Child fatalities - underreported

NCANDS data is assembled from the reports of hospitals, child fatality
review boards, law enforcement and other sources.

The NCANDS data is a compilation of all fatalities due to abuse or
neglect.

You have repeated that many times in the past, and in the past I've
replied with reputable sources that says it just is not so.

Hi, Kane,

NCANDS repeats it each year they publish "Child Maltreatment..." Fatalities
due to abuse and neglect are counted using data reported by hospitals, child
fatality review boards, law enforcement and other sources. NCANDS makes
note of that each and every year.

Not once have you challenged NCANDS explanation as to the source of its
fatality data. Not once. And there are no reputable sources that have even
addressed the issue, let alone be cited by you in one of your non-existant
replies. There is no reason to dispute what sources NCANDS gets its
fatality data from.

States are NOT reporting accurately. And they have been admonished
publicly for it.

Who has "admonished" the states for inaccurate reporting? And what does
this have to do with the sources of information used by NCANDS to tally
fatalities due to abuse or neglect?

Some reported so badly that they left out 50% of the actual child abuse
and neglect fatalities.

The data is reported by law enforcement, hospitals, child fatality review
boards and other sources. If you think what these agencies have reported is
wrong, post some authorities that have other numbers and reputable sources
for their count, if you want. That still does not dispute where NCANDS data
comes from.

The agencies have padded the numbers for years.
Family Rights people have caught them under-reporting
deaths in their care simply by tracking the deaths
in newspaper accounts and comparing to what the
agency reports to the Feds.

The truth was bad PR for that agency so
they just reported low.

Most Parents Rights people have felt that
the agencies have been inflating the abuse and neglect
figures because their FUNDING is based on them.

Even decisions about individual cases seem to
have been mindful of FUNDING considerations.
Recently some documentary guidelines for Judges
were discovered to have been encouraging
decisions based on FUNDING considerations
for the agency!

Family Rights advocates complained that
the CA and N figures were lumped together,
so that Neglect padded the Child Abuse figures.
A combined CAN figure tossed around is
still commonly used in propaganda as "abuse".

Recently I was shocked to learn that the
Federal numbers for "abuse" are actually
based on mostly RISK and not actual injuries.

To most lay people that is outright TELLING LIES.

Any jury of citizens would see it that way I'm sure.

This is just another of many ways that
systemic distortion has crept into the numbers.

Kane and the agencies have "made hay" with
the numbers for years, but recently the numbers
turned on Kane and so NOW he is desperate
to discredit the numbers! It's absurd!

Doug wrote:
NCANDS data is assembled from the reports of hospitals, child fatality
review boards, law enforcement and other sources.

The NCANDS data is a compilation of all fatalities due to abuse or
neglect.
You have repeated that many times in the past, and in the past I've
replied with reputable sources that says it just is not so.

Let's stop a moment at the beginning to establish something I've noted
you doing AGAIN DOUG. I have not disputed who and what the sources are
for the data...and you repeatedly refer to me as having done so.

It is the CONTENT of their reports I dispute, Doug. You know it. I know
it. And any attentive intelligent reader (leaving about about three of
your stupid lackey's from this newsgroup out of the loop) knows it.

Stop with the lying.

Hi, Kane,

NCANDS repeats it each year they publish "Child Maltreatment..." Fatalities
due to abuse and neglect are counted using data reported by hospitals, child
fatality review boards, law enforcement and other sources. NCANDS makes
note of that each and every year.

I have not disputed the sources. Only the accuracy of the data. This is
YOUR lying ploy, of old, to attempt to move the subject from the actual
one presented to something just different enough to be argued.

I repeat...stay on task, on subject, on topic. It was the accuracy of
the DATA, not who or what the sources were, that I am challenging.

Or continue to be a liar. It's up to you.

Not once have you challenged NCANDS explanation as to the source of its
fatality data.

Just did, stupid.

Not once.

