| ACS NY "Child welfare agencies get bad press"

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:39:41 -0500, "bobb"
wrote:

Doug clarified a point by explaination...

"Keep in mind that disruption refers to an adoption that fails during
the
time it is being considered. Adoptions that fail after they have
been
finalized are referred to as dissolutions."

That is NOT precisely accurate for practical purposes. It is not being
"considered" during the supervisory period, the time from physical
placement to finalization.

While disruption and dissolution usually constitute two different sets
of actions to complete, for all practicial purposes disruption can be
a far more complex event. The state is still the legal custodian of
the child until finalization, but many responsibilities have migrated
to the parents.

An announcement by the parents that they wish to end the placement is
NOT met with a worker showing up to transport the child, but instead
with counseling and support to attempt to keep the placement going
forward.

Dissolution would be entirely without state intervention and soley at
the discretion of the parents. No CPS involvement.

Each has it's own issues of course, but it's a bit misleading to say a
failed "adoption" rather than a failed "placement." The state has huge
responsibilities before finalization they do NOT have afterward.

This topic is rarely discussed and having forgotten about
dissoulution, I
too, lumped all into the single catagory of disruption.

It's not unknown to other foster parents than you.

Nor is it "rarely" discussed. Fosters themselves adopt at a high rate,
over the years a third to half of all adoptions have been by fosters,
and some have fostered children that come to them AFTER a disruption.
Or know other fosters that have.

I know one such that fostered a child that disrupted twice...she
adopted her then herself and the disruptions stopped. Third time the
charm? Or a properly trained (as Dug just recently denied) adoptive
parent...as a foster usually is...about the issues of these children?
My best guess? Training and experince with THESE traumatized children
is vital to success for child and parent.

Perhaps my reason for doing so is, in Illinois, the child must live
with
foster parents for a two year period before the adoption process can
begin.

Do you mean the process of foster-adoption?

That would be strange. In the states I know foster parents are as free
to apply to adopt children NOT in their home as any other citizens.
And adoptive families, not already foster families, are not required
to maintain a two year foster arrangement first. Tell us more.

Given that period of adjustment one might well presume a large
measure of
sucess.

Why would you presume it? It's a matter of record. So is placement
with a relative if the child is already living with the relative.

I wonder if kinship adoption has a comparable lower disruption rate if
the child does NOT know the relative when placed? The state I posted
the stats on for you had a 3.+% adoptive relative without the child
first being in the home. So that does happen.

Sometimes, more rarely, a "kin" finds out about the existance of a
relative child only when the state calls informing them a child is in
state care and custody and the momma finally copped to the existence
of a relative.

I'm still of the opinon that placements will not survive permanacy,
within
age groups, at a greater rate merely because of the legal terms
attached.

Then you would be sadly mistaken.

Titles, terms, labels, WORDS, are extremely important to human beings
in determining their sense of self. We are pack animals. Belonging to
the pack is so vital to us that people can die from isolation from
others as a sole condition of health.

Belonging is important. To a family, to a community, to a society. YOU
for instance, gain some of your sense of self, in some small way, from
being here, in this particular community.

But more importantly you identify yourself by membership in your
family, and it's legitimacy in the larger society by the words on
paper that were issued. Presuming your parents were married, you are
legitimate...and that has a lot more to do with who you are than
avoiding the chance of being labelled a *******.

To the child that comes into CPS, are marked and isolated by this act
that makes them different from the majority, now identified as the
child of what the public thinks are all bad people (and no, my
diatribes do NOT mean that I think all parent clients are bpus...but
some are). words..that you are trying to minimize and disempower, can
be everything.

I've had my own confrontations with schools that labelled these
children and marked them as disruptive and difficult when it did not
need to be so.

But words are more than clusters of characters.

Especially when it comes to adoption. Now and then I read of a teen
child that wants a family, finally, that is stable that will let them
leave. Yes, getting a family to "leave" an experience vital to
transition to adulthood.

That is to say, not grow childishly attached to, but to serve as the
anchor point..or better, dock to leave to launch their adult life. And
to be able to come home to just like other kids leave home and return
when they need counsel and comfort, or even a hand.

The age of placement is an important consideration... but kids have
little
use for legalities. If reunification is their intent... it will
happen.

Nonsense. Kid have exactly as much use for legalities as adults do.

I'll bet you've glossed over my recent criticism of Dug where I used
the term, "absolutist."

This claim of yours is a perfect example and something parents do all
to often to chidlren..........forget they will be adults one day and
block them having the experiences now they will need the use of as
adults.

What a child hears now that they "have little use for" can be vital to
them when they are adults. You would deny them the future sense of
legitimacy that comes from the words, often in writen form, of today.

As I age I realize my own birth certificate's importance to a sense of
who I am. Every name on mine is for someone now gone, except for me.
As I get truly old even those I remember from my youth will also be
gone. All if I outlive them.

Their names were written, on forms, at the end of letters, or on the
things they signed that were signficant to me, like my mom and dad's
signatures and the date in their hand writting on the form that
allowed me to enlist under age, are all that I will have left, just as
those things I leave with my signature, words, will someday be much
more important to my children than they are now, even though they are
adults.

Just as you deny realities, like the responsibility schools take on by
LAW for the children in their care, you deny this one.

Think man. Quite sitting around waiting for the Dugs of the world to
come along and patronize you into thinking you think. You get used
that way.

I would also suggest that adoption with family members would survive
at a
higher rate than with strangers,

"Suggest?" It's a well proven fact. I think it very strange a foster
parent does not know this as a matter of course.

Does the preservice and ongoing foster parent required annual
development training in your state consist of lining people up and
hitting them in the head with a brick?

I'd love to have you and Dug both come to my area and take some
trainings for foster's and adopt families. Both preservice and ongoing
training is extremely good. I loved the medically fragile infant
training, as so much of it applied to just plain good infant care.
I'll never be troubled by a fussy baby again.....my knowledge base now
is too full of proven methods that work.

Call me SUPER Grandpa.

I do wish Dug wouldn't say such things about training as if they were
universal.
It's very damaging and malicious to the good programs around the
country.

I wonder if he thinks they are all like the one's he disses?

however, I find it rather strange family
members would find a need to adopt their own kin except to escape
CPS, or to
be eligible for funds that might otherwise not be availalble.

Where ever did you get such an idea?

Kin adopt for a very good reason besides those. How do I explain the
normal human attributes of "family" to someone as dense as you? Are
you lacking these desires to care for family yourself? 0r just
bumbling through life obliviously?

Children left dangling as to who they are, by virtue of not being
fully accepted into the family of their caregivers, have a terrible
disruption in their lives compared to those who are not so left,
dangling.

This brings me back to private guardianship... which CPS fails to
offer or
encourage.

Nonsense yet again. CPS doesn't fail to offer it. That's tantamount to
saying they hide the fact milk comes from cows.

Anyone that is in the position of considering taking kin WANTS some
kind of legal formality...contractural if not a new birth certificate,
to legitimize and validate the assocation.

I know of NO state that does NOT inform the prospect, if related, of
guardianship if it is available in that state.

Tell me, bobberino, how many people do you know that are unfamiliar
with the word, "guardian?" Like CPS can hide it.........R R R R.

That's what allowing yourself to be propagandized does to you. It
cripples your thinking capacity. You miss the entirely obvious. Public
schooling can do that to though, so don't blame yourself entirely.
I'll bet you are still capable of learning...or what would I be
writing this for?

