DHS refuses.

"Reasonable Efforts" is now a complete FARCE.
No "helping relationship" whatsoever.

Don't you get it, LaVonne, that if something is
written into LAW, you might first look at how
the existing laws are already abused, misused, skirted,
selectively enforced, and sometimes used AS INTENDED?

Family Preservation was a good idea, well intentioned.
But who is to stop evil caseworkers from perverting
it and using it as nothing more than and alternate
way to FUND an EXTENDED Witch Hunt to dig for dirt?

Remember, these caseworkers are NOT licensed Social Workers.
One particularly nasty one we suffered with is very bad
at not taking the same advice in her own life that she
ORDERS and DIRECTS people like us to do, under THREAT of TPR.
Her OWN domestic abuse and children situation is
FAR WORSE than anything in our case.
Her guy with a rap sheet for Burglary and more beat
her black and blue and purple, up and down.
I looked at the case file. Pictures were sealed, but
paperwork was pretty graphic. Injuries on legs, torso
arms and head.

She ran immediately to the court to file to have the
no-contact order lifted.

What do you think a caseworker would say to a parent
about such behavior? Or to the COURT?

This is the real world, LaVonne.
This was one of our caseworkers.
Telling us how to live our life.
What do you think of the expert?

Oops. Wrong login. Sorry, that's me.
I feel more like Ralph Wiggum than Albert, but we are all
a bit of each. Even Einstein was an idiot in some ways.

(Albert Einstein) wrote in message . com...
Not that Doug needs much help, but a connected idea about
foster kids having a higher incident of removal:
Doug suggests that they are ""watched"" more and I agree.
I have seen indications and attitudes that go even further.
CPS caseworkers PRESUME matter of fact that anybody who
was a foster kid will abuse their own kids. It's not so,
but it's one of those INDICATORS on the rotten lists
of INDICATORS that unlicensed untrained caseworkers use
when they practice their voodoo to "get the child abusers."

LaVonne:
You'd like to see spanking banned to create fear in parents.
What do you think that will breed?

And you seem to think that making it illegal will NOT
mean that kids will be removed. You are really "full of it"
in that regard because they remove right now for things that
are not illegal now. Look at Tere's case of "emotional abuse".
You must have your nose in too many textbooks to realize
what horrors such a law can unleash that make spanking
look like a complete farce. That's a good example of the
"Ivory Tower" complex I mentioned before. Out of touch.

You operate on THEORY, which is BS out here in the REAL world.

WHY do you suppose that Walter Mondale HIMSELF has said that
he wishes he never would have created the CAPTA monster and
this wretched Child Abuse Industry?

I know you will choose NOT to believe this, but my family's
case actually started based on CLUTTER in a mobile home.
Not filth, not buckets of feces, no biohazard.
More like what many college professor's offices look like.
And several attorney offices we have been in.
And even Child Protection offices.
And my favorite is a local school has a large storage
facility full of clutter, behind large windows, on display!

Don't get me wrong, I could see clutter as a complaint
if the child were 7 months old, and being in the human
vacuum cleaner stage clutter could easily be dangerous.
But this child was 7 YEARS old and a very bright child.

In other words, LaVonne, if they can use CLUTTER
to remove a child from their home, they have
really gone INSANE in their application of
"imminent danger".

That other stuff that Dan and Kane like to harp on, that
came up after much more WITCH HUNT, done because these
caseworkers KNEW THEY DID SOMETHING STUPID, and were
climbing the walls trying to justify their stupid act.
Why, these people were ORDERING this and that when
they had absolutely NO legal rights to do so, and
they did not even file for a removal order for 21 days.

Does it make sense to you that it took them 21 days
to find something to call "imminent danger"?

How about dictating without LEGAL AUTHORITY?
One caseworker actually SAID I should take some
materials to the child at school one morning, and
then wrote it up as if I had violated some no
contact order! This is WEEKS before the caseworker
even had a removal order.

Yet another way they "stepped in it" and had to
find something, anything, to make themselves look
less stupid in court.

Part of this is what Kane calle Hero complex.
My family has termed it "rescue fantasy".

Somewhere I heard a rumor that somebody actually
proposed a version of Munchhausens syndrome for
lawyers and caseworkers in Juvenile Court cases.

REMOVAL to feed the crusaders "rescue fantasy" sure fits!

