Re: Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
Greegor
to FOSTERS would mostly reveal to fosters just
how PETTY the reasons for removal really were.
Fosters would quickly see how most of the removed
children really should NOT have been removed.
At first this would reveal just how seriously
the caseworkers had LIED to the fosters about
the horrible conditions the children were removed from.
Quickly the caseworkers would stop telling these
big lies to fosters.
Notice that in this article the representative for fosters
considers every child to be a refugee from ACTUAL abuse.
This is factually, statistically, not true.
Notice also that the rep has effectively become
the labor rep for the UNION of fosters, even calling
a strike.
The funniest part is the rep complaining that the
laws are created without insight ("family picnic").
Famliy Rights people have said this for ages
but foster reps generally reamin quiet when this
idiocy BENEFITS them.
Ron
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162743398....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Releasing all of the information on "AT RISK" parents
> to FOSTERS would mostly reveal to fosters just
> how PETTY the reasons for removal really were.
> Fosters would quickly see how most of the removed
> children really should NOT have been removed.
>
> At first this would reveal just how seriously
> the caseworkers had LIED to the fosters about
> the horrible conditions the children were removed from.
1. Caseworkers don't tell us these things gregg, the kids do. So,
caseworkers don't lie to us, and therefore your premise is in error. IF we
are told how horrible the conditions are the story is being told by those
who have been subjected to it.
2. It is not the place of the foster parents to judge the reasons for
removal. We don't have all the information, we were not there, we don't
have the training and in most cases the education to make these judgments.
That's what caseworkers are for. And the police of course.
3. Most removals for "At Risk" children are made by law enforcement
officers. Not caseworkers. I notice that both of you tend to place all the
blame on the caseworkers, when in fact in many cases they just get handed a
case by the police and the actual removal has already been made.
Interesting that you don't blame the officers for making these decisions.
Ron
Greegor
> caseworkers don't lie to us
They've been CAUGHT AT IT Ron!
Ron wrote
> It is not the place of the foster parents to judge the reasons for
> removal. We don't have all the information, we were not there, we don't
> have the training and in most cases the education to make these judgments.
> That's what caseworkers are for. And the police of course.
Isn't that the argument the death camp guards and villagers used?
Plus you implied that caseworkers DO have the training or
education to know diddly, which even KANE acknowledges
is not true.
Ron wrote
> 3. Most removals for "At Risk" children are made by law enforcement
> officers. Not caseworkers. I notice that both of you tend to place all the
> blame on the caseworkers, when in fact in many cases they just get handed a
> case by the police and the actual removal has already been made.
> Interesting that you don't blame the officers for making these decisions.
I do, but the CPS agency justifies to itself MAINTAINING
dominion and control over the children. The cops are
not responsible for the months of foot dragging by the agencies.
Dominion and Control over a child is the legal issue for good reason.
Ron
> Ron wrote
>> caseworkers don't lie to us
>
> They've been CAUGHT AT IT Ron!
No gregg, they havent. They cannot lie to us about something that they
cannot tell us about. Therefore, since they cannot tell us then they cannot
lie about it. Get the point?
> Ron wrote
>> It is not the place of the foster parents to judge the reasons for
>> removal. We don't have all the information, we were not there, we don't
>> have the training and in most cases the education to make these
>> judgments.
>> That's what caseworkers are for. And the police of course.
>
> Isn't that the argument the death camp guards and villagers used?
I wouldnt know gregg, personally I have never met a "death camp guard". The
few villagers I know have never mentioned that.
Besides gregg, I know you have problems facing the truth, but that does not
apply to the rest of us nor does it change the facts.
> Plus you implied that caseworkers DO have the training or
> education to know diddly, which even KANE acknowledges
> is not true.
I am not kane. What he acknowledges is certainly going to be different from
what I acknowledge. Different people, understand?
Caseworkers DO have the education and training, not foster parents. THAT is
what I said gregg. Try actually READING for a moment, its enlightening.
> Ron wrote
>> 3. Most removals for "At Risk" children are made by law enforcement
>> officers. Not caseworkers. I notice that both of you tend to place all
>> the
>> blame on the caseworkers, when in fact in many cases they just get handed
>> a
>> case by the police and the actual removal has already been made.
>> Interesting that you don't blame the officers for making these decisions.
>
> I do, but the CPS agency justifies to itself MAINTAINING
> dominion and control over the children. The cops are
> not responsible for the months of foot dragging by the agencies.
> Dominion and Control over a child is the legal issue for good reason.
"dominion and control over the children"? Hmmm, well that's not CPS either
gregg. That would be the state courts. Be it family court or some other
depending on the state, each being different of course.
As for foot dragging, well the parents have to assume a significant amount
of liability for that since they are the ones given the list of things they
need to accomplish to achieve reunification and so often fail to do so.
They also fail to show for court, fail to comply with court orders, fail to
clean up/sober up, fail in so many other areas that they honestly cant all
be listed here.
Lets face it gregg, you have never really been all that knowledgeable on the
subject, your understanding of the system and how it works is minimal to say
the least. So, while I understand while you refuse to believe people like
myself, I cant understand why you don't get off your fat lazy ass and go get
the education you are so lacking.
Ron
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> Ron wrote
> > caseworkers don't lie to us
>
> They've been CAUGHT AT IT Ron!
Why you lying little son of a bitch. You snipped the subject of the
sentence and paragraph to completely change the meaning of his
statement. What kind of shit ARE you Greg?
Here is what he said:
"1. Caseworkers don't tell us these things gregg, the kids do. So,
caseworkers don't lie to us, and therefore your premise is in error.
IF we
are told how horrible the conditions are the story is being told by
those
who have been subjected to it. "
Obviously the subject is "these things," Greg, and obviously it's not
the workers that pass this information along or not (often workers
don't know the half of what abuses the child suffered so they can't do
that) it's the children themselves.
You fucking piece of scum.
You don't even deserve the respect of scum.
And you claimed I get all "Faggoty" over your abortion of
attributions...LOOK at what you just did.
This is COMMON FOR YOU. You cannot make and argument without creating a
lie to work from.
> Ron wrote
> > It is not the place of the foster parents to judge the reasons for
> > removal. We don't have all the information, we were not there, we don't
> > have the training and in most cases the education to make these judgments.
> > That's what caseworkers are for. And the police of course.
>
> Isn't that the argument the death camp guards and villagers used?
Nope. YOU fucking little piece of shit.
> Plus you implied that caseworkers DO have the training or
> education to know diddly, which even KANE acknowledges
> is not true.
You are lying again. I've never said any such thing. In fact MOST do,
and I've challenged you recently to prove, after one of your more
ignorant lying posts, to go and read the job recruiting bulletins for
cps CASEWORKERs, not aides, not transport persons, not clerical state,
but actual caseworkers.
What I have said, liar, is that there isn't enough funding to hire
ENOUGH educated trained workers. And the Pew report, so often cited by
Doug, says so as well.
> Ron wrote
> > 3. Most removals for "At Risk" children are made by law enforcement
> > officers. Not caseworkers. I notice that both of you tend to place all the
> > blame on the caseworkers, when in fact in many cases they just get handed a
> > case by the police and the actual removal has already been made.
> > Interesting that you don't blame the officers for making these decisions.
>
> I do, but the CPS agency justifies to itself MAINTAINING
> dominion and control over the children.
It doesn't have to "justify" itself. There are far more abused children
than they could ever hope to serve.
> The cops are
> not responsible for the months of foot dragging by the agencies.
Nope. The problem primarily is caseload size.
When when has forty and more children to be responsible for casework
for, with each case having dozens upon dozens of areas of
responsibility that require actions by the caseworker, including
followup on other's responsibilities, it would follow that it takes
time. A lot of time.
> Dominion and Control over a child is the legal issue for good reason.
New subject?
The question wasn't legal issues. The question was the foster parents
revolt over new rules.
What, by the way, do you mean by "Dominion and Control?"
Do you custody and responsibility? All legally supported...that is
there is statue granting that authority?
0:->
Greegor
Ron
> Mary Callahan.
>
greegor
kneal
doug
micorfilm news server
I can do that to gregg. The difference here is that most people here are
going to know who I am talking about.
Ron
0:->
Apparently Greg has once again talked himself into a corner, built by
his own disinformation and other less than clever lying.
Now he has nothing left but obscure references he is terrified to
actually debate about...because of what got him to that point.
He did it a bit more elaborate with his lie by omission context
destruction of your statement concerning learning from the children, not
the workers, about the abuses the child suffered.
He want's to forget your clarifying statement sometime back that shot
this lie in the butt....that there is a large percentage of children in
foster care that are not abused.
How many did you say out of the hundreds you've fostered that you found
there MIGHT possibly be a chance of that...a couple, and you couldn't
even be sure then?
Ron, I'd guess that an abused child is not going to be able to hid it
from you. The ones I worked with in mental health certainly could not.
The symptoms are apparent, even as to the kind of abuse.
Anyone with as many years experience as you have have seen those
symptoms again and again. You know what you are looking at.
These are a pack of liars misrepresenting data by spin and manipulation
and applying reasons that do not exist in the real world.
Kane
Greegor
Is this news?
Ron
> To a system suck idealogue any other view is to be villified.
> Is this news?
So, what your saying is that you don't really have a reasonable reply to his
argument and therefore must resort to childish name calling to make yourself
feel better. Well...... I guess that's one way to finally make yourself
feel like you have come out on top.
Ron
Sherman
news:Zar3h.17259$mX5....@newsfe23.lga...
>> Ron wrote
<snip>
> As for foot dragging, well the parents have to assume a significant amount
> of liability for that since they are the ones given the list of things
> they need to accomplish to achieve reunification and so often fail to do
> so. They also fail to show for court, fail to comply with court orders,
> fail to clean up/sober up, fail in so many other areas that they honestly
> cant all be listed here.
>
> Lets face it gregg, you have never really been all that knowledgeable on
> the subject, your understanding of the system and how it works is minimal
> to say the least. So, while I understand while you refuse to believe
> people like myself, I cant understand why you don't get off your fat lazy
> ass and go get the education you are so lacking.
>
> Ron
>
A Foster Parent usually has a right to notice and appearance at family court
hearings involving their foster child(ren). The above note of Ron's
regarding the parent's lack of compliance and not even showing up for court
hearings is usually taken hard by us. WE have to help the children through
this without comment upon their parent's behavior and show of lack of
concern.
We are not informed by any caseworker of the causes for removal except as
might apply to a problem with a child. Example: front teeth recently
missing and a battered face on a child - we may be told that a family member
caused this and the child has just come from a hospital and needs certain
types of care and follow-up medical / psychological treatment. Or an infant
who is going through withdrawal from substance exposure prebirth by their
Mommy and needs exceptional intensive care.
Spend 24 hours with a newborn meth exposed baby - one doesn't need anyone to
tell you what the removal was caused by.
We - anyway, I, in my cases, have always been noticed of hearings and have
the right to attend. It isn't often that the caregiver does go but
sometimes, they do if it is in the best interests of the child that they
become better informed as to the particulars of a case. The Judge would
decide if any testimony at any hearing should exclude any party. A Judge
can decide if a foster care parent hears from a lab employee that the Mommy
had smuggled another person's cold urine into a court ordered drug test.
And so on...
BTW, getting an education for some might be not exist as any type of goal
since getting a j-o-b hasn't even been on the horizon. Learning is w-o-r-k
too,
Sherman.
Doan
For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Kane. ;-)
Doan
Ron
"Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.061106...@skat.usc.edu...
Not likely. Kane and I agree on most things. The lone exception to date is
the area that you find most irritating about his belief's. On that he and I
have agreed to disagree and leave it alone.
gregg tends to fall into this personality flaw whenever he cannot face that
he has no reasonable response to someone else's facts. I understand the
reason for it, but that makes it no less inane.
Ron
0:->
As does Doan. The way to tell if name calling is being used unethically
is to watch and see if it's used to avoid the main point of the other's
commentary.
Doan is consistent this cop out and I just addressed Greg and his old
buddy for doing exactly that. Refusal to address the issue by using
name calling as a cop out.
Oh well.
0:->
giovinazzo
you are right? Well my case worker told the foster parents my kids are
abused, didn't tell them that they are an at risk group of children
that I have never done anything to my children, though my kids have
told the fosters that mom never hits them and hasn't done anything to
hurt them. My kids are good about that, they tell the foster parents
everyday how they want to come home. I hear it as there is one good
foster parent. The other however calls my oldest her birth daughter
which is a lie....