I have repeatedly over the years.

I'll do it again in this post. See my "References" at the end of the post.

And there are no reputable sources that have even
addressed the issue,

Bull****. I'm going to give you some at the end of this post, again.
Write them and tell them they aren't reputable and get back to us, stupid.

let alone be cited by you in one of your non-existant
replies.

Bull****.

There is no reason to dispute what sources NCANDS gets its
fatality data from.

Where have I done that? What "sources" have I disputed in so much as
they receive some data? It's only the accuracy of the data I dispute,
little lying propagandist. 0:-

So do others. They are reputable.

States are NOT reporting accurately. And they have been admonished
publicly for it.

Who has "admonished" the states for inaccurate reporting?

Some times their own internal monitoring agencies and public interest
groups. Stop playing dumb, stupid.

And what does
this have to do with the sources of information used by NCANDS to tally
fatalities due to abuse or neglect?

Nothing to do with the SOURCES, just the data accuracy.

Some reported so badly that they left out 50% of the actual child abuse
and neglect fatalities.

The data is reported by law enforcement, hospitals, child fatality review
boards and other sources.

I did not dispute WHO, Doug. Stop trying to drag the focus away from the
subject of my challenge. It is the WHAT I challenge, and I am not the
only one to do so. As you'll see AGAIN, shortly.

If you think what these agencies have reported is
wrong, post some authorities that have other numbers and reputable sources
for their count, if you want.

No, I cannot do that because often the protest as to accuracy is based
on the the protester pointing out the data is impossible to collect
accurately. In fact, I've made the same point myself many times. One
cannot, for instance, accurately report the real incidence of child
abuse. It is not automatically seen or reported when it happens. Most
happens behind closed doors. It is in the interest of the perpetrators
to hide it. No government agency has carte Blanche to be present at
incidences of abuse behind closed doors.

In other words, stupid, IT CANNOT BE ACCURATELY COUNTED, ONLY ESTIMATED.

That still does not dispute where NCANDS data
comes from.

Of course not. Show where I disputed the source.

It's not the "who," Doug and you know that. It's the "what" that I
dispute. And I am not alone in this.

The bottom line is, and always has been, that no matter how much
resource we direct (that is possible in the real world) to the problem
of child abuse all we do is UNCOVER MORE.

However, sticking our head in the sand and pretending it's not there is
destructive to society, let alone cruel and inhumane to the child victims.

You have a pleasant day, and know that you were exposed as a liar, once
again. Misleading people with your claim I dispute WHO the sources are
is naughty.

0:-

References: [[[ With my bracketed comments as usual ]]].

"The consequences of prenatal abuse are likely underreported. Hospitals
report some 2,700 cases annually of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. But because
signs of this disease - physical deformities, stunted growth, behavioral
abnormalities and mental retardation - are often not apparent at birth,
many experts place the number of FAS babies at 12,000 a year." (National
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.)
http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolute...ates/Home.aspx

[[[ Would you care to contact this group and tell them they are not a
reputable source, Doug? Nearly 10,000 unreported cases of child abuse a
year just from this ONE cause? You are SOOOO full of ****, Doug.
Especially when it comes to this cause. How DARE you lie about this. ]]]

"The tragedy of child abuse is well documented. According to the
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS, almost 900,000
children were victims of abuse and neglect in the United States in 2002,
causing unspeakable pain and suffering to our most vulnerable citizens.
Each day, nearly four of these children die as a result of this abuse.
Most experts are certain that cases of child abuse and neglect are in
fact underreported." ...

"Too many families have experienced the pain of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A
2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates

[Page: S3401] GPO's PDF

that, in the U.S., an average of 300 children will die each year, and
600 to 1,200 more will be injured, of whom two-thirds will be babies or
infants under 1 year in age, as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Medical professionals believe that thousands more cases of Shaken Baby
Syndrome are being misdiagnosed or not detected."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...:FLD001:S53401

[[[ Do you think the Senator is lying, and his staff hasn't researched
this issue before he spoke? Shall I write and let them know that you
think they are not credible and reputable, since you claim NON OF MY
SOURCES ARE? Or are these I'm providing suddenly more reputable than in
the past?