Are people in that trailer park you seem to come from, so shy and
stupid as to be unable to ask about something everyone knows about?

Quick readers. All of you shout that never heard of guardianship until
bobb just mentioned it. Stand up and be counted. I think I'm going to
get a lot of dead silence, except for the snickers.

The ONLY reason CPS would discourage Guardianship, (it's not THEIR
money stupid), is for the child's sake.

The lack of a feeling of family permanency during childhood is suspect
in many problems children have and later as adults will manifest.

Not only does impermanence make life so unpredicatable that the child
may miss critical developmental tasks that rely on being able to focus
without much distraction, but it impacts their very sense of being
human.

We are pack animals essentially. If you don't think so look at our
clumping up driving habits, our cluster housing habits, our
entertainment habits.

I hate it that humans "pack" up on the freeway, don't you...but it
also makes me laugh.

While we can be solitary as well as congenial we must have the latter.
A child get's that sense of legitimacy many ways.

To be 'guarded' rather than adopted is NOT a good thing in most cases.

Noting says, "I love you" quite like someone saying "I wish to be your
parent." Nor does it make one feel a fully enfranchised human to be
denied that kind of love and acceptance.

Large holes can develop in the mental capacity...like thinking
skills...and social skills, and just plain ol' functional capacities
when a child is denied a family.

That was one of the driving forces behind the creation of ASFA. (CAPTA
failed though it's reason was the same); to cut the length of time a
child was in state care denied a permanent family. It worked too. The
time WAS shortened.

Most children's lives were vastly improved, as well as their
prospects. That is exactly what I pay my taxes for. For the sustaining
of society, and hopefully the betterment of it's citizens and
functioning now and in the future.

I'm really selfish that way, and would deny you your bitter little
isolationist nonsense. Sorry.

bobb

It wasn't so long ago, Kane, you failed to understand private guardianship
and, in fact, argued the opposite suggesting, in so many words, it was a
dodge to defeat CPS.

You also fail to consider, adoption by relatives is largely unnecssary. As
for guardianship, there is also such a thing as a limited guardianship which
allows a child to live with a relative, or even a friend, to attend
school... without disrupting parental rights...and does not need CPS
approval.

It's too soon to factually demonstrate... but based on the number of foster
kids who reunite with parents and family after emanication... it's not too
far removed to suggest kids having been adopted will disregard that
formality (legal or not) and reunite in much the same manner. The sense of
belonging to their real family is much stronger than some kind of legal
decree in which they played no part.

A child of 12 years old may deny adoption so any stats reflecting a positive
result, as I'm sure CPS does to enhance this program, should not be
included when examining adoption below that age.

You also fail to recognize kids who want to stay with a foster parent
placement and are moved against their will are more prone to fail. CPS
does not report kids who have been removed against their will. Given
choice, the kids will fair much better regardless any legal status assigned
them be it foster care or adoption.

As for Illinois adoption, a child eligible for adoption must be in the care
of their foster parents for two years prior to any adoption being
finalized.

Your entire post presumes (assumes) that a child wants to remain in the care
of either "properly trained" foster or adoptive parents.
That a very narrow view. You also forget the much larger segment of
children who resent being in foster care with strangers and even refused to
be identified as such.

bobb

Kane writes:

That was one of the driving forces behind the creation of ASFA. (CAPTA
failed though it's reason was the same); to cut the length of time a
child was in state care denied a permanent family. It worked too. The
time WAS shortened.

Hi, Kane!

What do you base that conclusion on? The website you provided us in another
post clearly establishes that the time children spent in foster care
remained relatively unchanged after the passage of ASFA in 1997.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

Most children's lives were vastly improved, as well as their
prospects. That is exactly what I pay my taxes for. For the sustaining
of society, and hopefully the betterment of it's citizens and
functioning now and in the future.

Well, it appears you didn't get your money's worth. How could "most"
children's lives be "vastly" improved when the time spent in foster care
remained the same? Somewhere along the line you made an assumption that
ASFA did what it was supposed to do -- namely, that state CPS agencies
reacted to the mandates. Before making claims that "most" children's lives
were "vastly" improved, it is good to check sources of information to see if
there has been ANY change at all.

"The time children spent in foster care remained relatively unchanged
between 1998 and 2001. http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm


Doug

bobb writes to Kane:

You also fail to consider, adoption by relatives is largely unnecssary.
As
for guardianship, there is also such a thing as a limited guardianship
which
allows a child to live with a relative, or even a friend, to attend
school... without disrupting parental rights...and does not need CPS
approval.

Hi, bobb!

The facts published by USDHHS itself tend to support your contention. It is
largely unecessary -- and extremely uncommon -- for relatives to adopt.
Instead, state CPS agencies tend to use relative placement and guardianship
as an ALTERNATIVE to adoption. While 18 percent of children exiting the
system were adopted, 13% were placed with relatives or guardians.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

"Of the estimated 263,000 children who exited foster care during FY 2001: 57
percent were reunified, 18 percent were adopted, 13 percent went to live
with a relative or guardian, 7 percent were emancipated, and 5 percent had
other outcomes."
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

Doug

"Doug" wrote in message
...
bobb writes to Kane:

You also fail to consider, adoption by relatives is largely unnecssary.
As
for guardianship, there is also such a thing as a limited guardianship
which
allows a child to live with a relative, or even a friend, to attend
school... without disrupting parental rights...and does not need CPS
approval.

Hi, bobb!

The facts published by USDHHS itself tend to support your contention. It
is
largely unecessary -- and extremely uncommon -- for relatives to adopt.
Instead, state CPS agencies tend to use relative placement and
guardianship
as an ALTERNATIVE to adoption. While 18 percent of children exiting the
system were adopted, 13% were placed with relatives or guardians.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

"Of the estimated 263,000 children who exited foster care during FY 2001:
57
percent were reunified, 18 percent were adopted, 13 percent went to live
with a relative or guardian, 7 percent were emancipated, and 5 percent had
other outcomes."
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

Doug

Thanks for that reply, Doug. I wonder how many children are placed with
relatives and friends out-side of CPS. I know of two children living with
grandparents and uncle. Another girl is living with a family friend.

Often unsaid, and unrecognized, is the fact parents can make valued
decisions for their children when necessary and without government
interference.

bobb

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 06:45:23 -0400, "Doug" wrote:

Kane writes:

That was one of the driving forces behind the creation of ASFA.
(CAPTA
failed though it's reason was the same); to cut the length of time
a
child was in state care denied a permanent family. It worked too.
The
time WAS shortened.

Hi, Kane!

What do you base that conclusion on? The website you provided us in
another
post clearly establishes that the time children spent in foster care
remained relatively unchanged after the passage of ASFA in 1997.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

I notice NO timeline that extends to before ASFA...if you bothered to
read my post you'd have figured that out. I am looking at the
difference between lengths of time from the inception of CAPTA to the
beginning of ASFA. Taht is ALL I claimed.

So tell me, is 1998 when CAPTA was the driving force or is it a year
after ASFA?

Do you find a single entry on any point addressing pre ASFA?

Most children's lives were vastly improved, as well as their
prospects. That is exactly what I pay my taxes for. For the
sustaining
of society, and hopefully the betterment of it's citizens and
functioning now and in the future.

Well, it appears you didn't get your money's worth.

No, I did very well thank you. If you look at the time frame we are
most familiar with and tot up the total numbers of children, say from
CAPTA to ASFA and beyond, that's one heck of a lot of children served.

