Child welfare is often nothing more than the art of negotiation. - CPSCswrkr
Dan Sullivan
What do you think would've happened if Greg said,
That being involved with that little girl taking a shower was a
mistake and it was never gonna happen again?
And he found a job.
And he took some parenting classes.
And he cleaned up the house.
And disposed of his excess belongings.
And got an independent psych eval to demonstrate that he was a
responsible person, concerned for the best interests and well being of
that little girl.
There's a very good chance that the little girl would've been returned
LAST year.
And he wouldn't have had to write that insane Motion.
What do you think Den?
==========================
And the response by CPSCswrkr,
I bet you are correct. By doing those things, he is not giving up
anything.
And making that statement about the shower shows that, while he and the
mother
disagreed at the time it was a problem, he understands the concern and
he will
certainly pay attention to it because he doesn't want anything to
happen to the
chlid because of something he did.
>BUT I don't agree that you should do nothing because that's your right.
That can be silly to do that, although when some people don't know what
to do,
they get stuck and dig in their heels. That's where the magic of true
social
work comes into play: empowering people to make healthy decisions and
take
charge of their own lives ("What do you think about that?" "What would
you
like to see happen/change?" "What can you do about that?" and so
on.). Child
welfare is often nothing more than the art of negotiation.
Lynus Lovetrain
> Oscar wrote:
>> 15 accusations
>>
>> 7 founded
>>
>> You be the judge.
>
> 5 founded (not 7) then all reversed by NY State due to the lack of any
> credible evidence.
>
> Don't ya just love it?????
>
What? That you got away with diddlin yer own kids?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dan Sullivan
Dennis is embarrassed again.
Greegor
(None of their recommendations followed BY THE STATE)
What about the caseworkers big PERJURY, the fabrication
of a ""sex abuse history"" to make a case where there was none?
What about the 21 days of beating us up, depriving visits,
and working the kid over, over and over trying to get
some kind of dirt to make a case, all done
with absolutely NO COURT ORDER?
How much of this sort of abuse does it take before
the malevolent intent of the workers is apparent?
And you think mere mea culpas would change
the workers from such deliberate malevolent intent
to a conciliatory position?
CPSCswrkr wrote
> That can be silly to do that, although when some people don't
> know what to do, they get stuck and dig in their heels. That's
> where the magic of true social work comes into play:
> empowering people to make healthy decisions and take charge
> of their own lives ("What do you think about that?" "What would
> you like to see happen/change?" "What can you do about that?"
> and so on.). Child welfare is often nothing more than the art of
> negotiation.
How does this apply when the caseworkers are malicious
and malevolent, refuse to answer the simplest questions
from the family and don't ask any of the constructive
questions CPSCswrkr described?
When the worker does blatantly ILLEGAL stuff like
a-priori enforcement of a court order that doesn't yet exist?
Whipping up the sworn to PERJURY about a ""sex abuse history""
that was a complete fabrication by the caseworker?
How much "negotiation" can people do when the other
side is so blatantly operating in BAD FAITH?
Lynus Lovetrain
Dan Sullivan
Poor Dennis, still embarrassed.
Dan Sullivan
> What about the work done with the state contractor?
> (None of their recommendations followed BY THE STATE)
> What about the caseworkers big PERJURY, the fabrication
> of a ""sex abuse history"" to make a case where there was none?
> What about the 21 days of beating us up, depriving visits,
> and working the kid over, over and over trying to get
> some kind of dirt to make a case, all done
> with absolutely NO COURT ORDER?
> How much of this sort of abuse does it take before
> the malevolent intent of the workers is apparent?
> And you think mere mea culpas would change
> the workers from such deliberate malevolent intent
> to a conciliatory position?
> CPSCswrkr wrote
> > That can be silly to do that, although when some people don't
> > know what to do, they get stuck and dig in their heels. That's
> > where the magic of true social work comes into play:
> > empowering people to make healthy decisions and take charge
> > of their own lives ("What do you think about that?" "What would
> > you like to see happen/change?" "What can you do about that?"
> > and so on.). Child welfare is often nothing more than the art of
> > negotiation.
