Foster Parents FAQ » Foster Parent Support » HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY

HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY

Question:

Thought I might add: I’ve just done a sort of relevant web page… http://www.MyKid2.org/DadsHoliday.html

Response:

"Greg Hanson" <Gree…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:35120b16.0312092300.70f79acd@posting.google.com… > This is not unique to L.A.  Not at all. > Last week a story was posted from Arizona where > a CASEWORKER acknowledged that half of all reports > of abuse there are from grandparents who "don’t like > the way the grandkids are being raised". > (IE. Second Guessing parents for non-ABUSE reasons.)

IE no figures to support the claim.  The "possible word" of a single caseworker is not enough to make it true.  Maybe he/she was having a bad day, didn’t like a particular grandparent at that moment, or maybe it was even that time of the month.  Why don’t you put some meat on that plate greg, we tire of a diet of air. Ron

Response:

"Ron" <apositivepl…@netscape.net> wrote in message

news:qwKBb.24290$5g.17053@okepread04… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Greg Hanson" <Gree…@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:35120b16.0312092300.70f79acd@posting.google.com… > > This is not unique to L.A.  Not at all. > > Last week a story was posted from Arizona where > > a CASEWORKER acknowledged that half of all reports > > of abuse there are from grandparents who "don’t like > > the way the grandkids are being raised". > > (IE. Second Guessing parents for non-ABUSE reasons.) > IE no figures to support the claim.  The "possible word" of a single > caseworker is not enough to make it true.  Maybe he/she was having a bad > day, didn’t like a particular grandparent at that moment, or maybe it was > even that time of the month.  Why don’t you put some meat on that plate > greg, we tire of a diet of air.

What’s with this obsession with statistics ? If you were to get a detailed report of statistics in Arizona, you might then say it doesn’t apply to other states or you might question the creteria for establishing what constitutes abuse etcetera… Does it matter if it ’s 49%, 79% or 29%, my question is, who is going to do anything about it ? I am pleased that a professional caseworker has had the courage to speak about about what he or she thought was wrong and hope that many more follow his/her and Greg’s example until the responsible authorities start to take note or lose face… and their responsibility.

Response:

"ChrisScaife" <ChrisSca…@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:cjLBb.25343$VV6.587672@news.xtra.co.nz… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Ron" <apositivepl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:qwKBb.24290$5g.17053@okepread04… > > "Greg Hanson" <Gree…@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:35120b16.0312092300.70f79acd@posting.google.com… > > > This is not unique to L.A.  Not at all. > > > Last week a story was posted from Arizona where > > > a CASEWORKER acknowledged that half of all reports > > > of abuse there are from grandparents who "don’t like > > > the way the grandkids are being raised". > > > (IE. Second Guessing parents for non-ABUSE reasons.) > > IE no figures to support the claim.  The "possible word" of a single > > caseworker is not enough to make it true.  Maybe he/she was having a bad > > day, didn’t like a particular grandparent at that moment, or maybe it was > > even that time of the month.  Why don’t you put some meat on that plate > > greg, we tire of a diet of air. > What’s with this obsession with statistics ?

Simple sir.  After reading here for a while you too will understand the need for statistics, as many specious claims are made by the "anti-CPS" mob. Rarely do they back their claims, and even when they do they twist those statistics to met their own specific agenda and to hell with how accurate they are.  But, with the numbers in hand one can usually find the flaw in their arguments quite quickly.  Without some form of support for a claim (such as the one greg alludes to) these posts are pretty much SPAM. > If you were to get a detailed report of statistics in Arizona, you might > then say it doesn’t apply to other states > or you might question the creteria for establishing what constitutes abuse > etcetera…

Actually I have seen the detailed numbers for Arizona.  They are freely available right here on the web, one only has to take the time to find them. See the link at the bottom of this post, that should get you started in the right direction. > Does it matter if it ’s 49%, 79% or 29%, my question is, who is going to do > anything about it ?

We the citizens.  Through concerned and thoughtful action.  Not by taking off in 300 different directions, not by advocating for the total destruction of anything having to do with CPS, not by making specious and silly claims in a Usenet news group.  I am doing something about it.  I am a foster parent.  I work for positive change in the system from within the system. > I am pleased that a professional caseworker has had the courage to speak > about about what he or she thought was wrong and hope that many more follow > his/her and Greg’s example until the responsible authorities start to take > note or lose face… and their responsibility.

Courage, maybe.  A responsible action?  Not likely.  Was it this person’s place to make a public spectacle of the issue, or would it have been better to address the issue within the department responsible and allow them to deal with the problem?  Oh, and please don’t say that this never works, I know better than that. Personally I think not permanently removing children from an abusive parent is a questionable practice.  I personally think that anyone that allows a child access to a weapon (gun or otherwise) must be held responsible for any action that a child takes with that weapon.  I think quite a few things around the world are wrong, but would it be responsible of me to get in front of a member of the media and announce it?  No, not really.  Positive change is not made that way, only profit from the sales of newspapers. Ron http://www.calib.com/nccanch/

Response:

Ron wrote: > we tire of a diet of air.

What you meant to say was you suck wind.

Response:

On 10 Dec 2003 16:22:55 -0800, Gree…@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote: >Ron wrote: > we tire of a diet of air. >What you meant to say was you suck wind.

Ron, Greegor has finally figured out he has nothing to contribute of any worth…so he has taken up Agriculture recently, with his own special flair, but basic Plantlife actitities. He will find a bit in the media, post it, pretend he understands it, say something innane about it, when confronted he attempts a lame flame, not understanding that the essense of the good and purposeful flame is to base it on fact, and comeback with some facts along with the flame. I guess, along with Foster Children, you called on to, from time to time, educate the few children on Usenet. Seems a small group of us are saddled with this task, <sigh>, but hey, the rewards are great when one of them falls on their ass publically enough often enough and learns. Of course this particular one is so sick he doesn’t even know when to be embarrassed. Kane

Response:

Tanks Ron, sorry if I snipped a bit too much there… You said: > Simple sir.  After reading here for a while you too will understand the need > for statistics, as many specious claims are made by the "anti-CPS" mob.