Yes some kids are abused but alot are not. Here they remove children
in my case biggest issue because I was a crown ward and went through
abuse as a child. Did you suffer abuse as a chilD? If so watch
out....you won't be allowed kids if you let them know, after all as
their steretype goes we will possibly abuse our own children.
What a stupid childish way for them to think, just because it happened
to me doesn't mean im going to do it. Just like the idoit that breaks
your door down and steals from you, doesn't mean you are going to go
out and do it does it?
Sorry had bad experience with foster parents of my autistic son, they
kept lying to the cas so they could keep my son.
I know there is the odd good one but more abusive foster homes.
Anyway fact is they do lie...they want you on their side not ours.
Lisa
Sherman
"giovinazzo" <fallen_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162912678.1...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hey Ron, the case workers do lie to you foster parents....that is what
> you are right? Well my case worker told the foster parents my kids are
> abused, didn't tell them that they are an at risk group of children
> that I have never done anything to my children, though my kids have
> told the fosters that mom never hits them and hasn't done anything to
> hurt them. My kids are good about that, they tell the foster parents
> everyday how they want to come home. I hear it as there is one good
> foster parent. The other however calls my oldest her birth daughter
> which is a lie....
>
> Yes some kids are abused but alot are not. Here they remove children
> in my case biggest issue because I was a crown ward and went through
> abuse as a child. Did you suffer abuse as a chilD? If so watch
> out....you won't be allowed kids if you let them know, after all as
> their steretype goes we will possibly abuse our own children.
>
> What a stupid childish way for them to think, just because it happened
> to me doesn't mean im going to do it. Just like the idoit that breaks
> your door down and steals from you, doesn't mean you are going to go
> out and do it does it?
>
> Sorry had bad experience with foster parents of my autistic son, they
> kept lying to the cas so they could keep my son.
>
> I know there is the odd good one but more abusive foster homes.
>
> Anyway fact is they do lie...they want you on their side not ours.
>
> Lisa
Hi Lisa,
Please Do have your own private assessment done by a professional of your
choice, if it is in any way possible. I cannot stress the importance of
this effort enough. Most abused children do not grow up to become abusers.
Most child abusers were abused themselves as children. A real conundrum to
wade through. There is ample testing material that psychologists can
utilize to gain insight into a particular individual and what the impact may
or may not have on their adult behavior.
And yes, there are bad foster parents. Far too many of them as far as I am
concerned. The best thing is that it is getting better. And there are more
"good" foster parents who WILL turn in other foster parents who have abused
the children in their care. Foster parents have many problems with social
workers / caseworkers from child protection agencies. The ones who care,
work on improving communication and accountability. They do what they can,
with what they've got, where they are.
Keep up a good, positive, confident attitude. Keep up to date with your
lawyer. May your children return home soon,
Sherman.
Greegor
Do you think they want to let you through unscathed?
Imiagine how embarassing it would be for them to admit
that CPS sends them thousands of people for
psych evals where there was absolutely NO BASIS for
their intrusion.
If you go to a "makeup expert" how often do you think
they would send you away saying you don't need ANY makeup?
Every person could use a bit less this or that, or a bit
more of this or that.
Nobody is ever just fine as they are.
And of course having STRONG POLITICAL VIEWS will
only let you through if the psychologist just happens
to have the same ones.
0:->
> Psychologists are also BENEFICIARIES of the system.
Here own privately engaged psychologist? What makes you think all
psychologists do vendor work for the state, Greg....other than your
inordinate and reactionary fear of anything to do with mental health
testing?
Why do you think Sherman encouraged her to get her own assessment
outside the system?
You dig yourself deeper and deeper.
> Do you think they want to let you through unscathed?
Why would they not?
> Imiagine how embarassing it would be for them to admit
> that CPS sends them thousands of people for
> psych evals where there was absolutely NO BASIS for
> their intrusion.
Besides the fact you are wrong, the point was to use your own
psychologist for testing. I believe there was a suggestion of having
your attorney engage them so that you would not be seen as "shopping"
for one that was biased toward either side.
> If you go to a "makeup expert" how often do you think
> they would send you away saying you don't need ANY makeup?
When you don't.
You can say this about ever profession, every job, every employment
Greg. Do you wish to indict every working person in the world?
> Every person could use a bit less this or that, or a bit
> more of this or that.
Yep. A psych eval is a very good thing. It can tell you if you need to
work in certain areas of your reality, your life, and just how good you
are doing...in fact that is usually the outcome. Most people don't test
as needing much at all.
> Nobody is ever just fine as they are.
Nonsense. All a psych eval tells you is that you need or don't need help
in certain areas.
And if you ARE nuts, don't you want to know before you hurt someone or
yourself?
> And of course having STRONG POLITICAL VIEWS will
> only let you through if the psychologist just happens
> to have the same ones.
Nonsense. More bias and lies from the prime example of someone that has
no real knowledge.
Like your old buddy claiming that foster parents are killers....yet he's
never been one.
If you folks are so sure of yourselves, why aren't you within the system
cleaning it up from inside. At least volunteer, stupid.
But the you cannot because you will have to face that you have been
lying and letting yourself be lied to for all these years. A pack of
saps, that want to conserve and sequester their sap in jar on the shelf.
R R R R R R
Now take a look at this leading comment by Sherman and go apologize, you
witless get:
"Please Do have your own private assessment done by a professional of
your choice, if it is in any way possible."
See how very stupid you are, Greg? Your extreme unreasonable neurotic
biases blind you to what you are actually reading.
How dumb is that?
Sherman empowers, you try to weaken so you can pick this family off like
you've tried so often in the past to pick others.
So tell us, what do you think of the advice the Christine's got and
followed that landed them in jail for all these years, and more to come,
and until their children are adults unable likely to see them all
together in the same country? Unless their families are rich enough to
meet where neither Brit or American government prevail?
You think the advice they got TO BREAK THE LAW, Greg, was good advice?
Just didn't work out because they didn't kill the witnesses, maybe?
What would you have told them to do, stupid?
0:->
Greegor
Where do you find those?
Pluto?
MOST of the money psychologists get comes
from Medicaid.
It's like asking for psychologists who do psych evals
but not for the agencies.
Ask the ones who DON'T DO psych evals why they don't!
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> Psychologists who don't get paid by the state?
>
> Where do you find those?
>
> Pluto?
>
> MOST of the money psychologists get comes
> from Medicaid
Citations, Greg.
0:->
> Psychologists who don't get paid by the state?
>
> Where do you find those?
In the phone book.
But we aren't talking "the state" here, rather CPS.
>
> Pluto?
>
The phone book.
> MOST of the money psychologists get comes
> from Medicaid.
So? Do you think they wouldn't get paid if they gave a "passing" psych
eval? (that's not how it works folks, but Greg's deliberate ignorance by
running from a psych eval himself reduces my commentary to
non-professional language).
Don't be stupid Greg. Even the ones that do take CPS clients aren't the
least dependent on what they report....all have far more work than they
can handle.
And as far as I know, Medicaid does not pay for psych evals for client
cases through CPS.
>
> It's like asking for psychologists who do psych evals
> but not for the agencies.
>
You have yet, except by your limp claims, to provide any evidence that
they would be inclined to report what the agency wants.
Or ever that the agency necessarily wants something not in the best
interests of the child.
You have nothing but anecdotal sources and we know how reliable those
are in the anti-CPS anti-Government world.
> Ask the ones who DON'T DO psych evals why they don't!
You just claimed they all do.
Which is it, Greg?
The answer would be simply, stupid, "not my specialty, I prefer
'Industrial Psychology'", or "I'm a counseling psychologist, thanks
anyway...way to busy for more work."
Your innuendo, all that you have ever posted, proceeds you like a
stinking pile of dog shit, which of course you produced your little own
self.
0:->
Greegor
> The sky is blue.
Dan wrote
> Citations, Greg.
0:->
Proof he said that to your claim the sky was blue, Greg.
Thanks.
Kane
Ron
"giovinazzo" <fallen_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162912678.1...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> you are right?
I am indeed a foster parent. But I have never been lied to by a caseworker.
I have had them refuse to answer questions, tell me that they are not
allowed to tell me, and just stare me in the eye, but never lied to. Not
after more than 200 foster children.
The point I was making is that the case managers are not allowed to tell us
specifics of the case's we provide care for. We CAN go to the court
hearings and listen to what is said, we can also speak with the kids. We
can also network with other foster parents who may have cared for the
children in the past, or read accounts of the case in the news paper (i.e.
Parent 'A' was arrested for child abuse, 4 children all in care). About the
same as everyone else I guess. We can also talk to teachers, doctors,
therapists, and other professionals associated with the case since we are
now providing care for the child and have a valid need for the information.
> Well my case worker told the foster parents my kids are
> abused, didn't tell them that they are an at risk group of children
> that I have never done anything to my children, though my kids have
> told the fosters that mom never hits them and hasn't done anything to
> hurt them.
More likely the foster parent was told that they were removed for abuse.
Not the same thing. They were not told specifics of the case, but reasons
for removal is information we as foster care providers need to properly care
for the children.
> My kids are good about that, they tell the foster parents
> everyday how they want to come home. I hear it as there is one good
> foster parent. The other however calls my oldest her birth daughter
> which is a lie....
I find that difficult to believe, but not completely impossible. Now, there
are less than stellar foster parents out there, and some who should never
have been given a license, but CPS cant tell who those are until they are in
the system working with kids. All the tests in the world are never going to
be able to screen out all the improper foster parents, it just cant happen,
but they do what they can.
One must also remember that kids do not always tell the truth. The older
the child the more complex the untruth. She may be responding to your state
of emotion and is telling you what you want to hear, trying to make you feel
better. More investigation on your part is warranted before you go making
claims based on what your children are telling you.
> Yes some kids are abused but alot are not.
From your previous posts I'd say you are in Canada, right?
Here, most of the children in the system are not physically abused. More
are neglected than abused. Neglect kills more children in this country than
does abuse.
> Here they remove children
> in my case biggest issue because I was a crown ward and went through
> abuse as a child. Did you suffer abuse as a chilD? If so watch
> out....you won't be allowed kids if you let them know, after all as
> their steretype goes we will possibly abuse our own children.
Did I? I'm sure that at the time I would have said yes, but all in all my
mom did a pretty good job raising 3 boys on her own.
Not even in Canada is that enough reason to remove your children. Sorry,
there is more to the case that you are not telling us. Not that you have
to, privacy is your right, but to expect us to believe that this is the sole
reason your children have been removed says that you think we are a bunch of
idiots. gregg may be, but the rest of us (Doan and Doug included) are not.
> What a stupid childish way for them to think, just because it happened
> to me doesn't mean im going to do it. Just like the idoit that breaks
> your door down and steals from you, doesn't mean you are going to go
> out and do it does it?
>
> Sorry had bad experience with foster parents of my autistic son, they
> kept lying to the cas so they could keep my son.
>
> I know there is the odd good one but more abusive foster homes.
Here in the US the facts do not support your position. There are far more
good foster homes than abusive ones. 20 years ago I was not a foster parent
so I cant vouch for what happened in the system then, but as of right now
your theory would be incorrect.
> Anyway fact is they do lie...they want you on their side not ours.
>
> Lisa
I'm not on anyone's side but the kids Lisa. I don't interact with the case
managers much, other than to get what the children need from the system or
to get instructions concerning visitation and the like. In any case I am
certainly not on the side of the State. I have run into more than my share
of piss-poor case managers, and I usually end up going to supervisors or
directors to get the children's needs met. I am also a professional in the
field, and get a chance to interact with vast numbers of children in the
system in my state. Most are quite happy where they are, some are not.
Usually its the kids in the group homes that have issues with their care
providers. That stand to reason since the kids in these types of placements
are not suited to placement in actual foster homes by reason of temperament
or psychological problems.
Ron
Greegor
been lied to so much and so badly that there was
a RASH of law suits because some of these kids
were a DANGER to other kids in Foster Care and beyond.
The cliche' story is that after adopting a kid they find
out the kid is a sexual predator or has dangerous
psychiatric problems and molests their birth daughter
or later Foster kids. There have been several of
these reported in the news media and in some cases
there have been some HUGE damage settlements.
In the article at the tope of this message thread a
person representing Fosters puts forth the MYTH
that all the foster kids are "abused" which is
factually not true according to the government
statistics and the legal standards which only
require "AT RISK OF" abuse, not actual abuse.
"AT RISK OF" with no actual abuse accounts for
the VAST MAJORITY of kids in Foster Care.
The reps reference to the kids as all abused
didn't happen because the workers told
THEM the truth about "AT RISK OF" etc...