Let me see now, out of about 1500 child deaths a year on average, and
many more injured 300 deaths are all alone, JUST from shaken baby
syndrome and up to 1,200 injuries. Kind of makes one think this is the
majority, when we know that other causes are even greater. In other
words, stupid, there are one hell of a lot of injuries and even deaths
that go unreported because they are undiagnosed or incorrectly diagnosed.]]]


"How many? Too many!
How does the incidence of FAS compare to other birth defects?
United States ~ Arizona ~ Tucson ~ Canada ~ UK

This is the statement from the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome: The latest estimate for the U.S. is a rate of 19.5 per 10,000
live births, although estimates run as high as 30 per 10,000 - about
12,000 babies a year. (Substance Abuse and the American Woman, Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, June 5, 1996)

For FAS and ARND (Alcohol Related Neuredevelopmental Disorders)
combined, the rate is approximately one in every 100 live births.
[Teratology 1997 Nov;56(5):317-26]
What is the incidence and cost of FAS where you live? Calculate it here!

"The consequences of prenatal abuse are likely underreported. Hospitals
report some 2,700 cases annually of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. But because
signs of this disease - physical deformities, stunted growth, behavioral
abnormalities and mental retardation - are often not apparent at birth,
many experts place the number of FAS babies at 12,000 a year." (National
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.)
"Unlike many birth defects which are identified at birth and often
treated surgically, FAS and FAE are usually over-looked at birth and
treated later by mental health specialists - often unknowingly." -Ann
Streissguth, PhD "Statistics on FAS/E only reflect the more extreme end
of the spectrum. Most of the damage goes undiagnosed, but not unpunished."
-Bruce Ritchie, Fetal Alcohol Support Network
Read True Incidence of FAS Disorders.
Surveillance Studies

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the incidence
of FAS is only 1 per 4,000 births. Most accepted studies indicate that
the incidence of FAS is more than 5 times higher than the CDC
surveillance study indicates, and that the incidence of all FAS related
disorders is about 1 per 100. The article "FAS Surveillance: The Numbers
Game" offers an explanation of why the CDC numbers are so low. The CDC
surveillance study is very important and valuable, it just needs to be
interpreted correctly."

[[[ That's one hell of a lot of abuse, most of which goes unreported,
Doug. Don't you count FAS and FAE as abuse? ]]]

[[[ And Doug, the circumstances you claim that have made reporting more
accurate.....? THEY WEREN'T EVEN INSTITUTED UNTIL LAST YEAR AND THEY
STILL DO NOT INCLUDE ALL STATES. Do you really wish to claim that newly
instituted measures immediately created accuracy? You are this groups
number one bull****, Doug. ]]]

http://www.childdeathreview.org/history.htm
"2005: Five regional meetings of state teams from the Northeast,
Southeast, Midwest and West are held, with funding from MCHB through the
National MCH Center for Child Death Review.

The Child Death Review Case Reporting System is launched as a pilot in
12 states.

A new U.S. Healthy People 2010 Injury Prevention Objective is being
considered as measurable: Objective 15-6: "Extend to 50, the number of
states and the District of Columbia, where 100% of deaths to children
aged 17 years and younger that are due to external causes, are reviewed
by a child fatality review team, and 100% of all sudden and unexpected
infant deaths (under one year of age) are reviewed.”

MCHB funds the National Center for Child Death Review for three more
years, following a competitive review process.

