Foster Parents FAQ » Foster Parent » Are children Property?

Are children Property?

Question:

"observer" <observer_mem…@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:a68f7202va2@drn.newsguy.com… > "It is not, nor has it ever been, the goal of state CPS agencies to strengthen > families." > CPS suffers from the same freewheeling that plagues occupation of bounty hunter. > While one is public and the other private, similar loopholes and exceptions make > them dangerous to civil rights.

Or how about this one? "The Children’s Bureau (CB) is the oldest federal agency for children and is located within the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. It is responsible for assisting States in the delivery of child welfare services – services designed to protect children and strengthen families. The agency provides grants to States, Tribes and communities to operate a range of child welfare services including child protective services (child abuse and neglect) family preservation and support, foster care, adoption and independent living. In addition, the agency makes major investments in staff training, technology and innovative programs." http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/ Or how about this one? "The Children’s Bureau’s Office on Child Abuse and Neglect (OCAN) is pleased to announce the kick-off of an exciting new two-year initiative. In partnership with the prevention community, OCAN, with the assistance of Caliber Associates, will conduct a comprehensive review of child abuse and neglect prevention initiatives that are under way around the nation. The ultimate objective of the project is to summarize current directions in prevention and to share with the field the best available information on emerging and promising practices." http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ep_fs.htm Please, visit a drug abuse prevention counselor, or a 12 Step program, or something. Just get some help. Ron

Response:

"observer" <observer_mem…@newsguy.com> wrote in message

"The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is a federal agency funding state, local, and tribal organizations to provide family assistance (welfare), child support, child care, Head Start, child welfare, and other programs relating to children and families. Actual services are provided by state, county, city, and tribal governments, and public and private local agencies. ACF assists these organizations through funding, policy direction, and information services." http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/ Gee, I guess you really dont know what your talking about, do you. Ron

Response:

<<Child abuse is a crime, you have that part right, but it is only sometimes prosecuted in a criminal court. If services, training, overview, and assistance are a better option, then HSS has a legal obligation to try those venues first. Its in their charter (please feel free to look it up). Its called "Family Preservation".>> Can u make the same argument for adults that have committed a crime, and end up in jail, although they have a wife and children to take care of at home? What about "family preservation" there? Isn’t that a double standard here??? In my opinion there is no difference between and adult that rapes a defenseless woman and an adult that molests a defenseless child. Accused child molesters get services such as psychiatric treatment, anger management, sex evaluations of some sort……rapists always go to jail……so you are saying that children have less rights then adults…..according to your logic…… My point is……child abuse is a crime…it should ALWAYS be criminally prosecuted…ALWAYS……. Sabine "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message

news:9YPh8.2199$kg2.134835@news1.east.cox.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Doug" <do…@sprintmail.com> wrote in message > news:vwOh8.988$Vx1.49768@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net… > > Ron writes: > > > For Law Enforcement to do so would be a violation of HHS’s primary goal, > > > strengthening families. Law Enforcement and the US Court system are > > already > > > over burdened by the criminal and civil actions that currently plague > our > > > nation, and you want to add another 1.3 million investigations every > year > > to > > > that work load? > > Hi, Ron! > > Taking innocent children into state custody after CPS investigation has > > unsubstantiated all allegations of risk of or actual child abuse/neglect > > does not strengthen. It is not, nor has it ever been, the goal of state > CPS > > agencies to strengthen families. > > Their actions speak louder than your words, sir. > Hi ya Doug? > Dont you get tired of singing that same old song again and again, specially > when it has been proven to be wrong over and over again? Get a life man, > look at the facts! > > > No problem, all you have to do is fess up the 1.9 billion dollars (or > some > > > figure close to that) needed to put your plan into action. I’m sure > that > > > the US Government would love to have a benefactor like yourself willing > to > > > put forth the cost of this program. > > The billions are already there — shoveled off to CPS agencies in ever > > increasing amounts. It merely needs to be transferred to professionals > who > > are trained in investigation. That would allow social workers, who are > > trained to help families, do the job they are qualified to do. > Some small part of it is there Doug, a small part of it. Her plan, as > uninsightful as it is, would require about twice what it costs our nation > now. Personally, I’m not to keen on a doubling of my taxes, are you? > > While your at it you can choose the > > > additional 125,000 police officers, 12,000 attorney’s, 1,200 judges, > > 12,000 > > > corrections officers, and so on and so on and so on, needed to make it > > work. > > LOL! Where do the numbers come from, Ron? Top of your head? > Good guess Doug. They are an educated guess. Can you offer better? > Somehow I didnt think so, or you already would have. > Where they came from was strongly indicated in an earlier portion of the > post. Maybe you should have read that part, eh? > > > That way you have total control of who becomes a part of the system, and > > > thereby can meet your own personal agenda of ensuring that all child > > > abusers/neglectors get prison time, and abolish CPS. > > Child abuse is currently a crime — as it should be. Cases involving > actual > > child abuse are currently investigated concurrently by police. In many > > states, CPS is required by state statute to report to law enforcement all > > cases involving allegations of child abuse or neglect. Cases where > evidence > > shows child abuse or neglect has occurred are currently prosecuted in > > criminal court. > Your just a bit out of touch with reality here Doug (nothing new really). > Child abuse is a crime, you have that part right, but it is only sometimes > prosecuted in a criminal court. If services, training, overview, and > assistance are a better option, then HSS has a legal obligation to try those > venues first. Its in their charter (please feel free to look it up). Its > called "Family Preservation". > > Switching the investigative role over to law enforcement exclusively would > > not result in much of an increase in criminal arrests or prosecutions. It > > would result in a exponential decrease in the amount of innocent children > > forcibly removed from their homes and placed into an overcrowded and > abusive > > foster care system. > Another flight of fancy here Doug? Our Law Enforcement agencies dont have > all the social programs available to them that HHS workers have, and > therefore only have one effective avenue available, prosecution. > Prosecution does not meet the needs of preserving the family Doug, it puts > people in jail. Putting the parents in jail will only increase the number > of children in the "overcrowded and abusive foster care system" that you > fear so much. So, while on one hand you seem to be advocating for better > prosecution of abusive parents, on the other you want to put more children > into what you term the "overcrowded and abusive foster care system". > Your not thinking clearly at all today are you. Law Enforcement has no > place in the HHS system, other than to facilitate the prosecution of > offenders. That’s why they are two different agencies, one to deal with the > criminally liable, and the other to deal with the ignorant, uneducated, > inept, or the just plain stupid who abuse their children. Ineptness, a lack > of education, ignorance, and stupidity are not criminal, just sad. Its the > ones that know better who should be in jail. About 15-20% I should think. > The rest just need help, and that IS what HHS does. > > And, of course, it would result in a tremendous loss of income for adults > > who captialize on the grief of our tiniest, most vulnerable citizens. > > Children are mere property to state bureaucracies and their contractors in > > the child abuse industry. > balh blah blah. Your rhetoric is running away with your brain again Doug. > > > Of course you will be putting into place a completely draconian system, > > bent > > > on punishing rather than helping, but what the hell, at least CPS is > gone. > > Her proposal would replace a draconian system with professionals who are > > trained in conducting investigations. Her proposal would treat child > abuse > > for what it really is — a crime. Child abuse is not a disease. It is a > > horrible crime that needs to be addressed by the system the people have > > mandated to deal with crime. > Gee, and if you were to give it 5 seconds thought you would note that what > she proposes is not workable. Not then, not now, and not for the > foreseeable future. But I have asked you to spend that 5 seconds before, > and you have refused time and again. I dont believe that you will this time > either. Your to blinded by your own rhetoric and ignorance. > > > I gave your little plan the 14 seconds of consideration it deserves, and > > > came to the same conclusion that every other reasoning thinking member > of > > > the human race has, that has the background needed to give it an > educated > > > review. It wont work. Period. > > Her proposal has been made by many of the leading child welfare experts > > across the country, including Richard Gelles, who authored ASFA. > > Doug > Then let them pay for it. I’ll go along with it, just as long as I dont pay > one more cent in taxes. You can help them foot the bill, as can M04. By > mentioning this persons name you have only proven that the problem of > stupidity crosses all boundaries, knows no class, no economic status, race, > creed, or color. Even authors can be stupid. > The system we have now address’ most, if not all, of the concerns our > society has about this issue. What you and she, and he, propose would stop > 75% of that, leaving far to many kids in the system, parents in jail, and > families "torn apart". Not acceptable sir, not at all. > Ron

Response:

"Not really all that widely." Really, all that widely.

Response:

"observer" <observer_mem…@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:a67uej01km8@drn.newsguy.com… > "Are you now, or have you ever been, a police officer? I have, I know what they > are trained to do." > Training standards vary widely thorough out the United States.

Not really all that widely. Specific law differences and such, but the basic training for the position is the same throughout the nation. Mind you, I’m not talking about the FBI or something like that, but the basic police officer in blue, the front line guys and ladies. Ron

Response:

"It is not, nor has it ever been, the goal of state CPS agencies to strengthen families." CPS suffers from the same freewheeling that plagues occupation of bounty hunter. While one is public and the other private, similar loopholes and exceptions make them dangerous to civil rights.

Response:

"Doug" <do…@sprintmail.com> wrote in message

news:vwOh8.988$Vx1.49768@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ron writes: > > For Law Enforcement to do so would be a violation of HHS’s primary goal, > > strengthening families. Law Enforcement and the US Court system are > already > > over burdened by the criminal and civil actions that currently plague our > > nation, and you want to add another 1.3 million investigations every year > to > > that work load? > Hi, Ron! > Taking innocent children into state custody after CPS investigation has > unsubstantiated all allegations of risk of or actual child abuse/neglect > does not strengthen. It is not, nor has it ever been, the goal of state CPS > agencies to strengthen families. > Their actions speak louder than your words, sir.