You are so bound up in agitprop you can't think anymore. It's taken
over your processes to the point yer just another Plant, goose
stepping your way along.

How could "most"
children's lives be "vastly" improved when the time spent in foster
care
remained the same?

"Time" is the only factor in improvement?

Add up the total from one year to the next. Are you blind?

Sooner or later that 500k+ will have moved through the system replaced
by enough coming in to keep the figure about the same...500+.

My guess is it takes about four years to completely recycle, just as
our body cells, each one, is replaced over time.

Somewhere along the line you made an assumption that
ASFA did what it was supposed to do -- namely, that state CPS
agencies
reacted to the mandates.

Yes, I sure did, because I've watched them to it. Children
languishing, commonly, their entire childhood in and out of
CPS...party parents with a state babysitter, 24/7. To the mandate of
15/24 and the muscle to make it happen. Many states that you claim
failed didn't miss by that much in the foster, adoption, and reuniting
areas. .

Before making claims that "most" children's lives
were "vastly" improved, it is good to check sources of information to
see if
there has been ANY change at all.

I have. You lie. Nothing new here, now is there?

Even children that return home to their bio family likely had
considerable improvement in most cases. The case triggers services for
some time. Parent learn better what developmental needs the child has.
How drug and crime life family takes that away from them. More than
just a few catch on.

Even here we've seen examples of people, because CPS got in their
face, went hunting for help and found out their children had
conditions they were unaware of, or at least to the cause.

That's not a rare occurance, Doug.

"The time children spent in foster care remained relatively unchanged
between 1998 and 2001.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

Yes, from ASFA START to about 3 years or so. Things take time. And, if
you had bothered to actualy check, you'd see stopped the preciptious
climb in numbers that was alarming the legislators that created it.

Adoptions, for instance, not only spiked, after ASFA, that spike
cleared out most of the long waiting children destined to spend their
childhoods bouncing in and out of state care, complements of the bpus
that just couldn't get enough help with their habits, or
"disabilities."

If you want CPS to solve the drug treatment problem, then move the
program to them and fund them. The don't treat, they refer. Most
programs are woefully underfunded TOO, not CPS fault. Treatment
timelines are far under normal drug rehabilitation realities of the
capacity of the human body and mind to cope and heal.

Three years is not too long and estimate, for societal effective
functioning. Ever hear of any state supported three year programs?

This is just one small area.

YOu didn't bother, or avoided the pre 98 stats now didn't you? Naughty
naughty.

And you ignored that children that do have CPS intevention that manage
to survive their parents handling of them thereby, continue to be
helped by that intervention. Notice my careful wording. Cumulatively (
would have said rates had I meant "rates.") there has to be more and
more children helped by CPS.

And just so you don't forget what I said about what, CAPTA VS ASFA,
you might look at these charts, and try to get over our selective data
cherry picking.

http://www.casanet.org/library/abuse...#Foster%20Care

Unless you think the CASA folks are just lying "jacklegs."

I've not heard anyone get's paid, so it would be tough to support any
claim by you that there is any "jackleg" issues here.

What would be the point?

If you need help noticing that from 88 to 98 the foster population
took off, nearly double isn't it? In ten years? Let's see, from 1988
at 300k to 1998 at 507k. Average for the 10 years, about 20k a year.
Do you see any 20k a year increases since ASFA?

Would you not think that overall, there would be a shortening of time
in care if there are less children in care? Just as a side effect?

And ASFA stopped the growth rate upward line dead in the water and
even managed a slight move back. I watched adoption, an area of
considerable interest to me, as I had many aquaintences that adopted
that wished to homeschool, and needed a strong advocate...forgive my
self congratulations, all through that time..from 1980 on.

In one state I know I watched the annual report each year, the Status
of Children in the Child Protection System, and adoptions the first
year I had the figure was 600 adoptive placements, and every year
thereafter it went up about 100 to 150 per.

By 2001 it topped out for that state a bit over 1000. And then it
stopped and I've heard it is going down to the point adoption worker
staffing for the state has been cut to the bone. About a third. And in
fact they are being used for foster certification and supervision
because that too is now going down, just not collected and tabulated
data yet, for either. Don't have the current child status report yet.
I'll let you know what my collection for 2003 starts coming in.

That was just last year, 2003, so I had to actually call on CPS and
ask them to put me in the loop on the numbers and the adoption and
foster changes. Boy, did I get an earful and eyeful.

Watch for the numbers all over the country. The'll tell the truth next
year when the data comes out. CPS has been doing very well indeedy but
the fed review process is, if you'll pardon, ****ED.

Doug

Are we clear enough on what I said now? Should I apologize for not
taking your biases into account and explaining as I would to a
stubborn child why he needs to brush his teeth?

You've PR flacked too long, Doug. You actually have come to believe
half baked nonsense YOU create by citing information that LOOKS like
it means what you want it to, but does NOT on closer examination.

Happy June.

Kane

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 18:43:48 -0500, "bobb"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
bobb writes to Kane:

You also fail to consider, adoption by relatives is largely
unnecssary.
As
for guardianship, there is also such a thing as a limited
guardianship
which
allows a child to live with a relative, or even a friend, to
attend
school... without disrupting parental rights...and does not need
CPS
approval.

Hi, bobb!

The facts published by USDHHS itself tend to support your
contention. It
is
largely unecessary -- and extremely uncommon -- for relatives to
adopt.
Instead, state CPS agencies tend to use relative placement and
guardianship
as an ALTERNATIVE to adoption. While 18 percent of children
exiting the
system were adopted, 13% were placed with relatives or guardians.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

"Of the estimated 263,000 children who exited foster care during FY
2001:
57
percent were reunified, 18 percent were adopted, 13 percent went to
live
with a relative or guardian, 7 percent were emancipated, and 5
percent had
other outcomes."
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

Doug

Thanks for that reply, Doug. I wonder how many children are placed
with
relatives and friends out-side of CPS.

Can't be many bobb, or Doug and the feds would have to admit the
attempts to claim CPS fails to place with relatives would fall flat on
it's face from a good cold shot of reality.

I know of two children living with
grandparents and uncle. Another girl is living with a family friend.

I know of dozens. I posted some citations here recently on this very
thing and the number kids ALREADY USING UP THOSE RELATIVE RESOURCES,
where there ARE relatives that will and can, is very high indeed.

That reduces the pool considerable. My unstanding is that viable
prospects for children now living will not have any MORE created (like
born and grown old enough to foster and adopt) than that pool.

YOu know the one growing smaller and smaller while the population of
kids being placed remains about constant?

Often unsaid, and unrecognized, is the fact parents can make valued
decisions for their children when necessary and without government
interference.

Who could possibly argue with that...that IS why there are so many
placements with rels completely outside CPS venue.

On the other hand those that can't or won't make such decisions
because they think raping, beating, burning, whipping, starving, and
otherwise "loving their kid" is perfectly okay. CPS is paid by me to
make those decisions for them.

Hokay?

bobb bobb?

Kane

bobb

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 06:45:23 -0400, "Doug" wrote:

Kane writes:

That was one of the driving forces behind the creation of ASFA.
(CAPTA
failed though it's reason was the same); to cut the length of time
a
child was in state care denied a permanent family. It worked too.
The
time WAS shortened.

Hi, Kane!