> How does this apply when the caseworkers are malicious
> and malevolent, refuse to answer the simplest questions
> from the family and don't ask any of the constructive
> questions CPSCswrkr described?
> When the worker does blatantly ILLEGAL stuff like
> a-priori enforcement of a court order that doesn't yet exist?
Let me guess, a verbal court order that hadn't been put in writing yet?
Happens all the time.
> Whipping up the sworn to PERJURY about a ""sex abuse history""
> that was a complete fabrication by the caseworker?
> How much "negotiation" can people do when the other
> side is so blatantly operating in BAD FAITH?
What does all that matter, Greg?
CPSCwrkr wrote that almost five years ago.
You've ignored his advice since then and have done NOTHING to attain
reunification for Lisa Watkins and her daughter.
SIX YEARS in a few short weeks.
Calling you a dingleberry is an insult to the real dingleberries
hanging from the butts of all the animals in the world, Greg.
Greegor
> Let me guess, a verbal court order that hadn't been put in writing yet?
> Happens all the time.
Got any proof of this?
Got any case law on this?
What you say is NOT how it was presented on the phone and tape.
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167583714.4...@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dan wrote
> > Let me guess, a verbal court order that hadn't been put in writing yet?
> > Happens all the time.
>
> Got any proof of this?
I'm working on a case where the Judge in Court verbally issued a gag order
on the parents. The gag order hasn't been put in writing yet. It's been a
few weeks. Is it your contention that these parents can speak with all the
media they want because the order isn't in effect until it's in writing?
> Got any case law on this?
Show me evidence that a Judge's verbal court order doesn't go into effect
till it's put in writing.
> What you say is NOT how it was presented on the phone and tape.
What do you mean by "presented on the phone and tape?"
Explain.
BTW YOU wrote "When the worker does blatantly ILLEGAL stuff like a-priori
enforcement of a court order that doesn't yet exist?"
You didn't say "never existed," you said "doesn't exist yet."
A-priori is the deducing of a fact that must necessarily follow from... an
admitted truth.
So your statement shows that the caseworker was attempting to enforce an
admitted truth, which was the Court Order existed as a verbal order at
least.
0:->
> Hey Dennis!
>
> What do you think would've happened if Greg said,
>
> That being involved with that little girl taking a shower was a
> mistake and it was never gonna happen again?
>
> And he found a job.
>
> And he took some parenting classes.
>
> And he cleaned up the house.
>
> And disposed of his excess belongings.
>
> And got an independent psych eval to demonstrate that he was a
> responsible person, concerned for the best interests and well being of
> that little girl.
Opps! The very same thing that has, I reckon.
Do you really think he'd have been evaluated with that outcome?
Dan, are you losing your MIND?
R R R R R R RR R R R R
>
> There's a very good chance that the little girl would've been returned
> LAST year.
Man, I wouldn't, upon the completion of his psych eval expect that
outcome at all.
Isn't it obvious why he demands his "rights" which do not exist in the
form he claims, to NOT take a psych eval?
>
> And he wouldn't have had to write that insane Motion.
>
Ah, now you are getting logical again. I can tell by the label on the
"Motion."
> What do you think Den?
> ==========================
Think?
There you go, losing your logical way again.
>
> And the response by CPSCswrkr,
>
> I bet you are correct. By doing those things, he is not giving up
> anything.
> And making that statement about the shower shows that, while he and the
> mother
> disagreed at the time it was a problem, he understands the concern and
> he will
> certainly pay attention to it because he doesn't want anything to
> happen to the
> chlid because of something he did.
>
>> BUT I don't agree that you should do nothing because that's your right.
>
> That can be silly to do that, although when some people don't know what
> to do,
> they get stuck and dig in their heels. That's where the magic of true
> social
> work comes into play: empowering people to make healthy decisions and
> take
> charge of their own lives ("What do you think about that?" "What would
> you
> like to see happen/change?" "What can you do about that?" and so
> on.). Child
> welfare is often nothing more than the art of negotiation.
But but but, he's obviously a Social Worker, what does he know?
Isn't he, or wasn't he just another system suck?
Though I notice Doug treated him with great respect and never claimed
any such thing about him.
Even when he proved Doug was wrong, or misinformed.
