A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 8th 03, 07:39 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default | Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

On 08 Sep 2003 17:12:08 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...0906sep06,0,54
40815.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

Ex-Giants defensive end sentenced in child's death





September 6, 2003, 1:48 PM EDT

PATERSON, N.J. -- Former New York Giants defensive end Jeremiah

Parker received
the maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for his role in the death

of an
ex-girlfriend's 4-year-old son.

Parker was sentenced Friday, two months after a jury convicted him of
endangering the welfare of a child in the second degree. The same

jury
acquitted him of first- and second-degree manslaughter.

He also pleaded guilty Friday to marijuana possession and received a

six-month
sentence, which will run concurrently with the longer one. He must

serve five
years before being eligible for parole.

Since his conviction, Parker has been held at the Passaic County

Jail.

His attorney, Gerald Saluti, called the sentence "ridiculous" and

said he would
file an appeal on Monday, including a request for bail.

Saluti said the judge relied too heavily on testimony from Parker's
ex-girlfriend, Tauleah Kelly, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in

January and
was sentenced to seven years in prison.

Prosecutors contended that 4-year-old Elijah Kelly endured two months

of abuse
from both Parker and his own mother before he died May 14, 2001.

"It was a house of horrors at 305 Heights Drive, and Elijah Kelly was

horrified
every day," Senior Assistant Prosecutor Michael DeMarco said.

According to testimony and statements, Parker regularly spanked

Elijah, twice
hit the boy with a belt and punished him by placing him in a

refrigerator in
the garage at his Haledon condominium.

In April 2001, Elijah was taken to the hospital with a head injury

and,
spotting healed scars, medical staff reported the situation to the

state
Division of Youth and Family Services.

A DYFS caseworker did not see any new injuries during a visit three

days before
Elijah went to the hospital for the last time.

The Giants drafted Parker in the seventh round in 2000, but he played

just four
games as a defensive end due to an injury and Elijah's death.

His defense attorney sought leniency during sentencing hearings,

saying Parker
overcame a rough background in Richmond, Calif., and had no previous

brushes
with the law.

Parker attended the University of California at Berkeley to stay

close to his
brother, who was paralyzed in a drive-by shooting, Saluti said.

"He pulled himself through all of that without a scratch from the

justice
system," Saluti said.

Parker's current girlfriend, Catherine Cruz, testified that he would

never harm
her 5-year-old daughter.

"Day after day, she continually asks for Mr. Parker," Cruz said

through tears.
"I lie to her. I tell her Mr. Parker is working. I become speechless.

.... Never
will I give this man up in a million years. He has suffered for so

long and
lost so much."

But Superior Court Judge Randolph Subryan told Parker that the court

had no
mercy to give him.

"You gave none," Subryan said, "and you deserve none."


....Hmmmm did the glamour of the football player cloud the assessment

of the
DYFS worker?


Three days before the events that put the child in the hospital?

Could be, could be.

Could The Plant be trying to put doubts in folks minds? Could The
Plant be hoping they won't know they are being throughly patronized?
Could be. Could be.

Or, thinking in another vein, do DYFS interventions make living
conditions more difficult for children?


CPS caused the injuries? How would they go about doing that? I mean,
even you had a tiny bit of credibility when you tried to claim that
CPS interventions might have some deleterious affect on families with
teens, but in this case? A tiny child against a big athlete?
Puuuuuleeeeeeeze.

Or is the man just a large bully? Were family called in for kinship

care?

What is your point? Just run out of smoke for your screen?

Lots of questions in how DYFS handled this family.


But few from you that have any sense to them.

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child

deaths in the
US.


What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
lessons from Duplicitous Doug?

Why do you say, "seems" instead of making a clear statement?

Why do you use the word "occurance" when the proper measure would and
should be "rate"?

In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
course, increased tremendously.

That shows something is keeping the rate down.

Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.

In other words, some factor IS in fact holding down the *rate* of
child deaths.

Is that factor you and your cronies, or is it CPS?

If you think it is you, et al, tell us why.

If you think it ISN'T CPS we'd also like to see your data and
supporting evidence.

Have a nice rainy fertilizer enriched day, Plant.

Kane
  #2  
Old September 8th 03, 08:14 PM
Fern5827
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default | Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

Kane your comments are inane and not apropos to the case at all.

DYFS was involved for a while.

....Hmmmm did the glamour of the football player cloud the assessment

of the
DYFS worker?


Three days before the events that put the child in the hospital?

Could be, could be.


Already case had been opened. Ongoing.

http://www.vocalinfo.org NY site for parents and families harmed by ACS,
DYFS. etc.
  #3  
Old September 8th 03, 10:38 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default | Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

(Kane) wrote in message . com...
On 08 Sep 2003 17:12:08 GMT,
(Fern5827) wrote:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...0906sep06,0,54
40815.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

Ex-Giants defensive end sentenced in child's death





September 6, 2003, 1:48 PM EDT

PATERSON, N.J. -- Former New York Giants defensive end Jeremiah

Parker received
the maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for his role in the death

of an
ex-girlfriend's 4-year-old son.