What do you base that conclusion on? The website you provided us in
another
post clearly establishes that the time children spent in foster care
remained relatively unchanged after the passage of ASFA in 1997.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

I notice NO timeline that extends to before ASFA...if you bothered to
read my post you'd have figured that out. I am looking at the
difference between lengths of time from the inception of CAPTA to the
beginning of ASFA. Taht is ALL I claimed.

So tell me, is 1998 when CAPTA was the driving force or is it a year
after ASFA?

Do you find a single entry on any point addressing pre ASFA?

Most children's lives were vastly improved, as well as their
prospects. That is exactly what I pay my taxes for. For the
sustaining
of society, and hopefully the betterment of it's citizens and
functioning now and in the future.

Well, it appears you didn't get your money's worth.

No, I did very well thank you. If you look at the time frame we are
most familiar with and tot up the total numbers of children, say from
CAPTA to ASFA and beyond, that's one heck of a lot of children served.

You are so bound up in agitprop you can't think anymore. It's taken
over your processes to the point yer just another Plant, goose
stepping your way along.

How could "most"
children's lives be "vastly" improved when the time spent in foster
care
remained the same?

"Time" is the only factor in improvement?

Add up the total from one year to the next. Are you blind?

Sooner or later that 500k+ will have moved through the system replaced
by enough coming in to keep the figure about the same...500+.

My guess is it takes about four years to completely recycle, just as
our body cells, each one, is replaced over time.

Somewhere along the line you made an assumption that
ASFA did what it was supposed to do -- namely, that state CPS
agencies
reacted to the mandates.

Yes, I sure did, because I've watched them to it. Children
languishing, commonly, their entire childhood in and out of
CPS...party parents with a state babysitter, 24/7. To the mandate of
15/24 and the muscle to make it happen. Many states that you claim
failed didn't miss by that much in the foster, adoption, and reuniting
areas. .

Before making claims that "most" children's lives
were "vastly" improved, it is good to check sources of information to
see if
there has been ANY change at all.

I have. You lie. Nothing new here, now is there?

Even children that return home to their bio family likely had
considerable improvement in most cases. The case triggers services for
some time. Parent learn better what developmental needs the child has.
How drug and crime life family takes that away from them. More than
just a few catch on.

Even here we've seen examples of people, because CPS got in their
face, went hunting for help and found out their children had
conditions they were unaware of, or at least to the cause.

That's not a rare occurance, Doug.

"The time children spent in foster care remained relatively unchanged
between 1998 and 2001.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

Yes, from ASFA START to about 3 years or so. Things take time. And, if
you had bothered to actualy check, you'd see stopped the preciptious
climb in numbers that was alarming the legislators that created it.

Adoptions, for instance, not only spiked, after ASFA, that spike
cleared out most of the long waiting children destined to spend their
childhoods bouncing in and out of state care, complements of the bpus
that just couldn't get enough help with their habits, or
"disabilities."


Your own posts about the number of children actually adopted are only a
small percentage... not most.

You also have to beleive every adoption was fair, just, and morally right...
which I don't.




If you want CPS to solve the drug treatment problem, then move the
program to them and fund them. The don't treat, they refer. Most
programs are woefully underfunded TOO, not CPS fault. Treatment
timelines are far under normal drug rehabilitation realities of the
capacity of the human body and mind to cope and heal.

Three years is not too long and estimate, for societal effective
functioning. Ever hear of any state supported three year programs?

This is just one small area.

YOu didn't bother, or avoided the pre 98 stats now didn't you? Naughty
naughty.

And you ignored that children that do have CPS intevention that manage
to survive their parents handling of them thereby, continue to be
helped by that intervention. Notice my careful wording. Cumulatively (
would have said rates had I meant "rates.") there has to be more and
more children helped by CPS.

Not sure what you mean by helped. Since most kids that are 'intervened'
don't even finish high school. Seems to me, more kids need to survive CPS.
Cumulatively, if a child's education is a mark of any kind of acheivement...
what grade would you attach to CPS.

In Illinois, DCFS offers college tuitiion waivers to only 35 kids each
year.


And just so you don't forget what I said about what, CAPTA VS ASFA,
you might look at these charts, and try to get over our selective data
cherry picking.

http://www.casanet.org/library/abuse...#Foster%20Care

Unless you think the CASA folks are just lying "jacklegs."

I've not heard anyone get's paid, so it would be tough to support any
claim by you that there is any "jackleg" issues here.

What would be the point?

If you need help noticing that from 88 to 98 the foster population
took off, nearly double isn't it? In ten years? Let's see, from 1988
at 300k to 1998 at 507k. Average for the 10 years, about 20k a year.
Do you see any 20k a year increases since ASFA?

Did not such a rapid increase wave any red flags? One would have to be a
complete idiot to beleive parennts, almost overnight, began abusing their
kids in such large numbers. Even if that were true... society would've
dropped the ball for not understanding or trying to determine why, and that
never happened. What did happen was children were being removed for
reasons now understood to be unnecessary and the number are returning to
recognized norms.


Would you not think that overall, there would be a shortening of time
in care if there are less children in care? Just as a side effect?

And ASFA stopped the growth rate upward line dead in the water and
even managed a slight move back. I watched adoption, an area of
considerable interest to me, as I had many aquaintences that adopted
that wished to homeschool, and needed a strong advocate...forgive my
self congratulations, all through that time..from 1980 on.

In one state I know I watched the annual report each year, the Status
of Children in the Child Protection System, and adoptions the first
year I had the figure was 600 adoptive placements, and every year
thereafter it went up about 100 to 150 per.

By 2001 it topped out for that state a bit over 1000. And then it
stopped and I've heard it is going down to the point adoption worker
staffing for the state has been cut to the bone. About a third. And in
fact they are being used for foster certification and supervision
because that too is now going down, just not collected and tabulated
data yet, for either. Don't have the current child status report yet.
I'll let you know what my collection for 2003 starts coming in.

That was just last year, 2003, so I had to actually call on CPS and
ask them to put me in the loop on the numbers and the adoption and
foster changes. Boy, did I get an earful and eyeful.

Watch for the numbers all over the country. The'll tell the truth next
year when the data comes out. CPS has been doing very well indeedy but
the fed review process is, if you'll pardon, ****ED.

Once again, you have to beleive that adoption is, and was, a solution to an
already broken system. I beleive CPS has seen the wrong and the numbers of
adoption have dropped. It seems the courts have taken a dim view of these
adoptions, too.

Of course, the pool of so-called 'eligible' kids have dropped, too, as have
the number of kids in state care.

bobb



Doug

Are we clear enough on what I said now? Should I apologize for not
taking your biases into account and explaining as I would to a
stubborn child why he needs to brush his teeth?

You've PR flacked too long, Doug. You actually have come to believe
half baked nonsense YOU create by citing information that LOOKS like
it means what you want it to, but does NOT on closer examination.

Happy June.

Kane

Kane writes:

Kane writes:

That was one of the driving forces behind the creation of ASFA.
(CAPTA
failed though it's reason was the same); to cut the length of time
a
child was in state care denied a permanent family. It worked too.
The
time WAS shortened.

Hi, Kane!

Notice your contention above: That one of the driving forces behind the
creation of CAPTA and ASFA was to cut the length of time a child was in
state care, but that CAPTA FAILED, although "its reasons were the same."
You then go on to say that it "worked" -- that the time WAS shortened.

Well, if CAPTA failed to accomplish this, as you say above, then what did?