Did you notice how Dan and Kane resisted challenging you?
They still hope to claim you.
Once they find out they can't, they will be considerably
more confrontative when you testify about things like this.
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> Lisa, Ron knows that Fosters who adopted kids have
> been lied to so much and so badly that there was
> a RASH of law suits because some of these kids
> were a DANGER to other kids in Foster Care and beyond.
>
> The cliche' story is that after adopting a kid they find
> out the kid is a sexual predator or has dangerous
> psychiatric problems and molests their birth daughter
> or later Foster kids. There have been several of
> these reported in the news media and in some cases
> there have been some HUGE damage settlements.
First it's "a RASH," now it's "several."
Fact is it's very very few compared to the number of children adopted,
Greg.
And you have proof that the suing party is not lying how, Greg?
> In the article at the tope of this message thread a
> person representing Fosters puts forth the MYTH
> that all the foster kids are "abused" which is
> factually not true according to the government
> statistics and the legal standards which only
> require "AT RISK OF" abuse, not actual abuse.
> "AT RISK OF" with no actual abuse accounts for
> the VAST MAJORITY of kids in Foster Care.
This assumption of yours, perpetrated by others as well, is that "AT
RISK" mean not abused.
It does NOT mean that. The child could have been abused, and continue
to be AT RISK, hence it will say so in the record and be counted as
both.
Is it not logical to assume that if a child has been abused, and is not
removed or is returned they are at risk?
Do you know what "AT RISK" actually means, stupid? What those
conditions are that constitute cause to make such a determination?
One of them would be a live in boyfriend that has an inordinate amount
of time with the child or children UNSUPERVISED. Especially if he does
not work. Especially if he is charged with child care of the children.
That puts children at risk automatically, stupid. Those are the
circumstances that so often DO result in injury and sometimes death to
a child.
YOU like to use the media as a source, Greg. Try READING those cases.
You KNOW how common they are.
> The reps reference to the kids as all abused
> didn't happen because the workers told
> THEM the truth about "AT RISK OF" etc...
What are you talking about?
> Did you notice how Dan and Kane resisted challenging you?
Nope. The response to Lisa is continually an expression of hope she
will stay focused, something that Dan and I both know very well is
essential to winning a case, while we know that failure to do so, and
to become engaged with posters such as you, Greg, is almost a sure
death knell to a case.
You and your cronies have repeatedly been part of or celebrated failure
of families, to dance in their blood as a way of excusing your own
failures.
You are a predator.
>
> They still hope to claim you.
>
Neither of us have the least profit in "claiming" anyone. There is no
money in it, and no need to make someone lose, as you have. Both Dan
and I are winners. He has won dozens of difficult and seemingly
impossible cases, while I have helped thousands of extended family sort
out and deal with CPS and keep their kin related children in the
family.
> Once they find out they can't, they will be considerably
> more confrontative when you testify about things like this.
That is a perfect projection, Greg.
Take Betty, for example. She caught on to you, when she first came here
with one of the classic Kinship cases I am so familiar with. You have
been flaming high dugeon ever since, attacking her at every turn, lying
through your teeth about here, threatening her repeatedly.
Abusive, mean, vindictive.
You have never seen Dan or I, when someone went down the wrong path
attack them, or in any way try to hurt them. And we have commiserated
with them sincerely over their loss rather than blame them.
Hell, YOU blame the winners, like Betty, but for things that are not
true.
All Lisa has to do is take ONE quick look at your posts and exchanges
with Betty to see how a strong person with a built in shit detector
sets you off into your rages.
You are a little pissant. Nothing more.
Below is the string of posts attributed (slipping boy?) that shows what
a lying little shit you are. You took Ron's comment about not being
lied to by caseworkers and tried to make people believe other than what
he said at the time.
I have some comments, in fact, about Ron's post, from my 30Plus years
experience helping people deal with CPS successfully.
Read on, stupid: [[[ comments in square brackets as usual ]]]
>
> Ron wrote:
> > "giovinazzo" <fallen_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1162912678.1...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Hey Ron, the case workers do lie to you foster parents....that is what
> > > you are right?
> >
> > I am indeed a foster parent. But I have never been lied to by a caseworker.
> > I have had them refuse to answer questions, tell me that they are not
> > allowed to tell me, and just stare me in the eye, but never lied to. Not
> > after more than 200 foster children.
[[[ He just eloquently described what I have pointed out to you and you
called "caseworker lying" little pissant. They cannot tell what they
cannot tell. ]]]
> > The point I was making is that the case managers are not allowed to tell us
> > specifics of the case's we provide care for.
[[[ I have said in the past that to do so can be construed in court by
the opposition as collusion against the client. YOU have complained
that various opponents colluded against you, stupid. Now you lie about
why foster's are allowed to know some things directly from the
worker...calling the worker liar. ]]]
> > We CAN go to the court
> > hearings and listen to what is said, we can also speak with the kids. We
> > can also network with other foster parents who may have cared for the
> > children in the past, or read accounts of the case in the news paper (i.e.
> > Parent 'A' was arrested for child abuse, 4 children all in care). About the
> > same as everyone else I guess. We can also talk to teachers, doctors,
> > therapists, and other professionals associated with the case since we are
> > now providing care for the child and have a valid need for the information.
[[[ Less caring and effective foster parents don't bother with this as
Ron obviously does care and bother to do. ]]]
> > > Well my case worker told the foster parents my kids are
> > > abused, didn't tell them that they are an at risk group of children
> > > that I have never done anything to my children, though my kids have
> > > told the fosters that mom never hits them and hasn't done anything to
> > > hurt them.
> >
> > More likely the foster parent was told that they were removed for abuse.
> > Not the same thing. They were not told specifics of the case, but reasons
> > for removal is information we as foster care providers need to properly care
> > for the children.
[[[ That is accurate. Very. Less astute foster parents don't get it, or
complain about it because they do not understand it. ]]]
> >
> > > My kids are good about that, they tell the foster parents
> > > everyday how they want to come home. I hear it as there is one good
> > > foster parent. The other however calls my oldest her birth daughter
> > > which is a lie....
> >
> > I find that difficult to believe, but not completely impossible. Now, there
> > are less than stellar foster parents out there, and some who should never
> > have been given a license, but CPS cant tell who those are until they are in
> > the system working with kids. All the tests in the world are never going to
> > be able to screen out all the improper foster parents, it just cant happen,
> > but they do what they can.
> >
> > One must also remember that kids do not always tell the truth. The older
> > the child the more complex the untruth. She may be responding to your state
> > of emotion and is telling you what you want to hear, trying to make you feel
> > better. More investigation on your part is warranted before you go making
> > claims based on what your children are telling you.
[[[ Having worked with children, mostly foster children, in mental
health I can assure you that Ron is telling it like it is. The
children, very much like in a divorce situation, are trying to take
care of their parents. YOU, Greg, would have them lying, OR being
"coached." Because you are a vile self absorbed little asshole. ]]]
> > > Yes some kids are abused but alot are not.
> >
> > From your previous posts I'd say you are in Canada, right?
> >
> > Here, most of the children in the system are not physically abused. More
> > are neglected than abused. Neglect kills more children in this country than
> > does abuse.
[[[ The absolute truth. What Ron didn't mention is that nearly every
case of "abuse" includes abuse by both other means, (physical,
emotional, sexual, developmental, psychological) and by neglect.
(nutritional, medical, developmental, emotional). ]]]
> >
> > > Here they remove children
> > > in my case biggest issue because I was a crown ward and went through
> > > abuse as a child. Did you suffer abuse as a chilD? If so watch
> > > out....you won't be allowed kids if you let them know, after all as
> > > their steretype goes we will possibly abuse our own children.
> >
> > Did I? I'm sure that at the time I would have said yes, but all in all my
> > mom did a pretty good job raising 3 boys on her own.
> >
> > Not even in Canada is that enough reason to remove your children. Sorry,
> > there is more to the case that you are not telling us. Not that you have
> > to, privacy is your right, but to expect us to believe that this is the sole
> > reason your children have been removed says that you think we are a bunch of
> > idiots. gregg may be, but the rest of us (Doan and Doug included) are not.
[[[ The latter have their own brand of idiocy....R R R R. And note, I'm
not admonishing Ron for "confronting," so obviously you are mistaken,
Greg, if you think I wish to "claim" Lisa. I wish her only the best in
getting her children back. Which YOU do not. You are the predator here,
Greg, and don't you forget it. ]]]
> >
> > > What a stupid childish way for them to think, just because it happened
> > > to me doesn't mean im going to do it. Just like the idoit that breaks
> > > your door down and steals from you, doesn't mean you are going to go
> > > out and do it does it?
> > >
> > > Sorry had bad experience with foster parents of my autistic son, they
> > > kept lying to the cas so they could keep my son.
> > >
> > > I know there is the odd good one but more abusive foster homes.
> >
> > Here in the US the facts do not support your position. There are far more
> > good foster homes than abusive ones. 20 years ago I was not a foster parent
> > so I cant vouch for what happened in the system then, but as of right now
> > your theory would be incorrect.
[[[ And that is the fact. The great majority of people involved in
fostering, from foster certifiers, to case managers, to the foster
parents themselves, do very good work. Like all fields of work you will
find some few that do not do good work. There is constant pressure to
weed them out, usually by simply not placing with them. I note that Ron
has had a very large number of children placed with him. 0:-] ]]]
> >
> > > Anyway fact is they do lie...they want you on their side not ours.
> > >
> > > Lisa
> >
> > I'm not on anyone's side but the kids Lisa. I don't interact with the case
> > managers much, other than to get what the children need from the system or
> > to get instructions concerning visitation and the like. In any case I am
> > certainly not on the side of the State. I have run into more than my share
> > of piss-poor case managers, and I usually end up going to supervisors or
> > directors to get the children's needs met.
[[[ I found this a consistitent attitude among the better foster
parents. They are far too busy to be playing games with the system or
incompetence. They are some of the best resources superviors have in
terms of dealing with both new workers, or less than sterling workers.
Good foster's tend to keep workers in line. Come to think of it, it
worked both ways. ]]]
> > I am also a professional in the
> > field, and get a chance to interact with vast numbers of children in the
> > system in my state. Most are quite happy where they are, some are not.
> > Usually its the kids in the group homes that have issues with their care
> > providers. That stand to reason since the kids in these types of placements
> > are not suited to placement in actual foster homes by reason of temperament
> > or psychological problems.
[[[ These often are the children that were so damaged by parents, and
often repeatedly (which IS a system failure) by those parents, that
even therapeutic help could not reach them. So they would be taught
life skills and placed with group home managers that tend NOT to take a
lot of shit, and tend to be very clear about boundaries...something
teens never are all to happy with, at least vocally. R R R R R ]]]
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > > Greegor wrote:
> > >> Ron wrote
> > >> > caseworkers don't lie to us
> > >>
> > >> They've been CAUGHT AT IT Ron!
There you are you lying little pissant, Greg. You completely removed
that he was talking about all the other sources they have for
information about the children.
What a scumbag you are, Greg.
0:->
Greegor
You rotten so and so.... despicable ...
Sincerely, A. Hitler
0:->
So, have you gotten your monthly update from Elvis too?
Ron
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163075706.9...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
My pleasure sir.
Ron
P.S.: Post to NG Intentional
giovinazzo
reason I lost my kids is that the CAS/CPS worker went to her manager
and lied. She told them I hadn't taken my children to appointments
such as the dentist and counselling at a place called pathways for my
oldest daughter. The fact is that I did take my children to these
appointments, dental work does not do its own you know, they don't just
appear there, and I had to sign the papers for the coverage which my
daughter had 2 crowns, cost around 300 each.
I have the proof, have shown it to the worker and manager, they say to
sort it out in court. I don't think you realise the workers do lie to
you, thinking you aren't smart enough to catch on. They take children
because there is a demand for children for adoption here where they get
about 35,000 each child. Trust me I know I have seen many a friend
lose their children to the agency I am involved with.
More kids die in foster care than in their own homes. Others that need
the CAS/CPS involvement don't get it because their kids are screwed up
so therefore unadoptable. I was abused in my foster homes as well as
at home, no workers came to help they didn't care. I know another man
who went through hell on earth in care. Hes really messed up over it.
You may be a great foster parent and the caring kind. If so keep it
up there are kids that truly need you, but my children don't need to be
in the system, they need to come home. They ask me every week when I
get my visit when can I come home mommy? I just tell them I want them
home, we are working on that honey. We are doing everything we can.
Im lucky I know who the people are that are looking after her. I found
out today that they are family friends, so easier to deal with.