Parker was sentenced Friday, two months after a jury convicted him of
endangering the welfare of a child in the second degree. The same

jury
acquitted him of first- and second-degree manslaughter.

He also pleaded guilty Friday to marijuana possession and received a

six-month
sentence, which will run concurrently with the longer one. He must

serve five
years before being eligible for parole.

Since his conviction, Parker has been held at the Passaic County

Jail.

His attorney, Gerald Saluti, called the sentence "ridiculous" and

said he would
file an appeal on Monday, including a request for bail.

Saluti said the judge relied too heavily on testimony from Parker's
ex-girlfriend, Tauleah Kelly, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in

January and
was sentenced to seven years in prison.

Prosecutors contended that 4-year-old Elijah Kelly endured two months

of abuse
from both Parker and his own mother before he died May 14, 2001.

"It was a house of horrors at 305 Heights Drive, and Elijah Kelly was

horrified
every day," Senior Assistant Prosecutor Michael DeMarco said.

According to testimony and statements, Parker regularly spanked

Elijah, twice
hit the boy with a belt and punished him by placing him in a

refrigerator in
the garage at his Haledon condominium.

In April 2001, Elijah was taken to the hospital with a head injury

and,
spotting healed scars, medical staff reported the situation to the

state
Division of Youth and Family Services.

A DYFS caseworker did not see any new injuries during a visit three

days before
Elijah went to the hospital for the last time.

The Giants drafted Parker in the seventh round in 2000, but he played

just four
games as a defensive end due to an injury and Elijah's death.

His defense attorney sought leniency during sentencing hearings,

saying Parker
overcame a rough background in Richmond, Calif., and had no previous

brushes
with the law.

Parker attended the University of California at Berkeley to stay

close to his
brother, who was paralyzed in a drive-by shooting, Saluti said.

"He pulled himself through all of that without a scratch from the

justice
system," Saluti said.

Parker's current girlfriend, Catherine Cruz, testified that he would

never harm
her 5-year-old daughter.

"Day after day, she continually asks for Mr. Parker," Cruz said

through tears.
"I lie to her. I tell her Mr. Parker is working. I become speechless.

... Never
will I give this man up in a million years. He has suffered for so

long and
lost so much."

But Superior Court Judge Randolph Subryan told Parker that the court

had no
mercy to give him.

"You gave none," Subryan said, "and you deserve none."


....Hmmmm did the glamour of the football player cloud the assessment

of the
DYFS worker?


Three days before the events that put the child in the hospital?

Could be, could be.

Could The Plant be trying to put doubts in folks minds? Could The
Plant be hoping they won't know they are being throughly patronized?
Could be. Could be.

Or, thinking in another vein, do DYFS interventions make living
conditions more difficult for children?


CPS caused the injuries? How would they go about doing that? I mean,
even you had a tiny bit of credibility when you tried to claim that
CPS interventions might have some deleterious affect on families with
teens, but in this case? A tiny child against a big athlete?
Puuuuuleeeeeeeze.

Or is the man just a large bully? Were family called in for kinship

care?

What is your point? Just run out of smoke for your screen?

Lots of questions in how DYFS handled this family.


But few from you that have any sense to them.

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child

deaths in the
US.


What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
lessons from Duplicitous Doug?

Why do you say, "seems" instead of making a clear statement?

Why do you use the word "occurance" when the proper measure would and
should be "rate"?

In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
course, increased tremendously.

That shows something is keeping the rate down.

Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.

In other words, some factor IS in fact holding down the *rate* of
child deaths.

Is that factor you and your cronies, or is it CPS?

If you think it is you, et al, tell us why.

If you think it ISN'T CPS we'd also like to see your data and
supporting evidence.

Have a nice rainy fertilizer enriched day, Plant.

Kane


Notice, folks, how carefully The Plant skirted answering my refuting
It's nonsense. Notice It's clever snippage with out showing the
removal of my refuting It's nonsense. Here's the reply, such as it is:

On 08 Sep 2003 19:14:25 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Kane your comments are inane and not apropos to the case at all.


Really? I'll let the reader judge the inanity, but I'll point out I
answered EVERY claim you made using the evidence you supplied (none
for the most part) and still kicked your silly Pumpkin ass.

You haven't supplied "the case" just a passing referance. Do you
always assume others know what goes on in your mind without you
actually revealing it?

Look THAT up in the DSM IV.


DYFS was involved for a while.


Yes.....................and.....................

Scared to put out all the information. Relying on biased media info or
partial information (your usual MO)?

....Hmmmm did the glamour of the football player cloud the assessment

of the
DYFS worker?


Three days before the events that put the child in the hospital?

Could be, could be.