When disputed your claim that the lengths of time foster children stay in
foster care had remained the same in recent years, after passage of ASFA,
you contradict yourself.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

You say now:

I notice NO timeline that extends to before ASFA...if you bothered to
read my post you'd have figured that out. I am looking at the
difference between lengths of time from the inception of CAPTA to the
beginning of ASFA. Taht is ALL I claimed.

I did bother to read your post and I pasted the paragraph again, above. In
that post you said that CAPTA failed to decrease the length of time --
although "its reason was the same." That left ASFA.

What are you saying? That ASFA failed to shorten the time children spend in
state custody or what you initally claimed, that CAPTA failed to shorten the
time?

The fact is that CAPTA did fail to shorten the length of time in foster
care. And, as the figures show, so did ASFA.

So tell me, is 1998 when CAPTA was the driving force or is it a year
after ASFA?

It took the states anywhere from a year to 3 years to write the ASFA
mandates into state law and operationalize them. So 1998 and 1999 were
often reflections of CAPTA and 2000, 2001 either a combination
accumulatively, or reflections of ASFA policy, depending on state. The
lengths of stay for foster children during all of the years remained roughly
the same.

Do you find a single entry on any point addressing pre ASFA?

Yep, I sure did. Let me repaste your quote:

"That was one of the driving forces behind the creation of ASFA.
(CAPTA failed though it's reason was the same); to cut the length of time a
child was in state care denied a permanent family. It worked too. The time
WAS shortened."

....You said CAPTA failed to meet the objective. CAPTA was, uh, "pre-ASFA."

Do you have an explanation?

Most children's lives were vastly improved, as well as their
prospects. That is exactly what I pay my taxes for. For the
sustaining
of society, and hopefully the betterment of it's citizens and
functioning now and in the future.

In the context of what we are talking about -- the length of time children
spend in foster care -- how were "most chidren's lives 'vastly' improved"
when the time frame remained the same?

Where is your source of information supporting the out of the blue,
hyperbolic claim that "most children's lives were vastly improved"?
You are trying to argue against facts with baseless, PR fluff. Where is the
support for your claims?

You are goosestepping to CPS' PR music.

Somewhere along the line you made an assumption that
ASFA did what it was supposed to do -- namely, that state CPS
agencies
reacted to the mandates.

Yes, I sure did, because I've watched them to it. Children
languishing, commonly, their entire childhood in and out of
CPS...party parents with a state babysitter, 24/7. To the mandate of
15/24 and the muscle to make it happen. Many states that you claim
failed didn't miss by that much in the foster, adoption, and reuniting
areas. .

What?

Well, first off, ASFA has failed to reduce the time foster children spend in
state custody. Secondily, if as you say above, children in the past
shuffled in and out of foster care, then their stays in foster care back
then would have been shorter, would they not? Thirdly, the states failed
miserably on the federal audits in the foster, adoption and reuniting areas.

The 15/24 rule has done nothing to reduce the length of stay in foster care
for children. Instead, it has resulted in perminately (and inmaturely)
removing the major avenue OUT of foster care for children.

Before making claims that "most" children's lives
were "vastly" improved, it is good to check sources of information to
see if
there has been ANY change at all.

I have. You lie. Nothing new here, now is there?


LOL!!! The only thing new is your complete reversal from what you said in
your first post. And you are still wrong because both ASFA and CAPTA failed
to reduce the length of stay in care for foster children.

Even children that return home to their bio family likely had
considerable improvement in most cases. The case triggers services for
some time. Parent learn better what developmental needs the child has.
How drug and crime life family takes that away from them. More than
just a few catch on.

Where are reliable sources of information supporting your outragious claim
that children released from the foster care system and returned to their
parents "had considerable improvement"??? Cites? Where is your evidence
that criminal families with drug problems caught on to anything? Hyperbole.
Assumptions.

Contributors to this newsgroup consistently try to point you to facts that
dispute your assumptions, yet you continue to make them. When presented
with clear evidence of CPS shortcomings, you claim the evidence false and
continue with your assumptions. Over and over again in this forum we are
learning that the facts contradict your claims.

"The time children spent in foster care remained relatively unchanged
between 1998 and 2001.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

Yes, from ASFA START to about 3 years or so. Things take time. And, if
you had bothered to actualy check, you'd see stopped the preciptious
climb in numbers that was alarming the legislators that created it.

I do check the numbers and I can assure you they do not support your
position. I would suggest you check the numbers. If you find some that
support your position, cite them.

Adoptions, for instance, not only spiked, after ASFA, that spike
cleared out most of the long waiting children destined to spend their
childhoods bouncing in and out of state care, complements of the bpus
that just couldn't get enough help with their habits, or
"disabilities."

Adoptions spiked because CPS went after the bonus offered by the federal
government. The feds know what motivates CPS. The feds understand the
underlying thread to child protective services -- money. But the state is
running out of foster caregivers to adopt and those adopted were the young
and the adoptable. The population of foster children you are talking about
are still languishing in foster care. They will age out, as former foster
children did before them.

And you ignored that children that do have CPS intevention that manage
to survive their parents handling of them thereby, continue to be
helped by that intervention.

Children who have never been subjected to CPS interventions manage to
survive their parents' handling of them much better. Where is a source that
supports your claim?

As you may recall, according to NCANDS data submitted by the state agencies
themselves, substantiated children who had recieved CPS services fared worse
than substantiated children who received no services.

And just so you don't forget what I said about what, CAPTA VS ASFA,
you might look at these charts, and try to get over our selective data
cherry picking.

I did not provide selective data. I provided the breath of data covering
the subject we were talking about. That data proves wrong your claim that
lengths of stay in foster care have been reduced.

If anyone was "selective," it was you in picking the subject you posted on.
I responded to your post.

That was just last year, 2003, so I had to actually call on CPS and
ask them to put me in the loop on the numbers and the adoption and
foster changes. Boy, did I get an earful and eyeful.

I bet you did. Next time, you may want to check what they tell you against
the published facts and research before regergating their PR.

Watch for the numbers all over the country. The'll tell the truth next
year when the data comes out. CPS has been doing very well indeedy but
the fed review process is, if you'll pardon, ****ED.

Well, anything that challenges the CPS PR or your assumptions has got to be
wrong, right? But you tell us that CPS will tell the truth NEXT year?

Now, that will be a refreshing change of pace.

Have a great June, yourself, sir!

Doug

Kane writes:

Then I would be mistaken wouldn't I. I failed to notice that I did not
cite ASFA as intended, for that drop. And I provided access to you for
a chart that showed it.

Well, if CAPTA failed to accomplish this, as you say above, then what
did?

ASFA.

The fact is that CAPTA did fail to shorten the length of time in
foster
care.

Yes. that is correct. I have so stated before in our many discussions.
I have pointed out why......it did NOT have the teeth, nor the
judicial commitment, to stop the madness of bouncing kids in and out
of state custody...ASFAs intent.

ASFA has failed as well, since the figures I supplied shows that lengths of
stay in foster care have remained the same from 1998 through 2001.

That IS why the 15/24 rule was set, and funding was tied to success in
moving children to permanent placement (home or out of home) more
rapidly.

The 15/22 rule is part of ASFA, which was passed in 1997. The length of
stay in foster care has not gone down from 1998 through 2001.

Although ASFA provided a fungible "bonus" to the states for each child
adopted over a baseline, one of the reasons ASFA is failing is that the
funding WAS NOT tied to moving children out of foster care. The lions share
of federal child welfare funding still lies in Title IV-E, which pays states
on a per head basis for each poor child kept in foster care. The "bonus"
could be spent on anything, so it worked well as an incentive to get states
to work toward adoption, but the bonus did nothing to fund the expenses of
moving children out of foster care and certainly does not make up for the
$30,000 to $110,000 of Title IV-E funding the state loses per year for each
eligible foster child moved out of the system.