Sad that the little Greg, Dennis, and other piggie sorts drove him away,
isn't it.
Imagine the value of having someone currently working inside the system
providing vital information and perspectives to parents engaged as
clients with CPS.
Kane
>
0:->
> What about the work done with the state contractor?
> (None of their recommendations followed BY THE STATE)
What about it? What "work" did YOU do?
Please explain the part about the state not following their
recommendations. And why "the state," must do that.
By state, do you mean CPS?
> What about the caseworkers big PERJURY, the fabrication
> of a ""sex abuse history"" to make a case where there was none?
Was it the only point of their case? I seem to remember claims of other
issues, and YOU made those comments.
> What about the 21 days of beating us up,
They hit you?
> depriving visits,
Protective custody, Greg. All the states have it. Read up on this.
> and working the kid over, over and over trying to get
> some kind of dirt to make a case, all done
> with absolutely NO COURT ORDER?
If they are not empowered to interview the child then you have an
argument. Is that the case in Iowa...that they may not take protective
custody and that they may not interview the child?
>
> How much of this sort of abuse does it take before
> the malevolent intent of the workers is apparent?
Well, first you have to be a mind reader. Something you seem to expect
of others, but are lacking as a talent yourself, though you certainly
seem to appear to pretend to claim to have insights you could not have
unless you too were a psychic.
>
> And you think mere mea culpas would change
> the workers from such deliberate malevolent intent
> to a conciliatory position?
Admission of fault by CPS was offered? And that is "mere" by what measure?
What did they admit to as being their fault, Greg?
And how would that prove they were malevolent?
>
> CPSCswrkr wrote
>> That can be silly to do that, although when some people don't
>> know what to do, they get stuck and dig in their heels. That's
>> where the magic of true social work comes into play:
>> empowering people to make healthy decisions and take charge
>> of their own lives ("What do you think about that?" "What would
>> you like to see happen/change?" "What can you do about that?"
>> and so on.). Child welfare is often nothing more than the art of
>> negotiation.
>
> How does this apply when the caseworkers are malicious
> and malevolent, refuse to answer the simplest questions
> from the family and don't ask any of the constructive
> questions CPSCswrkr described?
Your presence completely changes the equation, Greg. Both by your
responses, which obviously are hostile and resistant (your right, of
course) and by the fact you were not a legal part of the family, thus
not of the proceedings.
In other words, YOU had no rights in the matter. Either do or don't do.
Without you, had Lisa lost her child for some cause of her own (other
than her willingness to house a drone) or Lisa had left YOU entirely out
of the proceedings, I don't doubt the questions you refer to would have
been asked.
And answering YOUR question is tantamount to admitting guilt because you
practice rhetorical "when did you stop beating your wife" question
routinely.
You present as self serving, victim hood loving and needing, mindless
prattler with nothing but your neurotic needs up front and anyone
else's, including Lisa's, somewhere buried up your butt.
> When the worker does blatantly ILLEGAL stuff like
> a-priori enforcement of a court order that doesn't yet exist?
Mysterious references don't further your cause in this medium, Greg. You
and your cronies too often, when challenged, come up with things like
that sample of a page the will print up and display false information
for you to harass your "friends" with, just like it says it will do for
you.
> Whipping up the sworn to PERJURY about a ""sex abuse history""
> that was a complete fabrication by the caseworker?
I'm completely unfamiliar with "Whipping up," from either CPS jargon,
and most assuredly from any legal language.
Can you explain what "whipping up" is, for us?
> How much "negotiation" can people do when the other
> side is so blatantly operating in BAD FAITH?
You see bogeymen in every shadow, Greg, and it's your shadow with the
most of them for you.
You create hostility when it's uncalled for, thus you get hostility and
resistance in turn...then you blame the other person for the hostility
that originated with YOU, little boy.
You were supposed to develop out of that pouting, whining, screeching 'I
WON'T, I WON'T, I WON'T AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME," behavior long ago. Say
by at least 11 years old.
Pick up your toys, put them away, and get ready for bed, young man.
0: ]
0:->
> Dan wrote
>> Let me guess, a verbal court order that hadn't been put in writing yet?
>> Happens all the time.
