Teaching Children Their Rights - The Reverse Miranda
family_rights_wv
http://www.geocities.com/family_rights_wv/guide.html
(click top link)
Parents can print out several reverse mirandas, fill in the back with
emergency numbers and supply to their children. The reverse miranda
can even be laminated and attached to a ribbon or string for them to
wear as "necklaces", a copy can be placed in their bookbags and a copy
placed in their lockers. Then instruct children to answer NO questions
by government agents (school personnel, CPS workers, police). Have
them state that they would like their parents present before answering
ANY questions. Have children memorize emergency numbers. Instruct
children to telephone home at first opportunity even if government
agents tell them they are not "allowed" to.
Q&A from law.freeadvice.com
What if I am called from class by a school administrator, taken to a
room to be questioned by the police, social worker, or other official,
do I have to talk to them?
No. School administrators are routinely allowing students to be called
from their classes to be questioned by the police, social workers and
other officials. This is done without first notifying the student's
parents or obtaining prior consent. The courts have said this is legal.
You have a right to demand your parent be present before any
questioning takes place and/or have an attorney present before you
answer any questions.
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/talk_school_adminstarator.htm
Can statements made by me to school officials, teachers, or counselors
be used to suspend or expel me from school and also used against me for
prosecution in juvenile court?
Yes. Any statements made to school officials, teachers, counselors, can
be used to suspend/expel you from school and also used to bring
criminal charges against you.
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/school_statement_expel.htm
What if I am at school and a school official or teacher wants to
question me about a violation of the law. Do they have to advise me of
my miranda rights?
No. The higher courts have ruled that school officials, teachers, and
counselors do not have to advise you of your Miranda rights before
questioning unless they are doing so at the direction of the police.
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/school_miranda_rights.htm
Am I entitled to have my parents present before being questioned by a
school official, teacher, or counselor about a potential violation of
the law?
Yes. You are entitled to have your parents present before being
questioned.
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/questioning_parents_present.htm
Can school officials lie to me and tell me nothing will happen to me if
I make a statement and then use my statement against me to suspend or
expel me or have me arrested?
Yes. Just as the police can lawfully lie to you, school officials can
also lie to get you to make incriminating statements.
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/legal_school_statement.htm
0;->
terrified of, or doesn't understand their rights regarding, their
parents?
Or isn't this in fact a little toolkit for parent's rights over
children's rights?
Kane
Dragon's Girl
"0;->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138667811.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Have you anything to offer for the abused and neglected child who is
> terrified of, or doesn't understand their rights regarding, their
> parents?
>
> Or isn't this in fact a little toolkit for parent's rights over
> children's rights?
Slow down Kane Man....I know what you are saying, but I believe that this is
made assuming that the child has NOT been abused or neglected.
I don't think even the hard core family rights advocates would like to see a
child abused or neglected the the parents protected if they have done so.
BTW...anyone who is a strict family rights advocate, you are more then
welcome to comment on my take on things.
You don't want to see parents get away with beating kids, do you? And your
reverse Miranda was written to be used by those assumed innocent...right?
Betty
0;->
Dragon's Girl wrote:
> "0;->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138667811.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Have you anything to offer for the abused and neglected child who is
> > terrified of, or doesn't understand their rights regarding, their
> > parents?
> >
> > Or isn't this in fact a little toolkit for parent's rights over
> > children's rights?
>
> Slow down Kane Man....I know what you are saying, but I believe that this is
> made assuming that the child has NOT been abused or neglected.
>
> I don't think even the hard core family rights advocates would like to see a
> child abused or neglected the the parents protected if they have done so.
This reverse Miranda rights thing wouldn't be used by a child abuser?
> BTW...anyone who is a strict family rights advocate, you are more then
> welcome to comment on my take on things.
> You don't want to see parents get away with beating kids, do you? And your
> reverse Miranda was written to be used by those assumed innocent...right?
I presume, since you know my stand, you are addressing the poster.
I doubt they would claim otherwise. Will they back that up by
considering how to make sure the children ALSO know to report their
parents if they are abused?
I doubt it.
> Betty
> > family_rights_wv wrote:
> >> See CPSWATCH parent's guide to the system: REVERSE MIRANDA
> >> http://www.geocities.com/family_rights_wv/guide.html
> >> (click top link)
> >> Parents can print out several reverse mirandas, fill in the back with
> >> emergency numbers and supply to their children. The reverse miranda
> >> can even be laminated and attached to a ribbon or string for them to
> >> wear as "necklaces", a copy can be placed in their bookbags and a copy
> >> placed in their lockers. Then instruct children to answer NO questions
> >> by government agents (school personnel, CPS workers, police).
This is abuse concealment training. A child already has a terrible time
reporting abuse against themselves. This is one more attempt to isolate
the child.
And there is NO assumption that these people or any other, are
'innocent' of child abuse.
This is the SAME language that sexual abusers use to GROOM their
victim.
> >>Have
> >> them state that they would like their parents present before answering
> >> ANY questions. Have children memorize emergency numbers. Instruct
> >> children to telephone home at first opportunity even if government
> >> agents tell them they are not "allowed" to.
> >>
> >> Q&A from law.freeadvice.com
> >>
> >> What if I am called from class by a school administrator, taken to a
> >> room to be questioned by the police, social worker, or other official,
> >> do I have to talk to them?
> >>
> >> No. School administrators are routinely allowing students to be called
> >> from their classes to be questioned by the police, social workers and
> >> other officials. This is done without first notifying the student's
> >> parents or obtaining prior consent.
There is NO law requiring them to comply. You can ask all you want.
Notice the conflict. Very dangerous to trust this free advice: Answers
"NO" then goes on to say......
> >> The courts have said this is legal.
Yep. The courts Have said this is legal. So where does the website get
of with that "NO?" when asked "....do I have to talk to them?"
Then inform the questioner that the courts have said it's legal to
question them?
So Yep, it's legal, otherwise it's very easy to continue to have
abusers isolate their child from a chance of discovery.
> >> You have a right to demand your parent be present before any
> >> questioning takes place and/or have an attorney present before you
> >> answer any questions.
You can demand anything you wish. They are NOT under obligation to
provide that. This free advice makes NO reference to statute, and they
are careful not to. They carefuly craft the "answer" so that it does
not say one way or the other. You do not have to answer, but they are
NOT blocked from asking them.
> >> http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/talk_school_adminstarator.htm
> >>
> >> Can statements made by me to school officials, teachers, or counselors
> >> be used to suspend or expel me from school and also used against me for
> >> prosecution in juvenile court?
> >>
> >> Yes. Any statements made to school officials, teachers, counselors, can
> >> be used to suspend/expel you from school and also used to bring
> >> criminal charges against you.
> >> http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/school_statement_expel.htm
> >>
> >> What if I am at school and a school official or teacher wants to
> >> question me about a violation of the law. Do they have to advise me of
> >> my miranda rights?
> >>
> >> No. The higher courts have ruled that school officials, teachers, and
> >> counselors do not have to advise you of your Miranda rights before
> >> questioning unless they are doing so at the direction of the police.
> >> http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/school_miranda_rights.htm
> >>
> >> Am I entitled to have my parents present before being questioned by a
> >> school official, teacher, or counselor about a potential violation of
> >> the law?
> >>
> >> Yes. You are entitled to have your parents present before being
> >> questioned.
That is without support. You can refuse to ANSWER, you cannot stop them
questioning.
No statute is provided. It's "free" advice. And worth every penny.
> >> http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/questioning_parents_present.htm
> >>
> >> Can school officials lie to me and tell me nothing will happen to me if
> >> I make a statement and then use my statement against me to suspend or
> >> expel me or have me arrested?
