Should I not advise people to try and get their children back?
Dan Sullivan
Judge determines that the unsafe condition, which caused the child to be
removed, no longer exists, I will advise the parents to resolve the
situation that caused them to lose their child and to complete the
reunification plan in the best way possible.
WitchWirsen
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:B_d1e.2136$rU3....@fe12.lga...
Dan,
You probably know that this is a very close subject for me, given my sister
and my daughter and their issues.
I wish that I could say that foster care is best for a child, but I just
don't know as I can.
With the ten kids between them I have seen exactly TWO of those children
benefit by placements outside the family.
The rest, not fairing so well.
One with an abusive father, whom I saw with my own two eyes pick the child
up by his hair when he was three years old, one with a father who is a
sexual predator, one with an adoptive mother that decided she no longer
wanted her after she got pregnant with her own biological child, one
deceased (SIDS, Greg & Bob, it's real and he died of it), one adopted by a
single mother who thinks it's perfectly ok to tie her to a chair to control
her, and just to be fair, there is a set of twins, almost 20 now, who we
have no idea how or where they are, but they have chosen not to contact our
family and were adopted by a well respected couple.
One was born almost two years ago, and her fathers sister was allowed to
take that child, though her father is mentally handicapped, I believe that
he is with her and giving her, along with his sister, the best care
possible. There is no contact with my family though.
One like my sister, I would never encourage anything but TPR in her case.
After she had three kids taken from her and she didn't change, I kinda would
have suspected that she never would, and I feel that the TRP with the other
5 was warranted.
I think about someone who just made a dumb mistake, though.
Someone who wasn't thinking and put a child in a tub of hot water without
testing it, dumb mistake, not necessarily child abuse or neglect.
Maybe someone who thoughtlessly closed the car door before going around to
the other side and accidentally locked themselves out away from their child.
Someone who didn't realize that their child had something more serious than
a cold wrong with them and they became very ill.
Hell, that even happened to me with my first child.
I was only 17 when I had him, and for the first six months, thinking I was
being a good mommy, I breast fed him. I complained to the doctor at every
visit that he had very watery stools. (Compalined to WIC as well at his
checkups there) But since he saw no evidence of that, and didn't see any
thing wrong with my son, he just passed right over my complaints.
Then, one night my son got sick. He got a temperature, and I took him to
the ER. The gave me Donnagel and Pedialite for loose stools and made an
appt for the Dr the next day.
When I saw the Dr he told me that my son was allergic to milk, and needed to
be on soy based formula, and that if I ever 'neglected' him like that again
he would call social services on me.
I was floored. I didn't know I had done anything wrong, and I suspect now
that he was covering his own ass, after all, it was neglect on HIS part, I'm
not a doctor and didn't know that anything was wrong, but did make
complaints about things that I didn't think were exactly right and he just
shined me on.
And I was not a neglectful or abusive parent, by any means. As a matter of
fact, I feel that I made great sacrifices for that child throughout his
youth. When he was a baby I walked, carrying him because I didn't have a
stroller, three miles to the hospital to take him, a mile to WIC
appointments and DR appointments, and two miles to the clinic to get him
shots.
I could not afford diapers and didn't have a washing machine, so I used
cloth and washed them in a bathtub.
I couldn't afford clothing for him, so I made most of what he wore.
And there wasn't anything I wouldn't do for the benefit of that kid. Still,
to this day, I am supporting his pregnant wife, and preparing for the birth
of his child and financially supporting that just so my son can attend Job
Corps in another state and make something of himself. I've been supporting
him and his wife for six months now. And now that he is grown up and
matured a little he doesn't hesitate to thank me every chance he gets for
being a good mother.
So, would I deserve to have my child taken from me for that? I don't think
so. I think that if DFS did become involved it would have been beneficial
to have me take parenting classes, those geared toward healthy child
development, but TPR? No way, that would be extreme.
As I said before, I just can't imagine you coming to the aid of someone who
had raped their child, who had set their child on fire, who had done
something so extreme that it couldn't be called anything other than abuse.
I wouldn't worry too much about what miss butter says. It's now obvious
that she's just here to stir up trouble, and one thing that is more
important than anything else, Dan, that I have learned in my lifetime is
this: If you believe in what you are doing, and you think it's the right
thing to do, then do it. No one pays for your mistakes, especially well
intentioned ones, more than you do.