>
> Got any proof of this?
How could he have? It's not his case. He'd have likely won it hands down
for Lisa in a few weeks at most, if not 48 hours.
Here's was a simple case, easily managed, Greg. Likely nothing like the
great Mother of ALL CPS Cases, you try to make it out to be.
>
> Got any case law on this?
>
What caselaw would exist on a judge verbally telling a caseworker to
proceed?
In fact, what the judge did, likely knowing so, was ensure there was no
federal monies coming to the case. So he didn't, as he's required to
when it is potentially the case, bother to write or sign anything.
> What you say is NOT how it was presented on the phone and tape.
Got any case law on that?
Got any proof of this?
No, it's not an echo. I'm asking you.
Kane
>
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1167572959.3...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hey Dennis!
>
> What do you think would've happened if Greg said,
>
> That being involved with that little girl taking a shower was a
> mistake and it was never gonna happen again?
>
> And he found a job.
>
> And he took some parenting classes.
>
> And he cleaned up the house.
>
> And disposed of his excess belongings.
>
> And got an independent psych eval to demonstrate that he was a
> responsible person, concerned for the best interests and well being of
> that little girl.
>
> There's a very good chance that the little girl would've been returned
> LAST year.
Dan - one can't have successful "negotiations" with Satan. You can never
male a 'deal" with Satan.
Satan will NEVER keep its word!
Lynus Lovetrain
> Hey Dennis!
>
> What do you think would've happened if Greg said,
>
> That being involved with that little girl taking a shower was a
> mistake and it was never gonna happen again?
>
> And he found a job.
>
> And he took some parenting classes.
>
> And he cleaned up the house.
>
> And disposed of his excess belongings.
>
> And got an independent psych eval to demonstrate that he was a
> responsible person, concerned for the best interests and well being of
> that little girl.
His balls would've shriveled up and fell off?
>
> There's a very good chance that the little girl would've been returned
> LAST year.
Oh please. Did you do an 'assessment' to read the future?
Just think Danno - if you didn't have to spend 24/7/365 bashing Greg the
past 6 years you coulda saved hundreds - maybe thousands - of little
innocent children.
They perished for your obsession. You sick duck.
Can ya tell I started early ~ - ~ :)
lostintranslation
Hey Lynus/Dennis.....Nice to meet you. Why are you hiding? Nervous
about something or what? I have gotten to 'know' you from reading the
archives. Quite interesting, really.
Oscar
If you loosen the cuffs and hook me up with a pack of butts, I'll tell
ya anything ya wanna know. Asshole.
Dan Sullivan
So your alternative is???
The Frayed Ends of Sanity
krp
> > Hey Dennis!
>> >
>> > What do you think would've happened if Greg said,
>> >
>> > That being involved with that little girl taking a shower was a
>> > mistake and it was never gonna happen again?
>> >
>> > And he found a job.
>> >
>> > And he took some parenting classes.
>> >
>> > And he cleaned up the house.
>> >
>> > And disposed of his excess belongings.
>> >
>> > And got an independent psych eval to demonstrate that he was a
>> > responsible person, concerned for the best interests and well being of
>> > that little girl.
>> >
>> > There's a very good chance that the little girl would've been returned
>> > LAST year.
>>
>>
>> Dan - one can't have successful "negotiations" with Satan. You can never
>> male a 'deal" with Satan.
>>
>>
>> Satan will NEVER keep its word!
>
> So your alternative is???
You asked me that before and when I answered you accused me of trying to
"DRUM UP BUSINESS!" The answer is you go after CPS with all the forces you
can muster to discredit them. A very aggressive lawyer who knows the ropes,
experts, investigators and you pull the wings off the CPS flies.
Dan Sullivan
krp wrote:
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:1167604704.8...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Hey Dennis!
> >> >
> >> > What do you think would've happened if Greg said,
> >> >
> >> > That being involved with that little girl taking a shower was a
> >> > mistake and it was never gonna happen again?
> >> >
> >> > And he found a job.
> >> >
> >> > And he took some parenting classes.
> >> >
> >> > And he cleaned up the house.
> >> >
> >> > And disposed of his excess belongings.