Perverts and Voyeurs also like being caseworkers.
When they caught one here, they kept it out of news
media completely, and the pervert caseworker went down
to Colorado and got a job as a caseworker there until
he got caught sexually molesting little kids again!

A can't stress it enough, LaVonne, theory is fine,
but if you don't know how the laws get misused or
abused in the REAL world, your good intentions
can become something truly evil.

Did you ever look up Judge Roland Friesler?
He was a very reasonable man, very sharp legal mind.
Extremely professional. Do you know what he did?

I never advocated for removal for spanking. I advocate
for a law that legally bans spanking and removes the

KIDS!

ambiguity that parents and social workers experience.
Unless the child appears to be in danger, this law
would send a clear message to parents that spanking is
illegal.

Therefore they will REMOVE the child, it's what they DO.

Attached to this law would be resources to help parents
raise their children in more productive ways.

Family Preservation! They got lots of grant money,
and the misused and twisted it to be more WITCH HUNT.
How much HELP is a witch hunt going to be?
A classic perversion of a well intentioned program.
This is what happens in the REAL world, when caseworker
wish to wield that absolute power that currupts so.
Here's how the scam worked in our case.
Kid not in home, though legally should have been.
DHS controlling kid, without legal right to.
DHS says they need a 21 day evaluation period.
Family Pres policy says it can't continue if the child
is not in the home in two weeks. DHS says kid can't
participate before their 21 day evaluation period ends.
The two bureaucratic policies collide, taking
a huge dump on our family. Social Worker recommends
DHS do two things, DHS refuses.

"Reasonable Efforts" is now a complete FARCE.
No "helping relationship" whatsoever.

Don't you get it, LaVonne, that if something is
written into LAW, you might first look at how
the existing laws are already abused, misused, skirted,
selectively enforced, and sometimes used AS INTENDED?

Family Preservation was a good idea, well intentioned.
But who is to stop evil caseworkers from perverting
it and using it as nothing more than and alternate
way to FUND an EXTENDED Witch Hunt to dig for dirt?

Remember, these caseworkers are NOT licensed Social Workers.
One particularly nasty one we suffered with is very bad
at not taking the same advice in her own life that she
ORDERS and DIRECTS people like us to do, under THREAT of TPR.
Her OWN domestic abuse and children situation is
FAR WORSE than anything in our case.
Her guy with a rap sheet for Burglary and more beat
her black and blue and purple, up and down.
I looked at the case file. Pictures were sealed, but
paperwork was pretty graphic. Injuries on legs, torso
arms and head.

She ran immediately to the court to file to have the
no-contact order lifted.

What do you think a caseworker would say to a parent
about such behavior? Or to the COURT?

This is the real world, LaVonne.
This was one of our caseworkers.
Telling us how to live our life.
What do you think of the expert?

"Albert Einstein" wrote in message
om...
Not that Doug needs much help, but a connected idea about
foster kids having a higher incident of removal:
Doug suggests that they are ""watched"" more and I agree.
I have seen indications and attitudes that go even further.
CPS caseworkers PRESUME matter of fact that anybody who
was a foster kid will abuse their own kids. It's not so,
but it's one of those INDICATORS on the rotten lists
of INDICATORS that unlicensed untrained caseworkers use
when they practice their voodoo to "get the child abusers."

LaVonne:
You'd like to see spanking banned to create fear in parents.
What do you think that will breed?

And you seem to think that making it illegal will NOT
mean that kids will be removed. You are really "full of it"
in that regard because they remove right now for things that
are not illegal now. Look at Tere's case of "emotional abuse".
You must have your nose in too many textbooks to realize
what horrors such a law can unleash that make spanking
look like a complete farce. That's a good example of the
"Ivory Tower" complex I mentioned before. Out of touch.

You operate on THEORY, which is BS out here in the REAL world.

WHY do you suppose that Walter Mondale HIMSELF has said that
he wishes he never would have created the CAPTA monster and
this wretched Child Abuse Industry?

I know you will choose NOT to believe this, but my family's
case actually started based on CLUTTER in a mobile home.
Not filth, not buckets of feces, no biohazard.
More like what many college professor's offices look like.
And several attorney offices we have been in.
And even Child Protection offices.
And my favorite is a local school has a large storage
facility full of clutter, behind large windows, on display!

