No such thing as "Cycle of Abuse."

CPS has actually gone after parents just because
one of the parents were once foster kids.

How many points do Risk Assessment "idiot sheets"
mark against parents who had once been foster kids?

Kane disagrees with the GAO report. So what?
Stooges whining about me for presenting it? Brilliant!

Did jeering at the messenger (myself in this case) ever
change the message to suit your self-serving wishes?

At the time the GAO report was written, was there proof
that the conclusion was wrong? Wasn't the report a survey
of a LOT of material that existed then?

Kane tried to say it was politically biased.

Is there any specific evidence of that accusation?

Wouldn't that be malfeasance coming from the GAO?

If it were true?

Simply because the report offends the ""religion"" of Social Work
is not enough of a basis to make such an accusation is it?

On Jun 7, 4:32 pm, Greegor wrote:
CPS has actually gone after parents just because
one of the parents were once foster kids.

Rumor. Provide some citations, and I'll take you seriously, and even
enter into a discussion if you have some questions.

How many points do Risk Assessment "idiot sheets"
mark against parents who had once been foster kids?

Tell us.

And answer this question: Would you prefer the workers not have a set
of written guidelines to follow while doing risk assessments?

If not, what other method would you suggest.

Now Greg, I've asked this so many times I've lost count, and every
time you dodge answering.

Do you intend to continue dodging yet trying to argue against the use
of the Risk Assessment tool?

You are looking silly enough already. Get serious, and answer the
question.

Kane disagrees with the GAO report. So what?

So I disagreed with data and citations. You failed to respond.

You have provided nothing but the report, and refuse to discuss the
other data and discussions by professionals about the issue.

Stooges whining about me for presenting it? Brilliant!

Stooges? No, Greg, it you and Ken and the sock parade that are
stooges. Rather than actually debate and issue honestly, even if it's
just to a standstill, you play silly logically fallacious games.
Nothing more. Just as you did just now.

Did jeering at the messenger (myself in this case) ever
change the message to suit your self-serving wishes?

My jeering is not about the study, but about your failure to defend it
by anything other than just repeating yourself, and it.

Deal with the issues I brought up in rebuttal, or simply continue to
whine and ad hom.

At the time the GAO report was written, was there proof
that the conclusion was wrong?

Yes.

Wasn't the report a survey
of a LOT of material that existed then?

Poorly surveyed, populations not sufficiently studied.

Take the prison population, for instance.

Kane tried to say it was politically biased.

No, I didn't try. I said it was, or likely was .

But then what's new about that.

It certainly didn't shock me.

Is there any specific evidence of that accusation?

No. Does there have to be for an obvious issue such as a government
agency pandering to government officials?

That's an argument you have used many times to try and rebut the
results of the data in USDHHS various reporting tools.

Wouldn't that be malfeasance coming from the GAO?

Oh Please. A government agency is going to be accused of malfeasance
on a sloppy premise with sloppy biased results?

You'd pretty much have to shut the who government down.

I do agree they should have been challenged more energetically, but
the people that wanted the report they wanted got what they wanted.
Why would they challenge it?

If it were true?

Figger the odds of a government agency returning the results in a
survey that they KNOW the inquirers are seeking?

Sure, Greg.

You talk to Ken about the ocean view property I asked him to show me
in Florida.

Simply because the report offends the ""religion"" of Social Work

Nope. Because it's inconsistent with other data, and the reports of
people working directly with the population named.

is not enough of a basis to make such an accusation is it?

Nope. And that's not what I did.

I'm not offended by the report. It makes me chuckle.

After I'm through laughing though I feel some obligation to point out
that the report is misleading, to a considerable degree.

It flies in the face, by the way, of learning theory....centuries OLD
learning theory.

You know, like the one that says kids will grow up to be like their
parents, OR so UNlike them in opposition it's rather obvious.

People that abuse their children raise children that tend to abuse
their's.

It's not true, as nothing is, in every single case, but a high enough
probability to offend the antiCPS and antiGovernment, and
anti0authority folks 'religion' so that they try to say that because a
few don't grow up to abuse their children the claim can't be true.