Anyway get over it, CAS/CPS workers do lie...the ones you know just
haven't got caught yet.
Lisa
Doan
>
> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.061106...@skat.usc.edu...
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1162790851.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > To a system suck idealogue any other view is to be villified.
> >> > Is this news?
> >>
> >> So, what your saying is that you don't really have a reasonable reply to
> >> his
> >> argument and therefore must resort to childish name calling to make
> >> yourself
> >> feel better. Well...... I guess that's one way to finally make yourself
> >> feel like you have come out on top.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> > For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Kane. ;-)
> >
> > Doan
>
> Not likely. Kane and I agree on most things. The lone exception to date is
> the area that you find most irritating about his belief's. On that he and I
> have agreed to disagree and leave it alone.
>
Then you must have missed all the LIES that Kane had spewed. The latest
is the claim that the abuse rate in foster care is .57%!
> gregg tends to fall into this personality flaw whenever he cannot face that
> he has no reasonable response to someone else's facts. I understand the
> reason for it, but that makes it no less inane.
>
> Ron
Funny that I saw the same in Kane, plus his tendency to boast. One
example is Kane's claim that he has lots of studies in his file cabinets
and shelves, plus that he is published! HOW STUPID IS THAT! ;-)
Doan
Ron
I'd not call that a lie Doan. In fact, its a pretty accurate statement.
"of all children in foster care in the State during the period under review,
the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
less."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chapterthree.htm#mal
Kinda hard to call verifiable facts a lie, right?
>> gregg tends to fall into this personality flaw whenever he cannot face
>> that
>> he has no reasonable response to someone else's facts. I understand the
>> reason for it, but that makes it no less inane.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Funny that I saw the same in Kane, plus his tendency to boast. One
> example is Kane's claim that he has lots of studies in his file cabinets
> and shelves, plus that he is published! HOW STUPID IS THAT! ;-)
>
> Doan
Hmmm, well since neither of us know his real name I'd say that its at least
possible. I'm fairly sure that I know a bit more about him than you do
since we correspond via email occasionally, so I'd say that its likely that
its more than "just possible".
Ron
0:->
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
>
>> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.061106...@skat.usc.edu...
>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1162790851.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> To a system suck idealogue any other view is to be villified.
>>>>> Is this news?
>>>> So, what your saying is that you don't really have a reasonable reply to
>>>> his
>>>> argument and therefore must resort to childish name calling to make
>>>> yourself
>>>> feel better. Well...... I guess that's one way to finally make yourself
>>>> feel like you have come out on top.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>> For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Kane. ;-)
>>>
>>> Doan
>> Not likely. Kane and I agree on most things. The lone exception to date is
>> the area that you find most irritating about his belief's. On that he and I
>> have agreed to disagree and leave it alone.
>>
> Then you must have missed all the LIES that Kane had spewed. The latest
> is the claim that the abuse rate in foster care is .57%!
Nope, I posted and claimed the report for the population under study was
.57%. YOU attempted to manipulate into a claim for the country.
I made no such claim.
You simply don't read.
Or don't comprehend when you do read.
>
>> gregg tends to fall into this personality flaw whenever he cannot face that
>> he has no reasonable response to someone else's facts. I understand the
>> reason for it, but that makes it no less inane.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Funny that I saw the same in Kane, plus his tendency to boast.
You are someone that claims a mistake is a lie, Doan. That in itself is
a very serious personality flaw, and a way of lying.
> One
> example is Kane's claim that he has lots of studies in his file cabinets
> and shelves,
You can prove I don't? Please provide your proof. I've been collecting
these for nearly 30 years.
> plus that he is published!
Your proof that I am not would be?
> HOW STUPID IS THAT! ;-)
I ask myself that question often about you, especially when you make an
unprovable claim as you have above, and have such a serious think error
as to claim that someone that makes a mistake is lying, intentionally
trying to deceive.
> Doan
Educationally the California system is a bust in your case.
You don't seem to have learned much, or you are such a brazen out of
control pathological liar that you don't care.
0:->
0:->
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
>
>> "Doan" <do...@usc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.061106...@skat.usc.edu...
>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1162790851.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> To a system suck idealogue any other view is to be villified.
>>>>> Is this news?
>>>> So, what your saying is that you don't really have a reasonable reply to
>>>> his
>>>> argument and therefore must resort to childish name calling to make
>>>> yourself
>>>> feel better. Well...... I guess that's one way to finally make yourself
>>>> feel like you have come out on top.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>> For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Kane. ;-)
>>>
>>> Doan
>> Not likely. Kane and I agree on most things. The lone exception to date is
>> the area that you find most irritating about his belief's. On that he and I
>> have agreed to disagree and leave it alone.
>>
> Then you must have missed all the LIES that Kane had spe
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chapterthree.htm#mal
Maltreatment in Foster Care
Through the CFSR, the Children's Bureau established a national standard
for the incidence of child abuse or neglect in foster care as:
"A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
less."23
Analysis of NCANDS CFSR data indicates that States have improved in
meeting this standard. The percentage of States in compliance has
increased from 57.1 percent for 2000 to 84.2 percent for 2004.24 During
2004, 13 States had difficulty with providing the data needed to compute
this measure using the Child File. ...
If, Doan, you can find a junior high kid to help you with reading
comprehension you will find that 84.2 percent of the reporting states
met or exceeded (meaning less than .57% incidence) the requirement.
Would you say that's pretty close to being considerably less than the
general population?
So you know what the abuse rate by victimization of various perpetrators
is for the general population, NON foster?
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure3_6.htm
The .57% and less would be enclosed within the 10.1 of nonparental perps
in the chart shown at the URL above.
And the percentage of all others totals what, Doan?
A chart here for you as well.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
This one tells you that in 2004 the percentage for abuse in foster care
was 0.36percent. That's right. .36%.
The rate for the entire population.... 1.19%, Doan.
... The rate of victimization decreased from 13.4 per 1,000 children in
1990 to 11.9 per 1,000 children in 2004, which is an 11.2 percent
decrease.3 The highest rate of victimization occurred during 1993, when
the rate was 15.3. There has been a 51.3 percent increase in the number
of children who received an investigation from 1990 to 2004; there has
been 1.4 percent increase in the number of child victims. ...
Even in a captive population for purposes of observation, as opposed to
one that is NOT captive (bio parent famlies) that is an extraordinary
amount MORE for parents than fosters.
Unless of course you wish to argue the 13 states that did not report
sufficiently well somehow deviate a great deal from the norm being set
by the other 85% of states.
wed. The latest
> is the claim that the abuse rate in foster care is .57%!
Yep. As I provide you the data for above.
And the sources.
And the comparisons.
Which come out to bio parents having a higher rate of abuse than foster
parents.
>
>> gregg tends to fall into this personality flaw whenever he cannot face that
>> he has no reasonable response to someone else's facts. I understand the
>> reason for it, but that makes it no less inane.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Funny that I saw the same in Kane, plus his tendency to boast.
Yer a pathological liar, asshole. And your history of posting proves it.
> One
> example is Kane's claim that he has lots of studies in his file cabinets
> and shelves, plus that he is published! HOW STUPID IS THAT! ;-)
I'm waiting for your proof, stoopid. 0:->
Tell us, are you really known as the campus clown?
>
> Doan
>
Kane
0:->
...and a relevant aside on this subject, if you have read it and
understand it...
It's a "victimization" rate calculation, meaning the victims are being
counted, NOT the perps.
It is not one perp per victim. I can be two or three victims per
perp...as in one parent or two, and two or three or more child victims.
If PERP calculation were done then it's obvious the rate would be higher.
This could hold true for calculating foster home rates for abuse, but no
clear reporting method establishes that. They may actually be counting
foster parents incidence of abuse. Curious minds would like to know.
If you run across clarification on this, let me know. I'll add YOUR
commentary to my file cabinet.
R R R R R RR R
Kane
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
> ...and a relevant aside on this subject, if you have read it and
> understand it...
>
> It's a "victimization" rate calculation, meaning the victims are being
> counted, NOT the perps.
>
> perp...as in one parent or two, and two or three or more child victims of those one or two parents.
>
> If PERP calculations were done then it's obvious the rate would be higher.
>
> This could hold true for calculating foster home rates for abuse, but no
> clear reporting method establishes that. They may actually be counting
Doan
Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do that,
Ron?
"A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or indicated
maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or less."
Doan
Doan
And what popuplation was that, Kane? Here is your chance to expose your
STUPIDITY again! ;-)
Doan
Doan
One who is to STUPID to do the simple math of convert .57% to rate per
10,000? Show me the proof, Ron! ;-)
Doan
Michael©
following graffiti on the walls of alt.support.child-protective-services:
Your too kind, Doan.
Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
his attempt.
LMAO!
>
> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> less."
>
> Doan
>
...
--
Michael©
Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !
Ron
Maybe I can make it a bit more clear for you.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_20.htm
Female Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 0.1%
Male Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 0.0%
Female Foster Unknown Relationship 0.0%
Male Foster Unknown Relationship 0.0%
Total from the 4 categories: 0.1%, or 1,256
Not the 10,000 you claim, not even close. Don't believe me? Then look at
the chart yourself and use a pencil.
Ron
0:->
I also provided the information, cited, from federal sources, DHHS, that
stated that 84% of the states meet or exceeded the required standards
(remember the "audit" that our friends here continually used to lie?) by
2004. That standard marker? .57%.
From my prior post:
...
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
This one tells you that in 2004 the percentage for abuse in foster care
was 0.36percent. That's right. .36%.
The rate for the entire population.... 1.19%, Doan.
[[[ Same source, of course. The below on the general population abuse
rate. ]]]
... The rate of victimization decreased from 13.4 per 1,000 children in
1990 to 11.9 per 1,000 children in 2004, which is an 11.2 percent
decrease.3 The highest rate of victimization occurred during 1993, when
the rate was 15.3. There has been a 51.3 percent increase in the number
of children who received an investigation from 1990 to 2004; there has
been 1.4 percent increase in the number of child victims. ... ...
No coincidence this .57% "data indicator" which was meet and improved on
figured in the first statement I posted to this thread.
All Doan has done is a Douggie. Attempt to utilizing the fact that one
does not post an encyclopedia when one wishes to comment on one portion
of it.
The oldest and sorriest debating fallacious argument of all.
"You didn't tell me EVERYTHING in your first statement, so you are
lying." The Red Herring. Avoid the debate, throw out a dead red fish for
distraction. It's playground antics from grade schoolers.
We deal with practiced and polished liars here. Their favorite is to
call us liars while carefully avoiding any debate over the actual
material under discussion. They consider themselves "clever."
You can post data and source all day long, Ron and you'll get the same
kind of bs that Michael, who thinks he can copyright a name, posted
claiming you flat out lied.
Notice he had NOTHING to support his claim but to address the perennial
resident monkeyboy screeching his usual lies and diversions.
Kane
>
> Ron
>
>
0:->
Why are you avoiding that the claim is backed by the information I posted?
Still can't stop doing that evasive monkeyboy dance?
From my prior post:
...
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
This one tells you that in 2004 the percentage for abuse in foster care
was 0.36percent. That's right. .36%.
The rate for the entire population.... 1.19%, Doan.
[[[ Same source, of course. The below on the general population abuse
rate. ]]]
... The rate of victimization decreased from 13.4 per 1,000 children in
1990 to 11.9 per 1,000 children in 2004, which is an 11.2 percent
decrease.3 The highest rate of victimization occurred during 1993, when
the rate was 15.3. There has been a 51.3 percent increase in the number
of children who received an investigation from 1990 to 2004; there has
been 1.4 percent increase in the number of child victims. ... ...
No coincidence this .57% "data indicator" which was meet and improved on
figured in the first statement I posted to this thread. ...
You seem to be avoiding this.
Ron
Mikey can claim Copyright to whatever he chooses, but unless and / or until
he goes through the Copyright process with each and every thing he writes or
posts all he is doing is making himself look more and more like a fool.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/
Ron
Doan
You didn't answer my question, Ron. Why did you that?
> > "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> > children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> > percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or indicated
> > maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or less."
> >
> > Doan
>
> Maybe I can make it a bit more clear for you.
>
> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_20.htm
>
> Female Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 0.1%
> Male Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 0.0%
> Female Foster Unknown Relationship 0.0%
> Male Foster Unknown Relationship 0.0%
> Total from the 4 categories: 0.1%, or 1,256
>
> Not the 10,000 you claim, not even close. Don't believe me? Then look at
> the chart yourself and use a pencil.
>
Now where did I made the claim of 10,0000?