Hi ya Doug? Dont you get tired of singing that same old song again and again, specially when it has been proven to be wrong over and over again? Get a life man, look at the facts! > > No problem, all you have to do is fess up the 1.9 billion dollars (or some > > figure close to that) needed to put your plan into action. I’m sure that > > the US Government would love to have a benefactor like yourself willing to > > put forth the cost of this program. > The billions are already there — shoveled off to CPS agencies in ever > increasing amounts. It merely needs to be transferred to professionals who > are trained in investigation. That would allow social workers, who are > trained to help families, do the job they are qualified to do.

Some small part of it is there Doug, a small part of it. Her plan, as uninsightful as it is, would require about twice what it costs our nation now. Personally, I’m not to keen on a doubling of my taxes, are you? > While your at it you can choose the > > additional 125,000 police officers, 12,000 attorney’s, 1,200 judges, > 12,000 > > corrections officers, and so on and so on and so on, needed to make it > work. > LOL! Where do the numbers come from, Ron? Top of your head?

Good guess Doug. They are an educated guess. Can you offer better? Somehow I didnt think so, or you already would have. Where they came from was strongly indicated in an earlier portion of the post. Maybe you should have read that part, eh? > > That way you have total control of who becomes a part of the system, and > > thereby can meet your own personal agenda of ensuring that all child > > abusers/neglectors get prison time, and abolish CPS. > Child abuse is currently a crime — as it should be. Cases involving actual > child abuse are currently investigated concurrently by police. In many > states, CPS is required by state statute to report to law enforcement all > cases involving allegations of child abuse or neglect. Cases where evidence > shows child abuse or neglect has occurred are currently prosecuted in > criminal court.

Your just a bit out of touch with reality here Doug (nothing new really). Child abuse is a crime, you have that part right, but it is only sometimes prosecuted in a criminal court. If services, training, overview, and assistance are a better option, then HSS has a legal obligation to try those venues first. Its in their charter (please feel free to look it up). Its called "Family Preservation". > Switching the investigative role over to law enforcement exclusively would > not result in much of an increase in criminal arrests or prosecutions. It > would result in a exponential decrease in the amount of innocent children > forcibly removed from their homes and placed into an overcrowded and abusive > foster care system.

Another flight of fancy here Doug? Our Law Enforcement agencies dont have all the social programs available to them that HHS workers have, and therefore only have one effective avenue available, prosecution. Prosecution does not meet the needs of preserving the family Doug, it puts people in jail. Putting the parents in jail will only increase the number of children in the "overcrowded and abusive foster care system" that you fear so much. So, while on one hand you seem to be advocating for better prosecution of abusive parents, on the other you want to put more children into what you term the "overcrowded and abusive foster care system". Your not thinking clearly at all today are you. Law Enforcement has no place in the HHS system, other than to facilitate the prosecution of offenders. That’s why they are two different agencies, one to deal with the criminally liable, and the other to deal with the ignorant, uneducated, inept, or the just plain stupid who abuse their children. Ineptness, a lack of education, ignorance, and stupidity are not criminal, just sad. Its the ones that know better who should be in jail. About 15-20% I should think. The rest just need help, and that IS what HHS does. > And, of course, it would result in a tremendous loss of income for adults > who captialize on the grief of our tiniest, most vulnerable citizens. > Children are mere property to state bureaucracies and their contractors in > the child abuse industry.

balh blah blah. Your rhetoric is running away with your brain again Doug. > > Of course you will be putting into place a completely draconian system, > bent > > on punishing rather than helping, but what the hell, at least CPS is gone. > Her proposal would replace a draconian system with professionals who are > trained in conducting investigations. Her proposal would treat child abuse > for what it really is — a crime. Child abuse is not a disease. It is a > horrible crime that needs to be addressed by the system the people have > mandated to deal with crime.

Gee, and if you were to give it 5 seconds thought you would note that what she proposes is not workable. Not then, not now, and not for the foreseeable future. But I have asked you to spend that 5 seconds before, and you have refused time and again. I dont believe that you will this time either. Your to blinded by your own rhetoric and ignorance. > > I gave your little plan the 14 seconds of consideration it deserves, and > > came to the same conclusion that every other reasoning thinking member of > > the human race has, that has the background needed to give it an educated > > review. It wont work. Period. > Her proposal has been made by many of the leading child welfare experts > across the country, including Richard Gelles, who authored ASFA. > Doug

Then let them pay for it. I’ll go along with it, just as long as I dont pay one more cent in taxes. You can help them foot the bill, as can M04. By mentioning this persons name you have only proven that the problem of stupidity crosses all boundaries, knows no class, no economic status, race, creed, or color. Even authors can be stupid. The system we have now address’ most, if not all, of the concerns our society has about this issue. What you and she, and he, propose would stop 75% of that, leaving far to many kids in the system, parents in jail, and families "torn apart". Not acceptable sir, not at all. Ron

Response:

Ron writes: > For Law Enforcement to do so would be a violation of HHS’s primary goal, > strengthening families. Law Enforcement and the US Court system are already > over burdened by the criminal and civil actions that currently plague our > nation, and you want to add another 1.3 million investigations every year to > that work load?

Hi, Ron! Taking innocent children into state custody after CPS investigation has unsubstantiated all allegations of risk of or actual child abuse/neglect does not strengthen. It is not, nor has it ever been, the goal of state CPS agencies to strengthen families. Their actions speak louder than your words, sir. > No problem, all you have to do is fess up the 1.9 billion dollars (or some > figure close to that) needed to put your plan into action. I’m sure that > the US Government would love to have a benefactor like yourself willing to > put forth the cost of this program.

The billions are already there — shoveled off to CPS agencies in ever increasing amounts. It merely needs to be transferred to professionals who are trained in investigation. That would allow social workers, who are trained to help families, do the job they are qualified to do. While your at it you can choose the > additional 125,000 police officers, 12,000 attorney’s, 1,200 judges, 12,000 > corrections officers, and so on and so on and so on, needed to make it

work. LOL! Where do the numbers come from, Ron? Top of your head? > That way you have total control of who becomes a part of the system, and > thereby can meet your own personal agenda of ensuring that all child > abusers/neglectors get prison time, and abolish CPS.

Child abuse is currently a crime — as it should be. Cases involving actual child abuse are currently investigated concurrently by police. In many states, CPS is required by state statute to report to law enforcement all cases involving allegations of child abuse or neglect. Cases where evidence shows child abuse or neglect has occurred are currently prosecuted in criminal court. Switching the investigative role over to law enforcement exclusively would not result in much of an increase in criminal arrests or prosecutions. It would result in a exponential decrease in the amount of innocent children forcibly removed from their homes and placed into an overcrowded and abusive foster care system. And, of course, it would result in a tremendous loss of income for adults who captialize on the grief of our tiniest, most vulnerable citizens. Children are mere property to state bureaucracies and their contractors in the child abuse industry. > Of course you will be putting into place a completely draconian system, bent > on punishing rather than helping, but what the hell, at least CPS is gone.

Her proposal would replace a draconian system with professionals who are trained in conducting investigations. Her proposal would treat child abuse for what it really is — a crime. Child abuse is not a disease. It is a horrible crime that needs to be addressed by the system the people have mandated to deal with crime. > I gave your little plan the 14 seconds of consideration it deserves, and > came to the same conclusion that every other reasoning thinking member of > the human race has, that has the background needed to give it an educated > review. It wont work. Period.

Her proposal has been made by many of the leading child welfare experts across the country, including Richard Gelles, who authored ASFA. Doug

Response:

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a police officer? I have, I know what they are trained to do." Training standards vary widely thorough out the United States.

Response:

"MommieOfFour" <skurn…@sirinet.net> wrote in message

news:u8dvhbi3iie3a7@corp.supernews.com… > <<For Law Enforcement to do so would be a violation of HHS’s primary goal, > strengthening families.>> > strengthening families MY BUTT….how about tearing them apart instead and > selling the kids for profit in form of more federal funding from the > government?

Oh, another "knealite" eh? Form without function. Action without thought. Look the statistics over. I know, you dont believe them, thats your problem. Another person that believes that the moon in made of green cheese. Well, here’s the link anyway. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/ > <<and you want to add another 1.3 million investigations every year to > that work load?>> > Law-enforcement are better trained to investigate crimes against anyone. > cPS are just wanna be cops.

Think so? Are you now, or have you ever been, a police officer? I have, I know what they are trained to do. The police would much rather leave this type of investigation to HHS, because they DONT have the training for it. > <<No problem, all you have to do is fess up the 1.9 billion dollars (or some > figure close to that) needed to put your plan into action.>> > Get rid of the social wreckers and hire more cops instead…..you come out > the same.

Hmmm, interesting. Typically, Social workers dont get paid as much as police officers, or didnt you know that. > <<While your at it you can choose the > additional 125,000 police officers, 12,000 attorney’s, 1,200 judges, 12,000 > corrections officers, and so on and so on and so on, needed to make it > work.>> > see above statement. Attorneys will still be attorneys, judges will still be > judges, correctional officers would still be correctional officers. Social > wreckers would be replaced by REAL cops.

So, you expect to the same group of individuals to cover all that additional caseload without relief? Yeah, that’s giving it some thought. You betcha. > <<That way you have total control of who becomes a part of the system, and > thereby can meet your own personal agenda of ensuring that all child > abusers/neglectors get prison time, and abolish CPS.>> > can meet my own personal agenda of trying to make sure that nobody would be > falsey accused, families not needlessly torn apart forever??? Yeah sure, I > would say that is what I am wishing for.