My friend was recently served with divorce papers. She had to take
everything she owned and put it out on the front lawn last saturday and
auction it. I went out to her house, and I got a bidders number, and then
went and found her in the yard. I handed her the number and said 'here Kat,
take this number and bid on anything of yours that you do not really want to
get rid of that $250 will pay for, and here is a check to pay for it'. She
said 'Betty, I don't want you to do this'. I said 'Kat, how long have you
known me?' She said 'a long time', for it's been so long that she can't
remember I guess LOL, and I said 'Well then, I guess you should know me well
enough by now to know that I don't give a shit what anyone else wants me to
do if *I* think what I'm doing is the RIGHT thing to do, now haven't ya?'
She agreed that it's pretty hard to stop me from doing what I think is
right, especially if I have my heart set that it's the right thing.
I've took alot of flack for that in my lifetime.
And I'm proud of every little thing I have done that benefitted another
person because I believe that that is what life is for, you are not defined
by how you talk, how you walk, or where you live or what you own, and not
remembered for that once your days on this earth are done, it's what you do
for others, where your heart is when you do it, and your intentions. that
is what people remember you for, love you for, and that is the example you
want to set before others for them to follow.
Do what you do and don't let anyone tell you different!
And be glad in your heart about it!
:)
>
>
Greegor
The problem is with Dan asserting that his way,
is the only way, for everybody, in all situations.
Never mind that his way is to SURRENDER
which serves the AGENCIES and their funding
very well.
When confronted about this, Dan says that he
is not advising people to cooperate with services
that are without basis, which in many cases
is MOST of the services, and they have been
extremely resistant to correct baseless services
and proven false information in the records.
The agencies "steam roller" families and if Dan
is really so experienced he should KNOW that.
Perhaps the caseworkers where he is are used
to admitting to major screwups, but in many
places, caseworkers refuse to in any way
acknowledge screwups, as if the agency itself
is "on the run" or "lawyered up to protect itself".
Dan Sullivan
"WitchWirsen" <johnc...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Oai1e.104985$r55.21892@attbi_s52...
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:B_d1e.2136$rU3....@fe12.lga...
> > As long as the law allows a child to be returned to their parents when a
> > Judge determines that the unsafe condition, which caused the child to be
> > removed, no longer exists, I will advise the parents to resolve the
> > situation that caused them to lose their child and to complete the
> > reunification plan in the best way possible.
>
> Dan,
<<<snip>>>
> As I said before, I just can't imagine you coming to the aid of someone
who
> had raped their child, who had set their child on fire, who had done
> something so extreme that it couldn't be called anything other than abuse.
Certainly I wouldn't even attempt to help someone who was convicted of
criminal offenses such as those.
> I wouldn't worry too much about what miss butter says. It's now obvious
> that she's just here to stir up trouble, and one thing that is more
> important than anything else,
That's Dennis BTW.
A jerk from the past with nothing better to do.
> And I'm proud of every little thing I have done that benefitted another
> person because I believe that that is what life is for, you are not
defined
> by how you talk, how you walk, or where you live or what you own, and not
> remembered for that once your days on this earth are done, it's what you
do
> for others, where your heart is when you do it, and your intentions. that
> is what people remember you for, love you for, and that is the example you
> want to set before others for them to follow.
>
> Do what you do and don't let anyone tell you different!
>
> And be glad in your heart about it!
Thanks, Dan
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111871986....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> The problem is not with Dan doing his thing.
> The problem is with Dan asserting that his way,
> is the only way, for everybody, in all situations.
You know I've never said that, Greg.
Each case is different.
I will say this about CPS, if you operate on the premise that they are gonna
lie in the case record and in Court, and you prepare, execute, and document
your case properly, the Judge is gonna catch CPS in their lies, which
destroys their credibility... and the family wins!!!
It also helps that CPS makes their determinations without any credible
evidence.
Do you think there's another way to win, Greg?
Is that why you think I claim that I have the only way to beat CPS?
Because it all boils down to what's credible in the eyes of the Judge.
Pick a sport, Greg.
Baseball, basketball, football.
The team that wins is the team that plays the game better and who scores the
most points.
The Judge keeps score.
> Never mind that his way is to SURRENDER
> which serves the AGENCIES and their funding
> very well.
Never said "SURRENDER" either, and you know that, too, Greg.
And as far as what I do that "serves the AGENCIES and their funding very
well," two cases that I worked on (which were posted on this NG) where the
families prevailed over CPS also resulted in the Judge ordering that CPS no
longer be in the families lives... IOW the funding STOPPED!!!
And in not one of the "findings" made by NY CPS regarding my cases was their
ever continuing involvement with CPS.
They founded me and closed the case record.