Doan
> Ron
>
>
>
0:->
You make a claim based on 10,000 rate. That's not the rate in question.
"
27
From: Doan - view profile
Date: Fri, Nov 10 2006 9:15 pm
Email: Doan <d...@usc.edu>
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services,
alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> "Doan" <d...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.06111...@skat.usc.edu...
> > On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> >> "Doan" <d...@usc.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.061106...@skat.usc.edu...
> >> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> >> >> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> Ron
> >> > Doan
> >> gregg tends to fall into this personality flaw whenever he cannot face
> >> that
> >> he has no reasonable response to someone else's facts. I understand the
> >> reason for it, but that makes it no less inane.
> >> Ron
> > Funny that I saw the same in Kane, plus his tendency to boast. One
> > example is Kane's claim that he has lots of studies in his file cabinets
> > and shelves, plus that he is published! HOW STUPID IS THAT! ;-)
> > Doan
> Hmmm, well since neither of us know his real name I'd say that its at least
> possible. I'm fairly sure that I know a bit more about him than you do
> since we correspond via email occasionally, so I'd say that its likely that
> its more than "just possible".
> Ron
One who is to STUPID to do the simple math of convert .57% to rate per
10,000? Show me the proof, Ron! ;-)
Doan "
>
> Doan
>
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
Ron
No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not gregg,
I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
disagreement in this thread.
Was my original post on this current subject out of context? Not really.
It does give Doan a chance to eat a bit of crow, and they are usually big
enough that we can share.
Ron
0:->
You have to be joking. Despite mountains of lies, whole ranges of
errors, have you once seen Doan admit to an error? Or a lie?
Of course not.
He pretends that he's perfect, never lies, never makes an error. He
won't even cop to ordinary social lies or those based on a need to
protect someones life and personal safety.
He's a cheat and liar, and certainly not a man.
> Ron
Kane
Ron
I don't have the issues with him that you do, so I am willing to wait on his
admission. He was obviously in error, can he admit it? I have a nice slice
of crow pie all warm and waiting for him.
Ron
Doan
You still haven't answered my question, Ron. Why is that?
> >> > > "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> >> > > children in foster care in the State during the period under review,
> >> > > the
> >> > > percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> >> > > indicated
> >> > > maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or less."
> >> > >
> >> > > Doan
> >> >
> >> > Maybe I can make it a bit more clear for you.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_20.htm
> >> >
> >> > Female Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 0.1%
> >> > Male Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 0.0%
> >> > Female Foster Unknown Relationship 0.0%
> >> > Male Foster Unknown Relationship 0.0%
> >> > Total from the 4 categories: 0.1%, or 1,256
> >> >
> >> > Not the 10,000 you claim, not even close. Don't believe me? Then look
> >> > at
> >> > the chart yourself and use a pencil.
> >> >
> >> Now where did I made the claim of 10,0000?
> >
> > You make a claim based on 10,000 rate. That's not the rate in question.
>
> No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not gregg,
> I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the
> same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in
> disagreement in this thread.
>
That I made a mistake of claiming 10,000? If I did, I am willing to admit
that it is a MISTAKE!
> Was my original post on this current subject out of context? Not really.
> It does give Doan a chance to eat a bit of crow, and they are usually big
> enough that we can share.
>
"A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
children in foster care in the State during the period under review,
the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
less."
You left out the first part of the sentence, resulting in:
"of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
review, the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
less."
Now you tell me that it wasn't OUT OF CONTEXT???
Doan
> Ron
>
>
>
0:->
Well, I can suggest a reason, though Ron can answer for himself.
Because, Doan, it's irrelevant to the issue, unless you provide your
argument as to contextual lack resulting in changing some element of
the argument.
This is your pattern of so-called "Debate."
You wish to nitpic, pretend to questions that are in fact not relevant
questions at all. Or at least you are unwilling to present your case as
to why you think they are relevant.
You see, both Ron and I have left a great deal "out of context."
But then so have you...much more in fact, because you dodge the actual
issues.
The most important part of my post on this subject, by the way, you
totally ignored. Pretending that the greatest relevance was in the
passage you picked. It was not.
No one posts encyclopedias in their first, or even subsequent posts,
Doan, and you argue that they must...for there to be the context you
claim is missing.
Argue to support the contextual error you think results in some change
in claims.
First try identifying the ENTIRE claim being made, not just a carefully
cherrypicked line or two.
How stupid are you, in fact, to think that no one can see how devious
and dishonest you are in debate?
It's not "clever," Doan despite your obvious belief that it is.
It's just dishonest.
And you didn't prove Ron took anything out of context or "practiced"
it, Doan. You just screamed it with your usual monkeyboy screeching.
Now dance some more for us.
0:->
0:->
Relevance, dummy. Relevance to the issue.
He left the Encyclopedia Brittanica out as well, did you notice?
Damn that context oversight, eh?
>
> Doan
Grow up you simple little shit. Debate the issue, not the format, unless
the format can be included in your argument as relevant.
And notice YOU refused to discuss anything in my long post but THIS one
piece. Why is that I wonder.
Kane
>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>
Ron
Because I choose to ignore the non-relevant.
No, your mistake was in claiming the following:
"Then you must have missed all the LIES that Kane had spewed. The latest is
the claim that the abuse rate in foster care is .57%!"
>> Was my original post on this current subject out of context? Not really.
>> It does give Doan a chance to eat a bit of crow, and they are usually big
>> enough that we can share.
>>
>
> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> children in foster care in the State during the period under review,
> the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> less."
>
> You left out the first part of the sentence, resulting in:
> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated
> or
> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> less."
>
> Now you tell me that it wasn't OUT OF CONTEXT???
>
> Doan
Nope. Not at all. Read it again. And the rest as well.
"Analysis of NCANDS CFSR data indicates that States have improved in meeting
this standard. The percentage of States in compliance has increased from
57.1 percent for 2000 to 84.2 percent for 2004. During 2004, 13 States had
difficulty with providing the data needed to compute this measure using the
Child File."
So, in fact the percentage of states meeting the requirement is as a minimum
84.2%, and could be quite a bit higher.
So, in the end, your claim that kane was incorrect in his statement of .57%
was of course inaccurate. An error. A lie if you like. He was correct,
you were not. You made a mistake. Admit it, take a bite of the crow pie,
and move the fuck on. You are not infallible, and neither am I. The
difference is that I am quite willing to admit it without having someone
shove my face into it.
Ron
Doan
Taking thing out of context is "non-relevant"??? Isn't it you that
accused me of the same thing?
That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
not the actual rate!
> >> Was my original post on this current subject out of context? Not really.
> >> It does give Doan a chance to eat a bit of crow, and they are usually big
> >> enough that we can share.
> >>
> >
> > "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> > children in foster care in the State during the period under review,
> > the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> > indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> > less."
> >
> > You left out the first part of the sentence, resulting in:
> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated
> > or
> > indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> > less."
> >
> > Now you tell me that it wasn't OUT OF CONTEXT???
> >
> > Doan
>
> Nope. Not at all. Read it again. And the rest as well.
I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
meaning from the original one.
>
> "Analysis of NCANDS CFSR data indicates that States have improved in meeting
> this standard. The percentage of States in compliance has increased from
> 57.1 percent for 2000 to 84.2 percent for 2004. During 2004, 13 States had
> difficulty with providing the data needed to compute this measure using the
> Child File."
>
> So, in fact the percentage of states meeting the requirement is as a minimum
> 84.2%, and could be quite a bit higher.
>
50 - 13 = 37. That 84.2% is of the 37 states that reported, not the whole
50 States! So, without regarding with the accuracy and integrity of the
data reported, the 13 missing States are not even included in that data.
Without the data for the whole 50 States, how can you claim that the 0.57%
is the actual abuse rate?
> So, in the end, your claim that kane was incorrect in his statement of .57%
> was of course inaccurate. An error. A lie if you like. He was correct,
> you were not. You made a mistake. Admit it, take a bite of the crow pie,
> and move the fuck on. You are not infallible, and neither am I. The
> difference is that I am quite willing to admit it without having someone
> shove my face into it.
>
So have you admitted that you did take that statement out of context? Go
ahead, then we can "move the fuck on"!
Doan
> Ron
>
>
>
Doan
By the way, Ron. Even Kane now backed away from hist statement:
"Nope, I posted and claimed the report for the population under study was
.57%. YOU attempted to manipulate into a claim for the country.
I made no such claim."
Doan
Doan
Are you saying that this sentence:
"of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
review, the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated
or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57%
or less."
with the first part omitted, still retains the original meaning of the
sentence?
Doan
0:->
That's not backing away, Doan. You are lying again. Most blatantly.
> I made no such claim."
My "claim" is nothing more than the posted citation, Doan. YOU tried to
expand on it, and YOU erred when you tried.
But YOU aren't man enough to admit it, Monkeyboy.
> Doan
The issue here is that indeed, the rate for abuse by foster parents
falls far below, as I've posted evidence for you to look at and you are
enthusiastically ignoring while trying to engage us in the
inconsequential side issuse, that of parents.
In fact, exceeding the cutoff line of .57%. Thus the article I quoted
pretty obviosly used this figure to indicate the least possible data
point they could use to make their point.
It's just such subtleties that YOU try to use to divert from the
central claims made by your opponents to pretend they didn't say what
they in fact have said somewhere else in their narrative comments.
You are a liar. A clever one, but a liar nevertheless. Dishonorable,
and corrupt.
0:->
Doan
Hihihi! The liar here is YOU!
> > I made no such claim."
>
> My "claim" is nothing more than the posted citation, Doan. YOU tried to
> expand on it, and YOU erred when you tried.
>
So tell me which "population under study" did you refer too, Kane?
> But YOU aren't man enough to admit it, Monkeyboy.
>
If I made a mistake, I will admit it. Show me, please.
> > Doan
>
> The issue here is that indeed, the rate for abuse by foster parents
> falls far below, as I've posted evidence for you to look at and you are
> enthusiastically ignoring while trying to engage us in the
> inconsequential side issuse, that of parents.
>
Are we talking about the country or not?
Doan
0:->
.....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
deliberate lies....
I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
pick. I chose both, in your case.
> > >> Was my original post on this current subject out of context?
Not really.
> > >> It does give Doan a chance to eat a bit of crow, and they are
usually big
> > >> enough that we can share.
> > >>
> > >
> > > "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> > > children in foster care in the State during the period under review,
> > > the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> > > indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is
0.57% or
> > > less."
> > >
> > > You left out the first part of the sentence, resulting in:
> > > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> > > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
substantiated
> > > or
> > > indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is
0.57% or
> > > less."
> > >
> > > Now you tell me that it wasn't OUT OF CONTEXT???
> > >
> > > Doan
> >
> > Nope. Not at all. Read it again. And the rest as well.
>
> I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> meaning from the original one.
You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
> >
> > "Analysis of NCANDS CFSR data indicates that States have improved
in meeting
> > this standard. The percentage of States in compliance has increased
from
> > 57.1 percent for 2000 to 84.2 percent for 2004. During 2004, 13
States had
> > difficulty with providing the data needed to compute this measure
using the
> > Child File."
> >
> > So, in fact the percentage of states meeting the requirement is as
a minimum
> > 84.2%, and could be quite a bit higher.
> >
> 50 - 13 = 37. That 84.2% is of the 37 states that reported, not the
whole
> 50 States! So, without regarding with the accuracy and integrity of the
> data reported, the 13 missing States are not even included in that data.
> Without the data for the whole 50 States, how can you claim that the
0.57%
> is the actual abuse rate?
There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
ass. Or a monkey.
How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
39 then reported, according to this chart.
84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
indicator.
But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
child abuse, hence we don't know.
But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
foster parents can.
The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
first to know.
Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
when they were young.
The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
abuse rate of bios that are caught.
Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
considerably proportion.
And the subject, really, of this thread, as it devolved. Or evolved,
according to your biases. 0:->
We can look at only two figures. The rate of foster abuse, and the rate
of ALL others by their relationship to the victims.
Trying to compute the rate against the "general population" of bio
parents to the bio parents that got caught tells us NOTHING, but how
damned HARD IT IS TO CATCH THEM.
And, conversely, how very easy it is to catch foster parents.
Keep up your babbling diversionary, subject switching to some minor
point to ignore this reality, stupid monkeyboy screeching fool.
It's a blast to watch you squirm and writh and run like the little dog
you are.
> > So, in the end, your claim that kane was incorrect in his statement
of .57%
> > was of course inaccurate. An error. A lie if you like. He was
correct,
> > you were not. You made a mistake. Admit it, take a bite of the
crow pie,
> > and move the fuck on. You are not infallible, and neither am I. The
> > difference is that I am quite willing to admit it without having
someone
> > shove my face into it.