The
lengths of stay for foster children during all of the years remained
roughly
the same.

That would be impossible unless the number of children referred was
also dropping. A stoppage of the 20k yearly increase had to be for
some cause. And the key figure is, how many children in out of home
custody by year. If it stops or drops it means they are not staying as
long as they were before.

Do you have a reliable source of information that the foster care population
was increasing 20,000 per year in the years prior to 1998? Part of ASFA
itself were requirements that the states keep track of their foster care
population, triggering the formulation of AFCARS data now available. How
are you measuring the foster care population prior to AFCARS?

Do you find a single entry on any point addressing pre ASFA?

Yep, I sure did. Let me repaste your quote:

"That was one of the driving forces behind the creation of ASFA.
(CAPTA failed though it's reason was the same); to cut the length of
time a
child was in state care denied a permanent family. It worked too. The
time
WAS shortened."

I fail to see the quoting of me when I was pointed to the data
available on ASFA makes your point.

I quoted you because you claim the length of stay in foster care dropped.
You initially said CAPTA failed to be responsible for this, but you now say
that this was an error and corrected it -- that the length of stay dropped
prior to 1998, when CAPTA was the governing statute. Which is fine. We all
make mistakes. I understand you now. But we still have the numbers from
1998 to 2001, where lengths of stay in foster care remained the same,
meaning ASFA did not cause lengths of stay to drop either. I quoted you
because I would like to know where the evidence is that supports your claim
that length of stay in foster care dropped?

You really ARE getting desperate. You were so used to for years,
having little crackpots to lead around unchallenge by much of anyone.

Not at all. I was not in this newsgroup very long before you came along. We
seemed to have migrated around the same time. Irregardless, I was not
leading anyone around. I was just arguing with Ron at the time instead of
you. g

You seem to have a fixation that there is an organized group under
centralized leadership in this newsgroup out to get you. I can assure you
that this is not the case. (You have made reference to backchannel
communications between members plotting against you, for instance -- when,
in reality, I have exhanged email with participants here less than five or
six times. And three of those involved correspondence with one member
regarding a referral of a parent from another forum who needed help). Other
members argue with you, but you have incurred their opposition all by
yourself. They disagree with me on many points, too. Each member here is
expressing their own viewpoints here.

You don't like it a bit that I've exposed so much of your nonsense and
you are relying, once again, on obfusticating the issue as much as
possible, believing they haven't the wit to see through you.

The simple truth is that you have not "exposed" my posts or successfully
challenged the information I have shared. This perception of yours is
either a delusion or articulating it over and over again your attempt to
avoid the issues themselves. In either case, your supposition is not
correct. And the readers know it. You have made some points in some of the
discussions that make a great deal of sense and are as worthy of
consideration as mine. Unfortunately, the those kind of discussions between
us ceased about a year and a half ago. Now, it's just repetition -- you
making a claim without sources to back it up, me challenging the claim with
cited sources, you calling the cited sources liars, etc.

The fact is that research and data measuring outcomes does not support
current child welfare practice. No matter how avid a supporter of current
CPS policy and practice you may be, you will not find the research and
statistics to license your unqualified support. In the end, as today, you
will have to resort to, "well, I just know it's this way because that's what
I seen, despite what those lying social workers, researchers and government
data say."

...You said CAPTA failed to meet the objective. CAPTA was, uh,
"pre-ASFA."

All you had to do was notice that I cited both acts in the first
phrase, to it that when the sentence ended I could have been referring
(giiven my poor grammar) EITHER one, as "it.".

Yes, and as I said, both failed to shorten the length of stay for foster
children.

You chose "CAPTA" when ASFA would have been more logical since the
referal was to timelines, and last I hears it runs toward adding up,
rather than down, as in 2000 is more than 1900. Hence the LAST
referred to in my sentence, and which followed the other
chronologically would have been very likely apparent to someone not so
desparate as you to find something, anything, to give you a way out of
the corner you have been putting youself in lately by NOT being honest
and admitting that some of your claims here are more than weak, they
are bogus in the face of reality....rather then gospel of ivory tower
academia you'd like folks to swallow. .

Okay, so ASFA is the logical operator to cause reduction of stays for foster
children. ASFA was passed in 1997. In 1998, the lengths of stay for foster
children did not decrease. In 1999, the length of stay for foster children
did not drop. In 2000, the length of stay for foster children did not
decrease. In 2001, the length of stay for foster children did not drop. In
the years after passage of ASFA, from 1998 to 2001, the lengths of stay for
foster children remained the same.

It is possible that your initial claim that the lengths of stay of foster
children has dropped was incorrect?

I hope what I offered was sufficient for you to see my error in
overestimating your ability to escape your psychologicl
programming...that programming YOU seem to be doing to yourself.

LOL! Your explanation of your mistake in wording answered my question, yes.
Thank you. We all fall short of wording our statements precisely now and
again. However, we are left with the same issue -- whether or not lengths
of stay for foster children has remained the same or dropped. AND, your
explanation of your mistake does not in the slightest speak to any
"psychological programming" done to anyone else. It was your mistake in
grammar, not a reader's pathology.

"Most," as you can see is an opinion, and since we cannot survey each
child's records for outcomes related to most of these things, I'd
stick by it. Foster parents share with me, as have relatives, what
it's like to receive these children. Many relatives themselves are the
callers aledging abuse and neglect terrified of what is happening to
the kin, neices, nephews, grandchildren and even younger sibs.

The vast majority of children removed from their homes and placed in foster
care were neither abused or neglected. (See attached). Directors of the
child protective agencies themselves have admitted to that and the data
submitted by the agencies themselves clearly show the breakdown. More than
100,000 of the children placed in foster care in 2001 were unsubtantiated by
CPS as victims of either risk of or actual child abuse/neglect.

Where is your source of information supporting the out of the blue,
hyperbolic claim that "most children's lives were vastly improved"?
You are trying to argue against facts with baseless, PR fluff. Where
is the
support for your claims?

"baseless, PR fluff" RRRR from YOU?

My support is in over 20 years of watching. Of foster and adoptive
relatives themselves telling me what is up with reality.

....But there is no objective source of information you can cite that
supports your personal observations.

And living in the real world, where I can see police reports. And in
the real world children on the street. Ever work with street kids?

We are both talking about the real world. The social work researchers,
child welfare experts and the government statistics address the real world.
The barrier we seem to face here is that you cannot cite researchers, child
welfare experts or government data that support your VIEW of the world.

And, yes, I have worked with street kids. And former street kids, now
adults.

Ever work with kids in treament centers?

You know the work requires contact with children on the caseload who are in
treatment centers. "Treatment centers" and "group homes" are, in my
opinion, the very worse this nation has imposed upon its youngest, most
vulnerable citizens. Dickens' tales pale in comparison.

You are goosestepping to CPS' PR music.

R R R R....the turn the heat back on them ploy. As a PR flacker
yourself, don't have anything more original?

I never worked in PR. Every CPS agency has at least one of them, however,
that will be happy to answer your questions with a spin favorable to their
employers. They are called "spokespeople." I mention this because in
another post you claim to have only heard of one agency who had a PR person,
when in reality all of the state child protective agencies have them,
usually supported by a large staff.

