Child Protective Services supervisor has relationship with childabuser in Tucson arizona....

On May 10, 3:40 pm, " krp" wrote:
"0:-]" wrote in message

...

You must be DESPERATE for your buddy to come save your pathetic BLOW HARD
ass again Kane. You keep ADDING ADRU in your pathetic desperation for help.
Pretty much a confession. I removed your RECRUITING NOTICE AGAIN!!!

ach tim e you add it Kane it will be taken as a confession of: "I AM A LOSER
AND NEED HELP."

I am not adding it, Ken. I'm putting back what the original poster of
the thread had, that's all. It's YOU that first removed it, Ken, so
YOU would be the one with a motive, not I.

I suspect cowardice. Am I right?


CPS supervisor has relationship with child abuser
May 4, 2007 04:57 PM

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=6470035

Only on 4, startling new information on a supervisor for child
protective services. News 4 has learned from multiple sources, and
a
confidential document, that there's been a "relationship" between a
Tucson CPS supervisor and one of her former clients.

The client is a convicted child abuser.

The document, dated December 20, 2004, describes abuse earlier that
month of a 4 year old by his father.

Daycare workers noticed the boy had 9 or 10 bright red welts on his
right hip and below his right buttocks." The police were called,
and
an
investigation was conducted. The father, eventually, pled guilty to
child abuse.

But there's more to this story. The convicted child abuser began a
romantic relationship with a CPS supervisor in her office 10 months
before the abuse occurred.

And even before the relationship began, that supervisor was the
family's
case manager from December 2000 to October of 2002.

The document details abusive incidents dating back 10-years. Here
are
just some of the details:

* In April of 1995, the document says, "The father punched
[his
daughter] in the face when the parents were arguing."
* September of 2000, "The children would go to neighbors
asking
for
food" and that there was "no formula for [the baby]." All three
kids
were then removed from the home, but returned in 2002.
* August of 2002, another report is filed. It says the man's
daughter "went to school with bruising and broken capillaries on
the
right side and left sides of her face." Despite the substantiated
report that the father slapped the daughter, the kids remained with
their father.

Then the December 2004 abuse occurred. The CPS supervisor was
questioned
about her romantic relationship, and her knowledge of the alleged
abuse,
and "denied ever seeing any unusual or suspicious injuries on the
children." However, she admitted, the father "yells profanities at
the
children in her presence."

We found another CPS worker who doesn't want to be identified.
She
said, the rank and file have been outraged for years by all of
this.

Turns out, the relationship may not have been against the rules.
A
CPS
spokesperson tells News 4, workers should abide by a code of ethics
in
which "case managers should maintain nothing more than a
professional
relationship with families while they are involved in the
investigation
of abuse/neglect allegations, or while they are involved in
providing
on-going support and services to children and families. Once the
case
has ended, relationships are discouraged."

State Representative Jonathan Paton was mailed the same document
that
was sent anonymously to News 4. He says the fact that a CPS worker
could be allowed to date her former client at all -- especially one
who's a convicted child abuser -- speaks poorly to the management
of
CPS.

It would be unconstitutional to deny people the right of
association
barring some legal restraint. And that would be tested by the
courts
if need be.

Why did you stop there, after leaving everything else, and remove what
showed that I was not defending the agency or the supervisor?
Hmmmm....kenny?

Could have fooled me Kane. Sure as hell seemed like you were
grasping at
EXCUSES.

A great many things that aren't so seem like they are to you, Ken. We
see a lot of that with you.

Why am I not at all surprised that Killer Kane would rationalize
a CPS
supervisor "dating" a sex offender former client and not in the least
find
it troublesome?
"Killer?" You will provide proof of my having killed anyone
immediately,
Ken.
A nickname for the Internet's BADDEST badass at debate.
0:]

TRULY A LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND AND ONLY IN HIS OWN MIND!!

Not compared to the champion of happy liars, Ken.

When are you going to come up with the proof that the man in the story
was a convicted child molester, Ken, as you claimed?.

And how do you know what I find troublesome or not, liar?

Do you find it troublesome for a CPS SUPERVISOR to be GETTING IT ON
with a SEX OFFENDER??? Huh, Kane, DO YA?

I would if he was.

Show us the proof he's a sex offender. And if he is how I would know
that.

In other words, from the information available to us from the poster
FX, where did it say he was a convicted sex offender, eh?

Sure. Don't you? I found other things I disapproved of as well.
As I said, I certainly would, based on YOUR wording, failing to point
out the sex offense in THIS CASE, I would find it troublesome for a
CPS supervisor getting it on with a sex offender.

DO SAY?

Try not to blather.

And show us where the article says he's a sex offender.

Trouble is, there was no sex offense mentioned in the article. Do you
know something about the case I don't?

The man was a CONVICTED sex offender KANE wuit trying to RATIONALIZE IT!

I'm waiting for the proof. You got it yet?

I also, and much more importantly, because it is accurate, is that I'm
troubled by a supervisor associating intimately with a CHILD ABUSER.