Don't get me wrong, I could see clutter as a complaint
if the child were 7 months old, and being in the human
vacuum cleaner stage clutter could easily be dangerous.
But this child was 7 YEARS old and a very bright child.

In other words, LaVonne, if they can use CLUTTER
to remove a child from their home, they have
really gone INSANE in their application of
"imminent danger".

That other stuff that Dan and Kane like to harp on, that
came up after much more WITCH HUNT, done because these
caseworkers KNEW THEY DID SOMETHING STUPID, and were
climbing the walls trying to justify their stupid act.
Why, these people were ORDERING this and that when
they had absolutely NO legal rights to do so, and
they did not even file for a removal order for 21 days.

Does it make sense to you that it took them 21 days
to find something to call "imminent danger"?

How about dictating without LEGAL AUTHORITY?
One caseworker actually SAID I should take some
materials to the child at school one morning, and
then wrote it up as if I had violated some no
contact order! This is WEEKS before the caseworker
even had a removal order.

Yet another way they "stepped in it" and had to
find something, anything, to make themselves look
less stupid in court.

Part of this is what Kane calle Hero complex.
My family has termed it "rescue fantasy".

Somewhere I heard a rumor that somebody actually
proposed a version of Munchhausens syndrome for
lawyers and caseworkers in Juvenile Court cases.

REMOVAL to feed the crusaders "rescue fantasy" sure fits!

Perverts and Voyeurs also like being caseworkers.
When they caught one here, they kept it out of news
media completely, and the pervert caseworker went down
to Colorado and got a job as a caseworker there until
he got caught sexually molesting little kids again!

A can't stress it enough, LaVonne, theory is fine,
but if you don't know how the laws get misused or
abused in the REAL world, your good intentions
can become something truly evil.

Did you ever look up Judge Roland Friesler?
He was a very reasonable man, very sharp legal mind.
Extremely professional. Do you know what he did?

I never advocated for removal for spanking. I advocate
for a law that legally bans spanking and removes the

KIDS!

ambiguity that parents and social workers experience.
Unless the child appears to be in danger, this law
would send a clear message to parents that spanking is
illegal.

Therefore they will REMOVE the child, it's what they DO.

Attached to this law would be resources to help parents
raise their children in more productive ways.

Family Preservation! They got lots of grant money,
and the misused and twisted it to be more WITCH HUNT.
How much HELP is a witch hunt going to be?
A classic perversion of a well intentioned program.
This is what happens in the REAL world, when caseworker
wish to wield that absolute power that currupts so.
Here's how the scam worked in our case.
Kid not in home, though legally should have been.
DHS controlling kid, without legal right to.
DHS says they need a 21 day evaluation period.
Family Pres policy says it can't continue if the child
is not in the home in two weeks. DHS says kid can't
participate before their 21 day evaluation period ends.
The two bureaucratic policies collide, taking
a huge dump on our family. Social Worker recommends
DHS do two things, DHS refuses.

"Reasonable Efforts" is now a complete FARCE.
No "helping relationship" whatsoever.

Don't you get it, LaVonne, that if something is
written into LAW, you might first look at how
the existing laws are already abused, misused, skirted,
selectively enforced, and sometimes used AS INTENDED?

Family Preservation was a good idea, well intentioned.
But who is to stop evil caseworkers from perverting
it and using it as nothing more than and alternate
way to FUND an EXTENDED Witch Hunt to dig for dirt?

Remember, these caseworkers are NOT licensed Social Workers.
One particularly nasty one we suffered with is very bad
at not taking the same advice in her own life that she
ORDERS and DIRECTS people like us to do, under THREAT of TPR.
Her OWN domestic abuse and children situation is
FAR WORSE than anything in our case.
Her guy with a rap sheet for Burglary and more beat
her black and blue and purple, up and down.
I looked at the case file. Pictures were sealed, but
paperwork was pretty graphic. Injuries on legs, torso
arms and head.

She ran immediately to the court to file to have the
no-contact order lifted.

What do you think a caseworker would say to a parent
about such behavior? Or to the COURT?

This is the real world, LaVonne.
This was one of our caseworkers.
Telling us how to live our life.
What do you think of the expert?