I’ll admit to total ignorance regarding how things are done in the US of A… but is it really that clear cut… you ar either anti- or pro- something. Don’t you think sometimes people get it wrong even with the best intentions and other people abuse the system for their own personal benefit? Greg, I gather, is pro- spanking. I do not agree with that as I think there are always better alternatives, however I doubt Greg is pro- child abuse, he might even respect my non-spanking approach even though he himself does not agree with it. > Rarely do they back their claims, and even when they do they twist those > statistics to met their own specific agenda and to hell with how accurate > they are.  But, with the numbers in hand one can usually find the flaw in > their arguments quite quickly.  Without some form of support for a claim > (such as the one greg alludes to) these posts are pretty much SPAM.

I don’t visit the NG to read scientific publications and don’t expect to find them here. IMHO, if  authorities wish to intervene it is *their* responsibility to justify that intervention, not the responsibility of their critics to prove them wrong. > > If you were to get a detailed report of statistics in Arizona, you might > > then say it doesn’t apply to other states > > or you might question the creteria for establishing what constitutes abuse > > etcetera… > Actually I have seen the detailed numbers for Arizona.  They are freely > available right here on the web, one only has to take the time to find them. > See the link at the bottom of this post, that should get you started in the > right direction.

Fair dinkum, then all you need is to post what you think is relevant to discredit the allegations made by the caseworker that Greg cited. I can see nothing wrong in posting a reference to the article about the case worker. As for disputing credibility of statistics, that works both ways: An organisation that depends on justifying it’s work to get government funding isn’t going to be any more honest than it’s victims. The main thing is that their intervention must be justified… and not the other way round. > > Does it matter if it ’s 49%, 79% or 29%, my uestion is, who is going to > do > > anything about it ? > We the citizens.  Through concerned and thoughtful action.  Not by taking > off in 300 different directions, not by advocating for the total destruction > of anything having to do with CPS, not by making specious and silly claims > in a Usenet news group.

In my experience most citizens read the statistics, then say "tut tut what is the world coming to" and go back to their work. There is no shame in people expressing thier opinion on an NG. Isn’t that an aspect of what freedom and democracy are about ? If the suffragettes had simply addressed the appropriate authorities, if Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or Mandela had followed correct procedure, would the world today be a better place ? The complaint is that CPS sometimes places children unnecessarily in foster care. I didn’t get the message that *everything* it does is wrong. I didn’t get the message that foster parents are no good. >… I am a foster > parent.  I work for positive change in the system from within the system.

That is good and I have great respect for the work you do. > > I am pleased that a professional caseworker has had the courage to speak > > about about what he or she thought was wrong and hope that many more > follow > > his/her and Greg’s example until the responsible authorities start to take > > note or lose face… and their responsibility. > Courage, maybe.  A responsible action?  Not likely.  Was it this person’s > place to make a public spectacle of the issue, or would it have been better > to address the issue within the department responsible and allow them to > deal with the problem?  Oh, and please don’t say that this never works, I > know better than that.

No I won’t say that. However sometimes one cannot depend on people in one department blowing the whistle on their coleagues in another. That person acted out of conscience. Wrong or right, that should be respected. If he/she is given the sack next week for speaking out of turn and not towing company policy then it will be one less person who cares and one more position filled by  a jobs-worth bureaucrat. > Personally I think not permanently removing children from an abusive parent > is a questionable practice.

…and I think such intervention would have to be justified. Personally I find that allocating my son to my ex and her abusive lover and allowing them to deny me access and attempting to justify that by filing false charges against me very distasteful… and DS isn’t happy about it either, I can tell you that for a fact! >…I think quite a few things > around the world are wrong, but would it be responsible of me to get in > front of a member of the media and announce it?

Well, if you did, I *would* respect you for it… I might not agree with what you said but I shall defend your right to say it. Chris. P.S. Check out my new website and slag it off if you like, but it’s what I beleive and I’ll defend my right to say it ;-)  http://www.MyKid2.org

Response:

> Personally I think not permanently removing children from an abusive parent > is a questionable practice.  I personally think that anyone that allows a > child access to a weapon (gun or otherwise) must be held responsible for any > action that a child takes with that weapon.  I think quite a few things > around the world are wrong, but would it be responsible of me to get in > front of a member of the media and announce it?  No, not really.  Positive > change is not made that way, only profit from the sales of newspapers. > Ron

Aside from the debate surrounding the number of children in foster care, I’m not sure I completely agree with you. Yes, it would be horrible to leave a child in a home situation that is abusive, but can you honestly hold parents responsible for all actions taken by their children. Sure, parents shouldn’t leave guns around the house, I won’t argue that, but when do you expect children to take responsibility for themselves? We can’t blame parents forever. Yes, parents need to be responsible and children should be removed from abusive homes, but at what point are you going to hold kids accountable for themselves?

Response:

"ChrisScaife" <ChrisSca…@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:mWPBb.25578$VV6.593692@news.xtra.co.nz… > Tanks Ron, sorry if I snipped a bit too much there… You said: > > Simple sir.  After reading here for a while you too will understand the > need > > for statistics, as many specious claims are made by the "anti-CPS" mob. > I’ll admit to total ignorance regarding how things are done in the US of > A…

Congratulations.  Admitting that you don’t know something is the first step towards knowledge. > but is it really that clear cut… you ar either anti- or pro- something. > Don’t you think sometimes people get it wrong even with the best intentions > and other people abuse the system for their own personal benefit?