Do you by chance live in a barrel? Police officers make mistakes all the time. People get wrongly convicted all the time. Families are "torn apart forever" by our criminal court system, needlessly, all the time. And you would add to that? My my my, another casually abusive person loose on the world. I get the feeling that your not much more than about 13 years old. > <<Of course you will be putting into place a completely draconian system, > bent > on punishing rather than helping, but what the hell, at least CPS is gone.>> > Punishing those that deserve it, yes. REAL cops have a little bit more > experience in detecting crimes against children, wouldn’t you think?

No, I wouldn’t. But then again I was a cop, for quite some time. Are you? Have you? Occasionally a major flake like yourself gets by the screening, so it wouldn’t surprise me. They > deal with crimes every day, whereas CPS mostly deals with bullshit > allegations that they have to build into a mountain of more > bullshit….based on what the individual social wrecker constitutes is > abuse…..since they don’t go by the law…..they make their own.

Well now, finally a statement with some fact to support it. "bullshit allegations" Absolutely correct, most are "bullshit allegations", which is one reason why the police dont want the job. But have you ever stopped to think about where these "bullshit allegations" come from? Check the link above, it will tell you, you can find out for yourself with a little effort. HHS does not go looking for them, they trickel in all by themselves, at the rate of a bit more that 108,000 a month. > <<I gave your little plan the 14 seconds of consideration it deserves, and > came to the same conclusion that every other reasoning thinking member of > the human race has, that has the background needed to give it an educated > review. It wont work. Period.>> > That is your opinion, not mine. >(snip)

I’m glad to see that you can acknowledge that. Well done. Your right, its my opinion. A well considered, educated, professional opinion, but an opinion all the same. I can back it up as well, but it still remains an opinion. Mine, and that of the federal government, the GAO, every President, congressman, senator, state legislator, police officer, and abused/neglected child since Nixon. But your right, its just an opinion. Gee, did I mention that this same type of system is used throughout the world? Hmmm, I believe that you are just a bit out-numbered. Ron

Response:

<<For Law Enforcement to do so would be a violation of HHS’s primary goal, strengthening families.>> strengthening families MY BUTT….how about tearing them apart instead and selling the kids for profit in form of more federal funding from the government? <<and you want to add another 1.3 million investigations every year to that work load?>> Law-enforcement are better trained to investigate crimes against anyone. cPS are just wanna be cops. <<No problem, all you have to do is fess up the 1.9 billion dollars (or some figure close to that) needed to put your plan into action.>> Get rid of the social wreckers and hire more cops instead…..you come out the same. <<While your at it you can choose the additional 125,000 police officers, 12,000 attorney’s, 1,200 judges, 12,000 corrections officers, and so on and so on and so on, needed to make it work.>> see above statement. Attorneys will still be attorneys, judges will still be judges, correctional officers would still be correctional officers. Social wreckers would be replaced by REAL cops. <<That way you have total control of who becomes a part of the system, and thereby can meet your own personal agenda of ensuring that all child abusers/neglectors get prison time, and abolish CPS.>> can meet my own personal agenda of trying to make sure that nobody would be falsey accused, families not needlessly torn apart forever??? Yeah sure, I would say that is what I am wishing for. <<Of course you will be putting into place a completely draconian system, bent on punishing rather than helping, but what the hell, at least CPS is gone.>> Punishing those that deserve it, yes. REAL cops have a little bit more experience in detecting crimes against children, wouldn’t you think? They deal with crimes every day, whereas CPS mostly deals with bullshit allegations that they have to build into a mountain of more bullshit….based on what the individual social wrecker constitutes is abuse…..since they don’t go by the law…..they make their own. <<I gave your little plan the 14 seconds of consideration it deserves, and came to the same conclusion that every other reasoning thinking member of the human race has, that has the background needed to give it an educated review. It wont work. Period.>> That is your opinion, not mine. "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message

news:r4xh8.485$kg2.42145@news1.east.cox.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "MommieOfFour" <skurn…@sirinet.net> wrote in message > news:u8cks84k10qiae@corp.supernews.com… > > <<Say, whose going to protect the children when you have destroyed CPS? > > You, you fucking dipwad shit spewing frothing at the mouth fool? Or is > > there no such thing as child abuse and CPS has been fooling us all > > these years?>> > > Child abuse is a crime, and should be investigated by LAW ENFORCEMENT, not > > by some dumbass wanna-be cops like the CPS Gestapo. > Hi ya M04, > For Law Enforcement to do so would be a violation of HHS’s primary goal, > strengthening families. Law Enforcement and the US Court system are already > over burdened by the criminal and civil actions that currently plague our > nation, and you want to add another 1.3 million investigations every year to > that work load? > No problem, all you have to do is fess up the 1.9 billion dollars (or some > figure close to that) needed to put your plan into action. I’m sure that > the US Government would love to have a benefactor like yourself willing to > put forth the cost of this program. While your at it you can choose the > additional 125,000 police officers, 12,000 attorney’s, 1,200 judges, 12,000 > corrections officers, and so on and so on and so on, needed to make it work. > That way you have total control of who becomes a part of the system, and > thereby can meet your own personal agenda of ensuring that all child > abusers/neglectors get prison time, and abolish CPS. > Of course you will be putting into place a completely draconian system, bent > on punishing rather than helping, but what the hell, at least CPS is gone. > I gave your little plan the 14 seconds of consideration it deserves, and > came to the same conclusion that every other reasoning thinking member of > the human race has, that has the background needed to give it an educated > review. It wont work. Period. > You have shown that you are no one to be calling anyone ignorant. A clear > case of the pot calling the kettle black. > Ron > > <<I just annoy the hell out of you, don’t I now?>> > > Not really….you just keep on proving to me how ignorant you are, it > really > > makes me laugh. > > <<By the way, only ignorant twits top post, and you being so wise and > > all you wouldn’t be doing it unless you had a real purpose. Mind > > telling us what that might be?>> > > To get rid of ignorant people like YOU!!! > > BINGO BANGO BONGO!!!!!!!!!! > > "Kane" <pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com> wrote in message > > news:7ed8d1be.0203052007.be365a@posting.google.com… > > > "MommieOfFour" <skurn…@sirinet.net> wrote in message > > <news:u87r8abl0qtce3@corp.supernews.com>… > > > > <<Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. > > > > That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty.>> > > > > Ok Kane…… > > > > i really do hope that someone around your neighborhood accuses you of > a > > > > crime and you’ll sit behind bars, pending the outcome of the > > > > investigation…..That is all I have to say. HOPEFULLY ONE DAY YOU GET > > > > FUCKED LIKE SO MANY OF US HAVE BEEN!!! I usually do not wish bad > things > > upon > > > > anyone, but MAN……you are just too fucking much……hopefully you > > fuck > > > > up one day, putting yourself into a situation where YOU are > > > > investigated….hopefully someone will trample all over YOU, making > you > > feel > > > > like a lil NOTHING…….. > > > > Well, I said my peace….once again…… > > > So there I was, just having a nice debate, disagreeing with yet > > > another USENET dimbulb, here you are slathering at the mouth, wishing > > > me harm. > > > I’ll tell you what, you go and run a list of my posts, just click on > > > my name in the "From" line in the header. What you’ll find is, with > > > the rare exception of those I consider stone child abusers by their > > > own testimony here, I have never wished harm to anyone not deserving > > > of it. > > > Even those that post here, like yourself, that offer no supporting > > > proof for their whining over victimization, I have left unscathed, > > > when it comes to wishing any harm. I have ridiculed (common in this > > > medium and I’ve taking my hits from others). I have been extremely > > > rude to (and that surely is not a rare commodity…even for you in > > > this medium), but I never wished harm to a single one of you. > > > I certainly can assume that if I were guilty of something I might well > > > be arrested and investigated, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you > > > mean innocent and investigated. > > > That is just meanness, Mother, not debate. > > > And I would certainly never wish an innocent person harm under any > > > circumstances, no matter how much I might dislike them or disagree > > > with their position and arguments. > > > It’s sad to see you descend to such low scummy behavior, but then I > > > suppose as a victim of CPS ineptness and malice you have every right > > > to go after someone that isn’t automatically aboard the > > > total-annihilation-of-CPS train. > > > Say, whose going to protect the children when you have destroyed CPS? > > > You, you fucking dipwad shit spewing frothing at the mouth fool? Or is > > > there no such thing as child abuse and CPS has been fooling us all > > > these years? Where do they come up with this evidence that is enou > > > I suppose when the kiddies don’t agree completely with you you’ll wish > > > them into jail, eh? > > > I just annoy the hell out of you, don’t I now? > > > By the way, only ignorant twits top post, and you being so wise and > > > all you wouldn’t be doing it unless you had a real purpose. Mind > > > telling us what that might be? > > > Bingo, bango, bongo. > > > Stoneman > > > > "Kane" <pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com> wrote in message > > > > news:7ed8d1be.0203032247.1a9583ac@posting.google.com… > > > > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > > > <news:WLBg8.30509$yL2.2435665@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>… > > > > > > "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > > > > > > news:F5vg8.34297$jC3.874422@news1.east.cox.net… > > > > > > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > > > > > > > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that > > > > custody > > > > > > can > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods. > > > > > > > Hi ya Ricky!! > > > > > > > An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil > > courts > > > > are > > > > > > > also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the > > civil > > > > rights > > > > > > > of the children that are being enforced, since it is the > guardians > > of > > > > those > > > > > > > rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. > Since > > that > > > > > > > guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to > > > > represent > > > > > > > the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own > > > > representation. > > > > > > > Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout > > the > > > > nation, > > > > > > > for all citizens, and not just children. > > > > > > Oh, you mean like the following rights > > > > > > Right of due process > > > > > Yep,

Response:

"MommieOfFour" <skurn…@sirinet.net> wrote in message

news:u8cks84k10qiae@corp.supernews.com… > <<Say, whose going to protect the children when you have destroyed CPS? > You, you fucking dipwad shit spewing frothing at the mouth fool? Or is > there no such thing as child abuse and CPS has been fooling us all > these years?>> > Child abuse is a crime, and should be investigated by LAW ENFORCEMENT, not > by some dumbass wanna-be cops like the CPS Gestapo.