> >> Yes. Just as the police can lawfully lie to you, school officials can
> >> also lie to get you to make incriminating statements.
> >> http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/legal_school_statement.htm
Which kind of blows the rest of the answers out of the water.
Imagine a little abused kid sitting there, refusing to speak or to show
the injuries, blocking the law by refusing to answer.
And showing them the Reverse Miranda card present from their parents.
This is why I asked the question I did, and I want this organization to
also print on that card the child's RIGHTS to answer those questions if
they are abused, and that they will be protected if they do.
Let's see BOTH SIDE PROTECTED HERE. Instead of an abusers grooming tool
created.
If you are NOT guilty of abuse, what harm is there in also instructing
the child to report their own victimization should it take place in the
future?
Kane
Dragon's Girl
>
> Dragon's Girl wrote:
>> "0;->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138667811.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Have you anything to offer for the abused and neglected child who is
>> > terrified of, or doesn't understand their rights regarding, their
>> > parents?
>> >
>> > Or isn't this in fact a little toolkit for parent's rights over
>> > children's rights?
>>
>> Slow down Kane Man....I know what you are saying, but I believe that this
>> is
>> made assuming that the child has NOT been abused or neglected.
>>
>> I don't think even the hard core family rights advocates would like to
>> see a
>> child abused or neglected the the parents protected if they have done so.
>
> This reverse Miranda rights thing wouldn't be used by a child abuser?
Sure it would be, MISUSED. I have no doubt about that what so ever.
>
>> BTW...anyone who is a strict family rights advocate, you are more then
>> welcome to comment on my take on things.
>> You don't want to see parents get away with beating kids, do you? And
>> your
>> reverse Miranda was written to be used by those assumed innocent...right?
>
> I presume, since you know my stand, you are addressing the poster.
The poster...others, no, not you though.
0;->
0;->
their children at heart when they propose various strategies to block
CPS investigations. I offer a solution later in this post.
Consider, parents:
You may be absolutely wonderful to your child. Absolutely no abusive
discipline methods, seeing to the physical and mental health. Engaging
them in their education from early childhood on. Being involved.
Supporting their developmental growth.
Obviously that Reverse Miranda card works wonderfully for you along
with instructions that you say should go with it.
Consider further;
You are not the only parent, most likely. If not a spouse then others
that by YOUR authority have parental control of the child.
How many parents, confident and comfortable in their family integrety
have replied when told their spouse, or a relative, or a family friend,
was sexually abusing their child responded with complete shock and
surprise, 'but I didn't know, could not imagine, it must not be true.?'
Consider YOU could die while your child is still young and others take
over their care.
YOU have just trained your child to block society from protecting that
child by giving them a card that PRESUMES no adult caretakers now or
ever will abuse or neglect that child.
Sadly, even you could fall into substance abuse, or mental illness, or
be otherwise incapacited in your judgement and take to abusing or
neglecting your own child.
Whose rights are being protected by the Reverse Miranda training of the
child?
There needs to be something on the other side of the card.
Does there not?
What do you think it should be?
Could YOU look your child in the eye and tell them how to proceed if it
was even YOU that was abusing?
How important is your child to you?
A possession, or a sovereign human being?
You are in charge of their care and safety. Even from yourself should
you fail.
How protective of you is it to forget that?
Think about the other side of the card.
Kane
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez
>
> Think about the other side of the card.
>
Okay, Kane.....you bring up an issue that had not occured to me.
(Eeek)
I have never considered a Reverse Miranda card as a protection of the
parent's rights, but for the child's protection.
Imagine, for a moment, please: You are 11 years old. You have
previously been detained and subsequently released. While at school, a
CPS agent shows up to question you. You beg to call home, to call your
minister, anyone that you trust to come and help you. You are told
that you must answer all questions before you will be allowed to make
any phone calls. Repeatedly. You are afraid to open your mouth for
fear of saying the wrong thing and being detained again. Imagine how
frightening this must be, whether you have been abused or not.
The above scenario actually happened to a young girl with whom I am
aquainted. Treating a child this way is just plain damn wrong.
I'll admit I have never used a Reverse Miranda card - I printed one for
each of my two children several years ago, but we never really followed
through with it. I am considering making my older son carry one, as he
will be driving on his own soon (more gray hair to cover up) .....At
least once a month, he tells me about being hassled for what he has
called, "standing outside the movie theater while being Puerto Rican."
(Usually just a cop working a special who wants to flex his muscles a
bit.)
I always tried to help my guys understand their right to be free from
abusive treatment from ANYONE......having grown up with me doing family
advocacy they seem to have a good grasp of what is and is not abuse.
What would you suggest be put on "the other side of the card?" I'm
really listening.....
Dorothy
0;->
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez wrote:
> >
> > Think about the other side of the card.
> >
>
> Okay, Kane.....you bring up an issue that had not occured to me.
> (Eeek)
No, that's a fair enough answer without the commentary. I too have
ideas and concepts that are incomplete and it's one of the reasons I
come here. I don't expect everyone to be polite to me as they pick
apart what I present, but I do expect to learn something from time to
time.
I actually do wish to be helpful. I was experiencing some frustration
because I've seen words very like your in the past with NO concern for
the child included.
You response below shows that I misunderstood your intent. My
apologies.
> I have never considered a Reverse Miranda card as a protection of the
> parent's rights, but for the child's protection.
>
> Imagine, for a moment, please: You are 11 years old. You have
> previously been detained and subsequently released. While at school, a
> CPS agent shows up to question you. You beg to call home, to call your
> minister, anyone that you trust to come and help you. You are told
> that you must answer all questions before you will be allowed to make
> any phone calls. Repeatedly. You are afraid to open your mouth for
> fear of saying the wrong thing and being detained again. Imagine how
> frightening this must be, whether you have been abused or not.
>
> The above scenario actually happened to a young girl with whom I am
> aquainted. Treating a child this way is just plain damn wrong.
If the parents are innocent, you are correct. If they are not, you are
not. The child would (adn they do) exhibit the exact same response of
fear. Is the questioner to assume that it means only innocence of the
parent?
> I'll admit I have never used a Reverse Miranda card - I printed one for
> each of my two children several years ago, but we never really followed
> through with it. I am considering making my older son carry one, as he
> will be driving on his own soon (more gray hair to cover up) .....At
> least once a month, he tells me about being hassled for what he has
> called, "standing outside the movie theater while being Puerto Rican."
> (Usually just a cop working a special who wants to flex his muscles a
> bit.)
Yep. I know the syndrom. WWB is even more common. I'm not a victim of
it but people I care about have been, repeatedly.
> I always tried to help my guys understand their right to be free from
> abusive treatment from ANYONE......having grown up with me doing family
> advocacy they seem to have a good grasp of what is and is not abuse.
>
> What would you suggest be put on "the other side of the card?" I'm
> really listening.....
"The other side of the card" is more about training them to deal with
abuse. And how to seek help.
An 'it is your right' list:
It is your right to:
..be free of being hit by anyone, even a caregiver, including your
parent(s)
..be free of being humiliated and called names to the point of
incapacitating you
..have your health taken care of, inluding your mental health needs
..to be free of being touched or dealt with in ways that are sexually
provocative
..have safe adults in your life that you can tell anything to that an
abuser cannot deny you access to
..know who those people are and do not share your list of them with
anyone, because you cannot predict who might harm you by abuse or
neglect, even those you love and trust
....
Possibly others would like to add to this list.
I think it's important to teach the child, when age appropriate, that
even you, their trusted parent could "lose it," and hurt them and they
have the right of self protection against you should that happen.
There are the very things that we as adults know WE have rights to,
even from those we care for you claim they care for us.