Clear cut?  Is anything "Clear cut"?  No, its not.  Some people here absolutely refuse to see the benefits of the system, and others like myself see the benefits, and the changes that need to be made. > Greg, I gather, is pro- spanking. I do not agree with that as I think there > are always better alternatives, however I doubt Greg is pro- child abuse, he > might even respect my non-spanking approach even though he himself does not > agree with it.

I dont know if he is pro-spanking or not.  He’s not a parent so it does not really matter.  I do know however that he is not pro-child abuse.  But then again he does not understand what child abuse is, as is evidenced by his own abuse of his S.O.’s child and his refusal to acknowledge that it was indeed abuse.  You can find out more about his particular case by searching historic poss in this news group. Does he respect your position?  I doubt it.  greg respects very little, and no one that does not agree with his personal views. > > Rarely do they back their claims, and even when they do they twist those > > statistics to met their own specific agenda and to hell with how accurate > > they are.  But, with the numbers in hand one can usually find the flaw in > > their arguments quite quickly.  Without some form of support for a claim > > (such as the one greg alludes to) these posts are pretty much SPAM. > I don’t visit the NG to read scientific publications and don’t expect to > find them here. > IMHO, if  authorities wish to intervene it is *their* responsibility to > justify that intervention, not the responsibility of their critics to prove > them wrong.

That’s a good position.  And the authorities here in the USA justify those interventions, in front of a court, in each and every case.  Its a part of our legal system here.  But, as with anything in a free society, there are those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of that legal system to make those decisions, or believe that the decisions made are wrong.  That’s one of the nice things about our system, people ARE allowed to disagree.  They are the small but loud minority, and usually quite easy to disprove. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > If you were to get a detailed report of statistics in Arizona, you might > > > then say it doesn’t apply to other states > > > or you might question the creteria for establishing what constitutes > abuse > > > etcetera… > > Actually I have seen the detailed numbers for Arizona.  They are freely > > available right here on the web, one only has to take the time to find > them. > > See the link at the bottom of this post, that should get you started in > the > > right direction. > Fair dinkum, then all you need is to post what you think is relevant to > discredit the allegations made by the caseworker that Greg cited. > I can see nothing wrong in posting a reference to the article about the case > worker.

The problem is that this is the belief of a single individual caseworker. The figures dont exist to support her claim, and greg knows it.  The figures are not broken down that specifically.  They get to groups of reporters by employment, but not to relationship.  Thats why I asked him to provide some form of support, I knew that it did not exist. > As for disputing credibility of statistics, that works both ways: An > organisation that depends on justifying it’s work to get government funding > isn’t going to be any more honest than it’s victims. The main thing is that > their intervention must be justified… and not the other way round.

That’s a sad outlook.  Funding is indeed important, but what specific individual benefits from falsification?  Answer:  None. Funding is a part of the vehicle needed to providing services.  An absolutely necessary part.  But the anti-CPS mob would have us believe that it is the only driving factor in the entire system.  There has even been a poster here who stated that CPS workers drive around neighborhoods looking for kids to snatch so that they could line their own pockets with the funding received for the care of these children. As I said earlier, the authorities here in the USA justify those interventions, in front of a court, in each and every case.  Without exception.  I have said this many times over the years.  Of course the argument from there degenerates to "they are all lining their pockets, its a conspiracy".  Well, as you can imagine, the anti-CPS Mob argument at this point has degraded to the point of school yard name calling.  Unable to support their belief’s with anything resembling proof they resort to childishness.  Something best left in the school yard and not here. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > Does it matter if it ’s 49%, 79% or 29%, my uestion is, who is going to > > do > > > anything about it ? > > We the citizens.  Through concerned and thoughtful action.  Not by taking > > off in 300 different directions, not by advocating for the total > destruction > > of anything having to do with CPS, not by making specious and silly claims > > in a Usenet news group. > In my experience most citizens read the statistics, then say "tut tut what > is the world coming to" and go back to their work.

Those that read them, yes. > There is no shame in people expressing thier opinion on an NG. Isn’t that an > aspect of what freedom and democracy are about ?

Sure, its its also about being able to challenge someone’s belief’s, specially when they are wrong. > If the suffragettes had simply addressed the appropriate authorities, if > Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or Mandela had followed correct procedure, would > the world today be a better place ?

Possibly, but you can be sure that more people would have survived. > The complaint is that CPS sometimes places children unnecessarily in foster > care. > I didn’t get the message that *everything* it does is wrong. > I didn’t get the message that foster parents are no good.

Then you need to read a bit more here. > >… I am a foster > > parent.  I work for positive change in the system from within the system. > That is good and I have great respect for the work you do.

In this news group you are one of the few. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > I am pleased that a professional caseworker has had the courage to speak > > > about about what he or she thought was wrong and hope that many more > > follow > > > his/her and Greg’s example until the responsible authorities start to > take > > > note or lose face… and their responsibility. > > Courage, maybe.  A responsible action?  Not likely.  Was it this person’s > > place to make a public spectacle of the issue, or would it have been > better > > to address the issue within the department responsible and allow them to > > deal with the problem?  Oh, and please don’t say that this never works, I > > know better than that. > No I won’t say that. However sometimes one cannot depend on people in one > department blowing the whistle on their coleagues in another. > That person acted out of conscience. Wrong or right, that should be > respected.

They "may" have acted out of conscience.  They may have also acted out of spite.  Or out of a sense of revenge, or because they have had a bad day, or any one of a number of reasons. Respected?  Only if true.  This individual didn’t provide any support for their statement, and that makes it suspect. > If he/she is given the sack next week for speaking out of turn and not > towing company policy then it will be one less person who cares and one more > position filled by  a jobs-worth bureaucrat.