> When confronted about this, Dan says that he
> is not advising people to cooperate with services
> that are without basis,
And your problem is what, Greg?
> which in many cases
> is MOST of the services,
Could you be more vague, Greg?
> and they have been
> extremely resistant to correct baseless services
> and proven false information in the records.
That's your girlfriend's case, Greg.
The both of you can go shit in each other's hat, for all I care.
> The agencies "steam roller" families and if Dan
> is really so experienced he should KNOW that.
I have been successful in "steamrolling" CPS since 1993.
Not a single loss for me.
Not a single win for CPS.
> Perhaps the caseworkers where he is are used
> to admitting to major screwups, but in many
> places, caseworkers refuse to in any way
> acknowledge screwups, as if the agency itself
> is "on the run" or "lawyered up to protect itself".
I have wins in California, Oregon, Arizona, New York, Pennsylvania, and a
few other states.
As varied a mixture of case workers as you could find.
Either you just don't want to prevail over CPS, Greg, or you just lack the
brains.
Which is it?
kane_...@yahoo.com
> The problem is not with Dan doing his thing.
> The problem is with Dan asserting that his way,
> is the only way, for everybody, in all situations.
Well, let's consider two things here. Item number one, you are lying
through your keyboard, little boy. What you mean is that Dan discards
the methods that loosers such as you use and tout here.
What "way" can you offer, that are not Dan's way(s) (he has more than
one, within a solid framework of reality concerning CPS practices and
the courts, trust me) that you have seen work?
Please. Show us. All I've seen here is the babblings of losers made to
appear acceptable because they are so oft repeated, but NO cases with
outcomes of wins offered by methods OTHER than what Dan offers.
So, on to Item Two: You are a schmuck that has betrayed a woman you
call your Significant Other. Significant for what? Being a sucker that
supported you all those years and chosing you over her own child...?
And you LET HER?
So much for "significant."
> Never mind that his way is to SURRENDER
> which serves the AGENCIES and their funding
> very well.
Well, again we have two items to consider. One: Dan has never suggested
"SURRENDER." Two: I'd find it extraordinary if the state, in every case
Dan has worked with, was still getting federal funding for a case where
the children have been returned to the parents....which is every case
Dan has worked on. all WINS! greegor.
So can you explain how they are going to get funding? And do you know
there is a means test for IV-E eligibility...if the family has more
than $X income the state cannot get title IV-E for that child?
> When confronted about this, Dan says that he
> is not advising people to cooperate with services
> that are without basis,
Goodness me. You CAN read and comprehend. How is it you fail to expand
that skill of yours to other issues?
> which in many cases
> is MOST of the services,
Oft peddled BS in this ng. Do you suppose that all or even the majority
of folks involved with CPS do not need drug rehab, for instance? You'd
be wrong.
How about parenting skills help? Most folks do not know as much as can
be offered in classes, greegor. Most of us haven't the time to access
the entire body of knowledge in that area. There's alway something new
to discover, and always something new being discovered that a parent
profits from knowing about child rearing.
> and they have been
> extremely resistant to correct baseless services
> and proven false information in the records.
Which cases are you referring to? Are there some you've seen in this ng
you'd like to refer us back to?
> The agencies "steam roller" families and if Dan
> is really so experienced he should KNOW that.
And you have proof he doesn't already know that, how again?
He's made it very plain what the behavior of CPS is toward families and
I can't recall, except in your case, his defending the actions of CPS,
in general. My bet is he knows far more than you do about malpractice
of CPS....up close and personal. All YOU do is babble about "your" case
(which isn't) and propaganda you pick up here and there.
> Perhaps the caseworkers where he is are used
> to admitting to major screwups,
Deary me. Do you really believe that? I wonder why they had to be told
by the judge they were wrong, if they already had admitted it. AS I
recally most of Dan's cases end where they should, in the court, with
his families whuppin' butt on the worker and CPS.
Do you know differently? Has he done some cases in Iowa close to you?
> but in many
> places, caseworkers refuse to in any way
> acknowledge screwups, as if the agency itself
> is "on the run" or "lawyered up to protect itself".
Last I heard that is true. What precisely makes you think Dan's local
CPS offices, or for that matter, any anywere in the country, do not do
that?
I know he's sure had a lot of cases from a lot of places. Just dumb
luck?
R R R R R R R....
You're a card, greegor. Really you are.
Kane
Just Mel
work now.
<kane_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111880855.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dan Sullivan
"Just Mel" <debrag...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ZNC1e.15733$Fy.11552@okepread04...
Thanks for the support.
Believe me, I can't think of many things better than getting children back
to their family from foster care.