Hi ya M04, For Law Enforcement to do so would be a violation of HHS’s primary goal, strengthening families. Law Enforcement and the US Court system are already over burdened by the criminal and civil actions that currently plague our nation, and you want to add another 1.3 million investigations every year to that work load? No problem, all you have to do is fess up the 1.9 billion dollars (or some figure close to that) needed to put your plan into action. I’m sure that the US Government would love to have a benefactor like yourself willing to put forth the cost of this program. While your at it you can choose the additional 125,000 police officers, 12,000 attorney’s, 1,200 judges, 12,000 corrections officers, and so on and so on and so on, needed to make it work. That way you have total control of who becomes a part of the system, and thereby can meet your own personal agenda of ensuring that all child abusers/neglectors get prison time, and abolish CPS. Of course you will be putting into place a completely draconian system, bent on punishing rather than helping, but what the hell, at least CPS is gone. I gave your little plan the 14 seconds of consideration it deserves, and came to the same conclusion that every other reasoning thinking member of the human race has, that has the background needed to give it an educated review. It wont work. Period. You have shown that you are no one to be calling anyone ignorant. A clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. Ron – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> <<I just annoy the hell out of you, don’t I now?>> > Not really….you just keep on proving to me how ignorant you are, it really > makes me laugh. > <<By the way, only ignorant twits top post, and you being so wise and > all you wouldn’t be doing it unless you had a real purpose. Mind > telling us what that might be?>> > To get rid of ignorant people like YOU!!! > BINGO BANGO BONGO!!!!!!!!!! > "Kane" <pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com> wrote in message > news:7ed8d1be.0203052007.be365a@posting.google.com… > > "MommieOfFour" <skurn…@sirinet.net> wrote in message > <news:u87r8abl0qtce3@corp.supernews.com>… > > > <<Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. > > > That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty.>> > > > Ok Kane…… > > > i really do hope that someone around your neighborhood accuses you of a > > > crime and you’ll sit behind bars, pending the outcome of the > > > investigation…..That is all I have to say. HOPEFULLY ONE DAY YOU GET > > > FUCKED LIKE SO MANY OF US HAVE BEEN!!! I usually do not wish bad things > upon > > > anyone, but MAN……you are just too fucking much……hopefully you > fuck > > > up one day, putting yourself into a situation where YOU are > > > investigated….hopefully someone will trample all over YOU, making you > feel > > > like a lil NOTHING…….. > > > Well, I said my peace….once again…… > > So there I was, just having a nice debate, disagreeing with yet > > another USENET dimbulb, here you are slathering at the mouth, wishing > > me harm. > > I’ll tell you what, you go and run a list of my posts, just click on > > my name in the "From" line in the header. What you’ll find is, with > > the rare exception of those I consider stone child abusers by their > > own testimony here, I have never wished harm to anyone not deserving > > of it. > > Even those that post here, like yourself, that offer no supporting > > proof for their whining over victimization, I have left unscathed, > > when it comes to wishing any harm. I have ridiculed (common in this > > medium and I’ve taking my hits from others). I have been extremely > > rude to (and that surely is not a rare commodity…even for you in > > this medium), but I never wished harm to a single one of you. > > I certainly can assume that if I were guilty of something I might well > > be arrested and investigated, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you > > mean innocent and investigated. > > That is just meanness, Mother, not debate. > > And I would certainly never wish an innocent person harm under any > > circumstances, no matter how much I might dislike them or disagree > > with their position and arguments. > > It’s sad to see you descend to such low scummy behavior, but then I > > suppose as a victim of CPS ineptness and malice you have every right > > to go after someone that isn’t automatically aboard the > > total-annihilation-of-CPS train. > > Say, whose going to protect the children when you have destroyed CPS? > > You, you fucking dipwad shit spewing frothing at the mouth fool? Or is > > there no such thing as child abuse and CPS has been fooling us all > > these years? Where do they come up with this evidence that is enou > > I suppose when the kiddies don’t agree completely with you you’ll wish > > them into jail, eh? > > I just annoy the hell out of you, don’t I now? > > By the way, only ignorant twits top post, and you being so wise and > > all you wouldn’t be doing it unless you had a real purpose. Mind > > telling us what that might be? > > Bingo, bango, bongo. > > Stoneman > > > "Kane" <pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com> wrote in message > > > news:7ed8d1be.0203032247.1a9583ac@posting.google.com… > > > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > > <news:WLBg8.30509$yL2.2435665@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>… > > > > > "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > > > > > news:F5vg8.34297$jC3.874422@news1.east.cox.net… > > > > > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > > > > > news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > > > > > > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that > > > custody > > > > > can > > > > > be > > > > > > > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods. > > > > > > Hi ya Ricky!! > > > > > > An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil > courts > > > are > > > > > > also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the > civil > > > rights > > > > > > of the children that are being enforced, since it is the guardians > of > > > those > > > > > > rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. Since > that > > > > > > guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to > > > represent > > > > > > the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own > > > representation. > > > > > > Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout > the > > > nation, > > > > > > for all citizens, and not just children. > > > > > Oh, you mean like the following rights > > > > > Right of due process > > > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > > > Innocent till proven guilty > > > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > > > No star chamber proceedings > > > > If this exists except in your fevered mind (you do know what ex parte > > > > means, right?) it would be denial of rights…. > > > > in a criminal indictment. > > > > > Right to have parent present during medical exams > > > > No such right exists. It sounds good though. Nice going. > > > > > Parents right to decide medical care > > > > Not if the state has custody. > > > > > Right to counsel during fourth amendment custody > > > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > > > Right to require a search warrant before entrance barring exigent > > > > > circumstances > > > > And you’d claim danger to the child as reported to CPS must be proven > > > > first, I suppose…this same tired old saw that anyone can see > > > > through. No, child, such conditinos ARE "exigent circumstances". The > > > > child could, and has, as we all know, died while CPS shilly shallied > > > > around and didn’t take the child out first. > > > > > Right to be free of significant intrusions to the child’s privacy > such > > > as a > > > > > nude physical examination > > > > No such right exists. Not covered under any statute or the US > > > > Constitution. Nudity is neither protected or prohibited. Now if your > > > > state has such a law you just pop it right on up here. Sound good > > > > though. > > > > > Freedom from coercion > > > > Sounds good to me. How about the parent also being denied "coercion" > > > > privs when they have abused the child? Oh, gosh, how will the bad ol’ > > > > CPS evil gestapo agents find out if they don’t investigate? Looks like > > > > you are stuck sucking the end of your tail again. > > > > > The right to a fair and impartial investigatiom > > > > Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. > > > > That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty. > > > > > The right of children to a familial relationshipnot subjected to > > > unwarranted > > > > > intrusion by the state > > > > No such right exists, but it makes good copy. > > > > > The right to full discovery of exculpatory evidence > > > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > > > The right to be free of the personal opinions of social workers and > that > > > > > they MAY NOT sacrifice the privacy and dignity to their own personal > > > views > > > > > of discipline but must adhere to the law > > > > No such right exists, but again it sure looks good. Wanna run me out a > > > > few of those, with

Response:

<<Say, whose going to protect the children when you have destroyed CPS? You, you fucking dipwad shit spewing frothing at the mouth fool? Or is there no such thing as child abuse and CPS has been fooling us all these years?>> Child abuse is a crime, and should be investigated by LAW ENFORCEMENT, not by some dumbass wanna-be cops like the CPS Gestapo. <<I just annoy the hell out of you, don’t I now?>> Not really….you just keep on proving to me how ignorant you are, it really makes me laugh. <<By the way, only ignorant twits top post, and you being so wise and all you wouldn’t be doing it unless you had a real purpose. Mind telling us what that might be?>> To get rid of ignorant people like YOU!!! BINGO BANGO BONGO!!!!!!!!!! "Kane" <pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com> wrote in message

news:7ed8d1be.0203052007.be365a@posting.google.com… > "MommieOfFour" <skurn…@sirinet.net> wrote in message