Maybe.  It may also be one less person in a job that they don’t like, or one less person that is unable to deal with the obvious pressures of their job, or even one less person who feels the need to strike out at someone for some reason we will never know.  There are to many possibilities for us to say for sure that this was a person that cared.  Here, one must look at the most likely possibilities because we often lack the information needed to form a solid opinion. > > Personally I think not permanently removing children from an abusive > parent > > is a questionable practice. > …and I think such intervention would have to be justified. > Personally I find that allocating my son to my ex and her abusive lover and > allowing them to deny me access and attempting to justify that by filing > false charges against me very distasteful… and DS isn’t happy about it > either, I can tell you that for a fact!

But can you show us those facts?  Obviously no you cannot. > >…I think quite a few things > > around the world are wrong, but would it be responsible of me to get in > > front of a member of the media and announce it? > Well, if you did, I *would* respect you for it… > I might not agree with what you said but I shall defend your right to say > it.

Well Chris, respect is a wonderful thing, but has no substance.  The trick is learning when and where to say things so that they have the most affect. Where they do the most good.  I don’t believe that the best place to make mention of these type of concerns is EVER in front of the liberal media, unless it is an absolute last resort.  And I do mean LAST.  The media is all to often reporting things in the most sensationalist way possible simply to sell papers … read more »

Response:

On 11 Dec 2003 19:40:06 -0800, Gree…@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote: >LaVonne wrote >> Of course, it’s doubtful that this would have >> helped your case.  Sexual molestation of children >> is not that well tolerated by even the most >> overworked, underpaid, and undereducated CPS worker. >LaVonne, This is quite interesting since nowhere >in my families case has sexual molestation been >an issue.  In fact, one of OUR biggest issues is >that a CPS caseworker fabricated a >""Sex Abuse History"" for me and attested to this >falsehood in an affidavit to court.

But somehow you were unable to use this and convince a judge that you were an upstanding citizen…hmmmm? I am so naive at times. I tend to want to believe the claims that folks make here…That’s what pisses me off so when, after a time, it becomes obvious they were lying. Old Kane Doan like to be Fertilized upon..no no no. Now the more I look at this claim, that you were innocent and the worker "fabricated," the more I’m beginning to want to see a bit more convincing rendition of the story. Just a bit too much like your other "I’m the victim here" whining, that ignores the child. Whaddayahgot, Greegor? Kane

Response:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:01:37 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rste…@armory.com> wrote: >Greg Hanson wrote: >> "R. Steve Walz" <rste…@armory.com> wrote in message >> Funny considering how much STEVE posts like Kane! >> Secret identity or "joined at the medulla" as Kane wrote? >—————- >Linked by the "coincidence" of knowledge and intelligence. >Never met him, but I’d like to.

Ever been to the Blue Jay beach? R R R R The one with the blue mailbox, back in the 60-70’s? >> Some other group called their opponents filth…. >> Their art was called ""degenerate"" >> They were rounded up and put them on boxcars! >> Is that your solution? >————————– >I’d love it! Evil done to Evil people is called Good! >The difference with the Nazi’s is that THEY were the >Evil People and that the Jews had done nothing wrong!! >That you can’t seem to see the difference *IS* your sickness!

He can’t even tell that punishing a child for wetting herself is abusive. How would he see the other things, that we know are detremental to children, are abusive as well? He, like so many really evil people, have a very high opinion of themselves. >> Steve wrote >> > You must mean good and evil done to >> > children and their rights.  Little evil >> > vicious maggots like you always pretend >> > that means something, when it only means >> > that your whole mode of thought >> > is nothing but a criminal sickness. >> Berkelyesque without the erudition?

Now what kind of crap is that? Liquified for The Plant? It will think you are smart, but not anyone else. >> How did that happen? >> My mode of thought is a criminal sickness?

Why yes. You finally got it then? Naw, you were just dodging the truth. Anyone reading your story here, except a Plant and a Dodger Weasel, would get it you are sick and need help….of various kinds. >> Thank you George Orwell.

And much of what he wrote in 1984 is coming to pass…hence, as Steve says…. >———————- >Truth.

And very much so about dangerou schmucks such as you, Greegor the Whore. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > > Obviously. >> > > In your mind it takes some pathology for >> > > someone to disagree with you. :) >> >———————— >> > About right and wrong, sure. >> > And so what’s your point? >> > Steve >> My point was that Kane and or you label anybody >> who doesn’t see things YOUR WAY as evil, wrong, >> ill and anything negative you can come up with. >————————— >But it *IS* the Truth, and I can’t help that. >Steve

Response:

"ChrisScaife" <ChrisSca…@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:_r6Cb.26462$VV6.613892@news.xtra.co.nz… > "Ron" <apositivepl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:bX1Cb.16$5Q6.7@okepread04… > It is an often voiced complaint that parents are unjustly being deprived of > contact with their kids. > Not necessarily by the CPS.

Thats outside the pervue of the news group.  Mad Dad’s have their own news group. > I have personal experience of dealings with CAFCASS  who give advice to the > courts in England > I have no hestation in stating that their advise in divorce cases is utterly > worthless. > A sentiment voiced by others e.g. www.equalparenting.org

Worthless for you maybe, but you are a single individual.  My guess is that the british version of CPS gets it right far more often than it gets it wrong. > Similar accusations made against CPS did not surprise me although I’ll > concede it is a different organisation and you are talking about > "protective" custody > not contact and residency following divorce .

CPS does get involved in some cases, but not many.  Usually when the have been accusations of abuse of some kind, and then for the protection of ALL parties involved. > >… Some people here > > absolutely refuse to see the benefits of the system, and others like > myself > > see the benefits, and the changes that need to be made. > Fine.  I’m not one to dispute that CPS get it right too. In fact it would be > a total outrage if they didn’t.