Children do not know this automatically, and some of us even grow up
never learning it sufficiently. We read about them most often as
victims of one kind or another, sometimes domestic violence.
Certainly we can be as creative and energetic in our caring for our
children as we are in our attempts to protect our rights.
Thanks for responding. I'll remember to give you more time to answer,
if you wish to, but I think other than more exploration of the
obvious.....moving to a new perspective about a child's rights and what
I believe a loving parent would do to protect those, I've pretty much
had my say.
I appreciate that. Once again any offensive content or manner I might
be perceived as having used about this issue, I apologize for, and make
only the excuse of having seen so many "parents" abuse children and
deny the child their rights while screaming for their own.
> Dorothy
Kane
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez
more to follow....
>
> I actually do wish to be helpful. I was experiencing some frustration
> because I've seen words very like your in the past with NO concern for
> the child included.
I think you might be misunderstanding.....I have never specifically
known NO CONCERN to be expressed - I think most people (myself
included) consider concern for one's children to be so obvious as to
need no specific expression.
>
> You response below shows that I misunderstood your intent. My
> apologies.
>
I think that's part of the problem on this ng - the "opposite sides"
have no idea that they are not completely polar opposites.
> > I have never considered a Reverse Miranda card as a protection of the
> > parent's rights, but for the child's protection.
> >
> > Imagine, for a moment, please: You are 11 years old. You have
<snip>
>
> If the parents are innocent, you are correct. If they are not, you are
> not. The child would (adn they do) exhibit the exact same response of
> fear. Is the questioner to assume that it means only innocence of the
> parent?
Regardless of the parents' innocence, such treatment of a child is
still wrong. Consider this - if the child has been abusd, such
treatment re-victmizes the child.
I will respond to your suggestions for the card point by point
tomorrow......but I'd like to point out that your whole offering will
not fit on a wallet card - just FYI.
Dorothy
fres...@news.izz
"Any continued questioning of this cardholder after presentation does
constitute an affirmative and voluntary waiver of any immunities afforded
to the interrogator by law. And constitutes the interrogator's affirmative
and voluntary consent to be sued for violation of cardholder's civil
rights" CHILDS NAME________________________
PARENTS NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
___________________________________________
HOME______________WORK_______________
ATTORNEY or OTHER CONTACT NUMBER
____________________________________
>
> Dorothy
0;->
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez wrote:
> This repy is just an off the top of my head answer.....there will be
> more to follow....
>
> >
> > I actually do wish to be helpful. I was experiencing some frustration
> > because I've seen words very like your in the past with NO concern for
> > the child included.
>
> I think you might be misunderstanding.....I have never specifically
> known NO CONCERN to be expressed - I think most people (myself
> included) consider concern for one's children to be so obvious as to
> need no specific expression.
No, I do not just assume any such thing. I've known far too many that
consider children a possession.
And no, it is not 'so obvious' at all.
You are projecting your concern (presumably) and presuming that other
parents generally feel and act the same. It simply is not true.
Were DO you think abused children come from?
> >
> > You response below shows that I misunderstood your intent. My
> > apologies.
> >
>
> I think that's part of the problem on this ng - the "opposite sides"
> have no idea that they are not completely polar opposites.
For myself it's been a matter of being portrayed here for a few years
as a "polar opposite," and presumptions that do not stand up under
objective view of ALL I've posted here.
Attacks come in the form of taking my statements out of context and
using a few postings and ignoring the rest. It's unethical, but they do
it nevertheless.
>
> > > I have never considered a Reverse Miranda card as a protection of the
> > > parent's rights, but for the child's protection.
> > >
> > > Imagine, for a moment, please: You are 11 years old. You have
> <snip>
> >
> > If the parents are innocent, you are correct. If they are not, you are
> > not. The child would (adn they do) exhibit the exact same response of
> > fear. Is the questioner to assume that it means only innocence of the
> > parent?
>
> Regardless of the parents' innocence, such treatment of a child is
> still wrong. Consider this - if the child has been abusd, such
> treatment re-victmizes the child.
Mmm...I'll try to keep my patience.
What, exactly should an investigation of a possible child abuse look
like?
How SHOULD the questioner proceed?
Do you not believe me when I tell you that children that are abused,
and children that are not abused, respond nearly the same to
questioning. They are BOTH frightened.
And frightened abused children who do not disclose go home to more
abuse.
> I will respond to your suggestions for the card point by point
> tomorrow......but I'd like to point out that your whole offering will
> not fit on a wallet card - just FYI.
I could should you a crib card that I put an entire chapter from a text
book on in college. We were allowed to bring only one 3X5 card to the
test. There is a little trick for squeezing a great deal of material on
a card.
You fill it up, turn it just a few degrees and fill it again, then a
few more degrees and do it again. Even with the material seeming, at
first glance to completely obliterate, you need only look at the card
with one of the entries absolutely horizontal the the plane of your
eyes, and
'viola' the print appears, and the rest is merely background marks.
Until you turn the card a few degrees again.
In fact you could make a card that someone that didn't know the trick
think it was artwork on a card. Or a new kind of jewelry.
I should have patented it. Every college kid in that school copied my
idea, and expanded on it. Some wrote them in different colors.
Of course the instructors started barring the cards. Wouldn't you know.
It's wonderful to be working to saving innocent children and innocent
families.
But what about innocent children and guilty families?
And families go BAD. I've seen too many nice middle or workin' class
folks lose it it booze, or drugs, and slide off the real world,
dragging their kids with them.
A child in a abusive family has a horrible dichotomy to overcome, or
continue to be abused.
They know that they could lose their family if they disclose.
Do YOU wish to doom them to continued abuse because of their inability
to disclose the abuse?
My question remains: How should an investigation of an alledged abuse
proceed?
Can you think of how to frame questions to a child that is terrified of
losing their family, but possibly abused?
> Dorothy
Best wishes, Kane
fres...@news.izz
> Do YOU wish to doom them to continued abuse because of their inability
> to disclose the abuse?
Or is it YOUR wish 'KANE' to DOOM sad little innocent children to be
continually pulled from their loving families, homes, all that they know
and love, to be put into those debaucherious rapist murdering hands such as
your ilk doth possess?
fres...@news.izz
> Do YOU wish to doom them to continued abuse because of their inability
> to disclose the abuse?
0;->
Who would want that?
Do you wish to leave them "with all they know and love" while a not so
loving family is allowed to rape and murder them?
Be clear about the various populations we are discussing here.
Last I checked I hadn't debauched any children or raped them. I have
helped quite a few recover from exactly that, and worse, at the hands
of their parents.
You have a nice day.
Kane
Doug
> known NO CONCERN to be expressed - I think most people (myself
> included) consider concern for one's children to be so obvious as to
> need no specific expression.
Hi, Dorothy!
The very issue that ties us all together in this newsgroup is a common
concern for children. It is not specifically expressed in most posts, but
it is the underlying thread in every one of them. We disagree somewhat on
policies and field practices, but we all agree that the best interests of
children and their families are paramont.
Claiming that "you disagree with me, therefore you hate children" is a
tactic as absurd as it is ineffective. Child welfare issues are complex, so
social work researchers and family advocates address specific systemic
dysfunctions in suggesting much-needed CPS reform. You have done so by
addressing the tendency of wrongful interventions to institutionally abuse
the very children agencies are mandated to protect.
Interventions, including removal, in families where CPS workers themselves
have determined children are neither at risk of or actually maltreated is
often the result of the interviews you mention. There is a way these
interviews could be conducted with sensitivity to the child's feelings.
Abused children do behave differently and respond differently than
non-abused children, which constitute 2/3 of the children interviewed by
CPS. That some abused children initially deny being maltreated by those
they trust does not mean that ALL children who tell the government they were
not abused are "in denial." The vast majority are telling the truth.