<news:u87r8abl0qtce3@corp.supernews.com>… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > <<Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. > > That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty.>> > > Ok Kane…… > > i really do hope that someone around your neighborhood accuses you of a > > crime and you’ll sit behind bars, pending the outcome of the > > investigation…..That is all I have to say. HOPEFULLY ONE DAY YOU GET > > FUCKED LIKE SO MANY OF US HAVE BEEN!!! I usually do not wish bad things upon > > anyone, but MAN……you are just too fucking much……hopefully you fuck > > up one day, putting yourself into a situation where YOU are > > investigated….hopefully someone will trample all over YOU, making you feel > > like a lil NOTHING…….. > > Well, I said my peace….once again…… > So there I was, just having a nice debate, disagreeing with yet > another USENET dimbulb, here you are slathering at the mouth, wishing > me harm. > I’ll tell you what, you go and run a list of my posts, just click on > my name in the "From" line in the header. What you’ll find is, with > the rare exception of those I consider stone child abusers by their > own testimony here, I have never wished harm to anyone not deserving > of it. > Even those that post here, like yourself, that offer no supporting > proof for their whining over victimization, I have left unscathed, > when it comes to wishing any harm. I have ridiculed (common in this > medium and I’ve taking my hits from others). I have been extremely > rude to (and that surely is not a rare commodity…even for you in > this medium), but I never wished harm to a single one of you. > I certainly can assume that if I were guilty of something I might well > be arrested and investigated, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you > mean innocent and investigated. > That is just meanness, Mother, not debate. > And I would certainly never wish an innocent person harm under any > circumstances, no matter how much I might dislike them or disagree > with their position and arguments. > It’s sad to see you descend to such low scummy behavior, but then I > suppose as a victim of CPS ineptness and malice you have every right > to go after someone that isn’t automatically aboard the > total-annihilation-of-CPS train. > Say, whose going to protect the children when you have destroyed CPS? > You, you fucking dipwad shit spewing frothing at the mouth fool? Or is > there no such thing as child abuse and CPS has been fooling us all > these years? Where do they come up with this evidence that is enou > I suppose when the kiddies don’t agree completely with you you’ll wish > them into jail, eh? > I just annoy the hell out of you, don’t I now? > By the way, only ignorant twits top post, and you being so wise and > all you wouldn’t be doing it unless you had a real purpose. Mind > telling us what that might be? > Bingo, bango, bongo. > Stoneman > > "Kane" <pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com> wrote in message > > news:7ed8d1be.0203032247.1a9583ac@posting.google.com… > > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > <news:WLBg8.30509$yL2.2435665@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>… > > > > "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > > > > news:F5vg8.34297$jC3.874422@news1.east.cox.net… > > > > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > > > > news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > > > > > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that > > custody > > > > can > > > > be > > > > > > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods. > > > > > Hi ya Ricky!! > > > > > An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil courts > > are > > > > > also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the civil > > rights > > > > > of the children that are being enforced, since it is the guardians of > > those > > > > > rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. Since that > > > > > guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to > > represent > > > > > the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own > > representation. > > > > > Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout the > > nation, > > > > > for all citizens, and not just children. > > > > Oh, you mean like the following rights > > > > Right of due process > > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > > Innocent till proven guilty > > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > > No star chamber proceedings > > > If this exists except in your fevered mind (you do know what ex parte > > > means, right?) it would be denial of rights…. > > > in a criminal indictment. > > > > Right to have parent present during medical exams > > > No such right exists. It sounds good though. Nice going. > > > > Parents right to decide medical care > > > Not if the state has custody. > > > > Right to counsel during fourth amendment custody > > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > > Right to require a search warrant before entrance barring exigent > > > > circumstances > > > And you’d claim danger to the child as reported to CPS must be proven > > > first, I suppose…this same tired old saw that anyone can see > > > through. No, child, such conditinos ARE "exigent circumstances". The > > > child could, and has, as we all know, died while CPS shilly shallied > > > around and didn’t take the child out first. > > > > Right to be free of significant intrusions to the child’s privacy such > > as a > > > > nude physical examination > > > No such right exists. Not covered under any statute or the US > > > Constitution. Nudity is neither protected or prohibited. Now if your > > > state has such a law you just pop it right on up here. Sound good > > > though. > > > > Freedom from coercion > > > Sounds good to me. How about the parent also being denied "coercion" > > > privs when they have abused the child? Oh, gosh, how will the bad ol’ > > > CPS evil gestapo agents find out if they don’t investigate? Looks like > > > you are stuck sucking the end of your tail again. > > > > The right to a fair and impartial investigatiom > > > Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. > > > That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty. > > > > The right of children to a familial relationshipnot subjected to > > unwarranted > > > > intrusion by the state > > > No such right exists, but it makes good copy. > > > > The right to full discovery of exculpatory evidence > > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > > The right to be free of the personal opinions of social workers and that > > > > they MAY NOT sacrifice the privacy and dignity to their own personal > > views > > > > of discipline but must adhere to the law > > > No such right exists, but again it sure looks good. Wanna run me out a > > > few of those, with the social workers having equal time, maybe…you > > > might convince a parent or two to sign a waiver so we might take a > > > little peek, eh? > > > > Children may not be seized unless reasonable avenues of investigation > > are > > > > pursued > > > I thought you were dicussing rights. Now it’s "may nots", which, if > > > the state has child welfare statutes usually cover this quite nicely. > > > One cannot investigate "reasonable avenues" if the parent can either > > > intimidate the child…I’ve heard that is done occasionally, > > > especially by sexual molesters, or simply "disappear" the child….you > > > know, so many children are mysteriously kidnapped. > > > > These are just a small amount of the rights of families and children > > there > > > > are amny more which violating is a crime. > > > Okay, I’ll bite. Run them out here. You might actually have one that > > > would stand up in the and salute. > > > > Further violating these rights to > > > > remove a child that results in death or aggravated sexual abuse of the > > child > > > > raises the violation to a capitol crime. > > > Yep. All yah gotta do is prove it in a court of law. Seems it has been > > > done, but usually the perp is a foster parent that did NOT wear a sign > > > around their necks saying, "I’m gonna kill the kids put in my care" > > > and darn that old CPS, they won’t spend a nickle of the taxpayers > > > money for Psychic Hotline consultations. > > > > If CPS truly was "protecting the > > > > rights of children" they would have to adhere to these rights however > > they > > > > often do not. > > > And when they don’t, child, go get`em. > > > And mind now, be careful and don’t mentioned the hundreds of thousands > > > of children that are in fact abused by their parents that are gonna > > > die when you get all these rights. > > > Bingo, bango, bongo. > > > Stoneman, or is it steve, cheryl, d’geezer, Lucky Louie, Mark Mobius,

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com (Kane) wrote in message <news:7ed8d1be.0203052017.4aefefc1@posting.google.com>… > dsull…@optonline.net (Dan Sullivan) wrote in message <news:f9e1b700.0203050028.694cc7cd@posting.google.com>… > > "MommieOfFour" <skurn…@sirinet.net> wrote in message <news:u87r8abl0qtce3@corp.supernews.com>… > > > <<Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. > > > That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty.>> > > > Ok Kane…… > > > i really do hope that someone around your neighborhood accuses you of a > > > crime and you’ll sit behind bars, pending the outcome of the > > > investigation…..That is all I have to say. HOPEFULLY ONE DAY YOU GET > > > FUCKED LIKE SO MANY OF US HAVE BEEN!!! I usually do not wish bad things upon > > > anyone, but MAN……you are just too fucking much……hopefully you fuck > > > up one day, putting yourself into a situation where YOU are > > > investigated….hopefully someone will trample all over YOU, making you feel > > > like a lil NOTHING…….. > > > Well, I said my peace….once again…… > > Go get’um MOfour!!! > > This is GREAT!!! > > Give’m some more. > Gee, Sullivan, where did I ever get the idea you actually had your > shit together. arh arh arh..

I was just happy someone was reading your messages and finally responded from the heart. It’s definitely a step in the right direction for MO4. > Surely there are those in the ng more deserving of your support and > encouragement. Well, you gotta get back in the good graces of the > rabble I suppose…<sigh>

I never considered myself OUT of the good graces. Actually I don’t really care one way or the other. My advice? Take it or leave it. Aim at the problem or keep spinning on your heals trying to shoot everything that seems to be on the other side. The only way to win is to hit the bull’s-eye. A miss is as good as a mile. > I’m deeply offended…..arh arh arh.

Why don’t I think that could happen? > I DO, it seems, piss you people off though, don’t I :]

I think you should lose some of the abrasive crap and the bad language. It weakens your position. > Nothing makes me happier.

IMO It’s time to change your style. You’ll never get anyone to seriously consider what you post. You insult one you insult them all. You ARE attempting to get people to understand your position, no? And if you want people to believe that CPS does do good things for children then you also have to admit that they SUCK big time when they ‘blow it’ by founding the wrong people. Look at the 75% of the foster parents that had their ‘founded’ CPS decisions reversed in Illinois. Look at what they tried to do to me five times. What a monumental waste of time and money. Both of which COULD’VE been spent on children who REALLY were abused or neglected. AND possibly could’ve reunified the family. That IS the name of the game isn’t it? I always got a kick out of the sign on the wall at my local CPS that read, "DO IT RIGHT." I do realize that CPS probably does do good work, BUT when CPS makes an obvious mistake…. You know it doesn’t even matter that CPS gets a majority of their cases right, or almost all, or whatever the number really is, what this NG is about is the number that they get wrong. With my experience of five ‘founded’ decisions and fifteen investigations and a couple of tours of Family Court I can tell you the single word that describes CPS in my case is vindictiveness. The last ‘founded’ decision that I had reversed in a Fair Hearing was in front of the same Judge who reversed the same defective determination eight years earlier. The CW was the first to testify and before she was asked a single question she blurted out, "I don’t think he should’ve been founded for that." The Judge asked, "Then why did you ‘found’ him then?" She responded, "My supervisor told me to." The rest of the Hearing went along the same lines for CPS. It also came out that the CW transferred out of CPS right before the Hearing. It would’ve been better if her supervisor and the two assistant administrators who were involved in my case resigned or transferred out. The CW at least admitted that NONE of the determinations were made according the rules and regulations of CPS. > Bingo, bango, bongo.

President of the Maynard G. Krebs fan club are ya? All the best, Dan

Response:

The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that custody can be settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods.

Response:

"ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message

news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that custody can be > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods.

Hi ya Ricky!! An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil courts are also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the civil rights of the children that are being enforced, since it is the guardians of those rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. Since that guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to represent the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own representation. Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout the nation, for all citizens, and not just children. Ron

Response:

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

news:F5vg8.34297$jC3.874422@news1.east.cox.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that custody can > be > > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods. > Hi ya Ricky!! > An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil courts are > also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the civil rights > of the children that are being enforced, since it is the guardians of those > rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. Since that > guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to represent > the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own representation. > Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout the nation, > for all citizens, and not just children.