Already case had been opened. Ongoing.


So tell us, are you going to actually provide some information or
continue to patronizingly mess with the minds of those who might know
what a thoroughgoing ditz you really are?

Kane
  #4  
Old September 11th 03, 09:35 PM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

Fern wrote:

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child

deaths in the
US.


To which, Kane responds:

What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
lessons from Duplicitous Doug?


Hi, Kane!

Who could resist such an invitation. Fern did not need to be "careful" in
her wording. The RATE of child fatalities due to abuse/neglect has not
diminished. Neither has the occurance.

Why do you say, "seems" instead of making a clear statement?


No need to say, "seems." It is a fact.

Why do you use the word "occurance" when the proper measure would and
should be "rate"?


The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

These rates mark an increase over previous years.

Child abuse rates overall have increased to 12.4 per 1,000, up from 12.2 per
1,000 children in 2000.

In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
course, increased tremendously.


The occurance has raised, as has the population. The rate has increased.

Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.


1) No, the rate went up in 2001.
2) Do you have a source for your unattributed claim that the economy
increases
child abuse?

In other words, some factor IS in fact holding down the *rate* of
child deaths.


No, rate of child fatalities has gone up.


  #5  
Old September 12th 03, 05:11 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:35:59 GMT, "Doug" wrote:

Fern wrote:

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child

deaths in the
US.


To which, Kane responds:

What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
lessons from Duplicitous Doug?


Hi, Kane!

Who could resist such an invitation. Fern did not need to be "careful" in
her wording. The RATE of child fatalities due to abuse/neglect has not
diminished. Neither has the occurance.


Oh, The Plant posted something untrue then?

And you aren't going after IT for that error? Hmmm.. wonder why.

Why do you say, "seems" instead of making a clear statement?


No need to say, "seems." It is a fact.

Why do you use the word "occurance" when the proper measure would and
should be "rate"?


The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

These rates mark an increase over previous years.

Child abuse rates overall have increased to 12.4 per 1,000, up from 12.2 per
1,000 children in 2000.

In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
course, increased tremendously.


The occurance has raised, as has the population. The rate has increased.

Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.


1) No, the rate went up in 2001.
2) Do you have a source for your unattributed claim that the economy
increases
child abuse?

In other words, some factor IS in fact holding down the *rate* of
child deaths.


No, rate of child fatalities has gone up.


Sucker. Look at what you just proved compared to prior claims.

Kane
  #6  
Old September 12th 03, 07:03 AM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

Fern wrote:

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child
deaths in the
US.


To which, Kane responds:

What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
lessons from Duplicitous Doug?


Hi, Kane!

Who could resist such an invitation. Fern did not need to be "careful"

in
her wording. The RATE of child fatalities due to abuse/neglect has not
diminished. Neither has the occurance.


Oh, The Plant posted something untrue then?


Hi, Kane!

No, what Fern posted is true. Your challenge -- that while occurance of
child fatalities has gone up, the RATE of fatalities has decreased -- is
untrue.

In point of fact, the RATE of fatalities due to abuse/neglect increased in
2001. As mentioned, in that year 1.81 per 100,000 children died as the
result of abuse/neglect inflicted in the general population and 3.40 per
100,000 children died as the result of abuse/neglect inflicted in foster
care.

Fern's initial statement was:

"Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child
deaths in the US."

She was correct.

Rates of fatalities (which, of course, adjust for population increase) have
gone up.

And you aren't going after IT for that error? Hmmm.. wonder why.


....Because Fern did not make an error. She was correct. In fact, child
fatalities due to abuse and neglect have not only increased in occurance, as
she states, but also in rate.


  #7  
Old September 12th 03, 12:47 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 06:03:10 GMT, "Doug"
wrote:

Fern wrote:

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of

child
deaths in the
US.

To which, Kane responds:

What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been

taking
lessons from Duplicitous Doug?

Hi, Kane!

Who could resist such an invitation. Fern did not need to be

"careful"
in
her wording. The RATE of child fatalities due to abuse/neglect

has not
diminished. Neither has the occurance.


Oh, The Plant posted something untrue then?


Hi, Kane!

No, what Fern posted is true. Your challenge -- that while occurance

of
child fatalities has gone up, the RATE of fatalities has decreased --

is
untrue.

In point of fact, the RATE of fatalities due to abuse/neglect

increased in
2001. As mentioned, in that year 1.81 per 100,000 children died as

the
result of abuse/neglect inflicted in the general population and 3.40

per
100,000 children died as the result of abuse/neglect inflicted in

foster
care.

Fern's initial statement was:

"Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child
deaths in the US."

She was correct.

Rates of fatalities (which, of course, adjust for population

increase) have
gone up.

And you aren't going after IT for that error? Hmmm.. wonder why.


...Because Fern did not make an error. She was correct. In fact,

child
fatalities due to abuse and neglect have not only increased in

occurance, as
she states, but also in rate.