:)  Agreed. > If you, as someone who knows more about them should express your views on > what changes need to be made that would surely be > constructive, not necessarily lumping you in the "anti-CPS mob".

I have expressed my views quite a number of times.  The usual response is to be called a "CPS Apologist", not a concerned citizen.  Oh well, "Sitcks and stones….." > > … greg respects very little, and > > no one that does not agree with his personal views. > Whatever  views he holds do not concern me. > I did read the article that he cited and it struck a chord with my own > experience.

OK, but greg uses it as an example of the typical caseworker.  This of course is not true. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > I don’t visit the NG to read scientific publications and don’t expect to > > > find them here. > > > IMHO, if  authorities wish to intervene it is *their* responsibility to > > > justify that intervention, not the responsibility of their critics to > > >prove them wrong. > > That’s a good position.  And the authorities here in the USA justify those > > interventions, in front of a court, in each and every case.  Its a part of > > our legal system here.  But, as with anything in a free society, there are > > those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of that legal system to make > > those decisions, or believe that the decisions made are wrong.  That’s one > > of the nice things about our system, people ARE allowed to disagree. They > > are the small but loud minority, and usually quite easy to disprove. > I take it then that you have statistics on how often they get it wrong , and > what percentage of the population consitutes this "loud minority". > I can’t find a credible source of those.

"Only half of the child victims (55.4% or an estimated 478,000) received postinvestigation services that were provided in addition to conducting an investigation or assessment as a response to an allegation of maltreatment. Of the children who were not found to be victims of maltreatment, 18.7 percent or an estimated 385,000 children received postinvestigation services.5 This compares to 55.8 percent of child victims and 14.2 percent of child nonvictims who received services in 1999." http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/frames/frameset_c.cfm?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww… > I do know of a lot of angry dads who have been taken to the cleaners and are > deprived of their children are CPS involved in the USA

Taken to the cleaners by whom?  The state?  No, that would be incorrect. "The cleaners" are unhappy ex-wife’s. > what if mum decides to lodge a claim of abuse against dad ? Any protection > from false allegations ?

Nope.  Not yet, but some states are getting something like that in place. The reason is that allegations are not prosecutions, only prompts for an investigation.  Statistics reveal that mum is far more likely to abuse her children than Dad. "A "Mother Only" was reported as the perpetrator for 40.0 percent of child victims (figure 4-2). A "Father Only" accounted for 16.6 percent of victims, and "Both Parents" accounted for 18.7 percent." http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/frames/frameset_c.cfm?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww… > It is wrong to expect parents to take further court action in a system that > is heavily stacked against them.

Court action?  Heck no, that’s the proper way to deal with the issue.  But the system is not "stacked against them", it is stacked in favor of protecting the child, and that is as it should be since a child is unable to defend itself in an adult world.  You view this from the wrong angle, its not about you.  Its about the kids.  If a parent wont protect them, who does that leave? > Or depend on the internal complaints procedure of a hostile intervening > organisation after the fact.

Why not?  Does ranting and raving here do more than following the right way to make a grievance heard? > The public perception of injustice in family courts is well founded.

Ignorance often leads to erroneous conclusions.  Of more people would pay attention to the purpose of the family court system then they would not only understand what’s happening but would agree with it. > Any professional lawyer will tell you about this legal sexism. > You can read it yoursef here on the web: www.terry.co.uk/men_div.htm

Again, thats outside the pervue of the news group.  Mad Dad’s have their own news group.  Take up the issue with them. > > The figures dont exist to support her claim, and greg knows it.  The > figures > > are not broken down that specifically.  They get to groups of reporters by > > employment, but not to relationship.  Thats why I asked him to provide > some > > form of support, I knew that it did not exist. > Since you know that the figures do not exist, you also know that the > caseworker would on her own not be able to substantiate her claim with such > figures.

DOH, now you are getting it. > However, she works with these cases all the time, so her word based on her > experience is to me really quite credible.

She is one of 27,000+ caseworkers around the nation.  She works in a very small state (population wise), in a single community.  Her experience is limited.  Very limited.  She does not and cannot speak for anything outside that experience.  But greg thinks she can, and does.  This is the traditional tactic of the "anti-CPS" mob, they take a single incident or individual and apply what is being said or what has occured to the entire system, as a whole.  Its not logical, its not accurate, but it IS sensationalist, and thats what they want.  The hell with accuracy and logic, what they want is the big headline. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > As for disputing credibility of statistics, that works both ways: An > > > organisation that depends on justifying it’s work to get government > > funding > > > isn’t going to be any more honest than it’s victims. The main thing is > > that > > > their intervention must be justified… and not the other way round. > > That’s a sad outlook.  Funding is indeed important, but what specific > > individual benefits from falsification?  Answer:  None. > Answer: All the people working there justify their continued employment, and > state funded index linked pensions and nobody gets blamed for the mistakes > they have covered up,not to mention all the nepotism, little frauds, bribes > and corruption that could go on behind the facade of doing good in the > community. > My outlook may be sad, but it is not naive!

Oh, not naive?  The average caseworker makes about $31,000 per year.  Thats about 18,000 pounds.  While this is a "living wage", in most parts of this country it is not comfortable.  In Britan it would cover one’s parking tickets, and maybe a tea now and again.  It often requires the worker to have a second job.  As for "continued employment", caseworkers are leaving this employment in droves.  Not because of frauds, or bribes, or accountability, but because of low pay, long hours, massive caseloads, and the general low life individuals they are required to associate with as service providers.  They do what good they can, and trust to god for the rest. > > Funding is a part of the vehicle needed to providing services.  An > > absolutely necessary part.  But the anti-CPS mob would have us believe > that > > it is the only driving factor in the entire system.  There has even been a > > poster here who stated that CPS workers drive around neighborhoods looking > > for kids to snatch so that they could line their own pockets with the > > funding received for the care of these children. > There may have been such cases, but  I doubt there are credible figures for > what percentage of children were actually "snatched off the streets".