Oh, you mean like the following rights Right of due process Innocent till proven guilty No star chamber proceedings Right to have parent present during medical exams Parents right to decide medical care Right to counsel during fourth amendment custody Right to require a search warrant before entrance barring exigent circumstances Right to be free of significant intrusions to the child’s privacy such as a nude physical examination Freedom from coercion The right to a fair and impartial investigatiom The right of children to a familial relationshipnot subjected to unwarranted intrusion by the state The right to full discovery of exculpatory evidence The right to be free of the personal opinions of social workers and that they MAY NOT sacrifice the privacy and dignity to their own personal views of discipline but must adhere to the law Children may not be seized unless reasonable avenues of investigation are pursued These are just a small amount of the rights of families and children there are amny more which violating is a crime. Further violating these rights to remove a child that results in death or aggravated sexual abuse of the child raises the violation to a capitol crime. If CPS truly was "protecting the rights of children" they would have to adhere to these rights however they often do not. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ron

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message <news:WLBg8.30509$yL2.2435665@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>… > "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:F5vg8.34297$jC3.874422@news1.east.cox.net… > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that custody > can > be > > > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods. > > Hi ya Ricky!! > > An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil courts are > > also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the civil rights > > of the children that are being enforced, since it is the guardians of > those > > rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. Since that > > guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to represent > > the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own representation. > > Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout the > nation, > > for all citizens, and not just children. > Oh, you mean like the following rights > Right of due process

Yep, in a criminal indictment. > Innocent till proven guilty

Yep, in a criminal indictment. > No star chamber proceedings

If this exists except in your fevered mind (you do know what ex parte means, right?) it would be denial of rights…. in a criminal indictment. > Right to have parent present during medical exams

No such right exists. It sounds good though. Nice going. > Parents right to decide medical care

Not if the state has custody. > Right to counsel during fourth amendment custody

Yep, in a criminal indictment. > Right to require a search warrant before entrance barring exigent > circumstances

And you’d claim danger to the child as reported to CPS must be proven first, I suppose…this same tired old saw that anyone can see through. No, child, such conditinos ARE "exigent circumstances". The child could, and has, as we all know, died while CPS shilly shallied around and didn’t take the child out first. > Right to be free of significant intrusions to the child’s privacy such as a > nude physical examination

No such right exists. Not covered under any statute or the US Constitution. Nudity is neither protected or prohibited. Now if your state has such a law you just pop it right on up here. Sound good though. > Freedom from coercion

Sounds good to me. How about the parent also being denied "coercion" privs when they have abused the child? Oh, gosh, how will the bad ol’ CPS evil gestapo agents find out if they don’t investigate? Looks like you are stuck sucking the end of your tail again. > The right to a fair and impartial investigatiom

Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty. > The right of children to a familial relationshipnot subjected to unwarranted > intrusion by the state

No such right exists, but it makes good copy. > The right to full discovery of exculpatory evidence

Yep, in a criminal indictment. > The right to be free of the personal opinions of social workers and that > they MAY NOT sacrifice the privacy and dignity to their own personal views > of discipline but must adhere to the law

No such right exists, but again it sure looks good. Wanna run me out a few of those, with the social workers having equal time, maybe…you might convince a parent or two to sign a waiver so we might take a little peek, eh? > Children may not be seized unless reasonable avenues of investigation are > pursued

I thought you were dicussing rights. Now it’s "may nots", which, if the state has child welfare statutes usually cover this quite nicely. One cannot investigate "reasonable avenues" if the parent can either intimidate the child…I’ve heard that is done occasionally, especially by sexual molesters, or simply "disappear" the child….you know, so many children are mysteriously kidnapped. > These are just a small amount of the rights of families and children there > are amny more which violating is a crime.

Okay, I’ll bite. Run them out here. You might actually have one that would stand up in the and salute. > Further violating these rights to > remove a child that results in death or aggravated sexual abuse of the child > raises the violation to a capitol crime.

Yep. All yah gotta do is prove it in a court of law. Seems it has been done, but usually the perp is a foster parent that did NOT wear a sign around their necks saying, "I’m gonna kill the kids put in my care" and darn that old CPS, they won’t spend a nickle of the taxpayers money for Psychic Hotline consultations. > If CPS truly was "protecting the > rights of children" they would have to adhere to these rights however they > often do not.

And when they don’t, child, go get`em. And mind now, be careful and don’t mentioned the hundreds of thousands of children that are in fact abused by their parents that are gonna die when you get all these rights. Bingo, bango, bongo. Stoneman, or is it steve, cheryl, d’geezer, Lucky Louie, Mark Mobius, the Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, and the Sandman (did I leave anyone out?) all rolled up in one? Hey, here’s a thought. What if Stoneman is many people posting as one? Damn, now that would be a gas, eh? I’ll tell you what. Let’s have even more fun. I’ll hijack my own posts, spoof a header from all these folks and simulaneously post duplicates through anonymous remail services. Hell, if one of your heros can do it, why not me…., and I’d do it really big time? Well, guess I won’t, maybe because it would be very easy to slip over into the illegal area clearly and conclusively proven to have nailed some ninnies and numbskulls in the recent past. Kane

Response:

<<Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty.>> Ok Kane…… i really do hope that someone around your neighborhood accuses you of a crime and you’ll sit behind bars, pending the outcome of the investigation…..That is all I have to say. HOPEFULLY ONE DAY YOU GET FUCKED LIKE SO MANY OF US HAVE BEEN!!! I usually do not wish bad things upon anyone, but MAN……you are just too fucking much……hopefully you fuck up one day, putting yourself into a situation where YOU are investigated….hopefully someone will trample all over YOU, making you feel like a lil NOTHING…….. Well, I said my peace….once again…… "Kane" <pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com> wrote in message

news:7ed8d1be.0203032247.1a9583ac@posting.google.com… > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message

<news:WLBg8.30509$yL2.2435665@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > > news:F5vg8.34297$jC3.874422@news1.east.cox.net… > > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > > news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > > > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that custody > > can > > be > > > > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods. > > > Hi ya Ricky!! > > > An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil courts are > > > also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the civil rights > > > of the children that are being enforced, since it is the guardians of > > those > > > rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. Since that > > > guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to represent > > > the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own representation. > > > Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout the > > nation, > > > for all citizens, and not just children. > > Oh, you mean like the following rights > > Right of due process > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > Innocent till proven guilty > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > No star chamber proceedings > If this exists except in your fevered mind (you do know what ex parte > means, right?) it would be denial of rights…. > in a criminal indictment. > > Right to have parent present during medical exams > No such right exists. It sounds good though. Nice going. > > Parents right to decide medical care > Not if the state has custody. > > Right to counsel during fourth amendment custody > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > Right to require a search warrant before entrance barring exigent > > circumstances > And you’d claim danger to the child as reported to CPS must be proven > first, I suppose…this same tired old saw that anyone can see > through. No, child, such conditinos ARE "exigent circumstances". The > child could, and has, as we all know, died while CPS shilly shallied > around and didn’t take the child out first. > > Right to be free of significant intrusions to the child’s privacy such as a > > nude physical examination > No such right exists. Not covered under any statute or the US > Constitution. Nudity is neither protected or prohibited. Now if your > state has such a law you just pop it right on up here. Sound good > though. > > Freedom from coercion > Sounds good to me. How about the parent also being denied "coercion" > privs when they have abused the child? Oh, gosh, how will the bad ol’ > CPS evil gestapo agents find out if they don’t investigate? Looks like > you are stuck sucking the end of your tail again. > > The right to a fair and impartial investigatiom > Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. > That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty. > > The right of children to a familial relationshipnot subjected to unwarranted > > intrusion by the state > No such right exists, but it makes good copy. > > The right to full discovery of exculpatory evidence > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > The right to be free of the personal opinions of social workers and that > > they MAY NOT sacrifice the privacy and dignity to their own personal views > > of discipline but must adhere to the law > No such right exists, but again it sure looks good. Wanna run me out a > few of those, with the social workers having equal time, maybe…you > might convince a parent or two to sign a waiver so we might take a > little peek, eh? > > Children may not be seized unless reasonable avenues of investigation are > > pursued > I thought you were dicussing rights. Now it’s "may nots", which, if > the state has child welfare statutes usually cover this quite nicely. > One cannot investigate "reasonable avenues" if the parent can either > intimidate the child…I’ve heard that is done occasionally, > especially by sexual molesters, or simply "disappear" the child….you > know, so many children are mysteriously kidnapped. > > These are just a small amount of the rights of families and children there > > are amny more which violating is a crime. > Okay, I’ll bite. Run them out here. You might actually have one that > would stand up in the and salute. > > Further violating these rights to > > remove a child that results in death or aggravated sexual abuse of the child > > raises the violation to a capitol crime. > Yep. All yah gotta do is prove it in a court of law. Seems it has been > done, but usually the perp is a foster parent that did NOT wear a sign > around their necks saying, "I’m gonna kill the kids put in my care" > and darn that old CPS, they won’t spend a nickle of the taxpayers > money for Psychic Hotline consultations. > > If CPS truly was "protecting the > > rights of children" they would have to adhere to these rights however they > > often do not. > And when they don’t, child, go get`em. > And mind now, be careful and don’t mentioned the hundreds of thousands > of children that are in fact abused by their parents that are gonna > die when you get all these rights. > Bingo, bango, bongo. > Stoneman, or is it steve, cheryl, d’geezer, Lucky Louie, Mark Mobius, > the Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, and the Sandman (did I leave anyone > out?) all rolled up in one? > Hey, here’s a thought. What if Stoneman is many people posting as one? > Damn, now that would be a gas, eh? > I’ll tell you what. Let’s have even more fun. I’ll hijack my own > posts, spoof a header from all these folks and simulaneously post > duplicates through anonymous remail services. Hell, if one of your > heros can do it, why not me…., and I’d do it really big time? > Well, guess I won’t, maybe because it would be very easy to slip over > into the illegal area clearly and conclusively proven to have nailed > some ninnies and numbskulls in the recent past. > Kane

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -dsull…@optonline.net (Dan Sullivan) wrote in message <news:f9e1b700.0203050028.694cc7cd@posting.google.com>… > "MommieOfFour" <skurn…@sirinet.net> wrote in message <news:u87r8abl0qtce3@corp.supernews.com>… > > <<Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. > > That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty.>> > > Ok Kane…… > > i really do hope that someone around your neighborhood accuses you of a > > crime and you’ll sit behind bars, pending the outcome of the > > investigation…..That is all I have to say. HOPEFULLY ONE DAY YOU GET > > FUCKED LIKE SO MANY OF US HAVE BEEN!!! I usually do not wish bad things upon > > anyone, but MAN……you are just too fucking much……hopefully you fuck > > up one day, putting yourself into a situation where YOU are > > investigated….hopefully someone will trample all over YOU, making you feel > > like a lil NOTHING…….. > > Well, I said my peace….once again…… > Go get’um MOfour!!! > This is GREAT!!! > Give’m some more.