Reform efforts are underway to insure that an objective party known to the
child be present during these interviews. Another possibility is
incorporating present law that requires that parents be present during
police interviews of juvenile subjects of criminal activity.
CWLA and many other child welfare organizations have been stressing for
years that CPS workers need more training in how to interview children. It
requires sensitivity and genuine priority to the best interests of the child
over the driving interests of the agency or a worker's concern about
personal consequences. CPS caseworkers face considerable repercussions if
they fail to remove, very little if they do.
The best interests of the child herself demands that, instead of "erring on
the side of the child" and prematurely formulate conclusions, efforts be
increased not to make mistakes. Any error is this line of work is most
certainly not on the side of the child. Given the irreparable emotional
damage done children by wrongful interventions, is not an area for haphazard
practice. This applies to how interviews should be conducted.
CPS workers would do well to heed what physicans have held to for centuries,
"at first, do no harm."
> I think that's part of the problem on this ng - the "opposite sides"
> have no idea that they are not completely polar opposites.
I think the majority of members know that our differences in opinion are
much narrower than our area of agreement. We have the same objectives --
the improvement of CPS field practice. We differ sometimes on specific
reforms that would accomplish this reform.
Some may consider it a debating ploy to use hyperbole and personal attacks
to polarize what they see as factions of an issue. This "us against them",
"pro cps, "anti-cps" tack avoids the issues rather than address them.
>> > I have never considered a Reverse Miranda card as a protection of the
>> > parent's rights, but for the child's protection.
Precisely. The overall issue of child interviews hinges around the rights
of the child. That the controversy is one of parents rights versus
children's rights is a false comparison. It is a matter of children's
rights versus the power of the state. Children's rights need to be
preserved on this unlevel playing field.
>> > Imagine, for a moment, please: You are 11 years old. You have
> <snip>
>>
>> If the parents are innocent, you are correct. If they are not, you are
>> not. The child would (adn they do) exhibit the exact same response of
>> fear. Is the questioner to assume that it means only innocence of the
>> parent?
>
> Regardless of the parents' innocence, such treatment of a child is
> still wrong. Consider this - if the child has been abusd, such
> treatment re-victmizes the child.
> I will respond to your suggestions for the card point by point
> tomorrow......but I'd like to point out that your whole offering will
> not fit on a wallet card - just FYI.
I was thinking the same thing. But who I am to speak of brevity. <g>
It is nice to have you in the forum. You have a lot to say and you say it
well.
Doug
0:->
>>I think you might be misunderstanding.....I have never specifically
>>known NO CONCERN to be expressed - I think most people (myself
>>included) consider concern for one's children to be so obvious as to
>>need no specific expression.
>
>
> Hi, Dorothy!
>
> The very issue that ties us all together in this newsgroup is a common
> concern for children. It is not specifically expressed in most posts, but
> it is the underlying thread in every one of them. We disagree somewhat on
> policies and field practices, but we all agree that the best interests of
> children and their families are paramont.
>
> Claiming that "you disagree with me, therefore you hate children" is a
> tactic as absurd as it is ineffective.
Who has said that?
I think you are lying again, by innuendo and making up falsities and
putting them in quotes. Exactly who said that?
My disagreement with you isn't about disagreeing with YOU. It's about
disagreeing with the policies you are trying to promote, and the methods
you use to do it.
And the last time I mentioned it I asked you a question. How could you
fail to recognize the problems of meth as they impact children and post
a bucket of rotten slop propaganda that is baseless and without a single
citation of data to support it, if you did NOT hate children?
Just stupid? Is that your excuse? Or just to hate and vengeance filled
to see how stupid you are being?
> Child welfare issues are complex, so
> social work researchers and family advocates address specific systemic
> dysfunctions in suggesting much-needed CPS reform. You have done so by
> addressing the tendency of wrongful interventions to institutionally abuse
> the very children agencies are mandated to protect.
And child abuse allegations can be investigated without "intervention"
how again, Doug?
> Interventions, including removal, in families where CPS workers themselves
> have determined children are neither at risk of or actually maltreated is
> often the result of the interviews you mention.
Back to the same lies. Misleading gobbledegook. You know this is not
true, or you are blind to the facts provided for you in this ng.
> There is a way these
> interviews could be conducted with sensitivity to the child's feelings.
And you have proof otherwise?
> Abused children do behave differently and respond differently than
> non-abused children, which constitute 2/3 of the children interviewed by
> CPS.
They do if they are questioned long enough, and examined. At the
beginning of the investigative interview it would be a miracle to be
able to tell the two apart.
Both are frightened.
Each for some similar reasons, and one for a very different reason.
> That some abused children initially deny being maltreated by those
> they trust does not mean that ALL children who tell the government they were
> not abused are "in denial." The vast majority are telling the truth.
No one claimed "all" nor used the term denial, so why the quotes?
> Reform efforts are underway to insure that an objective party known to the
> child be present during these interviews.
Look at the little propagandist twist words.
How can someone "known" to the child be "objective?" That's impossible.
The usual thinking errors, Doug, that come out in such bullshit
declarations by you.
If the person "known" to the child doesn't know the parents and possibly
be a threat to the abused child themselves...for fear they'll report
back to the parents, that would be a miracle.
> Another possibility is
> incorporating present law that requires that parents be present during
> police interviews of juvenile subjects of criminal activity.
Now there's a good idea. Having parents present is surely going to get
to the truth.
> CWLA and many other child welfare organizations have been stressing for
> years that CPS workers need more training in how to interview children. It
> requires sensitivity and genuine priority to the best interests of the child
> over the driving interests of the agency or a worker's concern about
> personal consequences. CPS caseworkers face considerable repercussions if
> they fail to remove, very little if they do.
Yep. Now you are catching on. But you are making up that "very little if
they do."
> The best interests of the child herself demands that, instead of "erring on
> the side of the child" and prematurely formulate conclusions, efforts be
> increased not to make mistakes.
No investigator can proceed without making some estimates of what might
have happened, else they have NO questions to ask that are pertinent.
> Any error is this line of work is most
> certainly not on the side of the child.
The declaration of the obvious as an argument is the tool of the
propagandist, not the real reformer.
> Given the irreparable
Prove that.
> emotional
> damage done children by wrongful interventions, is not an area for haphazard
> practice.
What is a "wrongful" intervention? To interview only to learn that the
alledged perp was innocent? How would one find that out without
interviewing?
All POLICE WORK WOULD STOP INSTANTLY SHOULD LITTLE POLICY IDEA OF YOURS
BE PUT INTO PLACE.
> This applies to how interviews should be conducted.
>
> CPS workers would do well to heed what physicans have held to for centuries,
> "at first, do no harm."
They do. You are lying. Instances of interviews going bad are
exceedingly rare, and you are using the natural responses to being
questioned, and feeling anxious, THAT WE ALL HAVE UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, as a way to falsely accuse and criticize.
>
>>I think that's part of the problem on this ng - the "opposite sides"
>>have no idea that they are not completely polar opposites.
>
>
> I think the majority of members know that our differences in opinion are
> much narrower than our area of agreement. We have the same objectives --
> the improvement of CPS field practice. We differ sometimes on specific
> reforms that would accomplish this reform.
I guess.
> Some may consider it a debating ploy to use hyperbole and personal attacks
> to polarize what they see as factions of an issue. This "us against them",
> "pro cps, "anti-cps" tack avoids the issues rather than address them.
Given the nature of your posts for years, Doug, that is exactly what you
are about. You have never to my knowledge posted a pro-CPS post.
>
>>>>I have never considered a Reverse Miranda card as a protection of the
>>>>parent's rights, but for the child's protection.