There may have been, but no one has ever been able to present any credible evidence to back the claims. > > As I said earlier, the authorities here in the USA justify those > > interventions, in front of a court, in each and every case.  Without > > exception.  I have said this many times over the years.  Of course the > > argument from there degenerates to "they are all lining their pockets, its > a > > conspiracy". > There is plenty of evidence of pocket lining within the legal system.

Here they prosecute indiviudals doing this.  Or at the very least remove them from their positions in discrace. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You can bet wherever there is a system there is someone trying to profit > from

… read more »

Response:

On 11 Dec 2003 14:44:08 -0800, Gree…@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote: >cortney wrote >> Greg, I gather, is pro-spanking. >Yes, though that is a label that poorly fits.

Bullshit. You are a dedicated punisher. All anyone has to do is read your posts. >More correctly I am just against propagandists >or government removing that option from parents >choices.  

You would be. And thousands of parents making that choice every year injure children, some by ignorance, and some by escalation when it doesn’t work. And some kill their children and claim they were just disciplining. If you truly wanted to ward government off from making laws against spanking (and in fact they have laws protecting it NOW) you’d not be a spanker and you’d be speaking against it, not excusing it. > In practice I spanked very rarely.

It only takes one lay per pregnancy, Greegor. There just isn’t a sure fire way to know which one will do it. Same with spanking. It only takes one spanking to injure…and it’s very hard to tell which one will do it…the first or the 20th. It’s playing russian roulette with a human’s body, a child’s. >> I do not agree with that as I think there >> are always better alternatives, however I >> doubt Greg is pro-child abuse, >True,

A true lie. >Subject to disagreements where zealots >want to label darned near EVERYTHING is >child abuse!

Misreading, misunderstanding, deliberately lying about the facts. There are NO zealots anywhere wanting to label darned near EVERYTHING as child abuse. I label all punishment as pointless, not abusive. Counterproductive to learning, and only in that it interfers with the child’s learning is it abusive. Ignorance, such as yours, is no excuse for abuse, however. There are literally thousands of things, little decisions and actions a parent can to to teach and support a child’s development without once deliberately punish her. >> he might even respect my non-spanking >> approach even though he himself does not >> agree with it. >Yes, As long as that is your CHOICE and not >something imposed upon you by fear of the >state calling you a child abuser.

Abusers loooooove to hear such talk. The can whale away with the secure knowledge that somewhere some fool agrees with them. Hence, you are giving permission for them to gamble with the child’s safety. Let me put it this way. You are anti social, and that’s the kindest way I can state it. >I would also object to sweeping generalizations >based on incorrect information, used by >zealots to badmouth spanking as a last resort.

Studies over years by leading reseacher, peer reviewed with high marks by all but the few pro spankers that make a career of making asses of themselves by their bogus arguments? Many studies that came out in favor on NON punitive parent were done by people that themselves began believing that spanking would show itself to be effective. They were stunned when the opposite results showed. Spanking create problems where their were none. Non spanking disciplines created more compliance and over all, reductions in anti social behavior. >Parents should never say never.

Yeah, hang on to the spanking ethic until the world destroys itself through the reactionary responses of the spanked. Our jails are full of such people and if only we can make spanking more respectible we can let them out to run the world. And a few of them are already running the world. >And should never be coopted into that.

Babble, weasel, dodging and weaving and unwilling to take a firm stand for what is touted as a respectable defensible practice. It’s amazing how shy you brutes are when it comes to actually standing up for your practice. You know the truth, but you hate the truth. Kane

Response:

LaVonne wrote > Of course, it’s doubtful that this would have > helped your case.  Sexual molestation of children > is not that well tolerated by even the most > overworked, underpaid, and undereducated CPS worker.

LaVonne, This is quite interesting since nowhere in my families case has sexual molestation been an issue.  In fact, one of OUR biggest issues is that a CPS caseworker fabricated a ""Sex Abuse History"" for me and attested to this falsehood in an affidavit to court.

Response:

Chris, I really liked your website.  You look like a really good, concerned and caring father.  The photos are excellent.  I may have been unfair to you in my previous posts, but I am posting from alt.parenting.spanking and this is a ng that was created to discuss spanking and alternative strategies for raising and disciplining children. LaVonne – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -ChrisScaife wrote: > Thought I might add: > I’ve just done a sort of relevant web page… > http://www.MyKid2.org/DadsHoliday.html

Response:

"LaVonne Carlson" <carls…@umn.edu> wrote in message

news:3FD90347.FC12DD69@umn.edu… > Greg, > I read the article from the website you posted.  There was nothing that > supported your statement that "This is not unique to L.A."  In fact there > was a lot in this article that refuted your claims below.

Greg rarely reads what he posts. And if someone points out, as you did, that the article he posted is in opposition to what he claims it says… well that never bothered him before. > I suspect you think this "is not unique to L.A." because you ran into > problems with CPS and assume this ridiculous generalization of yours is > correct.

Greg is filled with ridiculous generalizations. It’s amazing that he’s so full of shit at the same time. > The article also discusses overworked employees who are more likely to > make mistakes.  Instead of railing against CPS, why not vote for better > CPS funding that would allow for better educated CPS workers with lower > caseloads?

The problem with CPS is the management. They’re funding driven… and the CWs, if they want to keep their jobs, do what their supervisors tell them to do. Want to fix CPS? Let someone run it who cares about the best interest of the kids and NOT the sound of a cash register goin CA-CHING!!! Their workload would be cut in half at the minimum. > Of course, it’s doubtful that this would have helped your case.  Sexual > molestation of children is not that well tolerated by even the most > overworked, underpaid, and undereducated CPS worker.