You should call the cops, Doug. Someone has been posting under your
addy and refuting your claims. Tsk.

Subject: New Child Welfare Head in Florida Is Drawing Fire
From: "Doug"
Date: 8/19/2002 1:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: nk.net

............................

In cases of serious child abuse, the argument is moot. Police are
already actively involved in investigating (and DA's prosecuting)
child abuse and neglect. Most states require that CPS agencies notify
police of child abuse reports they receive and specially trained
detectives conduct independent or collateral investigations.
Naturallly, CPS caseworkers have no authority over police or the
prosecutors who use the fruits of the investigation to bring child
abusers to trial. Criminal investigation and prosecution requires
that caregivers be afforded due process of law and, of course, the
jury trials are open to the public.

The involvement of police has not impacted the fatality rate of
children who are abused/neglected. The per capita rate of child
fatalities due to abuse/neglect has remained relatively constant for
decades.

...........................................

Not your words, Doug?

Can't have it both ways, Doug, or can you?

My point wasn't that there was no change, or even that there was, but
that The Plant, and you to follow, seem to be extremely careful to
create an impression that the fault lies with CPS.

You don't know that, and neither does It.

It's like your old argument that foster parents cause more fatalities
of children than bio parents, when the data is clearly labeled as IN
foster care NOT by foster caregivers. But BY bio parents, not IN the
care of the bio parents.

Such careful wording by reporters is noteworthy, and makes it rather
clear that they aren't counting convictions of fosters, but they very
likely ARE of bio parents.

The reporting and harvesting of data isn't quite as simple as you'd
like folks to believe.

Your assumptive attempts to isolate bits and pieces of data and con
the reader is duly noted.

This is a field with massive amounts of data and many varying opinions
and analyses of such. It makes it fertile ground for grow nonsense
Trees. Like yours and The Plants.

Though it's terribly heavy going I recommend a visit to

http://tinyurl.com/n44h

if for no other reason than to see the enormity of this field of
interest.

And for those with a bent to research I'm sure they'll find you are
full of ****. At least part of the time and from place to place,
source to source, analyst to analyst.

It isn't that data can't be found that you quote...but that data can
be found to support many points of view, all peer reviewed, and nicely
packaged.

In other words, YOU, gentle reader, just as Doug, can find something
to support your position no matter how much you change it from time to
time. R R R R.

A favorite hobby of mine, when reading such data sources is to note
things about collection and source, and what is missing. Some of the
data you and I have gone over before had massive amounts of missing
reportage from various states but you insisted that the data had
validity for your point of view, but not mine. Consistency is a
continuing and unsolved challenge.

More of your nonsense.

Kane
  #8  
Old September 13th 03, 10:59 PM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

Fern had written in a previous post:

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of

child
deaths in the
US.


To which, Kane had responded:

In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
course, increased tremendously.


Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.


I then replied that the RATE of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect
has NOT gone down, as Kane claims. His claim that occurance has remained
steady while rates have gone down because of population growth is incorrect.

Fern's statement, which Kane refutes, is correct. In fact, the rate of
fatalities slightly increased. So, both occurance and rate slightly
increased in 2001.

My point was that Fern's initial comment that fatalities have NOT gone down
was correct -- both in terms of rates and occurances -- Kane's refutation
was incorrect.

Secondily, I asked Kane in my post for a source to his claim that fatality
rates normally go up and down in correlation with the economy. While he
did not respond to that request, Kane switches in his next post from calling
Fern names for posting facts that he wrongly disputes to wrongly challenging
my comments.

You should call the cops, Doug. Someone has been posting under your
addy and refuting your claims. Tsk.


To pull off this awkward attempt, Kane digs back and retrieves a post I
wrote more than a year ago -- 8 months BEFORE data on 2001 fatalities were
published.


Subject: New Child Welfare Head in Florida Is Drawing Fire
From: "Doug"
Date: 8/19/2002 1:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: nk.net


Note the date of my post: 8/19/2002.
........................

In cases of serious child abuse, the argument is moot. Police are
already actively involved in investigating (and DA's prosecuting)
child abuse and neglect. Most states require that CPS agencies notify
police of child abuse reports they receive and specially trained
detectives conduct independent or collateral investigations.
Naturallly, CPS caseworkers have no authority over police or the
prosecutors who use the fruits of the investigation to bring child
abusers to trial. Criminal investigation and prosecution requires
that caregivers be afforded due process of law and, of course, the
jury trials are open to the public.

The involvement of police has not impacted the fatality rate of
children who are abused/neglected. The per capita rate of child
fatalities due to abuse/neglect has remained relatively constant for
decades.

..........................................

Not your words, Doug?


Yes, my words, Kane. I appreciate you republishing them. They were all
factual and accurate a year ago and they still are for that reporting
period. At that time, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System was
reporting on child fatalities through 2000.