Gee, Sullivan, where did I ever get the idea you actually had your shit together. arh arh arh.. Surely there are those in the ng more deserving of your support and encouragement. Well, you gotta get back in the good graces of the rabble I suppose…<sigh> I’m deeply offended…..arh arh arh. I DO, it seems, piss you people off though, don’t I :] Nothing makes me happier. Bingo, bango, bongo. Stoneman

Response:

"MommieOfFour" <skurn…@sirinet.net> wrote in message <news:u87r8abl0qtce3@corp.supernews.com>… > <<Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. > That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty.>> > Ok Kane…… > i really do hope that someone around your neighborhood accuses you of a > crime and you’ll sit behind bars, pending the outcome of the > investigation…..That is all I have to say. HOPEFULLY ONE DAY YOU GET > FUCKED LIKE SO MANY OF US HAVE BEEN!!! I usually do not wish bad things upon > anyone, but MAN……you are just too fucking much……hopefully you fuck > up one day, putting yourself into a situation where YOU are > investigated….hopefully someone will trample all over YOU, making you feel > like a lil NOTHING…….. > Well, I said my peace….once again……

So there I was, just having a nice debate, disagreeing with yet another USENET dimbulb, here you are slathering at the mouth, wishing me harm. I’ll tell you what, you go and run a list of my posts, just click on my name in the "From" line in the header. What you’ll find is, with the rare exception of those I consider stone child abusers by their own testimony here, I have never wished harm to anyone not deserving of it. Even those that post here, like yourself, that offer no supporting proof for their whining over victimization, I have left unscathed, when it comes to wishing any harm. I have ridiculed (common in this medium and I’ve taking my hits from others). I have been extremely rude to (and that surely is not a rare commodity…even for you in this medium), but I never wished harm to a single one of you. I certainly can assume that if I were guilty of something I might well be arrested and investigated, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you mean innocent and investigated. That is just meanness, Mother, not debate. And I would certainly never wish an innocent person harm under any circumstances, no matter how much I might dislike them or disagree with their position and arguments. It’s sad to see you descend to such low scummy behavior, but then I suppose as a victim of CPS ineptness and malice you have every right to go after someone that isn’t automatically aboard the total-annihilation-of-CPS train. Say, whose going to protect the children when you have destroyed CPS? You, you fucking dipwad shit spewing frothing at the mouth fool? Or is there no such thing as child abuse and CPS has been fooling us all these years? Where do they come up with this evidence that is enou I suppose when the kiddies don’t agree completely with you you’ll wish them into jail, eh? I just annoy the hell out of you, don’t I now? By the way, only ignorant twits top post, and you being so wise and all you wouldn’t be doing it unless you had a real purpose. Mind telling us what that might be? Bingo, bango, bongo. Stoneman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Kane" <pohakuyakok…@subdimension.com> wrote in message > news:7ed8d1be.0203032247.1a9583ac@posting.google.com… > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > <news:WLBg8.30509$yL2.2435665@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>… > > > "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > > > news:F5vg8.34297$jC3.874422@news1.east.cox.net… > > > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > > > news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > > > > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that > custody > > > can > > > be > > > > > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods. > > > > Hi ya Ricky!! > > > > An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil courts > are > > > > also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the civil > rights > > > > of the children that are being enforced, since it is the guardians of > those > > > > rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. Since that > > > > guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to > represent > > > > the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own > representation. > > > > Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout the > nation, > > > > for all citizens, and not just children. > > > Oh, you mean like the following rights > > > Right of due process > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > Innocent till proven guilty > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > No star chamber proceedings > > If this exists except in your fevered mind (you do know what ex parte > > means, right?) it would be denial of rights…. > > in a criminal indictment. > > > Right to have parent present during medical exams > > No such right exists. It sounds good though. Nice going. > > > Parents right to decide medical care > > Not if the state has custody. > > > Right to counsel during fourth amendment custody > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > Right to require a search warrant before entrance barring exigent > > > circumstances > > And you’d claim danger to the child as reported to CPS must be proven > > first, I suppose…this same tired old saw that anyone can see > > through. No, child, such conditinos ARE "exigent circumstances". The > > child could, and has, as we all know, died while CPS shilly shallied > > around and didn’t take the child out first. > > > Right to be free of significant intrusions to the child’s privacy such > as a > > > nude physical examination > > No such right exists. Not covered under any statute or the US > > Constitution. Nudity is neither protected or prohibited. Now if your > > state has such a law you just pop it right on up here. Sound good > > though. > > > Freedom from coercion > > Sounds good to me. How about the parent also being denied "coercion" > > privs when they have abused the child? Oh, gosh, how will the bad ol’ > > CPS evil gestapo agents find out if they don’t investigate? Looks like > > you are stuck sucking the end of your tail again. > > > The right to a fair and impartial investigatiom > > Yep, just leave the kiddies in the home with the alledged perps. > > That’ll be fair and impartial alrighty. > > > The right of children to a familial relationshipnot subjected to > unwarranted > > > intrusion by the state > > No such right exists, but it makes good copy. > > > The right to full discovery of exculpatory evidence > > Yep, in a criminal indictment. > > > The right to be free of the personal opinions of social workers and that > > > they MAY NOT sacrifice the privacy and dignity to their own personal > views > > > of discipline but must adhere to the law > > No such right exists, but again it sure looks good. Wanna run me out a > > few of those, with the social workers having equal time, maybe…you > > might convince a parent or two to sign a waiver so we might take a > > little peek, eh? > > > Children may not be seized unless reasonable avenues of investigation > are > > > pursued > > I thought you were dicussing rights. Now it’s "may nots", which, if > > the state has child welfare statutes usually cover this quite nicely. > > One cannot investigate "reasonable avenues" if the parent can either > > intimidate the child…I’ve heard that is done occasionally, > > especially by sexual molesters, or simply "disappear" the child….you > > know, so many children are mysteriously kidnapped. > > > These are just a small amount of the rights of families and children > there > > > are amny more which violating is a crime. > > Okay, I’ll bite. Run them out here. You might actually have one that > > would stand up in the and salute. > > > Further violating these rights to > > > remove a child that results in death or aggravated sexual abuse of the > child > > > raises the violation to a capitol crime. > > Yep. All yah gotta do is prove it in a court of law. Seems it has been > > done, but usually the perp is a foster parent that did NOT wear a sign > > around their necks saying, "I’m gonna kill the kids put in my care" > > and darn that old CPS, they won’t spend a nickle of the taxpayers > > money for Psychic Hotline consultations. > > > If CPS truly was "protecting the > > > rights of children" they would have to adhere to these rights however > they > > > often do not. > > And when they don’t, child, go get`em. > > And mind now, be careful and don’t mentioned the hundreds of thousands > > of children that are in fact abused by their parents that are gonna > > die when you get all these rights. > > Bingo, bango, bongo. > > Stoneman, or is it steve, cheryl, d’geezer, Lucky Louie, Mark Mobius, > > the Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, and the Sandman (did I leave anyone > > out?) all rolled up in one? > > Hey, here’s a thought. What if Stoneman is many people posting as one? > > Damn, now that would be a gas, eh? > > I’ll tell you what. Let’s have even more fun. I’ll hijack my own > > posts, spoof a header from all these folks and simulaneously post > > duplicates through anonymous remail services. Hell, if one of your > > heros can do it, why not me…., and I’d do it really big time? > > Well, guess I won’t, maybe because it would be very easy to slip over > > into the illegal area clearly and conclusively proven to have nailed > > some ninnies and numbskulls in the recent past. > > Kane

Response:

I get the feeling Ricky that you really need an enema. To clear your mind of course. Kane is a bit more abrupt than I about things, but in this case his response was 100% on target. Its obvious that you dont have a clue of what your talking about, but that sure does not clow you down now does it. You really need to spend more time learning about all of what the system does and stop concentraiting on the few things that it does not always do so well. The system does not kill children, people do. Sometimes its a care provider, but far more often its a parent. Far Far more often, the facts prove it beyond any doubt, unless of course you dont believe them. And then of course that leaves the rest of us to ignore the ramblings of the mentally inept. And as far as killer parents go, those are only the ones that we know about. We ALWAYS know if a care provider kills a child, but I think you will find that scholars believe that less than 50% of the parental murders of their own children are ever found out. I’d ask you if you get it, but your record here shows that you dont want to. All you have done so far is put big neon lights around your lack of understanding of the subject. Ron "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message

news:rh1h8.39396$pN4.3703283@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:q9Tg8.37464$jC3.991435@news1.east.cox.net… > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > news:WLBg8.30509$yL2.2435665@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > > "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > > > news:F5vg8.34297$jC3.874422@news1.east.cox.net… > > > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > > > news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > > > > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that > custody > > > can > > > > be > > > > > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods. > > > > Hi ya Ricky!! > > > > An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil courts > > are > > > > also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the civil > > rights > > > > of the children that are being enforced, since it is the guardians of > > > those > > > > rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. Since that > > > > guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to > > represent > > > > the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own > > representation. > > > > Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout the > > > nation, > > > > for all citizens, and not just children. > > > Oh, you mean like the following rights > > > Right of due process > > > Innocent till proven guilty > > > No star chamber proceedings > > > Right to have parent present during medical exams > > > Parents right to decide medical care > > > Right to counsel during fourth amendment custody > > > Right to require a search warrant before entrance barring exigent > > > circumstances > > > Right to be free of significant intrusions to the child’s privacy such > as > > a > > > nude physical examination > > > Freedom from coercion > > > The right to a fair and impartial investigatiom > > > The right of children to a familial relationshipnot subjected to > > unwarranted > > > intrusion by the state > > > The right to full discovery of exculpatory evidence > > > The right to be free of the personal opinions of social workers and that > > > they MAY NOT sacrifice the privacy and dignity to their own personal > views > > > of discipline but must adhere to the law > > > Children may not be seized unless reasonable avenues of investigation > are > > > pursued > > > These are just a small amount of the rights of families and children > there > > > are amny more which violating is a crime. Further violating these > rights > > to > > > remove a child that results in death or aggravated sexual abuse of the > > child > > > raises the violation to a capitol crime. If CPS truly was "protecting > the > > > rights of children" they would have to adhere to these rights however > they > > > often do not. > > You forgot one Ricky, > > The right to not be abused or neglected by their own parents. > > One must be a living member of society, to enjoy all those other rights, > > wouldn’t you agree? > > Ron > Yes they do have that right! they also have the right not to be removed > from a safe home on false pretences cooped up in an overstuffed sytem, > neglected, abused, and murdered. they have the right for this information > to be brought out so others may not suffer. The way the local CPS tried to > cover up my nephews rape, the emotional abuse, the mental abuse and the > dental neglect of my other neices and nephews tells me that a full > investigation of the local CPS should be run by an outside agency. How much > abuse in their care is being shoved undr the carpet. One consalation I have > is that the scum who violated the childrens rights in the removal may face > the death penalty because their criminal actions caused the aggravated > sexual abuse of a child. When CPS goes hammer and tongs after someone just > because they DARE to say Hey I have know problem with you talking to my kids > as long as their is a lawyer present and we have made appointments for the > kids with their doctor. Now can we think of any sane reason why any one > would deny these things Ron. Or why CPS would go to the judge and LIE > saying the family is not cooperating and get a pick up order by fraudulent > means, that further they would coerce and abuse children horribly until said > children are trained to say whatever the interrogator wants said. {without > the requested lawyer present as this technique is Illegal as it is witness > tampering} That further in disregard to the parents wishes that the three > boys who no allegations of abuse had been made against where strip searched > {results never released} the girls given abusive vaginal exams by a > stranger{even though the investigators were informed to take them to their > own doctor} and when they found NO EVIDENCE they proceeded to falsify a > medical report so they could hold the children beyond the 72 hr hold. > People wonder why no one trusts CPS Ron? Its simple some of them are child > abusers, law breakers and suffer from delusions. They endanger children > Ron. Too many of them and must be held accountable in the best interests of > all children. Their enablers must see they are part of the problem and work > toward a solution. criminal acts against a child and exposure of a child to > criminal acts are child abuse in most of the states , violations of civil > rights are a CRIME get the point Ron. Violation of civil rights makes the > CPS workers child abusers. I don’t want the abusers of children endangering > them. ANY ABUSERS! if this angers those who think children are property > with no rights GOOD it means I am on the right track.

Response:

"ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message

news:WLBg8.30509$yL2.2435665@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:F5vg8.34297$jC3.874422@news1.east.cox.net… > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that custody > can > > be > > > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods. > > Hi ya Ricky!! > > An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil courts are > > also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the civil rights > > of the children that are being enforced, since it is the guardians of > those > > rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. Since that > > guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to represent > > the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own representation. > > Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout the > nation, > > for all citizens, and not just children. > Oh, you mean like the following rights > Right of due process > Innocent till proven guilty > No star chamber proceedings > Right to have parent present during medical exams > Parents right to decide medical care > Right to counsel during fourth amendment custody > Right to require a search warrant before entrance barring exigent > circumstances > Right to be free of significant intrusions to the child’s privacy such as a > nude physical examination > Freedom from coercion > The right to a fair and impartial investigatiom > The right of children to a familial relationshipnot subjected to unwarranted > intrusion by the state > The right to full discovery of exculpatory evidence > The right to be free of the personal opinions of social workers and that > they MAY NOT sacrifice the privacy and dignity to their own personal views > of discipline but must adhere to the law > Children may not be seized unless reasonable avenues of investigation are > pursued > These are just a small amount of the rights of families and children there > are amny more which violating is a crime. Further violating these rights to > remove a child that results in death or aggravated sexual abuse of the child > raises the violation to a capitol crime. If CPS truly was "protecting the > rights of children" they would have to adhere to these rights however they > often do not.

You forgot one Ricky, The right to not be abused or neglected by their own parents. One must be a living member of society, to enjoy all those other rights, wouldn’t you agree? Ron

Response:

Go get’um MOfour!!! This is GREAT!!! Give’m some more.

Response:

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

news:q9Tg8.37464$jC3.991435@news1.east.cox.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > news:WLBg8.30509$yL2.2435665@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > "Ron" <APositivePl…@netscape.net> wrote in message > > news:F5vg8.34297$jC3.874422@news1.east.cox.net… > > > "ricky thompson" <ar…@sedona.net> wrote in message > > > news:RNmg8.11487$pN4.1642703@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com… > > > > The goverment believes so as evidenced that they believe that custody > > can > > > be > > > > settled in civil courts which are for property and real goods. > > > Hi ya Ricky!! > > > An interesting spin on that Ricky, but completely false. Civil courts > are > > > also used to enforce civil rights, and in this case it is the civil > rights > > > of the children that are being enforced, since it is the guardians of > > those > > > rights (The parents) that are not protecting those rights. Since that > > > guardian is not doing their job, it is incumbent on the state to > represent > > > the children, and anyone that cannot provide for their own > representation. > > > Pretty standard legal doctrine don’t you know. Used throughout the > > nation, > > > for all citizens, and not just children. > > Oh, you mean like the following rights > > Right of due process > > Innocent till proven guilty > > No star chamber proceedings > > Right to have parent present during medical exams > > Parents right to decide medical care > > Right to counsel during fourth amendment custody > > Right to require a search warrant before entrance barring exigent > > circumstances > > Right to be free of significant intrusions to the child’s privacy such as > a > > nude physical examination > > Freedom from coercion > > The right to a fair and impartial investigatiom > > The right of children to a familial relationshipnot subjected to > unwarranted > > intrusion by the state > > The right to full discovery of exculpatory evidence > > The right to be free of the personal opinions of social workers and that > > they MAY NOT sacrifice the privacy and dignity to their own personal views > > of discipline but must adhere to the law > > Children may not be seized unless reasonable avenues of investigation are > > pursued > > These are just a small amount of the rights of families and children there > > are amny more which violating is a crime. Further violating these rights > to > > remove a child that results in death or aggravated sexual abuse of the > child > > raises the violation to a capitol crime. If CPS truly was "protecting the > > rights of children" they would have to adhere to these rights however they > > often do not. > You forgot one Ricky, > The right to not be abused or neglected by their own parents. > One must be a living member of society, to enjoy all those other rights, > wouldn’t you agree? > Ron

Yes they do have that right! they also have the right not to be removed from a safe home on false pretences cooped up in an overstuffed sytem, neglected, abused, and murdered. they have the right for this information to be brought out so others may not suffer. The way the local CPS tried to cover up my nephews rape, the emotional abuse, the mental abuse and the dental neglect of my other neices and nephews tells me that a full investigation of the local CPS should be run by an outside agency. How much abuse in their care is being shoved undr the carpet. One consalation I have is that the scum who violated the childrens rights in the removal may face the death penalty because their criminal actions caused the aggravated sexual abuse of a child. When CPS goes hammer and tongs after someone just because they DARE to say Hey I have know problem with you talking to my kids as long as their is a lawyer present and we have made appointments for the kids with their doctor. Now can we think of any sane reason why any one would deny these things Ron. Or why CPS would go to the judge and LIE saying the family is not cooperating and get a pick up order by fraudulent means, that further they would coerce and abuse children horribly until said children are trained to say whatever the interrogator wants said. {without the requested lawyer present as this technique is Illegal as it is witness tampering} That further in disregard to the parents wishes that the three boys who no allegations of abuse had been made against where strip searched {results never released} the girls given abusive vaginal exams by a stranger{even though the investigators were informed to take them to their own doctor} and when they found NO EVIDENCE they proceeded to falsify a medical report so they could hold the children beyond the 72 hr hold. People wonder why no one trusts CPS Ron? Its simple some of them are child abusers, law breakers and suffer from delusions. They endanger children Ron. Too many of them and must be held accountable in the best interests of all children. Their enablers must see they are part of the problem and work toward a solution. criminal acts against a child and exposure of a child to criminal acts are child abuse in most of the states , violations of civil rights are a CRIME get the point Ron. Violation of civil rights makes the CPS workers child abusers. I don’t want the abusers of children endangering them. ANY ABUSERS! if this angers those who think children are property with no rights GOOD it means I am on the right track. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Permalink
In: Foster Parent

No matches

Frequently Asked Questions for and from Foster Parents

Home

Foster Parents FAQ

Are children Property?

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Categories

Popular Posts