Sometimes CPS does get it right. Hey LaVonne, want to read something funny that Greg was responsible for? He claims that his girlfriend wrote it with his assistance but you’ll see it’s all Greg. Ya better sit yerself down on a couple of towels. Yer gonna pee yerself. This is REAL!!! Submitted to the Fam Ct Judge who’s handling his girlfriend’s daughter’s custody case. From: Greg Hanson (Gree…@hotmail.com) Subject: Motion for Relief from Inappropriate Services Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2002-04-09 14:27:36 PST IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY                               JUVENILE DIVISION IN THE INTEREST OF   NO. JVJV-12345 CHILD A. LASTNAME DOB: 00-00-99    MOTION TO CLARIFY MINOR CHILD    MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM      INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES COMES NOW,  Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate and inquisitive services. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service Plan onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan.  We have complained about this for MOST of the last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS and ignored by Juvenile Court.   Greg showed the quote from the US DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the trunk of the car as a work surface.   We have seen no sign that she passed this information to Judas.   Deb characterized this in writing as if it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues.  Judas has been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign of truly understanding their significance.  The Iowa DHS computer blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree. On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment regarding removal of inappropriate services.  It clearly seemed to be a "closed issue" with the Judge.  Something is wrong with that.  This flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the Formation of Service Plan".  Federal Case law says "opportunity to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan."  This is a Federal regulation and it’s in the Iowa caseworker manual too. Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid INPUT.  The words "fishing expedition" come to mind. Domestic Violence Victim Counseling Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years that Greg has been with us.  Domestic Violence counselor pushed for disclosure of some dark truth that simply doesn’t exist.  After Judas’s telephonic INPUT, the counselor, Linda Vance, badgered me saying "You know that Greg pushed Child’s head under water." (Actually it was head under SHOWER SPRAY!  twisted by DHS.)  It was clear after only a few minutes on the phone that she intended to assume the role of Torquemada (Spanish Inquisition) to elicit information about nonexistant domestic abuse. Psychological Evaluation Greg went to see Doctor DHSISGOODFORME for one hour, for a Psychological Evaluation, knowing what had been INPUT was a laundry list of 4 points.  The list was: needs to be the victim domestic violence controlling anger management issues It seemed odd that 10 hours were set aside with the scheduler for anger management before there was even a diagnosis.  The list raised some concerns about violations of 5th amendment rights, but it was small enough that Greg went.  Then after one hour, Dr.DHSISGOODFORME didn’t think he had enough to "go on" and asked for a release to get more documentary background from DHS.  This took 2 or three months, and this INPUT was an inch thick stack of documents, including misstatements, perjury and parroted comments like "it is reported" presented as de-facto evidence.   We STILL have not gotten the huge number of factual, typographical, non-sequitir and other incorrect statements stricken from the records.  The time will come for this. The "laundry list" four points were not all present in the STACK of input, and new, more attitudinal and subjective concerns were added.  There are definate problems of EPISTEMOLOGY with this. Greg called up Dr.DHSISGOODFORME and asked about the ethics of using such a large amount of INPUT and the potential for it to TAINT the impartiality of a Psychological Evaluation.   Dr. DHSISGOODFORME could not explain how this INPUT would not creep into the subjective parts of the Psychological Evaluation.  Greg asked about how the hypotheticals about behavior in a family setting posed in the INPUT could be evaluated outside of the family setting.   Not many answers were forthcoming, and Greg clearly felt like he was being "railroaded" by the stacked" Psychological Evaluation.  Several large issues in The Bill of Rights jelled at this point. ( 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14) Sex Abuse Exam Done based only on DHS Perjury Child had already undergone a sex abuse physical and a video tape interview at the CPC, despite the fact that NOBODY, not even the hostile accuser had alleged any sexual abuse.  The only justification for the sex abuse physical was PERJURY by Judas of DHS about Greg’s past.   This same PERJURY was used at the top of Judas and Maggie’s Affidavit to justify the court removal order after two weeks of extortive "Family Preservation" used purely as witch hunt. My first idiot attorney supposedly filed a motion for a HEARING about the CPC exam, because justification was based on false and even perjurous information.   The motion was denied by a Juvenile Court Judge with no explanation. The CPC physical reported the grandmothers concerns, and reported an internal bump that had gone away, IF it ever really existed.  The bump was reported as being from a swing set accident.  We never owned a swing set, and this injury was apparently concealed from us IF it really ever existed.  We have concerns that Child may have been brainwashed into not reporting an accident that took place on the grandparents’ swing set.  The grandmother was never authorized to intrude into Child’s medical care in any way, yet her words are written down there in the physical report, and they are non-sequiturs.  This woman has been on Prozac for 8 (EIGHT) years and does not take her Prozac reliably, which is particularly risky.  Great and reliable witness eh?  A mental case?  (Has Wallis vs. Escondido or Spencer written all over it!) The video tape interview was done by Jennifer Torquemada (Now Jennifer Blah) at the CPC, even though she apparently had NO CERTIFICATION for her job as an Evidenciary Interviewer.   If she did, she would know more about how suggestable a 7 year old is, and how unreliable their testimony is.   This is where "head pushed under water" began rather than "head pushed under shower spray". Jennifer also directed me to cooperate with DHS, and said that I "would have to make some tough choices" implying that I needed to get rid of Greg to satisfy DHS. She reported a lot of information that SHE did not gather.  Hyperbole like "It is reported that" (blah blah) is used several times in her report.  This is clearly an artifact of her interaction with the other members of the "Child Protection Team", specifically the DHS Child Protective caseworkers.  This contaminates the neutrality, and adds a bogus aire of legitimacy to fictitious and factitious garbage. Maggie Wickedwitch even fed Jennifer questions to ask from the other side of the one way glass. I (Suzy Q. Mother) was denied my right to have legal counsel present at questioning that took place there.   My first idiot attorney said he would not be allowed, which I know was not true.  I went there specifically to hold my 7 year old daughters’ hand through the invasive sex abuse physical.   Instead I was fending off an "ambush interview" by a hostile group during that time. Employment The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment.  There has been no explanation or justification of this.  We consider this to be up to us jointly, as a family, and object to being micromanaged by busybodies at DHS who have no RIGHT to direct, order or extort such a thing. Maggie, Judas, et alia seem to have a bias … read more »