>
>
> Precisely. The overall issue of child interviews hinges around the rights
> of the child.
And who presented that concept to the poster you address? And to this
newsgroup, Doug? It sure as hell wasn't YOU, which to me clearly
reflects your real and carely crafted concealment of your feelings and
concerns about children.
YOu make regular declarations about your concern for children, while
ignoring what I just brought up about this REverse Miranda card.
> That the controversy is one of parents rights versus
> children's rights is a false comparison.
Bullshit.
> It is a matter of children's
> rights versus the power of the state. Children's rights need to be
> preserved on this unlevel playing field.
So tell us, how is the abused child served by the Reverse Miranda card,
Doug?
How are their rights served?
The true unlevel playing field, Doug, is the one abused chidlren face at
the hands of their abusive parents.
Parents have far more real physical power than the state.
>
>>>>Imagine, for a moment, please: You are 11 years old. You have
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>If the parents are innocent, you are correct. If they are not, you are
>>>not. The child would (adn they do) exhibit the exact same response of
>>>fear. Is the questioner to assume that it means only innocence of the
>>>parent?
>>
>>Regardless of the parents' innocence, such treatment of a child is
>>still wrong. Consider this - if the child has been abusd, such
>>treatment re-victmizes the child.
>
>
>>I will respond to your suggestions for the card point by point
>>tomorrow......but I'd like to point out that your whole offering will
>>not fit on a wallet card - just FYI.
>
>
> I was thinking the same thing. But who I am to speak of brevity. <g>
>
> It is nice to have you in the forum. You have a lot to say and you say it
> well.
The same old "stroking." Can't you at least come up with something new?
> Doug
When someone posts with what serves your purposes, Doug, you are all
jolly friendly. When it doesn't you ignore them, and post ONLY to me for
your propaganda purposes.
0:->
--
Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be,
the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very
alien he doth appear? Kane 2006
0;->
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4308446,00.html
fres...@news.izz
> Hey, here's someone whose oldest kid could have used one of these.
>
Kane the punk.
family_rights_wv
children who have NOT been abused or neglected and for parents who have
NOT abused or neglected their children. I am against ALL forms of
child abuse and neglect. If people have actually abused or neglected
their children, they need to acknowledge this and get help. The intent
of providing this information is to help INNOCENT parents protect their
children.
On the back of the reverse miranda, there should be the parents' names,
and emergency contact numbers - numbers that the parents can be reached
at ANY time, at ALL times. If parents have established a
client/attorney relationship with an attorney, the attorney's name and
emergency contact telephone number can also be listed on the back of
the card.
There are about 3 million referrals made to CPS each year and less than
1 million of those referrals are substantiated.
This means that about 2 million referrals are
unfounded/unsubstantiated. However, a large number of those
unfounded/unsubstantiated referrals result in CPS removing children
from their natural families unnecessarily. Children are at greater
risk of being seriously abused, neglected and even killed while in CPS
custody than if they are left in their natural homes.
CPS gets about $5K for each child taken into CPS custody. If a chld
can be classified as "special needs", CPS can get about $150K per child
per year. So there is a perverse financial incentive for taking
children into CPS custody.
The media focuses on these terrible cases of child abuse and/or
neglect, painting all parents with the same brush as horrid. The media
does NOT focus on all the cases of false allegations, the children of
the falsely accused who have unjustly and often illegally been placed
in foster care, how this affects the children, how this devastates
their families. One such case is The Taking of Logan Marr.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fostercare/marr/
Unfortunately, the only reason we heard of this case is because of the
tragic outcome of the case.
Many children in foster care shouldn't have been placed there in the
first place. See "Who is in the system and Why" by Richard Wexler
http://www.nccpr.org Issue Paper No. 5. The government's own data
indicates that only a tiny fraction of children in foster care were
seriously abused or neglected and that an extremely large percentage of
cases which have been "substantiated" are actually cases of false
allegations and cases where poverty had been confused with neglect and
reviews of cases have proven this.
In America, people are "supposed" to be considered innocent until
proven guilty in a court of law.
In America, people are "supposed" to have rights under our
Constitution.
In America, people are "supposed" to have the right NOT to make
self-incriminating statements.
There have been too many cases where the rights of children and their
families have been egregiously violated under the guise of
investigating child abuse or neglect.
People should be Mirandized and informed that whatever they say to a
government agent can be used against them. But this is not a legal
requirement in investigating child abuse or neglect. There have been
far too many complaints that in child abuse and neglect investigations,
people's statements have been twisted, misreported, distorted and used
against them.
Parents and children should NEVER answer any questions by social
workers, school personnel, police or other government agents without
their attorney present. Children (who have NOT been abused or
neglected) should be taught to assert their right to have a parent (or
attorney) present BEFORE answering ANY questions by any government
agent.
Real abusers wouldn't need this information. From reports I've seen,
some real abusers threaten the children to keep them quiet, I've seen
reports where real abusers have threatened the child's life, the lives
of the child's loved ones (parents, siblings, even pets).
Parents should and often do explain to children in age-appropriate
manners the differences between good touches and bad touches and
encourage their children to tell the parent if the children ever are
abused.
However, when children are NOT abused or neglected, parents SHOULD
teach their children their rights and teach them to assert those
rights.
Being "poor" or a member of the "working poor" in America is being
"criminalized" through child abuse and neglect proceedings. Being
"poor" or the "working poor" does NOT automatically mean the parent is
a "bad parent". If a parent receives "public assistance" that does NOT
automatically make them a "bad parent".
It's "politically popular" to view parents on public assistance with
"distain", the push has been to get people OFF public assistance. And
one extremely effective way of doing that is by removing the children
from the parent's custody.
But as Dr. Susan Orr ( Associate Commissioner Children's Bureau, the
lady who issues the Child Maltreatment Reports) points out, it costs 10
times more to taxpayers to care for children in foster care than if the
children had been left with their natural families and those families
received a "welfare check" and one of her primary recommendations for
Child Protection Reform is the NARROWING of definitions of child abuse
and neglect (virtually anything a parent does can be construed as abuse
or neglect because most state codes defining child abuse and neglect
are so BROAD). Dr. Orr's recommendations would elminiate the trivial
allegations of child abuse and neglect so that manpower and resources
could be focused on REAL and severe cases of abuse and neglect.
http://www.reason.org/ps262.html
Most real abusers already know this stuff. It's the INNOCENT parents
of children who are NOT abused or neglected who have to become "street
smart"(i.e., informed and educated about their rights) in order to
protect their children from unnecessary and unwarranted governmental
interference in their children's lives and in their own lives.
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez
0;-> wrote:
>
> I actually do wish to be helpful. I was experiencing some frustration
> because I've seen words very like your in the past with NO concern for
> the child included.
There's a reason we call it "family rights," and not just "parents'
rights" or "childrens' rights." While children are generally helpless
and in need of the protection of adults, the adults deserve some kind
of consideration. For decent people, there is not any conflict of
interest when considering different family members' respective rights -
sacrifices are made as needed, as a matter of course.
When I consider my family's right to be free from outside interference,
the operative concept is that we, AS A FAMILY, have certain rights.
But I digress. Maybe we can debate philosophy and semantics some other
time...... :)
> >
> > The above scenario actually happened to a young girl with whom I am
> > aquainted. Treating a child this way is just plain damn wrong.
>
> If the parents are innocent, you are correct. If they are not, you are
> not. The child would (adn they do) exhibit the exact same response of
> fear. Is the questioner to assume that it means only innocence of the
> parent?
The only thing okay to assume is that browbeating a child is wrong.
The motivations of the abuser, or the abuser's position don't change a
thing. I will address this point more below when I respond to your
proposed "flip side list."