All but one state (Idaho) report that they have state and/or local CDR
teams reviewing child fatalities. .. "

[[[ TWELVE STATES LAUNCHED LAST YEAR DOUG? You are delusional if you
think that has created any accuracy or will for many many years. It
won't even BEGIN to tap the reality of child abuse that goes UNREPORTED
BECAUSE IT'S UNDETECTED, just as the FAS people point out. ]]]


http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/hn/hn_2000_child.htm
"The problems are particularly pronounced in Indian Country, where
sexual abuse occurs at rates about three times the national average.
Indian nations must also deal with more prevalent occurrences of the
problems with which child sexual abuse is correlated, including
alcoholism, substance abuse, poverty and isolation. Sadly, child abuse
is often intergenerational, typically perpetrated by someone the victim
knows and trusts (such as a relative, family friend or caretaker). As a
societal taboo, the abuse goes vastly underreported. Too many
governments – both Native and non-Native – are poorly equipped to
address child sexual abuse when it occurs, and even fewer possess the
necessary institutional capacity to break the cycle of abuse."

[[[ Or would you rather argue with the FBI, and call them not
'reputable?" ]]]

http://www.yellodyno.com/html/childabusestatistics.html
• Like rape, child molestation is one of the most underreported crimes:
only 1-10% are ever disclosed.
-FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.


[[[ Haven't you learned yet not to challenge my statements? Man you are
stupid. You challenge me to show where states have been admonished. I
mentioned AZ yesterday as I recall. Stop being stupid, stupid.

This is the DEC 2005, CRB report from AZ. Notice it is in the year that
what was supposed to provide ACCURACY TO YOUR COUNT OF ABUSE AND DEATHS,
you stupid little man. ]]]

http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/owch/pdf/cr05_report.pdf
"CASE RECORD REVIEW FINDINGS
Child Protective Services received 37,657 reports of alleged
maltreatment from December 1, 2004 through November 30, 2005. Of those
reports, 37 were fatalities and 16 were designated as near-fatalities.
Last year’s report recommended that measures be taken to improve the
accuracy of tracking investigations involving near-fatalities. Although
this year’s data shows 16 near-fatalities reported in comparison to six
near-fatalities reported in the prior year, this appears to continue to
be underreported. Child Protective Services substantiated 27 of the 53
reported cases of fatalities and near-fatalities. Additional reports may
be substantiated at a later date as a result of the Child Protective
Services appeals process."

[[[ In other words, interested parties have to take CPS AZ to COURT TO
APPEAL THEIR NUMBERS AS BEING UNDERREPORTING, YOU STUPID LITTLE ****.

Is the AZ CRB not REPUTABLE, Doug? Call them. Tell them so. Get back to
us with their response. Ask THEM if child abuse is not underreported,
you stupid little ****ant. Every professional in the field of child
protection, and those that come in contact with children in related
capacities either have no comment....because they haven't been asked, or
believe that it IS underreported. What have YOU been doing, other than
concocting more bull**** and propaganda?

Read what follows my citation to SHOW you, you stupid little ****, that
states are NOT reporting up to the full number and are being admonished
for not doing so. Do you think this is just AZ? You the CPS hater that
you are? Ask Greg. He'll have to admit that if they can't do the job HE
expects of them in one way surely they cannot in another.

The fact is all this mandating and other bull**** that comes without
funding is the favorite "band aid" of government leaders and has been
for years. Creating yet another committee, no matter how grand and
important and no matter how much needed, simply gives people already
overworked MORE WORK TO DO. Hence quality if going to drop.

WAIT UP YOU STUPID LITTLE ****. CPS and other government social services
agencies have suffered from this for years. A long string of add-on
demands for their workload and NO FUNDING TO HIRE THE HELP TO DO IT, and
often cuts and cutbacks. ]]]

AND JUST TO CHEER YOU UP AND GIVE GREGG THE NEEDED KICK IN THE BUTT HE
NEEDS THREE TIMES DAILY MINIMUM TO WAKE HIM UP:

"Ninety percent of cases reviewed by the panel involved parental or
caretaker substance abuse. Methamphetamine use often creates a hazardous
environment and in 30 percent of the cases reviewed, directly
contributed to the child’s death or near-fatal maltreatment. The Citizen
Review Panel commends efforts by Child Protective Services to address
the devastating impact of this drug, but also recommends additional
training be provided to case managers on the assessment and management
of maltreatment cases complicated by parental methamphetamine abuse."