Regards, Dan
Mountain_Bill
CHOICE. You got any other enlightening news for the huddled masses. O'
Messiah?
Heh heh heh,
Billy M.
Robyn Griffin
VERY CHILDREN THEY ARE SUPOSED TO BE PROTECTNG... EXPLAIN THIS.. THERE
ARE CHILDREN ABUSED BY DRUG ADDICT PARENTS, AND YET THE COURTS GIVE
THESE CHILDREN BACK TO VERY SAME PARENTS THAT ARE ABUSIVE.. AND THE
GULITY GO UN-PUNISHED, AND THE INNOCENT ARE PUNISHED FOR JUST BEING A
PARENT... THE CHILD ROTECTIVE SERVICES EXPOSE THESE INNOCENT CHILDREN TO
SEXUAL,MENTAL ,PHYSICAL ABUSE, AND EVEN DEATH.. IN THEIR SO CALLED "SAFE
FOSTER HOMES' ~ THEN YOU KEEP IN MIND, MY 9 YEAR OLD SON GETTING THE
CRAP BEAT OUT OF HIM JUST ASKING TO SEE HIS MOTHER THAT LOVES HIM..
!!!!! IS THAT JUSTICE? !!! THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES SHOULD BE PUT
OUT OF BUSINESS... THEY ARE THE MONSTERS... THEY KIDNAPP INNOCENT
CHILDREN FROM THEIR LOVING HOMES, AND SENTENCED TO DEATH BY THE CHILD
PROTECTIVE SERVICES... ~ YEAH.. REAL HIGH OPION YOU HAVE OF THE CHILD
PROTECTIVE SERVICES..
Dan Sullivan
"Mountain_Bill" <mounta...@where.you> wrote in message
news:1112063269.b5896bcefec74ac357a0799ba8970e59@teranews...
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:B_d1e.2136$rU3....@fe12.lga...
> > As long as the law allows a child to be returned to their parents when a
> > Judge determines that the unsafe condition, which caused the child to be
> > removed, no longer exists, I will advise the parents to resolve the
> > situation that caused them to lose their child and to complete the
> > reunification plan in the best way possible.
> >
> >
> Well you fum ducker, if they admit their guilt they don't have ANY OTHER
> CHOICE.
Any other choice than what?
Dan Sullivan
"Robyn Griffin" <faerypr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26132-424...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
CPS sucks.
What else is new?
I have volunteered many times to be the Emperor of CPS in the US, so there
wouldn't be any more mistakes... but no one has taken me up on it.
bobb
While I can't disagree, Dan, my argument is that all too often children need
not be removed in the first place.
There are assumptions that in every instance both parents are equally at
fault, and that every child in a family is being mistreated in one fashion
or another, so all children need to be removed from their home. Both
assumtions are wrong.
As has been often written, the offending parent should be removed.. not the
child.
I would like to reword your statement to read as follows... when the law
allows the offending parent to return home, and the judge determines that
the unsafe condition which caused the parent to be removed no longer
exists.... I would follow up and seek assurances from the
child(ren) that the reunification plan is being completed.
The current understanding is to reunify the children with the family and
not to reunify the offending parent with the children. It is rcognized that
it is the children who suffer the trauma of separation and need
reunification resources less so than the parents. The offending parent
would need to make behavioral changes.. and any reunification that followed
should depend on the children's acceptance...not the other way around.
Given less thought is the fact that it just might be one parent or the
other does not like, love, or even care for their child(ren) yet the other
parent is being deprived by separation. In those cases it would be much
simpler to merely let him/her walk away from a bad situation instead of
forcing a compliance... and if he/she truely wish to return the onus is then
properly placed where is belongs without disrupting the lives of the
children.
bobb
bobb
I can't think of a better thing than not to have them removed in the first
place... except to have the offending parent return after being removed.
bobb
>
>
Dan Sullivan
"bobb" <bob@somewhere> wrote in message
news:jbydnQCkbp8...@comcast.com...
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:KsD1e.3212$NJ3....@fe11.lga...
> >
> > "Just Mel" <debrag...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:ZNC1e.15733$Fy.11552@okepread04...
> >>
> >> But it works.MY kids are here to show it.it worked 3 years ago and
it'll
> >> work now.
> >
> > Thanks for the support.
> >
> > Believe me, I can't think of many things better than getting children
back
> > to their family from foster care.
> >
> > Regards, Dan
>
> I can't think of a better thing than not to have them removed in the first
> place...
Unfortunately, I only hear about the removal after it happens.