> >
> So have you admitted that you did take that statement out of context? Go
> ahead, then we can "move the fuck on"!
What crap, Doan. YOU got caught changing the subject to the LEAST
defensible and least important issue, and now you want to play games to
still stay away from the actual subject here.: do foster parents
ACTUALLY abuse at a rate higher than bio parents?
Show us the data that says they do. Then prove up the claim by showing
how the data could possibly have been collected no the wild population
of bio parents.
Go ahead, smart ass monkeyboy. Your ass is hanging out in the breeze again.
And don't expect a reply to ANYTHING BUT this issue. All your side
issues are exactly what you have claimed do deliberately, in the
past.....HARRASSMENT, and nothing else.
> Doan
> > Ron
Best wishes for a happy thanksgiving.
I leave you with this very significant figure. Of ALL the children in
foster care in this country in 2004, .36 percent were the subjects of
abuse in foster care.
And you know of course, from a prior post of mine, but you are
studiously and monkeyly ignoring, that the rate for parents was 1.+
percent.
"Children in Foster Care Maltreated by Foster Care Providers, 2000-2004
This table displays the percentage of children in foster care who were
maltreated by a foster parent or residential facility staff. The first
column lists each State and the next five columns lists the percentage
of victims by year. The Children’s Bureau has established a national
standard of incidence of child abuse or neglect in foster care as 0.57%
or less. The number of reporting States in compliance of this standard
has increased from 16 States in 2000 to 32 States in 2004."
I note a signficant thing about this comment from the site:
It's not even just family foster caregivers, but residential facility
staff included...usually meaning TREATMENT facility...hence a very high
risk rate for physical confrontations and injuries that may or may NOT
have been induced by the staff, but a result of a board finding of
whether or not the amount of force used was within guidelines for safe
patient restraint. That would drive the number/rate UP considerably.
Even if it means some Group Homes, those also have a much higher rate as
they are teens and teens tend to more volility and may reflect the same
concerns I mention about treatment facilities.
Sometimes it's nothing more than breaking up a kid fight, but the teen
will report it as an attack by staff.
Ah well, humans. So fallible. And monkeyboys moreso.
0:->
Greegor
break in context
> of all children in foster care in the State during the period under review,
> the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> less."
They got it Doan.
They just hope they can get the truth about this to go away.
The damnable break in context makes their intentions very clear.
They want to pretend that the unmet standard
is what the stats actually report, which is a HUGE lie.
If I can "get it" it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist.
Doan, Can you imagine people with this mindset and dishonesty
coming to your home to decide whether you abused your own child?
Even WORSE, can you imagine they drag you into their
special court where the US Constitution does NOT protect you?
Where the JUDGE is a complete sucker for everything they say?
Where they don't need to prove actual ABUSE or NEGLECT at all?
(Merely that the child is "at risk of" something?)
Did you notice how worried they are about the "Constitutional Defense"
or the high court rulings against caseworker hearsay in CRIMINAL court?
Most people would have never GUESSED that caseworkers WERE
actually helping to convict on CRIMINAL cases by testifying ""for"" the
child...
Kane sees no ethical or moral problem with that.
Does that tell you how he decides whether
a situation "ethically or morally" calls for a lie?
Did you like that part about how when they go into court they
are actually told NOT to recall the exact words of statements
but to rephrase or recast what was actually said, AS TESTIMONY!
To most of the free world that means TELLING LIES.
To caseworkers it is written, instructed Standard Operating Procedure.
( Totally without any "ethical or moral" purpose other than to win in
court. )
0:->
>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if,
>
> break in context
>
>> of all children in foster care in the State during the period under review,
>> the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
>> less."
>
> They got it Doan.
That the states, 84.2% of them have met or exceeded the federal
requirements of what you fools used to call the "failed audit" in the
matter of incidences of abuse happening in foster care?
Yes, we get it.
The remainder of the states have not been able to report sufficiently to
determine their status fully yet. But given the success of the other
states.....who knows? 0:->
> They just hope they can get the truth about this to go away.
No, we want the truth to get out.
The abuse by all others, other than foster parents and residential
staff, is 99% of all abuse.
For parents, it's 1.+ percent. based on the population. That is almost
twice what it is for foster parents.
Tsk.
>
> The damnable break in context makes their intentions very clear.
There was no break in context. That was Doan's usually public
masturbation, Greg. When you do it, we call it "Explanation."
>
> They want to pretend that the unmet standard
> is what the stats actually report, which is a HUGE lie.
Proof please?
> If I can "get it" it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist.
R R R R R ..... kiddo, you aren't a 4th of July Sparkler scientist.
0:->
> Doan, Can you imagine people with this mindset and dishonesty
> coming to your home to decide whether you abused your own child?
Well, no, I wouldn't wish either of you on the population Greg, not even
those like you.
> Even WORSE, can you imagine they drag you into their
> special court where the US Constitution does NOT protect you?
Nonsense. You have yet to answer my challenge to show us where the civil
courts violate constitutional rights.
Go to the constitution. Point out where it says what you claim.
>
> Where the JUDGE is a complete sucker for everything they say?
>
That's not how the judges see it, and it's not reality, Greg.
> Where they don't need to prove actual ABUSE or NEGLECT at all?
> (Merely that the child is "at risk of" something?)
That's because risk of abuse, is one kind of abuse. If you have a
molester, for instance, living in the household, he does not have to
have done anything YET to be a risk to the child.
Or wouldn't you and Doan agree?
> Did you notice how worried they are about the "Constitutional Defense"
> or the high court rulings against caseworker hearsay in CRIMINAL court?
You bet we are worried. It's been misused repeatedly by assholes like
you, and Ruth and Brian are sitting in jail, lost their children,
precisely because they were convinced they had "rights" that in fact
they did NOT have under the constitution, and were NOT told that their
children (NOT told by their lying "buddies" like you that lab ratted
them) HAD CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS WELL.
The one thing you KNOW to avoid discussing.
Never, when I have pointed this out, have YOU even stepped up to try and
prove me wrong.
Show us how children do not have constitutional, that is, Civil Rights,
Greg.
Go for it.
And their rights trumps the parent's "rights" most especially when you
argue children are a possession like a dog or cat. To do with as they
please.
> Most people would have never GUESSED that caseworkers WERE
> actually helping to convict on CRIMINAL cases by testifying ""for"" the
> child...
How could that possibly be hidden, Greg? The criminal cases are
immediate news, since they do not fall under confidentiality guidelines.
Please explain what you mean by caseworkers testifying for the child?
> Kane sees no ethical or moral problem with that.
Where is the problem with the scenario you mention above?
In a criminal trial people don't have a choice of NOT testifying if the
court agrees they must, upon the petition of either the defense or the
accused's attorneys.
You certainly have lost your mind today.
But then, we know that.
> Does that tell you how he decides whether
> a situation "ethically or morally" calls for a lie?
You don't have to guess.
I've state plainly, so you are lying, Greg, yet again, that in court the
question of lying is put immediately to rest as the protection of
everyone is in the hands of the court. I would not lie either by
commission or omission.
I've said that. You little Doananating liar.
As for when I would lie to mislead, it would be only if someone were in
physical danger for their body or lives.
I've said that before.
So you cannot make and argument without lying, obviously. Neither can
Doan or other of your buddies. You people are quite the pack of little
jackals.
> Did you like that part about how when they go into court they
> are actually told NOT to recall the exact words of statements
> but to rephrase or recast what was actually said, AS TESTIMONY!
What are you referring to?
> To most of the free world that means TELLING LIES.
No it doesn't. It means giving their impression of the meaning of what
was said to them.
How many people do you know, without it being written down, that can
recall word for word what was said in a past conversation....even an
hour old?
> To caseworkers it is written, instructed Standard Operating Procedure.
> ( Totally without any "ethical or moral" purpose other than to win in
> court. )
Show us your proof.
0:->
>
Doan
> Doan wrote:
> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
> deliberate lies....
>
Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
to the public again!
[snip]
> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
> > not the actual rate!
>
> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
> pick. I chose both, in your case.
>
Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
{snip}
> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> > meaning from the original one.
>
> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
>
Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
{snip}
> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
>
> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
> ass. Or a monkey.
>
Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
>
> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
>
Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
STUPIDITY!!!
> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
>
> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
>
> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
>
84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
> indicator.
>
Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
>
So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
> child abuse, hence we don't know.
>
Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
> foster parents can.
>
Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
Boy, you are STUPID!
> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
> first to know.
>
> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
>
> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
> when they were young.
>
> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
>
> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
> considerably proportion.
>
Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
Hihihi!
Doan
0:->
Let's clear the air here, first.
You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
by me.
And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
population has an ulcer.
Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
not as yet countable.
Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
about them.
Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
adult and reports it.
Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
popping up very late in the cycle?
No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
liars; Doananators.
0:->
>
> Doan
>
>
>
Doan
Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?
> You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
> it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
> by me.
>
Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
chart! Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
years!!! You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!
Doan
0:->
Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
year for some reason.
You didn't notice that?
> Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
> years!!!
Yep.
> You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
> researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!
Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.
You can't read but you sure can lie.
>
> Doan
You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.
I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
it a "lie."
You are one sick little fuck.
But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.
0:->
0:->
.. his usual dodging crock of shit....
Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and
what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this
point.
Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below,
though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
What's up with that, sneak?
R R R R R R R R
DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD.
Doan
Hahaha! You didn't notice these entries in the chart???
Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
> > Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
> > years!!!
>
> Yep.
>
Hahaha!
> > You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
> > researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!
>
> Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.
>
Hihihi!
> You can't read but you sure can lie.
Hahaha! The STUPID liar here is YOU!
Doan
Doan
> Doan wrote:
> .. his usual dodging crock of shit....
>
Hahaha! More "shit" coming out of Kane's mouth!
Doan
0:->
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>> .. his usual dodging crock of shit....
>>
> Hahaha! More "shit" coming out of Kane's mouth!
>
> Doan
As I said, ad hom hopper,
"Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
What's up with that, sneak?"
0:-]
Doan
> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >> .. his usual dodging crock of shit....
> >>
> > Hahaha! More "shit" coming out of Kane's mouth!
> >
> > Doan
>
> As I said, ad hom hopper,
>
Hypocrite! ;-)
> "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
> below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
>
> What's up with that, sneak?"
>
Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research?
You said there are none, did you not?
Doan
0:->
Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Doan wrote:
> > >> .. his usual dodging crock of shit....
> > >>
> > > Hahaha! More "shit" coming out of Kane's mouth!
> > >
> > > Doan
> >
> > As I said, ad hom hopper,
> >
> Hypocrite! ;-)
>
> > "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
> > below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
> >
> > What's up with that, sneak?"
> >
> Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research?
There isn't any. Didn't you read beyond this point before?
> You said there are none, did you not?
Sure did. That's why I said you are unable to deal with the truth, as I
stated it below.
You stopped reading about here then?
Brilliant. Leaves you able to lie your ass off and not bother your
conscience.
> Doan
Read further, and answer the challenge to research that I present
below, or continue to play the dodging game and be laughed at, more
than before.
You are a joke, Doan. Not just to me. Your own parents would disown
you, I suspect, if they saw the kinds of lies you construct, an misuse
of your intelligence that they gave you by birth.
What you can't handle, you run from with clever little weasel twists,
and monkeyboy diversions.
Tsk, Doan. Tsk tsk tsk. <finger shaking in your face>
0:->
Doan
>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > >> .. his usual dodging crock of shit....
> > > >>
> > > > Hahaha! More "shit" coming out of Kane's mouth!
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > >
> > > As I said, ad hom hopper,
> > >
> > Hypocrite! ;-)
> >
> > > "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
> > > below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
> > >
> > > What's up with that, sneak?"
> > >
> > Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research?
>
> There isn't any. Didn't you read beyond this point before?
>
So what is there for me to discuss, STUPID! I challenged you to come up
with some research, you came up with NONE! And you still want me to
discuss research??? HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?
Doan
0:->
> On 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>> .. his usual dodging crock of shit....
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hahaha! More "shit" coming out of Kane's mouth!
>>>>>
>>>>> Doan
>>>> As I said, ad hom hopper,
>>>>
>>> Hypocrite! ;-)
>>>
>>>> "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
>>>> below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
>>>>
>>>> What's up with that, sneak?"
>>>>
>>> Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research?
>> There isn't any. Didn't you read beyond this point before?
>>
> So what is there for me to discuss, STUPID!
Just what I posted, Doan. Clearly.