In April, 2003, the US Department of Health and Human Services published the
NCANDS data on child fatalities for 2001. In the September, 2003 post to
which you respond, I wrote that there was an increase in child fatalities
due to abuse and neglect from 2000 to 2001, citing that very source. Here
is my exact quote:

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

Can't have it both ways, Doug, or can you?


LOL!

Well, yes we can, Kane. You see, in 2000, the child fatality rate was
relatively steady and, in 2001, there was an increase in child fatality rate
..

Did you think you were fooling someone? You reached back for a post I made
more than a year ago citing an entirely different source for an entirely
different year of occurances.

My suggestion would be that, in the future, you consider citing the sources
of your claims when you refute someone or quote them, as you have done
above. If you do so, instead of "shooting from the hip" in your zeal to
attack another member of this group, you may discover in looking for the
source that what you are about to claim is incorrect. Secondily, my
suggestion would be that you check my citations. If you had done so, you
would have realized that two different sources (and reporting years) were
involved in my post of a year ago and the present one.

My point wasn't that there was no change, or even that there was, but
that The Plant, and you to follow, seem to be extremely careful to
create an impression that the fault lies with CPS.


No, your point, based upon the false assumption that fatality rates had gone
down, was that CPS had something to do with those statistics. You asked
Fern whether she credited the "decrease" to organizations she supports or to
CPS.

Now that we have learned that those rates did NOT go down, my question of
you would be do you think CPS or this other organizations are to blame for
that situation?

You don't know that, and neither does It.


What do you wish to accomplish by attempting to dehumanize another human
being by using the word "it" instead of "she?" How does such uncooth,
childish language reflect upon anyone else but who uses it? Come on. You
disagree with another member of this forum. No problem. In this particular
case, she happens to be right in a dispute over some numbers. Big deal.
You have been right on other issues. Why not stick to those issues...or
numbers...rather than personal attacks?

It's like your old argument that foster parents cause more fatalities
of children than bio parents, when the data is clearly labeled as IN
foster care NOT by foster caregivers. But BY bio parents, not IN the
care of the bio parents.


My statement, reprinted yet again above with citation, was a comparison
between to fatalities due to abuse/neglect occurring in the general
population and fatalities due to abuse/neglect occuring in foster care.

The language in the source cited decidedly DOES NOT say "But by bio parents"
as you, again, falsely claim. On the one side, the data measures ALL
fatalities in the general population, which includes abuse neglect committed
by ALL caregivers, INCLUDING foster caregivers -- NOT just parents. The
data on the other side measures fatalities occurring as the result of abuse
and neglect in foster care.

Here is my exact quote yet again, complete with citations.

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

Such careful wording by reporters is noteworthy, and makes it rather
clear that they aren't counting convictions of fosters, but they very
likely ARE of bio parents.


Nope. The NCANDS data does not count *convictions* in either of the
categories. It does not even consider criminal charges. NCANDS data is
based upon data submitted by state CPS agencies and their civil findings.

Your claim is yet again false.

The reporting and harvesting of data isn't quite as simple as you'd
like folks to believe.


Who are you talking to here, Kane? It is good thing for you to keep in
mind.

Your assumptive attempts to isolate bits and pieces of data and con
the reader is duly noted.


Please review the thread again. As we have seen above, it has been your
inaccurate assumptions that have been problematic. You attempted to dispute
valid data offered by another poster with a false assumption and then went
on to make charges against what she had written based upon your false
assumption. You go further still to isolate one of my posts made to this
newsgroup in August of last year to attempt to discredit my statement based
on current data made available 8 months after the post you selectively
pasted.

Who is attempting to con who?

This is a field with massive amounts of data and many varying opinions
and analyses of such. It makes it fertile ground for grow nonsense
Trees. Like yours and The Plants.


Yes. Massive pools of data. Please feel free to post your claims based
upon the data and cite that data so that we can all see the basis of your
point. Thus far, all you have done is shoot from the hip with assumptions.
These assumptions have been proven to be incorrect.

I agree with you that the available data can lead to a writer to reach many
conclusions. I try to cite the source of the data I draw upon to make my
conclusions. If you do the same, I will be able to see where you are coming
from. Your attempt to challenge the comparative data in this post fails
because, as pointed out, you assumed language that was not in the source
material cited. You *assumed* the categories and sources of the data had
something to do with criminal *convictions* when the data in both categories
(foster care and general population) has nothing to do with criminal
charges, let alone convictions.

Though it's terribly heavy going I recommend a visit to

http://tinyurl.com/n44h

if for no other reason than to see the enormity of this field of
interest.


I will go there. Are you citing any specific information from this source
to support claims that you have made? If so, please restate the those
positions you have taken here that are supported by this source.

And for those with a bent to research I'm sure they'll find you are
full of ****. At least part of the time and from place to place,
source to source, analyst to analyst.