Some children get removed for reasonable cause, others (too many) not.
> except to have the offending parent return after being removed.
If the offending parent permanently resolved the problem that caused the
removal... ?
Dan Sullivan
"bobb" <bob@somewhere> wrote in message
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:B_d1e.2136$rU3....@fe12.lga...
> > As long as the law allows a child to be returned to their parents when a
> > Judge determines that the unsafe condition, which caused the child to be
> > removed, no longer exists, I will advise the parents to resolve the
> > situation that caused them to lose their child and to complete the
> > reunification plan in the best way possible.
>
> While I can't disagree, Dan, my argument is that all too often children
need
> not be removed in the first place.
My statement obviously reflects what can happen after a removal takes place.
The fact that children are removed without just cause goes without saying.
Demonstrating that reunification should take place because the unsafe
condition no longer exists works for the mistreating parent as well as the
parent that was falsely accused.
> There are assumptions that in every instance both parents are equally at
> fault, and that every child in a family is being mistreated in one fashion
> or another, so all children need to be removed from their home. Both
> assumtions are wrong.
> As has been often written, the offending parent should be removed.. not
the
> child.
OK.
I know that used to be done in some cases.
Such as CPS telling the mother to have her live-in boyfriend move out.
> I would like to reword your statement to read as follows... when the law
> allows the offending parent to return home, and the judge determines that
> the unsafe condition which caused the parent to be removed no longer
> exists.... I would follow up and seek assurances from the
> child(ren) that the reunification plan is being completed.
If the children are returned to their parents the reunification plan is
complete.
If the problems that caused the removal continue after reunification that
would be a violation of the safety agreement.
> The current understanding is to reunify the children with the family and
> not to reunify the offending parent with the children. It is rcognized
that
> it is the children who suffer the trauma of separation and need
> reunification resources less so than the parents.
I don't know about that.
> The offending parent
> would need to make behavioral changes.. and any reunification that
followed
> should depend on the children's acceptance...not the other way around.
Any reunification would take place after the Judge was sure that the safety
and health of the child was no longer in doubt.
That would be after the offending parent successfully completed all the
requirements in the reunification plan.
Certainly if a child or children were abused by a parent reunification would
be extremely difficult.
My advice for an offending parent would be to apologize profusely to the
child from the moment they were reunited till the child didn't want to hear
it anymore.
> Given less thought is the fact that it just might be one parent or the
> other does not like, love, or even care for their child(ren) yet the other
> parent is being deprived by separation.
True.
> In those cases it would be much
> simpler to merely let him/her walk away from a bad situation instead of
> forcing a compliance... and if he/she truely wish to return the onus is
then
> properly placed where is belongs without disrupting the lives of the
> children.
I'd like to see the offending parent, step-parent or live-in boyfriend move
out too.
Save the foster home for when there is no other choice.
Dan
Greegor
In regard to your "one and only solution" you
were chastized for that by Rick W as well.
Your OWN comments are in the newsgroup
about your "one and only" solution.
You taunted me to do a RIGGED psych eval,
and every other service plan item that
is baseless. You really want parents to
BEND OVER for the agencies, with no
regard for whether or not the service plan
is baseless.
You have MOCKED all efforts to get the
crappy IMPOSED services plan that was
absolutely LOADED with garbage baseless
services, repaired.
You seem to have endless good faith in
caseworkers, which for any person who
is being CHEATED, ABUSED or DEFRAUDED
by their caseworker is a presumption that
is destructive.
Why?
Your own posted comments indicate that
you had a caseworker who was pretty crappy,
making up garbage. Just because YOUR
a-hole caseworker backed down when shown
to be full of it, do not assume that other
a-hole caseworkers will back down the same way!
I've watched them LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH
and when their lies were exposed, they had
NO SHAME, took NO EFFORTS to correct
their own proven falsehood.
Strong Arm or Mafia like tactics.
War of attrition.
Better lawyers.
Symbiotic with various parts of the system!
Even symbiotic with the JUDGES!
They are IDIOTS with power, and AFRAID
to admit that they absolutely ARE idiots!
Dan Sullivan
> Dan:
> In regard to your "one and only solution" you
> were chastized for that by Rick W as well.
Citations, please.
> Your OWN comments are in the newsgroup
> about your "one and only" solution.
Citations, please.
> You taunted me to do a RIGGED psych eval,
I told you to show the evidence that you CLAIMED to have to the psych
evaluator to demonstrate that CPS was lying about you.
You chose to ignore my advice.
> and every other service plan item that
> is baseless.
Which other service plans were they?