>
> "The other side of the card" is more about training them to deal with
> abuse. And how to seek help.
That's interesting. Like I said before, I've never thought of doing
that. When I work with a family, I am not only advocating for the
parents.....I usually meet the children and make sure that they know I
am there to help them. Sometimes, when a family's child is detained, I
don't get to meet the child right away. Recently, after working with a
family for six months, and helping to secure the children's release, I
finally met the children face to face after months of phone
conversations with the older one. It was a nice ending for me,
considering the number of heartbreaking "I just want my mom" phone
calls I had been through with this child.
>
> An 'it is your right' list:
I'm going to be very brief responding to these. Hopefully my comments
will give you ideas for revisions.
>
> It is your right to:
>
> ..be free of being hit by anyone, even a caregiver, including your
> parent(s)
Opinions on spanking vary and good people can be on opposite sides.
Bottom line - spanking is legal in every state. In Georgia, statute
specifically allows corporal punishment as long as no injury results.
Do you think it's possible to reword this so the statement is legally
accurate and not take it out totally.?
>
> ..be free of being humiliated and called names to the point of
> incapacitating you
This is vague....Not sure younger readers would understand it either.
>
> ..have your health taken care of, inluding your mental health needs
good....spriritual and emotional needs also?
>
> ..to be free of being touched or dealt with in ways that are sexually
> provocative
How about saying "touched in ways that make you uncomfortable?"
Children don't always understand sexual things, but we all have an
understanding of the "ick factor."
>
> ..have safe adults in your life that you can tell anything to that an
> abuser cannot deny you access to
Who would define "abuser?" Remember my young friend in my previous
post? But I do like this provision - as long as it also applied to CPS
agents (strangers) attempting to interview a child.
>
> ..know who those people are and do not share your list of them with
> anyone, because you cannot predict who might harm you by abuse or
> neglect, even those you love and trust
Maybe I am not understanding your point, but doesn't keeping the list
secret defeat the purpose?
> ....
>
> Possibly others would like to add to this list.
>
> I think it's important to teach the child, when age appropriate, that
> even you, their trusted parent could "lose it," and hurt them and they
> have the right of self protection against you should that happen.
Self-protection is great - I've seen great big boys have the stuffing
beaten out of them by little bitty 5 foot mothers. As my 11 year old
said, "That guy's taken too many blows to the head."
But I don't go along with the idea that anyone could become abusive.
Some people are abusve to their children - only an idiot would try to
claim otherwise....But that does not mean that otherwise normal people
suddenly go apeshit and start beating their kids.
>
> There are the very things that we as adults know WE have rights to,
> even from those we care for you claim they care for us.
>
> Children do not know this automatically, and some of us even grow up
> never learning it sufficiently. We read about them most often as
> victims of one kind or another, sometimes domestic violence.
>
> Certainly we can be as creative and energetic in our caring for our
> children as we are in our attempts to protect our rights.
That's the whole point.
>
> Thanks for responding. I'll remember to give you more time to answer,
> if you wish to, but I think other than more exploration of the
> obvious.....moving to a new perspective about a child's rights and what
> I believe a loving parent would do to protect those, I've pretty much
> had my say.
I think your ideas for "the flip side" of the card would make an
excellent booklet to give out. Not necessarily exactly what you wrote,
but with some changes lke I suggested above. Hmmm.
>
> I appreciate that. Once again any offensive content or manner I might
> be perceived as having used about this issue, I apologize for, and make
> only the excuse of having seen so many "parents" abuse children and
> deny the child their rights while screaming for their own.
>
I've seen the same thing. I've also seen a lot of horrors when
families are unjustifiably ripped apart. Nobody has all the
answers....all we can to is try and make it better.
Dorothy
fres...@news.izz
>
> I've seen the same thing. I've also seen a lot of horrors when
> families are unjustifiably ripped apart. Nobody has all the
> answers....all we can to is try and make it better.
Wasting your time in this newsgroup. They are the other side of the
line.
>
> Dorothy
0;->
There is no "line," Steaming Fresh Pile.
Both families and the children in them need to be protected.
I simply keep reminding people of that.
When they focus ONLY on the parents, and ignore they are forgetting the
child, then I remind.
Your very use of the word "line" once again points out the failure of
those that champion ONLY the rights of the parent, and give nothing but
lip service to the protection of the child.
Dorothy is right. And I'll keep reminding her and others that that
isn't good enough. We are not in a diminishing population of abused
children. Nor can the current system begin to address ALL the children
that are being abused and neglected by their parents.
It is morally and socially irresponsible to mention one without the
other. And blaming CPS for what parents do to their own children is
more of the same.
> >
> > Dorothy
fres...@news.izz
> There is no "line," Steaming Fresh Pile.
No Line Huh Name Caller? I'd love to turn you upside down, spit in the
crack of your ass, spin you around on your head and then let you go.
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez
fres...@news.izz wrote:
> No Line Huh Name Caller? I'd love to turn you upside down, spit in the
> crack of your ass, spin you around on your head and then let you go.
My, my.....that was so productive......
Dorothy
0;->
When it comes to human rights? No, no "line."
Feel free to search usenet for my posts.
I am unpopular to a lot of people. <blush>
Racists are especially a target of mine.
Those that lie about CPS are as well. Not those that are ignorant and
work toward learning more though.
I admit I do sometimes fail to adequately suffer the stupid. bobber the
swift comes to mind. 0:->
Just one of my small failings.
My intent is to keep hammering out more equitable social programs. And
in the context of this ng, those that best serve both child and parent.
Not one. Not the other. But both.
You have an interesting way with words.
But then you always have had.
0:->
fres...@news.izz
I take it you think "There is no "line," Steaming Fresh Pile." is?
>
> Dorothy
fres...@news.izz
> When it comes to human rights? No, no "line."
>
> Feel free to search usenet for my posts.
When it comes to human rights you are not on one side of the line, or the
other?
Yes, I read back on posts, you like to call people "smelly cunts" among
other?
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez
fresh_...@news.izz wrote:
>
> I take it you think "There is no "line," Steaming Fresh Pile." is?
>
Actually, nope. Just haven't gotten around to responding to that one
yet.
Dorothy
fres...@news.izz
> Actually, nope. Just haven't gotten around to responding to that one
> yet.
I think you are a sock. Probably Betty. I will let those Yahoo groups know.
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez
WTF???
Dorothy
fres...@news.izz
>
> Dorothy
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez
fres...@news.izz wrote:
> small world ain't it?
What in heck are you talking about?
Dorothy
fres...@news.izz
Yahoo groups know.
>WTF???<
Now you say "What in heck," instead Of What The Fuck? Nice try Betty.
End game.
0;->
Yer brain would likely slip out your anus, but just for the hell of it,
why don't you try getting honest. If you searched on that you know who,
and you know why.
It was a poster championing parents having their church members strip
little children naked, hang them up and beat them with belts and coat
hangers.
She felt the state "CPS interfering" was a violation of the "parental
rights."
You agree with that, do you? (And that was only one of her supporting
of beatings and neglect of children.)
0:->
fres...@news.izz
>
> 0:->
0:->
Of course. Once someone has reached adulthood and succumbed to their
own experience of being betrayed by the parents using intentional pain
on them, some, a few, like her, become immune to reason and critical
thinking.
And a few get over it. Sometimes with a little help. Notice she isn't
posting any more? I suspect much of what I delivered to her stubborn
self delusion had an impact and she has been going through some
changes. Things take time, as they say.
You are one of those like her, aren't you.
Tell you what. Define the upper limit of spanking where no unwanted
side effects would appear. Just where do you cut it off to keep your
child from experiencing betrayal?
Hmmmmmm?