> >> >
> >> > And got an independent psych eval to demonstrate that he was a
> >> > responsible person, concerned for the best interests and well being of
> >> > that little girl.
> >> >
> >> > There's a very good chance that the little girl would've been returned
> >> > LAST year.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dan - one can't have successful "negotiations" with Satan. You can never
> >> male a 'deal" with Satan.
> >>
> >>
> >> Satan will NEVER keep its word!
> >
> > So your alternative is???
>
>
> You asked me that before and when I answered you accused me of trying to
> "DRUM UP BUSINESS!"
That was someone else.
I ddidn't accuse you of drumming up business.
> The answer is you go after CPS with all the forces you
> can muster to discredit them. A very aggressive lawyer who knows the ropes,
> experts, investigators and you pull the wings off the CPS flies.
I wish everyone had the funds to finance that, but most don't.
krp
Most folks can raise it when they stop feeling sorry for themselves. I
see people all the time facing criminal charges, worrying about their credit
rating. I ask them "after you get convicted, WHERE do you think you'll be
using that Platinum Amex Card?" Tell me Dan, when you are convicted of a
felony, what do you think your credit rating is???????? Think you score an
800?
I'm sorry - it's the fact of life You do what it takes to fight. The
ideas I have seen here to "negotiate" are plain stupid suggestions. You
can't negotiate with those folks. You stand a 100 times BETTER chance of
negotiating yourself out of the big pot in the starving cannibal village.
Making people think they can trust CPS workers is not helping people.
0:->
And that's not the only problem. It's rare one can carry a case to that
high a level.
My take is that CPS has the AG's office on their side, and providing a
great deal of legal power if it's needed.
In fact, they usually are so heavyweight that most lawyers don't even
bother to try....that's the claim in this newsgroup, at any rate.
And if you can beat them before it goes to court, as Dan so often does?
Or at the earlier hearings?
The claim that you are more likely to win with an all out aggressive
lawyer trying to pull the wings off CPS is stupid, and makes CPS look
like the victim.
Though most everyone that's pissed at CPS can climb aboard that 'pull
off their wings' bandwagon, it doesn't win cases often. In fact, most
rarely.
The trick is simply to convince the judge CPS is wrong -- note the
following carefully --- IN THIS CASE. In fact I've seen you do it by
simply pointing out to CPS they don't have the credible evidence BEFORE
they even got to court.
YOu just show them they aren't going to win there. If they are stupid
enough to ignore you, then guess what, they get to experience losing in
court...because the judge decides.
That's really all it takes in the vast majority of cases.
Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in by grandstanding.
Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
PTTC, sorry.
JMHO
Kane
krp
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:M4idnVGGXto80gXY...@scnresearch.com...
>>> The answer is you go after CPS with all the forces you
>>> can muster to discredit them. A very aggressive lawyer who knows the
>>> ropes,
>>> experts, investigators and you pull the wings off the CPS flies.
>>
>> I wish everyone had the funds to finance that, but most don't.
> And that's not the only problem. It's rare one can carry a case to that
> high a level.
Actually many people can and do.
> My take is that CPS has the AG's office on their side, and providing a
> great deal of legal power if it's needed.
Not usually.
> In fact, they usually are so heavyweight that most lawyers don't even
> bother to try....that's the claim in this newsgroup, at any rate.
Most lawyers don't know how and don't give a rat's ass.
> And if you can beat them before it goes to court, as Dan so often does?
Beat them how? But agreeing to their performance plans and submitting to
their jurisdiction over your life forever????? THAT is a WIN in your book?
> Or at the earlier hearings?
> The claim that you are more likely to win with an all out aggressive
> lawyer trying to pull the wings off CPS is stupid, and makes CPS look like
> the victim.
Awwwww the POOR babies! Awwwwwwww!
> Though most everyone that's pissed at CPS can climb aboard that 'pull off
> their wings' bandwagon, it doesn't win cases often. In fact, most rarely.
Worked for us for over 30 years.
> The trick is simply to convince the judge CPS is wrong -- note the
> following carefully --- IN THIS CASE. In fact I've seen you do it by
> simply pointing out to CPS they don't have the credible evidence BEFORE
> they even got to court.
