Greg? Does Drug Rehab Suck? was Just System Suck Solutions...

No comment, Greg?

Can we assume you simply missed this, or are you lying by dodging again?

So, do you really believe NOW that drug rehab is crap, and formerly that
parents IN drug rehab, as in the Florida experiment you mentioned last
in 2005, they should be reunited and can be expected to do well with
this support?

Which will it be? Take your pick...or explain the difference between
your two positions.

Thanks, Kane

0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Drug rehab crap again?

You don't believe in drug rehab efforts?

If it allows parents to reunify with their children you are against it?


I guess you didn't believe that piece some years ago that showed the
drug effected mothers could, with support, parent their children
effectively. It was in Florida.

I believe you posted this...a copy and paste of an article criticizing
the removal of children from drug effected mothers, did you not?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...thers+ cocain
.... Both states, in short, experienced "a dramatic increase in the
number
of children who are freed for adoption but not adopted." n78 State
wards who maintained a close relationship with their substance-abusing
parents would probably have been better off waiting longer for their
parents to recover. ...

Do you now wish to withdraw any support you might have meant at the
time for families accused of drug use and losing their children?

Or was that not why you posted that piece?

After all, it did say:

.... It will often be difficult for a substance-abusing parent to
successfully complete a treatment program and conform to other child
protective services requirements in time. As Jess McDonald, Director
of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, stated at
a recent government hearing, "the 12-month permanency clock for
children ignores ...

Do you disagree?

Is this not YOUR post, below?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...d56db7e?hl=en&

From: Greegor - view profile
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2005 12:58 pm
Email: "Greegor"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Witchy:
Years ago a study was done in Florida that revealed that
a child was better off staying WITH a mother who was
a crack head than to be placed in foster care.

The Boston case above partly reveals why.

How can you bring yourself to justify the removal
given the deadly outcome?

Do you also justify the way the agencies worked
to prevent OTHER relatives from providing kinship care? ...

I hope, Greg, you weren't suggesting that study found that keeping the
child with the mother without SERVICES, such as rehab, and close
monitoring, resulted it being better off for the child.

That's not what that study was about. I'm very familiar with it. It
include a panoply of services, Greg, including "Drug rehab crap again."

So, which is it, Greg?

You are for drug rehab for families so they can keep their children,
or...

You are against it, or....

You will now run away or decide that some unrelated item deserves close
attention while you ignore my question, and my point?

I've remembered this post of yours for a long time, Greg, and each time
you went off on drug addicts saying they should lose their children it
gave me a chuckle.

So far I let you go on self deluding and lying to yourself and others,
but I thougth this might be a good time to remind you of what you
really are.

That post is a year and a half old.

Have you had an epiphany and decided that it's no longer true, despite
this study you remember, and parents don't deserve a chance to keep
their children by participating in rehab?

How is it you really didn't respond to my post, by the way?

These are the two questions I asked, and you dodged yet again.

Don't you have even a semblance of ethics?

"Aren't their parental rights being violated, constitutionally?

(I have a hunch Dan would recommend some compliance. Would that make
Dan a system suck?) "

So, are they or are they not?

Is Dan, because he might well have suggested (I know I would) they
participate in such a program to regain their children, a "system
suck?'

Answer the questions asked please.

Or admit you are a liar and inconsistent in your arguments because you
lack ethics.

It's perfectly okay to face your faults and problems, Greg, and
admission is the first step to rehabilitation.

0:-]

0:- wrote:
No comment, Greg?

Hi Don,

Any of the children you spammed to usenet get raped and murdered by the
perverts that found them for sale on alt.adoption?

You're a real piece of work.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

No comment, Greg?

Can we assume you simply missed this, or are you lying by dodging again?

So, do you really believe NOW that drug rehab is crap, and formerly that
parents IN drug rehab, as in the Florida experiment you mentioned last
in 2005, they should be reunited and can be expected to do well with
this support?

Which will it be? Take your pick...or explain the difference between
your two positions.

Thanks, Kane

0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Drug rehab crap again?

You don't believe in drug rehab efforts?

If it allows parents to reunify with their children you are against it?


I guess you didn't believe that piece some years ago that showed the
drug effected mothers could, with support, parent their children
effectively. It was in Florida.

I believe you posted this...a copy and paste of an article criticizing
the removal of children from drug effected mothers, did you not?


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...thers+ cocain
.... Both states, in short, experienced "a dramatic increase in the
number
of children who are freed for adoption but not adopted." n78 State
wards who maintained a close relationship with their substance-abusing
parents would probably have been better off waiting longer for their
parents to recover. ...

Do you now wish to withdraw any support you might have meant at the
time for families accused of drug use and losing their children?

Or was that not why you posted that piece?

After all, it did say:

.... It will often be difficult for a substance-abusing parent to
successfully complete a treatment program and conform to other child
protective services requirements in time. As Jess McDonald, Director
of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, stated at
a recent government hearing, "the 12-month permanency clock for
children ignores ...

Do you disagree?

Is this not YOUR post, below?


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...d56db7e?hl=en&

From: Greegor - view profile
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2005 12:58 pm
Email: "Greegor"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Witchy:
Years ago a study was done in Florida that revealed that
a child was better off staying WITH a mother who was
a crack head than to be placed in foster care.

The Boston case above partly reveals why.

How can you bring yourself to justify the removal
given the deadly outcome?

Do you also justify the way the agencies worked
to prevent OTHER relatives from providing kinship care? ...

I hope, Greg, you weren't suggesting that study found that keeping the
child with the mother without SERVICES, such as rehab, and close
monitoring, resulted it being better off for the child.