> You really want parents to
> BEND OVER for the agencies, with no
> regard for whether or not the service plan
> is baseless.
As I've said over and over, a parent should only cooperate with
necessary and appropriate services.
> You have MOCKED all efforts to get the
> crappy IMPOSED services plan that was
> absolutely LOADED with garbage baseless
> services, repaired.
If you don't care that your girlfriend has been without her daughter
for MORE THAN FOUR YEARS, why should I?
> You seem to have endless good faith in
> caseworkers, which for any person who
> is being CHEATED, ABUSED or DEFRAUDED
> by their caseworker is a presumption that
> is destructive.
That's completely untrue.
I have no faith in caseworkers or anyone who works for CPS.
The fact that I personally have a 100% success rate against CPS, and
the fact that CWs have resigned from governmemnt service or have
transferred out of CPS demonstrates the effect I've had on them.
> Why?
Because it does.
> Your own posted comments indicate that
> you had a caseworker who was pretty crappy,
> making up garbage.
All my caseworkers were pretty crappy. And they all (supervisors and
assistant administrators included) falsefied evidence.
> Just because YOUR
> a-hole caseworker backed down when shown
> to be full of it, do not assume that other
> a-hole caseworkers will back down the same way!
How do you explain all my wins on the NG?
Oregon, Arizona, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, California... etc.
More than 20 kids returned to their parents from foster care.
You can't get ONE returned when CPS supposedly removed her due to
"clutter."
What does that say about you, Greg?
> I've watched them LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH
> and when their lies were exposed, they had
> NO SHAME, took NO EFFORTS to correct
> their own proven falsehood.
Cause you didn't know how to make the CWs take responsibility for what
they've done.
None of them would be working for CPS if this was one of my cases.
> Strong Arm or Mafia like tactics.
> War of attrition.
> Better lawyers.
> Symbiotic with various parts of the system!
> Even symbiotic with the JUDGES!
> They are IDIOTS with power, and AFRAID
> to admit that they absolutely ARE idiots!
They don't have to admit that they're idiots, someone just has to bring
their lack of credibility to the Judge.
You're an idiot for failing to make the point.
What else is new, Greg?
Just Mel
Dan Sullivan
Best, Dan
bobb
Actually this may not be true. There are many instances where families are
rejoined but I wouldn't say there is reunification. Somewhere within
reunification exists the ability to overcome previous difficulties and
problems which are left unproven or unresolved and may resurface once all
concerned are rejoined.
You read my mind. Step-parents and boyfriend are frequent offenders.
>
> Save the foster home for when there is no other choice.
Exactly. Great thoughts, Dan.
bobb
>
> Dan
>
>
Dan Sullivan
"bobb" <bob@somewhere> wrote in message
It is true.
> There are many instances where families are
> rejoined but I wouldn't say there is reunification. Somewhere within
> reunification exists the ability to overcome previous difficulties and
> problems which are left unproven or unresolved and may resurface once all
> concerned are rejoined.
Any known or suspected problem has to be resolved prior to reunification.
No Judge is gonna order reunification if "previous difficulties and problems
are left unproven or unresolved..."
You're arguing semantics.
Reunification is a physical event.
You're discussing emotional reunification (no Judge can order that), which
obviously can't take place the moment the children and parents are reunited.
A Judge orders physical reunification after the successful completion of the
reunification plan.
Best, Dan
kane_...@yahoo.com
How is this possible?
> Somewhere within
> reunification exists the ability to overcome previous difficulties
and
> problems which are left unproven or unresolved and may resurface once
all
> concerned are rejoined.
You have put your finger on exactly the problem that initiated the
intervention of CPS and the court. Now the question is, where can the
state intervene more effectively.
Let me warn you that if you suggest, as some have here, earlier
intervention you are treading on two principles.......intervening
before there is "serious" enough issues (a common argument here of the
anti CPS crowd), and the issue of civil rights.
What it boils down to is that the parent has the right to turn away
agents of the state, or anyone for that matter, from their door until
there is sufficient cause to trigger the legal processes in place in
statute.
I've challenged you repeatedly to come up with YOUR fix, and you have
refused to enter into any debate based on this premise....that your
claim society is wrong in how it currently proceeds.
bobber the swift, someone's ox will always be gored.
Now show us how to reduce the goring.
What is your cure for the problem you just presented....apparently?
If the family has problems that have NOT been corrected by the
intevention of the state in the way under consideration, foster
placement, service or safety plan, then what WOULD WORK BETTER, you
ignorant useless twit?
ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION YOU HAVE CREATED BY CLAIMING THE STATE IS
WRONG.
And it is impossible, sans violating the civil rights of the parent's
to associate with whom they please, and that of the live-in to a
domicile they may be renting, but certainly have premission of the
parent to be in.
You argue the impossible, bobber.
That the state shouldn't intervene but it should protect the child. Or
can we assume you don't care about the latter?
So, who should those frequent offenders be dealt with and no civil
rights violated at the same time?
Is it not just as happened to Greg Hanson, that the state becomes
notified of possible abuses and steps in to investigate, and offers a
safety plan or service plan?
Notice he was not kicked out...but it's pretty obvious his leaving,
voluntarily or otherwise (by his SO kickin' his sorry ass OUT) would
have resolved the mother's problem with the state? After all, Greg has
made it plain in The Motion, that it's all about his clutter and his
being there, or he wouldn't figure so prominately in The Motion.
> >
> > Save the foster home for when there is no other choice.
>
>
> Exactly. Great thoughts, Dan.
Gee, I'm heartbroken. I've offered just such kinds of solutions and you
haven't even noticed. Boo hoo.
> bobb
> > Dan
So now that you agree with Dan, can we assume you have started "to see
the light."
After all, you know that I agree with Dan on every single thing he said
in this post to you. And if you agree with him, then you agree with me.
By the way, there IS no other choice until a case is determined to be
founded or not. Unless of course you think, as you have never answered,
nor have your buddies, that it's okay to leave the other children in
the home when one of them has been abused, and okay to allow for
witness tampering and evidence contamination.
After all, doesn't the child, just like an adult crime victim, have the
right to associate with their abuser or attacker?
Kane
bobb
Not really. I was anwering your assertation that "...(when) the children
are
returned to their parents the reunification plan is complete."
It would be my contention that even when the family is rejoined that does
not mean any reunification takes place. I can see how there might be
a matter of questionable semantics involved here but that question lies
with
CPS and their choice of words. I disagree with their terminogly... and the
finality it brings. Reunification is the beginning of a process that occurs
once the family has been rejoined. A process that entails acceptance,
trust, etc. deomonstrated by deeds and not mere words.
bobb
kane_...@yahoo.com
Are you saying that when Dan says reunification he's talking about the
psychological realities, or might he be talking about the legal
process.
You do connect, at some point, with the subject of this thread, right?
I do believe he was discussing, and I was interested in, how he goes
about helping families reunify. All that means is physically returning
to their parents.
Now if you wish to discuss all or any of the psychological
ramifications, and damn or insinuate CPS blame for any problems, why
not start a new thread that equates with that, instead of dishonestly
twisting Dan's meaning...which I suspect you knew perfectly well?
Now about getting your ethics up a bit, bobber? It would do wonders for
your ego.
Kane
Dan Sullivan
"bobb" <bob@somewhere> wrote in message
<<<snip>>>
> > You're arguing semantics.
>
> Not really. I was anwering your assertation that "...(when) the children
> are
> returned to their parents the reunification plan is complete."
>
> It would be my contention that even when the family is rejoined that does
> not mean any reunification takes place. I can see how there might be
> a matter of questionable semantics involved here but that question lies
> with
> CPS and their choice of words. I disagree with their terminogly... and
the
> finality it brings. Reunification is the beginning of a process that
occurs
> once the family has been rejoined. A process that entails acceptance,
> trust, etc. deomonstrated by deeds and not mere words.
Like I said, you're arguing semantics.
When the parent and child are physically reunited reunification is complete.
BUCK...@msn.com
didnt prevail?
And how many here havent tried his way, and are still fighting or
ultimately already lost their fight to get their kids back?
Just curious on results of this little poll.
P.S
Hi everyone,it's me the long lost Jen
glad to see nothings changed much around here.
Good to pick up where I last left off.
As always
Jen
Dan Sullivan
<BUCK...@MSN.COM> wrote in message
news:1112339062.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hello Jen,
It's great to hear from you.
Thanks for the support.
Best as always, Dan
Greegor
complete and utter SUCKUP for whatever Dan says?
Bobb, Get with it!
Dan Sullivan
>
> Bobb is supposed to KNOW that you are a
> complete and utter SUCKUP for whatever Dan says?
Greegor,
Kane and I disagree on a number of issues.
So calling Kane an "utter SUCKUP for whatever" I say is neither accurate nor
true.
And don't be upset at bobb if he and Kane both agree with me on the same
points.
What is it now, Greg?
Your girlfriend's been without her daughter for FOUR YEARS AND TWO MONTHS?