You boys are full of nonsense, but damned entertaining and keep those
of us with an interest up to speed on what the more limited members of
our population are up to.

0:]

Congressional GAO wrote a comprehensive report.
You want me to defend it? Against what?

On Jun 7, 10:18 pm, "0:-]" wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:32:17 -0700, Greegor
wrote:

CPS has actually gone after parents just because
one of the parents were once foster kids.

How many points do Risk Assessment "idiot sheets"
mark against parents who had once been foster kids?

Kane disagrees with the GAO report. So what?
Stooges whining about me for presenting it? Brilliant!

Did jeering at the messenger (myself in this case) ever
change the message to suit your self-serving wishes?

At the time the GAO report was written, was there proof
that the conclusion was wrong? Wasn't the report a survey
of a LOT of material that existed then?

Kane tried to say it was politically biased.

Is there any specific evidence of that accusation?

Wouldn't that be malfeasance coming from the GAO?

If it were true?

Simply because the report offends the ""religion"" of Social Work
is not enough of a basis to make such an accusation is it?

You completely failed, back in Oct of 2004 to carry the debate, Greg.

I challenged you and you simply ran.

I pointed out, clearly, that GAO had NOT done the research, but merely
paid for it, as is the usual custom. You yourself have argued that
research will find what they are paid to find.

Yet you persisted in your nonsense, until we reached the point I
posted the following to you, and KNOWING that your ass was "TOAST" as
I've recently seen used so colorfully, YOU RAN FROM THIS:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/...

[[[ And, you'll run again NOW. ]]]

From: (kane)
Date: 28 Oct 2004 22:06:45 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 28 2004 10:06 pm
Subject: FBI 2003 Crime Report now available
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 28 Oct 2004 17:36:51 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Why is this APA crap in this FBI crime report??
Just the FACTS, ma'am, as the APA tell them??
The APA has it's own stench, bias and self interest
at stake here.
The US General Accounting Office printed a report
that disproved this BS notion of a
"Cycle of Violence"....

My hunch is that when the chickens come home to roost and yet another
study is done, exactly what caseworkers find in the field all the
time, intergenerational abuse and negect, will be seen to be the fact
it is...and the USGAO won't have to answer for this bit of nonsense.
Who actually did the study the GAO printed, greegor. I'd like to look
at their methods.

When I was a practicum student in 1980-81, and later as a mental
health treatment case worker for adolescents intergenerational abuse,
the cycle of violence, (Actually we knew it as "Cycle of Abuse") was
a common component. Abused children are often abused by people that
were abused themselves as children.

Not ALL abused people abuse their children, but a significant number
do. Very significant.

But the geeks in the APA must not know it since
the same industry crap is printed in almost
every textbook for Social Work or Psychology,

Yes, isn't that interesting though? Could it be that people keep
finding evidence for it, as opposed to ONE report you know of that
denies it?

and the lie is perpetuated.

The only lie being perpetuated is the one you try to foist on ng.

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/cyclepre.txtFolks been looking at this
for some time. They didn't just dream it up. Histories on perps were
showing it long before the data was collected for analysis and
significance.

There is some speculation that when the perpetrator of the violence
upon the child, or against one's spouse in front of the child, is
someone the child has a close intimate relationship, such as
caregiver/care-receiver, the child is MORE likely to be violent later
in life, as in;http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publica.../monograph.htm

"
Long-Term Impact of Victimization and Witnessing Violence
Exposure to violence as a victim or witness poses a serious threat to
American children. In 1992, the National Institute of Justice released
a report, "The Cycle of Violence," by Cathy Spatz Widom, University of
Albany, New York. The reported study revealed a significant link
between victimization in childhood and later involvement in violent
crimes, revealing a cycle of violence. Those who had been abused or
neglected as children were more likely to be arrested as juveniles and
as adults for violent crimes. On average, abused and neglected
children begin committing crimes at younger ages, they commit nearly
twice as many offenses as nonabused children, and they are arrested
more frequently. Widom also interviewed a large number of people 20
years after their childhood victimization. Findings from this
follow-up study suggest that the long-term consequences of childhood
victimization may also include mental health problems, educational
difficulties, alcohol and drug abuse, and employment problems.
"
Seems outcomes depend a lot on whether or not a non-offending
caregiver can adequately reassure the child early enough and in the
right way...like helping the child talk out the events until the
impact is lessened, disempowered, in the child's life.