I am certain that I will make mistakes from time to time. I am a human
being, so mistakes can be a birth defect. If I do, I would hope a reader
would dispute my conclusions based upon cited sources of information or data
that challenges my conclusions, rather than shooting from the hip with
assumptions that have no basis in fact. I would rather spend time here
discussing the issues than disproving your assumptions.

It isn't that data can't be found that you quote...but that data can
be found to support many points of view, all peer reviewed, and nicely
packaged.


Where is it?

Please...share it with us in the same way that I share the data I have
found. I would be overjoyed to review data that challenges the data that I
have cited. It's the only way I can learn more about child welfare. A
discussion that draws upon multiple sources of data would be enlightening
for all of us in this forum.

In other words, YOU, gentle reader, just as Doug, can find something
to support your position no matter how much you change it from time to
time. R R R R.


As clearly documented above, I have not in any way changed my position
regarding child fatalities due to abuse and neglect. I have, however, drawn
upon new data as it has become available, citing each source separately. In
April of 2003, data on the year 2001 became available and I cited it in
making a comparision to 2000.

A favorite hobby of mine, when reading such data sources is to note
things about collection and source, and what is missing. Some of the
data you and I have gone over before had massive amounts of missing
reportage from various states but you insisted that the data had
validity for your point of view, but not mine. Consistency is a
continuing and unsolved challenge.


What data are you talking about, Kane? The data for the immediate issue --
child fatalities due to abuse and neglect -- is not missing "massive amounts
of reportage from various states." If you could specify what positions I
have taken based upon missing data and cite sources of that data, I will be
able to respond. It is impossible to respond to shoot from the hip
generalities.



  #9  
Old September 13th 03, 11:43 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:59:05 GMT, "Doug"
wrote:

Fern had written in a previous post:

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of

child
deaths in the
US.


To which, Kane had responded:

In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the

years
the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
course, increased tremendously.


Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.


I then replied that the RATE of child fatalities due to abuse and

neglect
has NOT gone down, as Kane claims. His claim that occurance has

remained
steady while rates have gone down because of population growth is

incorrect.

Fern's statement, which Kane refutes, is correct. In fact, the rate

of
fatalities slightly increased. So, both occurance and rate slightly
increased in 2001.

My point was that Fern's initial comment that fatalities have NOT

gone down
was correct -- both in terms of rates and occurances -- Kane's

refutation
was incorrect.

Secondily, I asked Kane in my post for a source to his claim that

fatality
rates normally go up and down in correlation with the economy.

While he
did not respond to that request, Kane switches in his next post from

calling
Fern names for posting facts that he wrongly disputes to wrongly

challenging
my comments.

You should call the cops, Doug. Someone has been posting under your
addy and refuting your claims. Tsk.


To pull off this awkward attempt, Kane digs back and retrieves a post

I
wrote more than a year ago -- 8 months BEFORE data on 2001 fatalities

were
published.


Subject: New Child Welfare Head in Florida Is Drawing Fire
From: "Doug"
Date: 8/19/2002 1:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: nk.net


Note the date of my post: 8/19/2002.
.......................

In cases of serious child abuse, the argument is moot. Police are
already actively involved in investigating (and DA's prosecuting)
child abuse and neglect. Most states require that CPS agencies

notify
police of child abuse reports they receive and specially trained
detectives conduct independent or collateral investigations.
Naturallly, CPS caseworkers have no authority over police or the
prosecutors who use the fruits of the investigation to bring child
abusers to trial. Criminal investigation and prosecution requires
that caregivers be afforded due process of law and, of course, the
jury trials are open to the public.

The involvement of police has not impacted the fatality rate of
children who are abused/neglected. The per capita rate of child
fatalities due to abuse/neglect has remained relatively constant

for
decades.

..........................................

Not your words, Doug?


Yes, my words, Kane. I appreciate you republishing them. They were

all
factual and accurate a year ago and they still are for that reporting
period. At that time, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data

System was
reporting on child fatalities through 2000.

In April, 2003, the US Department of Health and Human Services

published the
NCANDS data on child fatalities for 2001. In the September, 2003

post to
which you respond, I wrote that there was an increase in child

fatalities
due to abuse and neglect from 2000 to 2001, citing that very source.

Here
is my exact quote:

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in

foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

Can't have it both ways, Doug, or can you?


LOL!

Well, yes we can, Kane. You see, in 2000, the child fatality rate

was
relatively steady and, in 2001, there was an increase in child

fatality rate
.

Did you think you were fooling someone? You reached back for a post

I made
more than a year ago citing an entirely different source for an

entirely
different year of occurances.

My suggestion would be that, in the future, you consider citing the

sources
of your claims when you refute someone or quote them, as you have

done
above. If you do so, instead of "shooting from the hip" in your zeal

to
attack another member of this group, you may discover in looking for

the
source that what you are about to claim is incorrect. Secondily, my
suggestion would be that you check my citations. If you had done so,

you
would have realized that two different sources (and reporting years)

were
involved in my post of a year ago and the present one.