> I challenged you to come up
> with some research, you came up with NONE!
Because there is no valid research.
> And you still want me to
> discuss research???
Of course. And I made clear the question now is why there is no valid
research. Care to discuss it, or are we going to be treated to yet more
monkeyboy screeching hysterical avoidance?
> HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?
The question should be, since everyone interested can SEE who is being
stupid here, how stupid can YOU be?
Doananating in public again, I see.
The challenge for discussion was obvious, Doan: The reason why there is
no research to discuss. Can you refute my reasons as they are stated?
Is there research? Do you claim there is? Can you name it? Can you point
to it so it can be discussed fully on line? Or are you about to do
another "Embry" on us again?
Care to discuss what I claim, or are you going to continue to insult
your ancestors?
> Doan
>>> You said there are none, did you not?
>> Sure did. That's why I said you are unable to deal with the truth, as I
>> stated it below.
>>
>> You stopped reading about here then?
>>
>> Brilliant. Leaves you able to lie your ass off and not bother your
>> conscience.
Avoidance, Doan? Cowardly avoidance? Even monkeys are braver than you.
>>> Doan
>> Read further, and answer the challenge to research that I present
>> below, or continue to play the dodging game and be laughed at, more
>> than before.
>>
>> You are a joke, Doan. Not just to me. Your own parents would disown
>> you, I suspect, if they saw the kinds of lies you construct, an misuse
>> of your intelligence that they gave you by birth.
>>
>> What you can't handle, you run from with clever little weasel twists,
>> and monkeyboy diversions.
Surely you can handle a simple statement such as mine, that "there is no
valid research," right?
Do you think there is? Where? Can we read it on line?
What does it prove?
How does it account for the very different characteristics of the two
demographics under discussion?
Any little thing you'd like to talk about instead of biting on your
tail, monkeyboy?
You are quite a spectacle what with your cowardly handling of this
issue, Doan...but then that's nothing new for you. You have been
practicing how to look good while running for your life for years now,
coward.
0:->
Doan
> Doan wrote:
> > On 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>> .. his usual dodging crock of shit....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Hahaha! More "shit" coming out of Kane's mouth!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Doan
> >>>> As I said, ad hom hopper,
> >>>>
> >>> Hypocrite! ;-)
> >>>
> >>>> "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
> >>>> below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
> >>>>
> >>>> What's up with that, sneak?"
> >>>>
> >>> Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research?
> >> There isn't any. Didn't you read beyond this point before?
> >>
> > So what is there for me to discuss, STUPID!
>
> Just what I posted, Doan. Clearly.
>
You posted your STUPIDITY, clearly! ;-)
> > I challenged you to come up
> > with some research, you came up with NONE!
>
> Because there is no valid research.
>
So there is nothing for me to discuss.
> > And you still want me to
> > discuss research???
>
> Of course. And I made clear the question now is why there is no valid
> research. Care to discuss it, or are we going to be treated to yet more
> monkeyboy screeching hysterical avoidance?
>
But you just said there are no research, STUPID!
> > HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?
>
> The question should be, since everyone interested can SEE who is being
> stupid here, how stupid can YOU be?
>
I can read a simple chart, YOU CAN'T! ;-)
> Doananating in public again, I see.
>
Hihihi! The only STUPID LIAR here is YOU!
Doan
0:->
...."I am a coward that will not debate the truth"...
You offer only lies, dodging, and bad ethics, and worse morals.
You are not only a coward, you are a dangerous coward because you are
unaware of your low character.
Enjoy yourself.
You ran again.
Kane
Doan
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> Doan wrote:
> ...."I am a coward that will not debate the truth"...
>
That is not what I wrote! That is what you wrote!
I only exposed your STUPIDITY so that everyone can see it!
Doan
Greegor
> ...."I am a coward that will not debate the truth"...
Doan wrote
> That is not what I wrote! That is what you wrote!
> I only exposed your STUPIDITY so that everyone can see it!
Doan:
I posted a comical hate letter (to me) from Hitler.
It was a joke about Kane's frequent expressions of hatred.
Kane took the idea and started these lame fake
letters from real live active participants.
Apparently he must have decided that his cause was
so moral and ethical that even telling lies was justified.
The ends he imagines justify any means apparently.
Kane wouldn't have given up on having a reputation for honesty.
He must have FOUND OUT that he no longer has one to protect.
0:->
Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > ...."I am a coward that will not debate the truth"...
> >
> That is not what I wrote! That is what you wrote!
> I only exposed your STUPIDITY so that everyone can see it!
Oh blow it out your monkeyboy ass stupid. Everyone here recognizes the
newsgroup posting device of expressing what one believes the other
expresses.
What a stupid hack you are.
>
> Doan
You got caught dodging the challenge, again, and all you can do is
nitpit and run.
COWARD.
Get Greg's nose out of your ass, it makes his posts sound funny.
0:->
Doan
On 15 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > ...."I am a coward that will not debate the truth"...
> > >
> > That is not what I wrote! That is what you wrote!
> > I only exposed your STUPIDITY so that everyone can see it!
>
> Oh blow it out your monkeyboy ass stupid. Everyone here recognizes the
> newsgroup posting device of expressing what one believes the other
> expresses.
>
> What a stupid hack you are.
Hahaha! At least, I know how to read a simple chart and you don't!
Doan
Greegor
directs
them to "recast" everything you say. Translation: LIE
giovinazzo wrote:
> seeing as you may not have been following from the start ROn, the
> reason I lost my kids is that the CAS/CPS worker went to her manager
> and lied. She told them I hadn't taken my children to appointments
> such as the dentist and counselling at a place called pathways for my
> oldest daughter. The fact is that I did take my children to these
> appointments, dental work does not do its own you know, they don't just
> appear there, and I had to sign the papers for the coverage which my
> daughter had 2 crowns, cost around 300 each.
>
> I have the proof, have shown it to the worker and manager, they say to
> sort it out in court. I don't think you realise the workers do lie to
> you, thinking you aren't smart enough to catch on. They take children
> because there is a demand for children for adoption here where they get
> about 35,000 each child. Trust me I know I have seen many a friend
> lose their children to the agency I am involved with.
>
> More kids die in foster care than in their own homes. Others that need
> the CAS/CPS involvement don't get it because their kids are screwed up
> so therefore unadoptable. I was abused in my foster homes as well as
> at home, no workers came to help they didn't care. I know another man
> who went through hell on earth in care. Hes really messed up over it.
>
>
> You may be a great foster parent and the caring kind. If so keep it
> up there are kids that truly need you, but my children don't need to be
> in the system, they need to come home. They ask me every week when I
> get my visit when can I come home mommy? I just tell them I want them
> home, we are working on that honey. We are doing everything we can.
>
> Im lucky I know who the people are that are looking after her. I found
> out today that they are family friends, so easier to deal with.
>
> Anyway get over it, CAS/CPS workers do lie...the ones you know just
> haven't got caught yet.
>
> Lisa
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > Lisa, Ron knows that Fosters who adopted kids have
> > > been lied to so much and so badly that there was
> > > a RASH of law suits because some of these kids
> > > were a DANGER to other kids in Foster Care and beyond.
> > >
> > > The cliche' story is that after adopting a kid they find
> > > out the kid is a sexual predator or has dangerous
> > > psychiatric problems and molests their birth daughter
> > > or later Foster kids. There have been several of
> > > these reported in the news media and in some cases
> > > there have been some HUGE damage settlements.
> >
> > First it's "a RASH," now it's "several."
> >
> > Fact is it's very very few compared to the number of children adopted,
> > Greg.
> >
> > And you have proof that the suing party is not lying how, Greg?
> >
> > > In the article at the tope of this message thread a
> > > person representing Fosters puts forth the MYTH
> > > that all the foster kids are "abused" which is
> > > factually not true according to the government
> > > statistics and the legal standards which only
> > > require "AT RISK OF" abuse, not actual abuse.
> > > "AT RISK OF" with no actual abuse accounts for
> > > the VAST MAJORITY of kids in Foster Care.
> >
> > This assumption of yours, perpetrated by others as well, is that "AT
> > RISK" mean not abused.
> >
> > It does NOT mean that. The child could have been abused, and continue
> > to be AT RISK, hence it will say so in the record and be counted as
> > both.
> >
> > Is it not logical to assume that if a child has been abused, and is not
> > removed or is returned they are at risk?
> >
> > Do you know what "AT RISK" actually means, stupid? What those
> > conditions are that constitute cause to make such a determination?
> >
> > One of them would be a live in boyfriend that has an inordinate amount
> > of time with the child or children UNSUPERVISED. Especially if he does
> > not work. Especially if he is charged with child care of the children.
> > That puts children at risk automatically, stupid. Those are the
> > circumstances that so often DO result in injury and sometimes death to
> > a child.
> >
> > YOU like to use the media as a source, Greg. Try READING those cases.
> > You KNOW how common they are.
> >
> > > The reps reference to the kids as all abused
> > > didn't happen because the workers told
> > > THEM the truth about "AT RISK OF" etc...
> >
> > What are you talking about?
> >
> > > Did you notice how Dan and Kane resisted challenging you?
> >
> > Nope. The response to Lisa is continually an expression of hope she
> > will stay focused, something that Dan and I both know very well is
> > essential to winning a case, while we know that failure to do so, and
> > to become engaged with posters such as you, Greg, is almost a sure
> > death knell to a case.
> >
> > You and your cronies have repeatedly been part of or celebrated failure
> > of families, to dance in their blood as a way of excusing your own
> > failures.
> >
> > You are a predator.
> > >
> > > They still hope to claim you.
> > >
> > Neither of us have the least profit in "claiming" anyone. There is no
> > money in it, and no need to make someone lose, as you have. Both Dan
> > and I are winners. He has won dozens of difficult and seemingly
> > impossible cases, while I have helped thousands of extended family sort
> > out and deal with CPS and keep their kin related children in the
> > family.
> >
> > > Once they find out they can't, they will be considerably
> > > more confrontative when you testify about things like this.
> >
> > That is a perfect projection, Greg.
> >
> > Take Betty, for example. She caught on to you, when she first came here
> > with one of the classic Kinship cases I am so familiar with. You have
> > been flaming high dugeon ever since, attacking her at every turn, lying
> > through your teeth about here, threatening her repeatedly.
> >
> > Abusive, mean, vindictive.
> >
> > You have never seen Dan or I, when someone went down the wrong path
> > attack them, or in any way try to hurt them. And we have commiserated
> > with them sincerely over their loss rather than blame them.
> >
> > Hell, YOU blame the winners, like Betty, but for things that are not
> > true.
> >
> > All Lisa has to do is take ONE quick look at your posts and exchanges
> > with Betty to see how a strong person with a built in shit detector
> > sets you off into your rages.
> >
> > You are a little pissant. Nothing more.
> >
> > Below is the string of posts attributed (slipping boy?) that shows what
> > a lying little shit you are. You took Ron's comment about not being
> > lied to by caseworkers and tried to make people believe other than what
> > he said at the time.
> >
> > I have some comments, in fact, about Ron's post, from my 30Plus years
> > experience helping people deal with CPS successfully.
> >
> > Read on, stupid: [[[ comments in square brackets as usual ]]]
> >
> > >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > "giovinazzo" <fallen_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1162912678.1...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Hey Ron, the case workers do lie to you foster parents....that is what
> > > > > you are right?
> > > >
> > > > I am indeed a foster parent. But I have never been lied to by a caseworker.
> > > > I have had them refuse to answer questions, tell me that they are not
> > > > allowed to tell me, and just stare me in the eye, but never lied to. Not
> > > > after more than 200 foster children.
> >
> > [[[ He just eloquently described what I have pointed out to you and you
> > called "caseworker lying" little pissant. They cannot tell what they
> > cannot tell. ]]]
> >
> > > > The point I was making is that the case managers are not allowed to tell us
> > > > specifics of the case's we provide care for.
> >
> > [[[ I have said in the past that to do so can be construed in court by
> > the opposition as collusion against the client. YOU have complained
> > that various opponents colluded against you, stupid. Now you lie about
> > why foster's are allowed to know some things directly from the
> > worker...calling the worker liar. ]]]
> >
> > > > We CAN go to the court
> > > > hearings and listen to what is said, we can also speak with the kids. We
> > > > can also network with other foster parents who may have cared for the
> > > > children in the past, or read accounts of the case in the news paper (i.e.
> > > > Parent 'A' was arrested for child abuse, 4 children all in care). About the
> > > > same as everyone else I guess. We can also talk to teachers, doctors,
> > > > therapists, and other professionals associated with the case since we are
> > > > now providing care for the child and have a valid need for the information.