GOOD FOR YOU - YOU are a HERO KANE!

You claimed I was not troubled by the association, didn't you, Ken?
When you could not say, one way or the other.

Where did I say I was not troubled by the association, Ken?

You are again lying, as in making things up as you go. Your usual MO.

The question now would be, was she his client. If not, despite my, and
your, indignation, nothing much can be done about it. Not according to
the US Constitution.

No Kane that would NOT be the question.

According to the article that would be the question. It's unclear if
he was a client of the supervisor during the romantic liaison.

Only to a CPS whore like you
would THAT diversion be THE question.

It's not a diversion, and I'm a sometimes opponent of CPS.

So you are arguing that a CPS
Superviosor has a "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" to hold that job AND screw a
CONVICTED sex offender???

Yep, unless he was her client at the time. Would you care to advance
an argument in support of the opposite?

ONLY YOU KANE! ONLY YOU and the whore you travel
with.

Only me what?

Why have you not commented on that aspect when I brought it up, other
than to making a false claim I am excusing CPS and the supervisor by
mentioning that fact?

You are overworking RATIONALIZATION trying to obfuscate the issue as
hard as you can.

As you have found out that's quite hard to do when you don't remove
the information in question. I did not snip a single piece of the
article poster here by fx.

How can we trust the JUDGMENT of somebody who has the TOTAL life and death LEGAL AUTHORITY over children who is
SCREWING a CONVICTED SEX
OFFENDER? Top YOU that is FANTASTIC JUDGMNENT! Great
qualificationfs for
the job. How much I expected that of you Kane.

Darned if I know, Ken.

You are ranting about something that is your opinion and your
feelings. That's nice. I quite agree, and have a similar opinion.

I don't like what the supervisor did.

The problem is you are basing YOUR opinion and feelings on false
information you are feeding into the debate. He was not, according to
the information we have in the thread, a convicted sex offender.

Or I missed it. Care to show me, us, where it says he was?

I can't believe someone from your claimed profession thinks "child
abuse" means "sexual offender," Ken. That's all it says about his
convictions. Convicted of child abuse.

Bad enough in my book, and more than enough for you to rant on about,
but not accurate to your rant.

There is ONE main thing to disapprove of, that is a CPS Suprevisor
boffing a CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER there Kane. NOT changing the saubject and
ranting about her "FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!"
Problem is, ranter, there was no sex offense involved.

Just the one he was CONVICTED of !

Please point to that information in the article posted. Thanks.

I didn't change the subject. The subject was blaming CPS.
My comment went to the fact they could not legally do much about it,
unless they could get a judge to give an order concerning it. I doubt
many judges are as stupid as you, and they would not make a
constitutional error as gross as that.

What can they DO about it?

1. FIRE her!

Of course they can, and open themselves to a conviction for violating
her civil rights. Costing the tax payers a great deal of money, and
NOT being able to get rid of her because there would be a judgement
reinstating her with back pay. It happens.

2. Move her to a job NOT involving children!

There are no jobs at CPS that do not in some way involve children.
Even janitor work can and does put staff in contact with children.

Moving her for cause, Ken, would have the same result as
firing...suit, charges of violating her civil rights, and she'd win
big.

And there's be almost NOTHING she could do then that would allow CPS
to act, because there would be a judgement, and any action by them
later could be and would be construed as vengeful and wrongful firing
and or transfer.

In fact, her bosses would hardly dare speak above a whisper.

You seem to be extremely ignorant of the powers of the court, Ken, for
someone in your profession.

You are such a WHORE for the insane child savers you will rationalize
ANYTHING! God help any parent ANY PARENT who ever listens to a word YOU have
to say Kane.

Well, interestingly, my first mention of the International Study that
you refused to debate honorably about, was in a thread where a poster
expressed her gratitude (as did another poster later) to Dan Sullivan
and myself for the very good advice that got them their children
back.

Have you forgotten?

See, you are lying again, Ken.

And nothing I've said in this instance, about this media piece, is in
any way an excuse for the supervisor or the agency. It simply explains
why they cannot act against the supervisor as you would claim they
should.

For all I know they are, as you seem to think, evil incarnate, but
nevertheless they are constrained by the constitutional protections of
the supervisor's civil rights.

Now if they can show that she knew the current abuse was going on
(note that he was NOT her client at this time) then they can fire with
cause. In fact she could be charged in a criminal court most likely.

That would be the case in most states. If you are a mandated reporter,
as she was and is, and saw evidence of abuse and did not report it,
then she would be subject to charges and if found guilty would be
fined and if their statute says so, various other penalties. A finding
of guilty would, of course, give CPS cause to fire without rights
violations problems.

But you go on babbling. I'm sure there are a number of folks watching
you and quietly waiting to see just how deep a hole you are going to
dig for yourself.

You seem to be up to your ass in it now, Ken, about ear level.

Anything else I haven't said that you wish to accuse me over, Ken?

Now's the time, ****ant.

I think I forgot to damn the governor too. Maybe that will convince
people you are a saint, and I am the evil witch of the west.

Kane