Perceptions. Your real world as you articulate it is different from the
world others live in. You even named ours -- lower sobrieoba or something
of the sort.

I think it's pretty apparent to some here, that are stupid, or liars,
or sick in the head, or following you around trying to pick up after
your little spillages, that I am on target and what CPS has to say is
irrelevent to me. I trust their data somewhat, and post it here,
because they most likely know that fraud is a nasty thing to get
caught at.

Your perception? Anything is possible in your world. Objective sources of
information and facts disclosed by the data you mention say you are off
target in the real world of child welfare practice.

Especially if the feds are slobbering all over their numers.

The feds are the ones who gave us your beloved CAPTA and ASFA. They are
just as responsible as the states for the institutional abuse of this
nation's children. That the USDHHS has finally yielded to Congress
insistance to perform their job as overseers of the childwelfare system
(also mandated through ASFA) through the recent audits, does not make them
the only bad guy. The state agency malpractice disclosed in the audits tell
us that the system needs to be reformed. As a CPS apologist, you choose
instead to attack the messenger.

Crime is the cop's fault, right?

Tell me again about 8 to 10 times more likely, and 3 times more
likely...isn't the wordage, "than in their own homes?"

Children are abused in foster care at a rate eight to ten times higher than
they are in the general population. "More likely" was used by one or two of
the researchers. Your choice.

The rate 3 times higher comes from USDHHS data. As I pointed out to you in
another post, USDHHS has confirmed in another publication that the abuse
rates in foster care reflect abuse where the foster caregiver was the perp.

Now that's a pip...THEY weren't IN their own home..those children that
CPS removed, to be tested by the tender loving parents.

The children in the general population were in their homes. The children in
foster care were in foster care. The data compared the two populations.

Your statement is rediculous. If what you infer in your world was true, then
one population couldn't be ANY multiple of the other.

WAS that the wording?

Yep, by one or two of the researchers.

Thirdly, the states failed
miserably on the federal audits in the foster, adoption and reuniting
areas.

Well, we've had this discussion going on for some time, and all you
do, when I counter with very clear logic that the fix is in and the
count is bogus because the factors that effect this in the real world
out there ARE THE CAUSE MORE THAN CPS FAILURE.

It's the cop's fault. It's a set up. The "fix" is in. Those mean old
auditors are out to get the poor little CPS agencies in your real world.

CPS MAY, just MAY (Given CA's responses) have failed, but the task was
not attainable....there are too few relatives avalable (they are
filled up with children from information placement out of CPS hands,
and placements NOT counted that cps made but did not take custody of
the child) and while babies are being made at an alarming rate, to
abuse and neglect. more relatives coming of age to be providers for
them ARE not.

The requirement was that CPS make an effort to locate relatives and place
foster children with them. The audits disclosed that many states made NO
EFFORTS to do so with some of the children they were responsible for. NO
EFFORT. The question was not whether they were able to find relatives, but
that they try to do so. CPS did not make those efforts.

How would CPS know about your imagined shortages of relatives if they didn't
look?

You just can't figure out the real world, Doug. You've been gone to
long.

I have never been in your world. All my experience in the field shows me a
different picture than what you paint of your world. So I never really
left.

The 15/24 rule has done nothing to reduce the length of stay in
foster care
for children.

Wrong. And if you have been in child welfare long you know better.
Tsk, Doug...tsktsk.

The 15/22 rule was enacted as part of ASFA, passed in 1997. The lengths of
stay in foster care from 1998 to 2001 remained the same.

Instead, it has resulted in perminately (and inmaturely)
removing the major avenue OUT of foster care for children.

That's a bit confusing. What would that major avenue out be then? Yet
another chance for mommy druggist, and daddy punchist, to have another
go at them, and come back AGAIN time after time?

No, of course not. "Mommy druggist and daddy punchist" represent a very
small percentage of the parents of foster children, as child welfare experts
and directors of CPS agencies themselves have said. Here, you resort to
hyperbole in talking about 3% of the parents so you can ignore the
demographics of the foster care population.

I've always been ****ed at the part the judicial played in revolving
babies back in the late 60s and into the 70s Sickening.

They seemed to be in denial about the drug issues. And the horrific
rise in births to unwed mothers that did not result in adoption.

Before making claims that "most" children's lives
were "vastly" improved, it is good to check sources of information
to
see if
there has been ANY change at all.

I have. You lie. Nothing new here, now is there?


LOL!!! The only thing new is your complete reversal from what you
said in
your first post. And you are still wrong because both ASFA and CAPTA
failed
to reduce the length of stay in care for foster children.

Nope. Do you think that 20k per year increase in children in foster
care stopped because CPS kept chidlren LONGER? That's how they get
counted over in succeeding years.

Obviously they were not staying around and more and more of them were
leaving after 1998..the year of the upward trend line hitting the
ceiling.

The length of stay for foster children remained the same from 1998 through
2001.

Please explain how that happened. What forces came into play in the
business of child protection that made that happen, other than
shortened time in custody?

I have no documentation of your claim the foster care population has
dropped. I do have documentation that the length of stay for foster
children has not.


You are just confounded by someone that has paid close attention and
will NOT be conned by you or the media. Or the latest round robin the
politicians are going through. They HUNT for causes to jump on board
for votes.

Okay, so the cons in your world are me, the media and politicians. Is there
anyone in your world -- besides yourself, of course -- who is not a con? Is
everybody who finds CPS needs reforming cons and liars?

I have no problem with that of course...I support our system big time,
but I'm not going to kid myself that their number one priority is
truth justice and the american way...even their mothers seem to come
after votes. R R R R

But you have kidded yourself into believing that CPS bureaucracies are
acting justly on behalf of children instead of looking out for themselves?

Now THAT, mister "jacklegs," was hyperbole. I don't use it when
talking about protection of children issues.

You just did and often do.

Contributors to this newsgroup consistently try to point you to facts
that
dispute your assumptions, yet you continue to make them.

You mean I make them, then present my arguments.

No, I meant what I said.

You focus on the claim and fail to address the argument.

ON those things there are pretty obvious in reality, you simply deny
minimize or disappear.

I'll give you a simple example, and the fools in your galery holding
their breath and preparing their own denial and declaration of your
great victory:

Your repeated squawking instead of responding to my actual comments
and contributions on the issue of states failing in "diligent efforts"
to seek kin placements.

I have responded many times to your actual comments. The audits disclosed
that in many cases states failed to make ANY effort to place children with
relatives or even locate relatives. ANY efforts.

I"ve talked to them. And what I've told you and the crowd here is what
they told me and showed me the nubmers on. THERE IS NOT A STREAM OF
KIN MAKING THEMSELVES EASY TO FIND AND IN FACT THEY SIMPLY DON'T
EXIST.

Their are plenty of relatives. CPS would have known that if they looked.
But in many cases they made NO efforts to do so.

They are used up.

Oh, so somehow CPS has judged by agrate numbers that there are no relatives
available, so why bother with individual cases to make any effort to find
them? The fact is that each case is different. Many children in foster
care have a great many relatives available to care for them. Some don't
have that many relatives. That's why the auditors expected CPS agencies to
make an effort to check in each individual case.

Now as to that "failure" claim of the feds.

I'm going fishing later today. Bass this time.

You are fishing right now, if you expect us to bite on what follows.

They enter the lake through a portal to the river, someimes there are
many and sometimes hardly any.

I may catch a lot of fish and we'll all be happy. I may not.