Just like we adults tend to do for our own healing from trauma.

Where it gets really stinky is when it
creaps back into a FEDERAL AGENCY like the FBI
despite a high level responsible FEDERAL AGENCY
finding that the notion is a crock.

Since it isn't a crock, and you have nothing to prove it's a crock,
the, greegor, it appears you are the crock.

Why are these boneheads at FBI going against
the GAO and siding with the couch trippers
in the APA, laughably self serving and pedantic.

You really have a thing about shrinks, now don't you? I recall you
wouldn't allow yourself to be subject ot a pychological evaluation,
even for the sake of working toward your beloved paramour's return or
her child.

Seems a bit extreme to me. I've had many psych evals. Seems I'm a bit
obsessive about fact checking. R R R R R .........

QUOTED below
The APA estimates
that 16 to 34 percent of girls and 10 to
20 percent of boys are sexually abused,
most often by a family member or trusted
family friend. The APA has for a
long time indicated that children who
experience violence are at greater risk of
becoming adult abusers. The Association
terms this the "cycle of violence."2

Yes, that is an accurate quote. If you actually studied the issue
without your odd obsessive reaction to mental health professionals you
might learn you are wrong. Children, just like everyone else, react to
their environment and the events in it.

Humans kind of do that. It was, and in fact, is, a vital survival
ability. If we did NOT react we'd be dead pretty shortly.

One of the most pressing of issues for the relatives I worked with was
this very thing. Many..hell, most almost to a child, had a reactive
kid or kids move in.

They thought they were seeing "misbehavior" and some were going nuts
trying "discipline" the kids out of their unwanted behaviors. I always
gave each family my little monograph on The Abuse and Neglected
Survival Skills."

They got back to reading it for real, once they'd lived with such a
child for a short time.

Basically the child behaves and reacts like someone at war in the
battle field.

They will lie, steal, be violent, sneaky, manipulative, and just about
any other combat skill you an think of.

And it all looks like misbehavior...but they learned to do it to
survive in an abusive and neglectful homelife. In fact, even the
trauma bonding military people experience that go through battle
together is seen in siblings.

You are a dunce, and probably a nutcase. I think you are afraid to get
a psych eval because you know it would turn up some very nasty things
about yourself you don't want to face.

Coward.

Show us you are a man. Go get that psych eval. See if you can get back
on track to get that child back to her mother.

Of course you won't, because that's the last thing you want.

Kane...

You departed the thread at that point, Greg, with NO response to this
and a quick post or two on an entirely different subject to cover your
retreat with fog.

There is a significant correlation between the abusers and their child
hood.

You insist, unethically and illogically, as Fern did, to claim the
opposite...that a lot of people that were abused don't grow up to be
abusers (something absolutely impossible to claim because that number
is NOT KNOWN.)

What we do know and that is ALL any professional has claimed, is that
a very high number of clients of CPS all over the country, were
themselves abused as children.

THAT is what the GAO report failed to consider. And YOU took a ride on
it with your even stupider friends.

And Greg, an extremely disproportionate number of violent criminals in
lock up report they were abused as children. Most quite proud of it
and how they handled it.

Ring any bells for you?

You and anyone else that has followed the issue of "spanking" in that
group, has seen data on this, and if you were honest, would have
conceded long ago that children take to their adult lives what they
learn as children.

Denial of this fact defies hundreds of thousands of years of both
human and animal history.

ALL who study the issue of learning in childhood KNOW that what they
find is that learning IS a fact. And 80% of ALL learning is by
modeling. Copying what someone else does.

And the correct term, by the way, should be Cycle of Violence.