Response:

"LaVonne Carlson" <carls…@umn.edu> wrote in message

news:3FD9055F.49B6E74F@umn.edu… > ChrisScaife wrote: > > Sadly it is exactly what I expected. > > The whole system seems to revolve around money as any divorced dad will have > > become painfully aware of. > The system involves money, Chris.  It takes money to raise children.  It takes > money to house children.

When asked by the judge why she was suing for residency my ex’s solicitor actually admitted that they would not discuss financial setlement until they had a residence order in their favour… (yes I have got the court transcript). I wanted a shared parenting arangement especially since I had given up my job and moved back to the UK so I could see DS… more than once a fortnight. Money is the wrong motivation. It takes love to care for children. If I thought my ex and her man loved my child I could live with that. > > Nobody cares about the welfare of the children. > > IMHO Especially lawyers really can’t give a stuff as long as it’s > > profitable. > Lawyers make a lot of money.  And the individual with the most money often gets > the best lawyer.  This is unfortunate, but I thought this was thread was about > child protection.

Granted I’m not quite on the right thread. The reason I replied is because the article quoted money as the motivator. It should be what is best for the child. Also my ex and her boyfriend administer CP that I do not agree with, but when I try to protest they turn it round and accuse me! The system seems very happy to listen to their accusations but makes out I’m just a disgruntled father trying to get revenge or something.. DS said to me: Tony grabbed me by the troat he shouted you will do as you are told. He dug his long nails into my neck (points to marks). The veins on his nose went purple and swelled up even more than usual…. Social services said to me: He put his hands on the boys shoulders to calm him down. You have to stop criticising them. Perhaps I’m going mad ?! But if child protection works the same way, God help the children because nobody else is going to. > People do care about the welfare of children.  And individuals who father > children should be equally responsible for their expenses as should the mother, > who often receives physical custody.  Make babies, pay for those babies, > Chris.  This is true wherever they may live.

I have no objection to supporting my son. Admittedly I would like to have some say in whether my money gets spent on mummies cigarettes and wine or on new shoes for DS. (When I last took DS  out for a walk he had no shoes and I had to go buy some first). In any case it’s not my issue. To the law, DX and defacto may seem a satisfactory family environment and I am redundant. As far as this thread is concerned, It would not surprise me if there are many cases where it was not necessary to remove the kids from their parent’s care and they are no better off in the foster home. It is very worrying if $30000+ per child is at stake. Money is evil. Honestly, IMHO there should be an independent check for whom the financial incentive is to keep the children *with* their parents. > > Still it’s good to see that the media are making joe public aware of it. > > Real people do care once they know… > The media website in Greg’s post was about child abuse and foster care. Is > child removal for allegations of abuse your issue?  Or is your issue paying > child support to children to you created who are now living with their > biological mother?

My real issue is: I want quality parenting time too. Allegations of child abuse is a very powerful mechanism to gain control. I do not trust the system to be fair and have been given no reason to change that opinion. (Note: according to www.equalparenting.org  the UK is 20 years behind on the US, so if over there you think it’s not that bad, you could be right! However, there are still many US dads who feel they too have been victims of injustice…) Anyway my beer has run out, the sky is blue and the sea becons… Am I glad I’m not in the UK right now ;-)  Cheers, Chris

Response:

ChrisScaife wrote: > Sadly it is exactly what I expected. > The whole system seems to revolve around money as any divorced dad will have > become painfully aware of.

The system involves money, Chris.  It takes money to raise children.  It takes money to house children. > Nobody cares about the welfare of the children. > IMHO Especially lawyers really can’t give a stuff as long as it’s > profitable.

Lawyers make a lot of money.  And the individual with the most money often gets the best lawyer.  This is unfortunate, but I thought this was thread was about child protection. People do care about the welfare of children.  And individuals who father children should be equally responsible for their expenses as should the mother, who often receives physical custody.  Make babies, pay for those babies, Chris.  This is true wherever they may live. > Still it’s good to see that the media are making joe public aware of it. > Real people do care once they know…

The media website in Greg’s post was about child abuse and foster care.  Is child removal for allegations of abuse your issue?  Or is your issue paying child support to children to you created who are now living with their biological mother? LaVonne

Response:

Greg, I read the article from the website you posted.  There was nothing that supported your statement that "This is not unique to L.A."  In fact there was a lot in this article that refuted your claims below. I suspect you think this "is not unique to L.A." because you ran into problems with CPS and assume this ridiculous generalization of yours is correct. The article also discusses overworked employees who are more likely to make mistakes.  Instead of railing against CPS, why not vote for better CPS funding that would allow for better educated CPS workers with lower caseloads? Of course, it’s doubtful that this would have helped your case.  Sexual molestation of children is not that well tolerated by even the most overworked, underpaid, and undereducated CPS worker. LaVonne – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Greg Hanson wrote: > This is not unique to L.A.  Not at all. > Last week a story was posted from Arizona where > a CASEWORKER acknowledged that half of all reports > of abuse there are from grandparents who "don’t like > the way the grandkids are being raised". > (IE. Second Guessing parents for non-ABUSE reasons.) > http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/120703_nw_fostor_probe.html > Up to Half of Fostor Children Needlessly Placed in System > LOS ANGELES (CNS)

Related Posts

Leave a Reply