0:->
fres...@news.izz
> Tell you what. Define the upper limit of spanking where no unwanted
> side effects would appear. Just where do you cut it off to keep your
> child from experiencing betrayal?
>
> Hmmmmmm?
0:->
He's not "talking about" anything.
He's unable to debate, or contribute, so he does the only thing left for
him. Put on a sock and harass other's trying to have a conversation on
the very difficult but important subject.
They come in all kinds and styles.
His objective, of course, is to drive you away, or make it impossible
for us to have debate and discussion.
Just one of the brainless twit crowd.
Twit filter'em if he bothers you.
Me, I like to play with them to draw them out until they have a posting
record that makes obvious what I just told you about him. Then their
history is there for all to see.
He'll quote anyone out of context to pretend to whatever, but his own
posting history nails him.
Best, Kane
0:->
> "0;->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>When it comes to human rights? No, no "line."
>>
>>Feel free to search usenet for my posts.
>
>
> When it comes to human rights you are not on one side of the line, or the
> other?
Nope. I consider both sides rights equally important, parent and child.
>
> Yes, I read back on posts, you like to call people "smelly cunts" among
> other?
"Like to?" No, the poster, a vicious child hating twit repeatedly posted
that brutalizing children is the parent's right, or excusable...even
killing them.
Do you agree with that view? Want me to post her msgs from the ng that
prove what I'm saying?
Didn't you bother to read my reponses to this claim before?
Have you even read her posts?
Well, of course you have, because you are one of the old regulars that
ran with his tail between his legs after being caught lying and
defrauding as well as slandering. You know the whole sordid posting
history of fern.
All you can do now is harrass...because you ran out of real argument.
You were repeatedly caught lying.
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez
0:-> wrote:
> He's not "talking about" anything.
I had wondered if he was soneone I had pissed off at some other time.
(There are so many.)
Okay, back to business......I'd like to talk more about the reverse
miranda card......I'd like to have some professionally printed soon,
and I think your idea is a good one......it's mainly a question of
wording and space. (And no, we're not going to use your crib sheet
idea to put a whole novel on the back. <g>)
Dorothy
0;->
Well, is the card for the child, or for the child to show someone else.
I presumed it was for the child.
How large is it and how good are children's eyes, usually?
And was the list really that long?
There's only a few basic principles.
- you have the right to be safe from injury to your body and your mind
even from your own caregivers is things should change
- you have the right to decide who can and cannot touch you
- pick a few people that you think are safe to talk with, some inside
and some outside your family.
- know that policemen, school counselors and administrators are usually
safe to talk to
Edits, ideas, and comments?
Kane
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez
0;-> wrote:
>
> Well, is the card for the child, or for the child to show someone else.
>
>
> I presumed it was for the child.
Both, actually.
>
> There's only a few basic principles.
>
> - you have the right to be safe from injury to your body and your mind
> even from your own caregivers is things should change
>
> - you have the right to decide who can and cannot touch you
>
> - pick a few people that you think are safe to talk with, some inside
> and some outside your family.
>
> - know that policemen, school counselors and administrators are usually
> safe to talk to
>
> Edits, ideas, and comments?
>
Boiled down perfectly. I'm going to kick around a few changes to your
last item though - remember, this is for kids of all ages. Most police
officers, etc. are okay to talk to, but it's the few that aren't that
concern me in CPS investigations with younger kids. Also, with older
kids, we're not just talking protection from CPS agents - even young
teens get accused of crimes.
Maybe this will explain what I mean about kids accused of crimes: A
while back some kids had a wild party with no adult supervision. (I'm
not going to express a judgement either way - I'm just going to state
the facts.) The purpose of this party was a literal orgy of sexual
activity. Rumors were going around school the next week. The parents
of two of the girls, who were 13 and 14, made police reports of
statutory rape against all the boys. So now there are two boys being
charged as adults, and several more charged as juveniles. Then, as
this was "investigated," and it was discovered that all this was
consensual......guess what? Now all the girls have been charged with
fornication.
My point? I'll bet none of those girls were told they could remain
silent.....remember they were considered victims when the investigation
began. See? All over unsupervised, consensual stupidity.
This was all over the news here. I can find links if you want. You
can be sure I sat down with my sons and many of their friends and had a
loooooong talk, beginning with the rule of shut the hell up until your
parents or an attorney comes. No exceptions.
Taking a deep breath and waiting to use my own phone because girls keep
calling......
Dorothy
fres...@news.izz
> - know that policemen, school counselors and administrators are usually
> safe to talk to
>
> Edits, ideas, and comments?
You are a fool and of course your Dorothy sock will agree with you.
The purpose of the card is to prevent warrantless questioning by those
same agents you promote.
0:->
That is what it begain with, in general. Dorothy agreed with me that
there is reason to consider expanding it to help also to diminish the
risks of abuse of the child going unreported.
And no, I don't know Dorothy. Never saw her until she posted here.
If you think she is a sock, feel free.
However, sock or not, this is an important issue.
Or do you think children have no right to be protected from abuse?
Or do you think they have no right to seek protection from abuse and be
informed of what abuse is and how to get help?
Either question or both may be answered if you wish, or you can try
attacking again, and show exactly what you are about: harassment only.
Feel free to harass. I know I do it. But never without an invitation to
respond and explore the issue.
Or was that you were just doing?
0:->
0:->
Well, the "boys" would have to BE adults to be so charged. And the
others? Do they not deserve to be charged?
When I was young the risk of charges of statutory rape was very real and
very inhibiting for us. Why should that change?
> Then, as
> this was "investigated," and it was discovered that all this was
> consensual......guess what? Now all the girls have been charged with
> fornication.
I didn't know such a law still existed. What's the penalty if found guilty?
> My point? I'll bet none of those girls were told they could remain
> silent.....remember they were considered victims when the investigation
> began. See? All over unsupervised, consensual stupidity.
In general I'm sympathetic, but in fact, I expect the law to prevail, or
be changed. We live in the society we live in. It says, no fornicating
for the young...or at least be smart enough not to participate in
gangbangs....a very dangerous activity these days.
> This was all over the news here. I can find links if you want.
I trust your information.
> You
> can be sure I sat down with my sons and many of their friends and had a
> loooooong talk, beginning with the rule of shut the hell up until your
> parents or an attorney comes. No exceptions.
Any chat about promiscuous and dangerous behavior? 0:->
> Taking a deep breath and waiting to use my own phone because girls keep
> calling......
Oh dear.
> Dorothy
>
You need to know, Dorothy, that I don't accept a double standard. The
girls likely were as culpable as the boys. If they "reported" the boys
after the word got out, as having "raped them" then they sure as heck
deserved what happened. Groups of girls these days don't voluntarily go
to "group sex parties" and NOT know what is going to take place. Too
much pornography and access to it I think is the problem. Kids see
things we didn't even know were sexual activities, or if we did it was
not "normalized" by over exposure.
And I'm not sure, as you seem to be, that they were not advised of their
rights. And I've NO aversion, as I said early to YOUR side of the card
that informs them of their rights to remain silent.
Go for it.
I didn't get that your card was going to be confined to teens. Am I wrong?
0:->
I've been unfair to you. IF you really wish to debate this issue, please
say so.
If not, know that in time I'll tire of your nonsense, and simply stop
responding.
You are wrong about the card. And why would I have a "sock" that didn't
reflect, from the beginning, my viewpoint?
DK didn't agree with me at first. She doesn't fully as yet. We are
working to hammer this out.
Do YOU wish to contribute, or simply harass and make trouble and offer
evidence you don't care about children?
I don't promote any "agents" other than the law allows. And is called for.
Dragon's Girl
Not me though.
Yahoo away.