> >
> > [[[ Less caring and effective foster parents don't bother with this as
> > Ron obviously does care and bother to do. ]]]
> >
> > > > > Well my case worker told the foster parents my kids are
> > > > > abused, didn't tell them that they are an at risk group of children
> > > > > that I have never done anything to my children, though my kids have
> > > > > told the fosters that mom never hits them and hasn't done anything to
> > > > > hurt them.
> > > >
> > > > More likely the foster parent was told that they were removed for abuse.
> > > > Not the same thing. They were not told specifics of the case, but reasons
> > > > for removal is information we as foster care providers need to properly care
> > > > for the children.
> >
> > [[[ That is accurate. Very. Less astute foster parents don't get it, or
> > complain about it because they do not understand it. ]]]
> >
> > > >
> > > > > My kids are good about that, they tell the foster parents
> > > > > everyday how they want to come home. I hear it as there is one good
> > > > > foster parent. The other however calls my oldest her birth daughter
> > > > > which is a lie....
> > > >
> > > > I find that difficult to believe, but not completely impossible. Now, there
> > > > are less than stellar foster parents out there, and some who should never
> > > > have been given a license, but CPS cant tell who those are until they are in
> > > > the system working with kids. All the tests in the world are never going to
> > > > be able to screen out all the improper foster parents, it just cant happen,
> > > > but they do what they can.
> > > >
> > > > One must also remember that kids do not always tell the truth. The older
> > > > the child the more complex the untruth. She may be responding to your state
> > > > of emotion and is telling you what you want to hear, trying to make you feel
> > > > better. More investigation on your part is warranted before you go making
> > > > claims based on what your children are telling you.
> >
> > [[[ Having worked with children, mostly foster children, in mental
> > health I can assure you that Ron is telling it like it is. The
> > children, very much like in a divorce situation, are trying to take
> > care of their parents. YOU, Greg, would have them lying, OR being
> > "coached." Because you are a vile self absorbed little asshole. ]]]
> >
> > > > > Yes some kids are abused but alot are not.
> > > >
> > > > From your previous posts I'd say you are in Canada, right?
> > > >
> > > > Here, most of the children in the system are not physically abused. More
> > > > are neglected than abused. Neglect kills more children in this country than
> > > > does abuse.
> >
> > [[[ The absolute truth. What Ron didn't mention is that nearly every
> > case of "abuse" includes abuse by both other means, (physical,
> > emotional, sexual, developmental, psychological) and by neglect.
> > (nutritional, medical, developmental, emotional). ]]]
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Here they remove children
> > > > > in my case biggest issue because I was a crown ward and went through
> > > > > abuse as a child. Did you suffer abuse as a chilD? If so watch
> > > > > out....you won't be allowed kids if you let them know, after all as
> > > > > their steretype goes we will possibly abuse our own children.
> > > >
> > > > Did I? I'm sure that at the time I would have said yes, but all in all my
> > > > mom did a pretty good job raising 3 boys on her own.
> > > >
> > > > Not even in Canada is that enough reason to remove your children. Sorry,
> > > > there is more to the case that you are not telling us. Not that you have
> > > > to, privacy is your right, but to expect us to believe that this is the sole
> > > > reason your children have been removed says that you think we are a bunch of
> > > > idiots. gregg may be, but the rest of us (Doan and Doug included) are not.
> >
> > [[[ The latter have their own brand of idiocy....R R R R. And note, I'm
> > not admonishing Ron for "confronting," so obviously you are mistaken,
> > Greg, if you think I wish to "claim" Lisa. I wish her only the best in
> > getting her children back. Which YOU do not. You are the predator here,
> > Greg, and don't you forget it. ]]]
> >
> > > >
> > > > > What a stupid childish way for them to think, just because it happened
> > > > > to me doesn't mean im going to do it. Just like the idoit that breaks
> > > > > your door down and steals from you, doesn't mean you are going to go
> > > > > out and do it does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry had bad experience with foster parents of my autistic son, they
> > > > > kept lying to the cas so they could keep my son.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know there is the odd good one but more abusive foster homes.
> > > >
> > > > Here in the US the facts do not support your position. There are far more
> > > > good foster homes than abusive ones. 20 years ago I was not a foster parent
> > > > so I cant vouch for what happened in the system then, but as of right now
> > > > your theory would be incorrect.
> >
> > [[[ And that is the fact. The great majority of people involved in
> > fostering, from foster certifiers, to case managers, to the foster
> > parents themselves, do very good work. Like all fields of work you will
> > find some few that do not do good work. There is constant pressure to
> > weed them out, usually by simply not placing with them. I note that Ron
> > has had a very large number of children placed with him. 0:-] ]]]
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Anyway fact is they do lie...they want you on their side not ours.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lisa
> > > >
> > > > I'm not on anyone's side but the kids Lisa. I don't interact with the case
> > > > managers much, other than to get what the children need from the system or
> > > > to get instructions concerning visitation and the like. In any case I am
> > > > certainly not on the side of the State. I have run into more than my share
> > > > of piss-poor case managers, and I usually end up going to supervisors or
> > > > directors to get the children's needs met.
> >
> > [[[ I found this a consistitent attitude among the better foster
> > parents. They are far too busy to be playing games with the system or
> > incompetence. They are some of the best resources superviors have in
> > terms of dealing with both new workers, or less than sterling workers.
> > Good foster's tend to keep workers in line. Come to think of it, it
> > worked both ways. ]]]
> >
> > > > I am also a professional in the
> > > > field, and get a chance to interact with vast numbers of children in the
> > > > system in my state. Most are quite happy where they are, some are not.
> > > > Usually its the kids in the group homes that have issues with their care
> > > > providers. That stand to reason since the kids in these types of placements
> > > > are not suited to placement in actual foster homes by reason of temperament
> > > > or psychological problems.
> >
> > [[[ These often are the children that were so damaged by parents, and
> > often repeatedly (which IS a system failure) by those parents, that
> > even therapeutic help could not reach them. So they would be taught
> > life skills and placed with group home managers that tend NOT to take a
> > lot of shit, and tend to be very clear about boundaries...something
> > teens never are all to happy with, at least vocally. R R R R R ]]]
> >
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Greegor wrote:
> > > > >> Ron wrote
> > > > >> > caseworkers don't lie to us
> > > > >>
> > > > >> They've been CAUGHT AT IT Ron!
> >
> > There you are you lying little pissant, Greg. You completely removed
> > that he was talking about all the other sources they have for
> > information about the children.
> >
> > What a scumbag you are, Greg.
> >
> > 0:->
> >
> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ron wrote
> > > > >> > It is not the place of the foster parents to judge the reasons for
> > > > >> > removal. We don't have all the information, we were not there, we
> > > > >> > don't
> > > > >> > have the training and in most cases the education to make these
> > > > >> > judgments.
> > > > >> > That's what caseworkers are for. And the police of course.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Isn't that the argument the death camp guards and villagers used?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Plus you implied that caseworkers DO have the training or
> > > > >> education to know diddly, which even KANE acknowledges
> > > > >> is not true.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ron wrote
> > > > >> > 3. Most removals for "At Risk" children are made by law enforcement
> > > > >> > officers. Not caseworkers. I notice that both of you tend to place
> > > > >> > all the
> > > > >> > blame on the caseworkers, when in fact in many cases they just get
> > > > >> > handed a
> > > > >> > case by the police and the actual removal has already been made.
> > > > >> > Interesting that you don't blame the officers for making these
> > > > >> > decisions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I do, but the CPS agency justifies to itself MAINTAINING
> > > > >> dominion and control over the children. The cops are
> > > > >> not responsible for the months of foot dragging by the agencies.
> > > > >> Dominion and Control over a child is the legal issue for good reason.
> > > > >
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> Caseworkers LIE all the time. One of their industry manuals actually
> directs
> them to "recast" everything you say. Translation: LIE
So Greg, I'm waiting for the link to that one industry manual that
tells workers to lie by "recast" of "everything you say."
Am I going to have to wait much longer? I'd hate to think you were
misinformed, or possibly lying.
That wouldn't do, now would it?
..snip...
Kane
Greegor
> Caseworkers LIE all the time. One of their industry
> manuals actually directs them to "recast" everything
> you say. Translation: LIE
Kane wrote
> So Greg, I'm waiting for the link to that one industry manual that
> tells workers to lie by "recast" of "everything you say."
Will your OWN words do?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/dbf4d75b4da932a7
I found myself frustrated at what I too thought were ass covering lies,
until I had dealt with CPS long enough to figure out that elements of
the case must be help in confidence, often even from the players, lest
someone "spill the beans" and a smart attorney use those for various
ways to turn the case. And I don't mean the parents attorney. Too often
I saw attorneys look out for the best LEGAL interests of the child than
for the real child him or herself.
Workers often cannot, by law, tell certain things and when asked a
question would be giving up the answer (I KNOW how to ask those
questions in that form myself) by not answering at all, so give the
closest approximation that will lead away from the answer.
Is it "lying?" In the strictest sense yes. But it's more akin to the
lie
that is told to protect others from harm. Most workers would rather
take
the abuse they do by this tactic, than give up the interests of the
child.
0:->
I haven't found a single instance of the term you used, "recast."
Nor have I seen a link to that manual you claim exists.
Let me once again, since you seem to wish so much to discuss this
issue, educate you a little.
Do you know what "reframing" is in relation to explaining what has
taken place and what others say about it?
It's making your best explanation of what you beleive you heard, and
what you believe is meant.
OR, it can be misused and made into a lie.
The problem you have Greg, is you don't know how to, and have not,
shown that they are lying, but not in fact simply describing what they
think they heard and saw.
YOU do this all the time, but most often to formulate a scenario that
is your error filled delusion.
One of the reasons we have courts is to sort out what people think
happened from what, hopefully, actually did happen.
Dealing with evidence "is da name of dat game," as little Bobby used to
say.
The "One of their industry manuals actually directs them to "recast"
everything
you say. Translation: LIE" statement needs backing.
The manual please.
Or I might presume you are lying about it.
I can assure you you are mistaken about it though. I've never seen the
word "recast" ever used in practice manuals, instructions, training, or
even graduate school educational sources, or policy, which sets how
workers are supposed to go about their tasks.
If you were ordered to NOT reveal case information, Greg, how would you
go about doing that, but still engage the people involved, as
caseworkers must?
Give us an example, right after you produce this "manual."
0:->
Meth Watcher
Absolutely - and it's this unbridled hubris - this unabashed narcissism that
makes CPS workers the scum they are - Every CPS employee I've ever met
believed their criminal behavior was excused by their delusions of grandure.
Of course, CPS administration encourage this Narcissistic Personality
Disorder because it up's the kiddie count and put's them in line for a raise
and mo money. lol.
0:->
Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.
You are dishonorable.
Doan
shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
the years???
Doan
0:->
Doan wrote:
> Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
> shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
> the years???
Yes, I recall that.
One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.
Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
issues.
0:->
>
> Doan
Kane
Doan
>
> Doan wrote:
> > Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
> > shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
> > the years???
>
> Yes, I recall that.
>
> One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.
>
The one where you claimed is only available through Embry himself???
Didn't I show to everyone here that claim is also a lie?
> Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
> issues.
>
Hihihi! So what did you published?
Doan
0:->
Doan wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doan wrote:
> > > Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
> > > shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
> > > the years???
> >
> > Yes, I recall that.
> >
> > One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.
> >
> The one where you claimed is only available through Embry himself???
> Didn't I show to everyone here that claim is also a lie?
Nope. You showed that what I said was true. That at the time I got the
study from him, and I have told you this many times and you lyingly
ignore it, that IS what Dennis Embry told ME.
Or are you contended we both lied?
> > Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
> > issues.
> >
> Hihihi! So what did you published?
Words.
And you?
In these newsgroups, lies, right Doan?
R R R R R
>
Greegor
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> My Days In The Boer War by Commander McBrag
My Wet Dreams In The Bathroom With A Naked Seven Year Old Girl by Greg
Hanson
My Feelings Of Superiority By Forcing A Little Girl To Take Cold
Showers by Greg Hanson
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> My Days In The Boer War by Commander McBrag
Wrong war.
I also missed The Naked Little Girl in The Shower Pervs Campaigns.
0 : - ]
Greegor
> I also missed The Naked Little Girl in The Shower Pervs Campaigns.
Weren't you in on the PA or TX fiascos where the caseworkers
went into a public school and had the girls line up for gyno exams
right in the school for sexual abuse?
How did Geoffrey Rantz miss those ?