90 ****ing percent?

What have I been telling you, STUPID?

30% resulting in death or near death for the child?

What have I been telling you, STUPID?

You lying **** spewing assholes take the cake.

0:-




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
The agencies have padded the numbers for years.
Family Rights people have caught them under-reporting
deaths in their care simply by tracking the deaths
in newspaper accounts and comparing to what the
agency reports to the Feds.

Lie. Citations please. And you'll have to include more than one or two
instances. This is not a general practice of CPS.

The truth was bad PR for that agency so
they just reported low.

Liar.

Most Parents Rights people have felt that
the agencies have been inflating the abuse and neglect
figures because their FUNDING is based on them.

Let me see if I get this straight: The Child Abuse Apologist Child
Abusing Parent Protectors have decided the very opposite of what you
claim and you don't get it?

The fact is very few deaths happen in CPS care. The deaths being tracked
are almost 100% deaths at the hands of parents or relatives of
caretakers OTHER than CPS connected.

Even decisions about individual cases seem to
have been mindful of FUNDING considerations.
Recently some documentary guidelines for Judges
were discovered to have been encouraging
decisions based on FUNDING considerations
for the agency!

Idiot. The only thing found was a reminder that the judge cannot fail to
rule at a permanency hearing without the Feds refusing, should the child
be eligible, funding under SOME sources.

Judges occasionally simply forgot to sign the form even though they had
judged that the child must be removed.

Cite your source, stupid. We aren't going to believe an habitual liar
just because he makes a claim.

Family Rights advocates

Few are truly that. They are Anti-Child Rights advocates, little more.

complained that
the CA and N figures were lumped together,
so that Neglect padded the Child Abuse figures.

Which is bull**** if you actually know the injury and deaths attributed
to "neglect." It's more fatal and more damaging the outright physical
abuse.

A combined CAN figure tossed around is
still commonly used in propaganda as "abuse".

Bull****.

Recently I was shocked to learn that the
Federal numbers for "abuse" are actually
based on mostly RISK and not actual injuries.

You are that ignorant, are you?

Do you know what the risk factors actually ARE?

Look them up stupid. If you had a conscience YOU would not leave
children in such conditions for very real fear of injury, abuse, even
death.

In fact where CPS HAS been involved in cases YOU AND OTHER **** ANTS
have complained that they did NOT remove children for RISK FACTORS ALONE.

To most lay people that is outright TELLING LIES.

Why would you limit it to "lay people?"

Because you KNOW it's based on the ignorance of actual procedures and
intent of case work practice? And you and yours are guilty of promoting
that ignorance?

Any jury of citizens would see it that way I'm sure.

Nope. And time and again they have not, because lawyers are very good at
two things...argument, and EDUCATION. They teach the jury what and why
CPS does what it does. And the educated juror is MUCH MORE likely to can
the abusive parent, dummy.

This is just another of many ways that
systemic distortion has crept into the numbers.

It's your lie, child. And a poor one at that.

Kane and the agencies have "made hay" with
the numbers for years,

Where's my "hay?"

but recently the numbers
turned on Kane and so NOW he is desperate
to discredit the numbers! It's absurd!

No they didn't, nor did I discredit them. I discredited the
interpretation, and the accuracy, in two different instances.

Data is data.

Unexamined, unquestioned data is the stuff of propagandists. Such as you
folks.

So far this has been your only reply, and repeated, rather than dealing
with my refutation of your claims, and of Doug's who wants to argue that
I denied the Source, rather than the accuracy of the data. Such lying.

You folks are little better than thugs.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)