Betty
<fres...@news.izz> wrote in message
news:20060207202602.972$G...@newsreader.com...
Dragon's Girl
Excuse my top posting.
It took me quite some time to dig through the other stuff to get to your
post.
It was so far down on the list that I could not even see my original post
that you replied to in the same window. LOL
Yes, I knew that it was meant for families who were not in crisis.
Like anything else, can be an exceptionally good tool used in the right way,
or an exceptionally bad one used in the wrong way.
I wanted to comment on part of your post about children being in foster care
who should not be.
I agree.
I've known of numerous removals, both of friends or relatives, and friend of
a friend type situations, and the majority seemed to be done without good
cause IMHO.
I would estimate that around 60% of the removals were for silly reasons, and
that is assuming that the parents told the truth about the removal.
Even putting the reason for removal aside, I was always an opponent of
removal without the knowledge of the parent.
That is no longer done in this state, but at one time children were being
taken into state care from schools and daycares without the parents
knowledge...then, expecting their child to return home from school, were
horrified when they did not return on time and they could not find their
child because DFS had not notified them.
The 40% or so who have lost thier children due to actual abuse or neglect
were some of the most horrific cases of abuse that I have ever heard of.
My sister is one prime example...I'm sure the old hat posters here get tired
of hearing about her, but really, she's the poster child for why DFS is
necessary.
I can just imagine what I must have looked like the day I was to take her to
see her child in the Mizeracordia home on the South Side of Chicago back in
2002.
SHE abused alcohol when she was pregnant. SHE was the cause of his
deformity and mental retardation, and when she said 'I just can't stand to
see him like that' I almost flipped out.
I told her that she made his bed for him, and that her feelings didn't
matter anymore, and that it was unfair of her to deny him love and affection
just because SHE NOW had regrets.
Gosh,. I wish I could show you all pictures of what her drinking did to that
little boy. It was horrible.
THAT is what DFS is here for..to do just as they did...yank a kid like him
from a mother like her.
For those who actually are not abusing or neglecting thier kids, I hope the
reverse miranda works.
Betty
"family_rights_wv" <family_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139224938.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Betty, you are absolutely right. The Reverse Miranda is intended for
> children who have NOT been abused or neglected and for parents who have
> NOT abused or neglected their children. I am against ALL forms of
> child abuse and neglect. If people have actually abused or neglected
> their children, they need to acknowledge this and get help. The intent
> of providing this information is to help INNOCENT parents protect their
> children.
>
> On the back of the reverse miranda, there should be the parents' names,
> and emergency contact numbers - numbers that the parents can be reached
> at ANY time, at ALL times. If parents have established a
> client/attorney relationship with an attorney, the attorney's name and
> emergency contact telephone number can also be listed on the back of
> the card.
>
> There are about 3 million referrals made to CPS each year and less than
> 1 million of those referrals are substantiated.
>
> This means that about 2 million referrals are
> unfounded/unsubstantiated. However, a large number of those
> unfounded/unsubstantiated referrals result in CPS removing children
> from their natural families unnecessarily. Children are at greater
> risk of being seriously abused, neglected and even killed while in CPS
> custody than if they are left in their natural homes.
>
> CPS gets about $5K for each child taken into CPS custody. If a chld
> can be classified as "special needs", CPS can get about $150K per child
> per year. So there is a perverse financial incentive for taking
> children into CPS custody.
>
> The media focuses on these terrible cases of child abuse and/or
> neglect, painting all parents with the same brush as horrid. The media
> does NOT focus on all the cases of false allegations, the children of
> the falsely accused who have unjustly and often illegally been placed
> in foster care, how this affects the children, how this devastates
> their families. One such case is The Taking of Logan Marr.
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fostercare/marr/
> Unfortunately, the only reason we heard of this case is because of the
> tragic outcome of the case.
>
> Many children in foster care shouldn't have been placed there in the
> first place. See "Who is in the system and Why" by Richard Wexler
> http://www.nccpr.org Issue Paper No. 5. The government's own data
> indicates that only a tiny fraction of children in foster care were
> seriously abused or neglected and that an extremely large percentage of
> cases which have been "substantiated" are actually cases of false
> allegations and cases where poverty had been confused with neglect and
> reviews of cases have proven this.
>
> In America, people are "supposed" to be considered innocent until
> proven guilty in a court of law.
> In America, people are "supposed" to have rights under our
> Constitution.
> In America, people are "supposed" to have the right NOT to make
> self-incriminating statements.
>
> There have been too many cases where the rights of children and their
> families have been egregiously violated under the guise of
> investigating child abuse or neglect.
>
> People should be Mirandized and informed that whatever they say to a
> government agent can be used against them. But this is not a legal
> requirement in investigating child abuse or neglect. There have been
> far too many complaints that in child abuse and neglect investigations,
> people's statements have been twisted, misreported, distorted and used
> against them.
>
> Parents and children should NEVER answer any questions by social
> workers, school personnel, police or other government agents without
> their attorney present. Children (who have NOT been abused or
> neglected) should be taught to assert their right to have a parent (or
> attorney) present BEFORE answering ANY questions by any government
> agent.
>
> Real abusers wouldn't need this information. From reports I've seen,
> some real abusers threaten the children to keep them quiet, I've seen
> reports where real abusers have threatened the child's life, the lives
> of the child's loved ones (parents, siblings, even pets).
>
> Parents should and often do explain to children in age-appropriate
> manners the differences between good touches and bad touches and
> encourage their children to tell the parent if the children ever are
> abused.
>
> However, when children are NOT abused or neglected, parents SHOULD
> teach their children their rights and teach them to assert those
> rights.
>
> Being "poor" or a member of the "working poor" in America is being
> "criminalized" through child abuse and neglect proceedings. Being
> "poor" or the "working poor" does NOT automatically mean the parent is
> a "bad parent". If a parent receives "public assistance" that does NOT
> automatically make them a "bad parent".
>
> It's "politically popular" to view parents on public assistance with
> "distain", the push has been to get people OFF public assistance. And
> one extremely effective way of doing that is by removing the children
> from the parent's custody.
>
> But as Dr. Susan Orr ( Associate Commissioner Children's Bureau, the
> lady who issues the Child Maltreatment Reports) points out, it costs 10
> times more to taxpayers to care for children in foster care than if the
> children had been left with their natural families and those families
> received a "welfare check" and one of her primary recommendations for
> Child Protection Reform is the NARROWING of definitions of child abuse
> and neglect (virtually anything a parent does can be construed as abuse
> or neglect because most state codes defining child abuse and neglect
> are so BROAD). Dr. Orr's recommendations would elminiate the trivial
> allegations of child abuse and neglect so that manpower and resources
> could be focused on REAL and severe cases of abuse and neglect.
> http://www.reason.org/ps262.html
>
> Most real abusers already know this stuff. It's the INNOCENT parents
> of children who are NOT abused or neglected who have to become "street
> smart"(i.e., informed and educated about their rights) in order to
> protect their children from unnecessary and unwarranted governmental
> interference in their children's lives and in their own lives.
>
> Christi
> http://www.geocities.com/family_rights_wv
>
0;->
Very few people would develop a posting history over two years old to
knit a sock, boy.
Do you really consider me that clever? Gee thanks. And some call me
"stupid." R R R R
Dorothy has posted to Usenet since 2002. Thought I recognized the
name.
She's used a different address in the distant past. And made clear her
opposition to CPS and even engaged in considering how to entrap CPS
workers.
Your feeble attempts at harassment are more than a joke. They are
pitiful.
Though Dorothy are I might be on different tracks we certainly have the
same goal. Protection of family. That includes both child and parents.
Just pisses you off that we could actually work together toward that
end. Doesn't it? 0:->
Kane