Yeah, you don't have a credibility problem.
And your tactics and strategy are, well... uncomparable is the word that
comes to mind.
bobb
<kane_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112207674.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You may have forgotten, rather conveniently, that Greg was not guilty
of anything. Oh, I forgot...a cluttered house. I guess there's no
law about a cluttered house...
You see... no law was broken so CPS invented their own reason to
remove the child. Who's rights were violated.... and who are the
wrong-doers?
I agreed only to the fact that step-fathers and boy friends are frquently
abusers. No one's civil rights are being violated if an arrest is made...
and an order of protection issued against the offending person.
bobb
bobb
what you want to hear.. or not hear. The 'you' includes all interested
parties.
As I mentioned above... Greg did not guilty of violating any law and could
not be arrested. Read my lengthy in a previous post above.
bobb
a...@onetime.hii
How come you got a different address than what you started out with? To
answer your question, I followed Dan Sullivan's Surrender at any cost
advise. Yeah, Belinda and my kid's came home for about 11 months, then they
took them again. We found out we couldn't get them back because we
surrendered first time around. No appeal is what they say. Yeah, I looked
at your posts before posting. Won't do us no good but maybe someone and I
don't think you are who you pretend to be. Maybe you never were?
Al
Dan Sullivan
<a...@onetime.hii> wrote in message
news:20050404191553.812$Z...@newsreader.com...
> BUCK...@MSN.COM wrote:
> > How many of you who totaly disagree w/Dan, actually tried his way and
> > didnt prevail?
> > And how many here havent tried his way, and are still fighting or
> > ultimately already lost their fight to get their kids back?
> >
> > Just curious on results of this little poll.
> >
> > P.S
> > Hi everyone,it's me the long lost Jen
> > glad to see nothings changed much around here.
> > Good to pick up where I last left off.
>
> How come you got a different address than what you started out with?
Oh, my gawd!
No one ever changes email addresses.
> To answer your question, I followed Dan Sullivan's Surrender at any cost
> advise.
You couldn't have because that's not my advice.
> Yeah, Belinda and my kid's came home for about 11 months, then they
> took them again.
Belinda and my kids?
CPS took yer wife too?
You musta dun sumtin reel bad!
And din da tuk em agin???
Garsh almighty!
> We found out we couldn't get them back because we
> surrendered first time around.
den u shudnta surenderd.
Who told ya ta do dat?
> No appeal is what they say.
You shud git yerslf a banana.
It comes wit appeal.
> Yeah, I looked
> at your posts before posting. Won't do us no good but maybe someone and I
> don't think you are who you pretend to be. Maybe you never were?
She's really my Gracie.
George
kane_...@yahoo.com
bobb wrote:
> <kane_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112207674.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...Might as well snip what you were too cowardly to respond to.....
> You may have forgotten, rather conveniently, that Greg was not guilty
> of anything.
Really? You have the caserecords?
> Oh, I forgot...a cluttered house. I guess there's no
> law about a cluttered house...
He wasn't charged with a cluttered house, nor was his SO. It was one
factor among some other more important ones?
You've forgotten, and I hope not "conveniently," that much more was
going on in that household.
> You see... no law was broken so CPS invented their own reason to
> remove the child. Who's rights were violated.... and who are the
> wrong-doers?
Well, if no law was broken, no risk of abuse, no abuse, no neglect,
then the child and the mother's rights were violated and they should
sue somebody's ass off.
Gregory Hanson's "right's" weren't "violated." Asking someone to change
the conditions that the state believes are part of the risk problem is
not a violation of rights...and certainly not of a "boy friend." Boy
friends, unless Iowa is a livein lover contract state, have no standing
whatsoever in the family or the case.
His was to do, not piss and moan, or the state could and did remove the
child and not return her.
I have a sneakin' hunch it was something about naked little girls in
showers. What do you think? If he had been the step dad, probably no
problem...though we can't be sure of what really went on that greegor
might no have shared. There has been no bill of particulars posted for
us to read.
> I agreed only to the fact that step-fathers and boy friends are
frquently
> abusers.
Yeeeeesssss.....?
> No one's civil rights are being violated if an arrest is made...
> and an order of protection issued against the offending person.
I'm not quite sure what that means. Were you responding to something in
all the stuff I just snipped? If so, my bad, and I extend my apologies,
but I'm not going to go searching. Thanks.
But where does that sentence, "No one's civil rights are being violated
if an arrest is made...and an order of protection issued against the
offending person" come from in relation to greegor, and this case?
> bobb
Tah