My point wasn't that there was no change, or even that there was,

but
that The Plant, and you to follow, seem to be extremely careful to
create an impression that the fault lies with CPS.


No, your point, based upon the false assumption that fatality rates

had gone
down, was that CPS had something to do with those statistics. You

asked
Fern whether she credited the "decrease" to organizations she

supports or to
CPS.

Now that we have learned that those rates did NOT go down, my

question of
you would be do you think CPS or this other organizations are to

blame for
that situation?

You don't know that, and neither does It.


What do you wish to accomplish by attempting to dehumanize another

human
being by using the word "it" instead of "she?" How does such

uncooth,
childish language reflect upon anyone else but who uses it? Come on.

You
disagree with another member of this forum. No problem. In this

particular
case, she happens to be right in a dispute over some numbers. Big

deal.
You have been right on other issues. Why not stick to those

issues...or
numbers...rather than personal attacks?

It's like your old argument that foster parents cause more

fatalities
of children than bio parents, when the data is clearly labeled as

IN
foster care NOT by foster caregivers. But BY bio parents, not IN

the
care of the bio parents.


My statement, reprinted yet again above with citation, was a

comparison
between to fatalities due to abuse/neglect occurring in the general
population and fatalities due to abuse/neglect occuring in foster

care.

The language in the source cited decidedly DOES NOT say "But by bio

parents"
as you, again, falsely claim. On the one side, the data measures ALL
fatalities in the general population, which includes abuse neglect

committed
by ALL caregivers, INCLUDING foster caregivers -- NOT just parents.

The
data on the other side measures fatalities occurring as the result of

abuse
and neglect in foster care.

Here is my exact quote yet again, complete with citations.

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81

per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in

foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

Such careful wording by reporters is noteworthy, and makes it

rather
clear that they aren't counting convictions of fosters, but they

very
likely ARE of bio parents.


Nope. The NCANDS data does not count *convictions* in either of the
categories. It does not even consider criminal charges. NCANDS data

is
based upon data submitted by state CPS agencies and their civil

findings.

Your claim is yet again false.

The reporting and harvesting of data isn't quite as simple as you'd
like folks to believe.


Who are you talking to here, Kane? It is good thing for you to keep

in
mind.

Your assumptive attempts to isolate bits and pieces of data and con
the reader is duly noted.


Please review the thread again. As we have seen above, it has been

your
inaccurate assumptions that have been problematic. You attempted to

dispute
valid data offered by another poster with a false assumption and then

went
on to make charges against what she had written based upon your false
assumption. You go further still to isolate one of my posts made to

this
newsgroup in August of last year to attempt to discredit my statement

based
on current data made available 8 months after the post you

selectively
pasted.

Who is attempting to con who?

This is a field with massive amounts of data and many varying

opinions
and analyses of such. It makes it fertile ground for grow nonsense
Trees. Like yours and The Plants.


Yes. Massive pools of data. Please feel free to post your claims

based
upon the data and cite that data so that we can all see the basis of

your
point. Thus far, all you have done is shoot from the hip with

assumptions.
These assumptions have been proven to be incorrect.

I agree with you that the available data can lead to a writer to

reach many
conclusions. I try to cite the source of the data I draw upon to

make my
conclusions. If you do the same, I will be able to see where you are

coming
from. Your attempt to challenge the comparative data in this post

fails
because, as pointed out, you assumed language that was not in the

source
material cited. You *assumed* the categories and sources of the data

had
something to do with criminal *convictions* when the data in both

categories
(foster care and general population) has nothing to do with criminal
charges, let alone convictions.

Though it's terribly heavy going I recommend a visit to

http://tinyurl.com/n44h

if for no other reason than to see the enormity of this field of
interest.


I will go there. Are you citing any specific information from this

source
to support claims that you have made? If so, please restate the

those
positions you have taken here that are supported by this source.

And for those with a bent to research I'm sure they'll find you are
full of ****. At least part of the time and from place to place,
source to source, analyst to analyst.


I am certain that I will make mistakes from time to time. I am a

human
being, so mistakes can be a birth defect. If I do, I would hope a

reader
would dispute my conclusions based upon cited sources of information

or data
that challenges my conclusions, rather than shooting from the hip

with
assumptions that have no basis in fact. I would rather spend time

here
discussing the issues than disproving your assumptions.

It isn't that data can't be found that you quote...but that data

can
be found to support many points of view, all peer reviewed, and

nicely
packaged.


Where is it?

Please...share it with us in the same way that I share the data I

have
found. I would be overjoyed to review data that challenges the data

that I
have cited. It's the only way I can learn more about child welfare.

A
discussion that draws upon multiple sources of data would be

enlightening
for all of us in this forum.

In other words, YOU, gentle reader, just as Doug, can find

something
to support your position no matter how much you change it from time

to
time. R R R R.