IF I can actually count the number of fish available, and can get a
feel, as fishermen so often can, for their willingness to take bait or
strick a lure, then and only then can I judge if I have failed or not.

I know YOU get the analogy... but I'll explain it for those that have
been brainwashed into simplicity.

If there are sufficient numbers of kin to provide a pool (and they
don't have larval parasites...wait, mixing my metaphores...r r r) and
they do not have characteristics that preclude them being
caretakers...both insufficiencies, and personal limits like NOT wanted
to, then if CPS lays off the effort they are indeed remiss.

On the other hand, if they have it on good authority that bass don't
bite during the hottest part of the day, and they are out of lake for
good and not coming back, (something CPS would be the MOST likey
agency to know) then cliaming they failed is smplly charging them for
malfeasance for NOT wasting my money and yours when it would be better
used for other areas of the program.

Each child is different and aggrate numbers -- even if they support your
guess, which they don't -- say nothing about each individual case. One
child may have 20 qualified relatives. Another one. That is why CPS is
required to make an effort to check for relatives in each individual case.

They did not do so.


Now you can jump up and down and split hairs all you want, Doug,
insisting that a failure is a failure is a failure....but here are no
damn fish in the lake and the few that are there aren't biting unless
the bait ($$$$$$$$) is sufficient. CPS should waste it's time?

We are not joining you in your fishing expedition. Neither did the
auditors. However, there are, indeed, plenty of relatives in the "pool"
that can care for foster children. All the auditors expected was for the
states to make an effort to find them. In many cases, they didn't..

Available kin are NOT jumping out of the ether at the rate children
are being borne and abused.

As I pointed out to you in another post, there were instances where the
auditors discovered where relatives were jumping out to take custody of
children in state custody and were ignored by CPS.

When presented
with clear evidence of CPS shortcomings,

You fail on your assertion of "clear." My point is that it isn't all
that clear, and that in fact my points confound your supposed "clear
evidence" in the real world.

YOu use isolated data....and even the less than brilliant here KNOW
not to fully trust statistics, and often with the same bitches I'm
presenting...TOO MUCH REALITY LEFT OUT.....that proves itself, and
meets your biased claims.

Where is the source of information supporting your claim that the pool of
relatives is diminishing? I see no evidence to support that contention.

You were clever in not making very clear claims and then just parrot
squawking the same thing over and over again, but that works on those
that swallow without thinking.

You cruise through the other's post in conflict with your claims, like
a shark looking for some error of fact or even error of grammar that
will save your sorry butt...and IGNORE the point.

Nope.

It YOU that are in denial, Doug...and refuse to go past your own claim
and give serious consideration to your challengers. And we ALL see it,
not just folks with MY bias.

So, the auditors, the media, the politicians and myself are "in denial." ?

Your days owning this ng are over. Face it.

Never did own the newsgroup. And your delusion that you have in this post
or others challenged the auditor's findings remains nothing more than a
delusion . . . unless you can provide some support for your claims.

If you really want to debate answer the damn challenges I give you
instead of twisting my words into something you are more comfortable
with that I DID NOT claim.

I did not twist your claims. I quoted them. And you admitted you were less
than clear and corrected it.

Do YOU know how many fish are in the lake?

Which lake? Even if I did, it wouldn't help much in determining why CPS is
not making efforts to locate relatives and place foster children with them.

Where is the number of (and this of course is where the feds are full
of **** on this kin problem) kin available to hunt among?

It depends on the circumstances of each, individual child. Some have many
relatives. Others, less. That is why CPS is required to make an effort in
each individual case to find out if they want to continue to receive federal
funding to do so.

CPS gets it they have both saturated the general public that WISH to
foster or adopt...and they get it that they have used up the available
kin.

Well, they are clearly wrong. They have not, by any stretch of the
imagination, "used up" the available kin. Each new child coming into the
system has differing numbers of relatives. The only way the state can
determine how many is to make efforts to look.

THEY DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE NUMBER, of course. No one does. But hey sure
as hell know how increasingly difficult it has been to find those kin.

How would they know that if they hadn't made an effort to find them?

To the point it's a dead loss unless someone comes running on their
own.

You are clearly incorrect.

you claim the evidence false

Very rarely. You are playing with words again, Flack. Mostly I claim
it is insufficient in content and scope.

I guarantee you your researchers found that it IS 8 to ten times more
likely a child will be abused in FC, but I also question that their
finding IS RELEVANT to the real world. The premise is crippled, and
I'm so tired of saying this and you not responding, in that no
destructive testing is allowed on ethical grounds.

The research did not employ destructive testing.

No ONE IS GOING AROUND RANDOMLY REMOVING CHILDREN FROM FOSTER CARE AND
RETURNINGTHEM TO THEIR BIO PRODUCTION UNITS to test this claim.

No, they are not. They are going around and randomly removing children from
their homes, however.

They ONLY return of the courts with CPS input says return them.

Doug....it's a bogus study for any other purpose than to draw
attention to it for FUTHER study .... OR for its propaganda value,
which you have made greate use of.

Same with the 3 times and child deaths.

It is rare indeed that a serious abuse or a death especially, at the
hands of a foster parent would escape notice, and prosecution.

As we have both read here, the mainstream press and agency studies have
pointed out time and time again that abuse in foster care is underreported.
There is good reason for that. A finding against a foster caregiver is a
finding against the agency that investigates, opening CPS up to lawsuits and
public trust liability.

The only thing you ever offered in rebuttal, as I recall, was a claim
that the gen pop families included the kin or sometning. Frankly it
was so lame I could believe it of your. You're smart than that.

I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about above.

You have not really answered my question, which of course has an
implication in it:

Is the foster family population under the same scrutiny, in kind and
intensity as gen pop families?

The evidence clearly shows that abuse in foster care is often ignored and
most certainly underreported. No one knows by how much. The evidence shows
that foster homes are not being visited by caseworkers as they should be and
that foster children are not being monitored by their workers. The federal
auditors also pointed out this weakness.

And please, don't try an end run this time. With a quick jump to some
other issue of the gen pop or foster families. Stick with this one.

I did.

Answer it. Honestly. Directly. Yes or no.

I did.

If you think they are, defend it with something logical and rational.

I did.


If you come to your senses and admit that NO who in the hell could
they be. The ratio of workers to fosters is far higher than that of
workers, or even callers to CPS to the general population.

When I have a chance I will work with the ratio's of callers to children in
the general population. Not all workers are charged with monitoring foster
children and foster caregivers. The evidence shows that those who are are
failing to meet minimum requirements for visits.

and
continue with your assumptions.

The use of the word "assumption" is hereby denied you from this point
on. ;-

I do NOT make assumptions. It is rare that I make even guesses without
saying I am doing so. If you've caught me at it, please point it out
and I, if caught, will certainly not deny it. I have no need for
denial.

The post to which I respond abounds with your assumptions. For starters,
the decrease in relatives is your assumption.

I don't "assume" the kin count is a crock. I've watched kin
availability dwindle for many years now. Right along with foster and
adopt applicants from the general population.

Cite some authorities that support this perception you have of your world.

Over and over again in this forum we are
learning that the facts contradict your claims.

We are?

Well I'll grant that isolated bits of information contradict my
claims, but the facts? Hardly.

Your facts are perferated again and again. You just know you are in
company that will believe you because of their biases. Any who has
been der, done dat, knows better.

Not so. Those who have been there and done the work know better than anyone
else that the facts are the facts.

Good luck with your fishing.

Doug