That's not what that study was about. I'm very familiar with it. It
include a panoply of services, Greg, including "Drug rehab crap again."

So, which is it, Greg?

You are for drug rehab for families so they can keep their children,
or...

You are against it, or....

You will now run away or decide that some unrelated item deserves close
attention while you ignore my question, and my point?

I've remembered this post of yours for a long time, Greg, and each time
you went off on drug addicts saying they should lose their children it
gave me a chuckle.

So far I let you go on self deluding and lying to yourself and others,
but I thougth this might be a good time to remind you of what you
really are.

That post is a year and a half old.

Have you had an epiphany and decided that it's no longer true, despite
this study you remember, and parents don't deserve a chance to keep
their children by participating in rehab?

How is it you really didn't respond to my post, by the way?

These are the two questions I asked, and you dodged yet again.

Don't you have even a semblance of ethics?

"Aren't their parental rights being violated, constitutionally?

(I have a hunch Dan would recommend some compliance. Would that make
Dan a system suck?) "

So, are they or are they not?

Is Dan, because he might well have suggested (I know I would) they
participate in such a program to regain their children, a "system
suck?'

Answer the questions asked please.

Or admit you are a liar and inconsistent in your arguments because you
lack ethics.

It's perfectly okay to face your faults and problems, Greg, and
admission is the first step to rehabilitation.
0:-]

0:- wrote:
No comment, Greg?

Hi Don,

Any of the children you spammed to usenet get raped and murdered by the
perverts that found them for sale on alt.adoption?

You're a real piece of work.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

No comment, Greg?

Can we assume you simply missed this, or are you lying by dodging again?

So, do you really believe NOW that drug rehab is crap, and formerly that
parents IN drug rehab, as in the Florida experiment you mentioned last
in 2005, they should be reunited and can be expected to do well with
this support?

Which will it be? Take your pick...or explain the difference between
your two positions.

Thanks, Kane

0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Drug rehab crap again?

You don't believe in drug rehab efforts?

If it allows parents to reunify with their children you are against it?


I guess you didn't believe that piece some years ago that showed the
drug effected mothers could, with support, parent their children
effectively. It was in Florida.

I believe you posted this...a copy and paste of an article criticizing
the removal of children from drug effected mothers, did you not?


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...thers+ cocain
.... Both states, in short, experienced "a dramatic increase in the
number
of children who are freed for adoption but not adopted." n78 State
wards who maintained a close relationship with their substance-abusing
parents would probably have been better off waiting longer for their
parents to recover. ...

Do you now wish to withdraw any support you might have meant at the
time for families accused of drug use and losing their children?

Or was that not why you posted that piece?

After all, it did say:

.... It will often be difficult for a substance-abusing parent to
successfully complete a treatment program and conform to other child
protective services requirements in time. As Jess McDonald, Director
of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, stated at
a recent government hearing, "the 12-month permanency clock for
children ignores ...

Do you disagree?

Is this not YOUR post, below?


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...d56db7e?hl=en&

From: Greegor - view profile
Date: Fri, Mar 18 2005 12:58 pm
Email: "Greegor"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Witchy:
Years ago a study was done in Florida that revealed that
a child was better off staying WITH a mother who was
a crack head than to be placed in foster care.

The Boston case above partly reveals why.

How can you bring yourself to justify the removal
given the deadly outcome?

Do you also justify the way the agencies worked
to prevent OTHER relatives from providing kinship care? ...

I hope, Greg, you weren't suggesting that study found that keeping the
child with the mother without SERVICES, such as rehab, and close
monitoring, resulted it being better off for the child.

That's not what that study was about. I'm very familiar with it. It
include a panoply of services, Greg, including "Drug rehab crap again."

So, which is it, Greg?

You are for drug rehab for families so they can keep their children,
or...

You are against it, or....

You will now run away or decide that some unrelated item deserves close
attention while you ignore my question, and my point?

I've remembered this post of yours for a long time, Greg, and each time
you went off on drug addicts saying they should lose their children it
gave me a chuckle.

So far I let you go on self deluding and lying to yourself and others,
but I thougth this might be a good time to remind you of what you
really are.

That post is a year and a half old.

Have you had an epiphany and decided that it's no longer true, despite
this study you remember, and parents don't deserve a chance to keep
their children by participating in rehab?

How is it you really didn't respond to my post, by the way?

These are the two questions I asked, and you dodged yet again.

Don't you have even a semblance of ethics?

"Aren't their parental rights being violated, constitutionally?

(I have a hunch Dan would recommend some compliance. Would that make
Dan a system suck?) "

So, are they or are they not?

Is Dan, because he might well have suggested (I know I would) they
participate in such a program to regain their children, a "system
suck?'

Answer the questions asked please.

Or admit you are a liar and inconsistent in your arguments because you
lack ethics.

It's perfectly okay to face your faults and problems, Greg, and
admission is the first step to rehabilitation.
0:-]

0:- wrote:
No comment, Greg?

Can we assume you simply missed this, or are you lying by dodging again?

So, do you really believe NOW that drug rehab is crap, and formerly that
parents IN drug rehab, as in the Florida experiment you mentioned last
in 2005, they should be reunited and can be expected to do well with
this support?

Which will it be? Take your pick...or explain the difference between
your two positions.

Thanks, Kane

Hi Don,

Any of the children you spammed to usenet get raped and murdered by the
perverts that found them for sale on alt.adoption?

You're a real piece of work.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0o0 wrote:
0:- wrote:
No comment, Greg?

Hi Don,

Any of the children you spammed to usenet get raped and murdered by the
perverts that found them for sale on alt.adoption?

You're a real piece of work.


No comment Don?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com