As clearly documented above, I have not in any way changed my

position
regarding child fatalities due to abuse and neglect. I have,

however, drawn
upon new data as it has become available, citing each source

separately. In
April of 2003, data on the year 2001 became available and I cited it

in
making a comparision to 2000.

A favorite hobby of mine, when reading such data sources is to note
things about collection and source, and what is missing. Some of

the
data you and I have gone over before had massive amounts of missing
reportage from various states but you insisted that the data had
validity for your point of view, but not mine. Consistency is a
continuing and unsolved challenge.


What data are you talking about, Kane? The data for the immediate

issue --
child fatalities due to abuse and neglect -- is not missing "massive

amounts
of reportage from various states." If you could specify what

positions I
have taken based upon missing data and cite sources of that data, I

will be
able to respond. It is impossible to respond to shoot from the hip
generalities.


So far, Doug, you have stuck to your story of fatalies in foster care
being the same as fatalities caused by foster caregivers.

No such information is available.

The chart in question said clearly, By Bio parents, and IN foster
care. They were not being COMPARED, yet you continually, along with
other fools use data that does not say what you claim it does to make
a claim that foster caregivers have a higher rate of killing children
than bio families do.

Unproven and you won't admit it. ALL your claims are poisoned by that
stubborn refusal to differentiate between IN an BY.

The chart cited was not posted for such comparisions and you know it.

And in this instance we are discussing, the claim isn't even what you
say it is. We aren't discussing up or down, but what The Plant's
intent it.

And yours.

Your campaign to turn child welfare into a fascist exercise has been
well documented here, by you.

The bottom line is you are pushing for a police state.

Go **** up a rope.

Kane
  #10  
Old September 15th 03, 03:37 PM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

Kane writes:

So far, Doug, you have stuck to your story of fatalies in foster care
being the same as fatalities caused by foster caregivers.

No such information is available.

The chart in question said clearly, By Bio parents, and IN foster
care. They were not being COMPARED, yet you continually, along with
other fools use data that does not say what you claim it does to make
a claim that foster caregivers have a higher rate of killing children
than bio families do.


Hi, Kane!

My statement and the cited reference distinctly DID NOT say BY bio-parents.
The references I cited provided data for fatalities due to abuse/neglect
occurring overall in the general population (including foster care) and
fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care.

Let's take a look at my now thrice-repeated statement with its citations.

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

Let's look at the first reference for the mention of "by bio-parents" you
insist is there.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child

Looking down the USDHHS page referenced above, we come to the pertinent
passage, which I quote exactly.

"For 2001, a national estimate of 1,300 child deaths at a rate of 1.81
children of every 100,000 children in the population died from abuse or
neglect. Many States were able to supplement the automated data from the
child welfare agency with statistics from other agencies in their States.
Included in the reported 1,300 fatalities were 150 fatalities reported from
such agencies as health departments and fatality review boards.

"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the
child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective services
(CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care. Of
these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the coroner's
office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the States
occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting."

Kane, where in this reference is there any mention of "by bio-parents"?
There is no problems with differentiation between "in" and "by" because both
populations are defined by "in."

Unproven and you won't admit it. ALL your claims are poisoned by that
stubborn refusal to differentiate between IN an BY.


The chart cited was not posted for such comparisions and you know it.


The narrative cited does make a comparision. The exact breakdown in foster
care among the 48 states reporting is provided in my second citation.
http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

And in this instance we are discussing, the claim isn't even what you
say it is. We aren't discussing up or down, but what The Plant's
intent it.


We most certainly were discussing up or down.

Fern's initial statement beginning the thread was that occurances of
fatalities due to abuse and neglect had not gone down. You inaccurately
challenged her assertion by stating that, since population had gone up, the
RATE of fatalities had gone down. You called her names for that. I replied
that, in fact, the RATE of fatalities had not gone down . . . that you were
wrong.

And yours.

Your campaign to turn child welfare into a fascist exercise has been
well documented here, by you.


How is reporting the accurate number of child fatalities due to abuse or
neglect a "fascist exercise?" Are you saying that if rates of fatalities
have not gone down, as you inaccurately claimed, then child welfare practice
is fascist? Or are you saying that the claim that child welfare agencies
have been unsuccessful in reducing child fatalities is the same as calling
those agencies fascist?

The bottom line is you are pushing for a police state.


LOL! Holding CPS agencies accountable for protecting children against
lethal child abuse is a call for a police state? Expecting that children
placed in the care of state agencies will not be killed by their caretakers
is pushing for a police state?

I think the thrust of the discussion in this thread has been reportage of
the number of children who die at the hands of a police state.

Go **** up a rope.


I would be willing to give it a try if such an action would bring back any
of these children. But it won't. All we can collectively do is work toward
reform of the child welfare system so that increasing numbers of children do
not perish in the future.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.