Albert Einstein writes:

Not that Doug needs much help, but a connected idea about
foster kids having a higher incident of removal:
Doug suggests that they are ""watched"" more and I agree.
I have seen indications and attitudes that go even further.
CPS caseworkers PRESUME matter of fact that anybody who
was a foster kid will abuse their own kids. It's not so,
but it's one of those INDICATORS on the rotten lists
of INDICATORS that unlicensed untrained caseworkers use
when they practice their voodoo to "get the child abusers."

Hi, Albert!

Just so.

Most children are forcibly removed from their homes based upon perceived
"risk" rather than actual abuse and neglect. Many cases are substantiated
on the basis of "risk assessments" (the instruments to which you refer) and
other children are removed from homes CPS itself unsubstantiated for even
risk of maltreatment.

Risk assessment tools used by CPS workers are scoresheets that attempt to
relatively measure so-called "indicators" in a number of domains that could,
maybe, sometime in the future contribute to neglect or abuse. The
instruments are not research-based and have been universally attacked by
social scientists since their inception. Among other flaws, the instruments
have failed to pass any test of internal reliability and they have never
been generalized to the findings of outcome studies.

The "indicators" are far too general to have any causal link to child
maltreatment. Simply put, ANY household will "score" on some of the
indicators. Whether CPS will sanction the family with more intrusive
"services," the most common of which is foster care, depends on the total
score, which depends on the relative weight given each of the indicators.
Some are scored much higher than others. If a parent is a former foster
child, the family meets the criteria for one of the highest scored
indicators. As a consequence, many children are removed from former foster
children.

CPS considers parents who were former foster children at very high risk of
abusing or neglecting their own children. The agency keeps track of state
wards even after they age out of state custody (foster care). In many
jurisdictions, the CPS intake worker will get a red flag from the system
that one of the reported parents is a former foster child when the report
comes into the local office. The intake worker will so alert the CPS worker
assigned to investigate or assess the report, so the CPS worker knows before
they leave the office that the family they are out to investigate is headed
by a former foster child.

In my opinion, it is just one of many ways foster children are descriminated
against by the system. Schools in many states are automatically notified of
students subject to child abuse/neglect reports and mention is made in these
automatic reports that the parent is a former foster child. Unfortunately,
schools are usually NOT notified of the disposition of the report
(substantiated or unsubstantiated), leaving it to the imagination of school
administrators whether the child was actually abused. Since the majority of
children subject to the reports are unsubstantiated as even being "at risk"
of maltreatment, a lot of children are treated like "poor little victims" by
staff at school.

Parents who were raised in foster care are much more likely to have their
children forcibly removed by CPS.

It makes one wonder why the system mistrusts its own child-rearing
techniques so much.

Albert Einstein wrote:

LaVonne:
You'd like to see spanking banned to create fear in parents.
What do you think that will breed?

I would not like to see spanking legally banned for the purpose of
creating fear in parents. I would like to see spanking legally banned
for several reasons: One, all adult members of US society are legally
protected from physical assault. Only our most vulnerable members, our
children, remain legally assaultable. Two, legally banning spanking
would change societal norms. Currently, the majority of individuals in
US society believe that children are legally assaultable. Legally
banning spanking would send a clear message that this is no longer
considered acceptable disciplinary practice. Three, legally banning
spanking could lead to parents receiving additional help with parenting
and discipline, providing them with reasons why they should not hit
their children, and outlining alternatives to the practice of spanking

And you seem to think that making it illegal will NOT
mean that kids will be removed. You are really "full of it"
in that regard because they remove right now for things that
are not illegal now. Look at Tere's case of "emotional abuse".
You must have your nose in too many textbooks to realize
what horrors such a law can unleash that make spanking
look like a complete farce. That's a good example of the
"Ivory Tower" complex I mentioned before. Out of touch.

I never said anything about legally banning spanking leading to fewer
removals of children. I said that legally banning spanking would remove
some of the ambuiguity parents currently experience, which each state
having different definitions for abuse, and each social worker having a
different understanding of those laws. I have never advocated for
removal of children for spanking.

You operate on THEORY, which is BS out here in the REAL world.

I operate in reality. Reality bans assault for all individuals of US
society over the age of 18, including hardened criminals. Reality would
protect children, our most vulnerable and innocent members of society,
at at least the same level that violent criminals enjoy.

LaVonne