Yeah that works! <heavy sarcasm>
> YOu just show them they aren't going to win there. If they are stupid
> enough to ignore you, then guess what, they get to experience losing in
> court...because the judge decides.
Ooooo I bet they skarrit of you!!
> That's really all it takes in the vast majority of cases.
Bullshit.
> Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in by grandstanding.
> Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
Dan Sullivan
Most people I help are in Family Court, not Criminal.
> I'm sorry - it's the fact of life You do what it takes to fight.
I believe you do what is necessary and appropriate to win your children
bacck..
> The ideas I have seen here to "negotiate" are plain stupid suggestions.
But that tact has worked in a great deal of cases.
> You can't negotiate with those folks.
Not at all?
> You stand a 100 times BETTER chance of
> negotiating yourself out of the big pot in the starving cannibal village.
> Making people think they can trust CPS workers is not helping people.
I don't make people do anything.
Ron
" krp" <web2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YgYlh.8382$tc5.1617@trnddc01...
>
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:M4idnVGGXto80gXY...@scnresearch.com...
>
>>>> The answer is you go after CPS with all the forces you
>>>> can muster to discredit them. A very aggressive lawyer who knows the
>>>> ropes,
>>>> experts, investigators and you pull the wings off the CPS flies.
>>>
>>> I wish everyone had the funds to finance that, but most don't.
>
>> And that's not the only problem. It's rare one can carry a case to that
>> high a level.
>
> Actually many people can and do.
>
>> My take is that CPS has the AG's office on their side, and providing a
>> great deal of legal power if it's needed.
>
> Not usually.
>
>> In fact, they usually are so heavyweight that most lawyers don't even
>> bother to try....that's the claim in this newsgroup, at any rate.
>
> Most lawyers don't know how and don't give a rat's ass.
>
>> And if you can beat them before it goes to court, as Dan so often does?
>
> Beat them how? But agreeing to their performance plans and submitting
> to their jurisdiction over your life forever????? THAT is a WIN in your
> book?
The only "Win" that counts is one where the kids are in a safe home, be it
their parents home or elsewhere. All other types of "Win" are window
dressing, and useless.
You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those who
HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all, the
vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
difference?
Ron
Greegor
> The ideas I have seen here to "negotiate" are plain stupid suggestions. You
> can't negotiate with those folks. You stand a 100 times BETTER chance of
> negotiating yourself out of the big pot in the starving cannibal village.
> Making people think they can trust CPS workers is not helping people.
This is the CENTRAL reason Dan Sullivan and his pack run afoul
of most Family Rights groups and members of them.
It's a devious and malevolent way to represent the interests of the
agencies.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> krp wrote:
> > The ideas I have seen here to "negotiate" are plain stupid suggestions. You
> > can't negotiate with those folks. You stand a 100 times BETTER chance of
> > negotiating yourself out of the big pot in the starving cannibal village.
> > Making people think they can trust CPS workers is not helping people.
>
> This is the CENTRAL reason Dan Sullivan and his pack run afoul
> of most Family Rights groups and members of them.
That's a crock of shit, Greg, and you know it.
> It's a devious and malevolent way to represent the interests of the
> agencies.
The interests of the agencies?
Then why did the people I helped get their children back FROM the
agencies?
About 40 kids went from CPS BACK TO their families?
Explain how that's in the interest of the agency?
Greegor
> In fact, they usually are so heavyweight that most lawyers don't even
> bother to try....that's the claim in this newsgroup, at any rate.
krp wrote
> Most lawyers don't know how and don't give a rat's ass.
Kane wrote
> And if you can beat them before it goes to court, as Dan so often does?
krp wrote
> Beat them how? But agreeing to their performance plans and submitting to
> their jurisdiction over your life forever????? THAT is a WIN in your book?
ROFL!
Kane wrote
> The claim that you are more likely to win with an all out aggressive
> lawyer trying to pull the wings off CPS is stupid, and makes CPS look like
> the victim.
krp wrote
> Awwwww the POOR babies! Awwwwwwww!
Here we see Kane trying to talk families OUT of finding
an attorney who provides the VIGOROUS DEFENSE
the family is entitled to!
Kane wrote
> Though most everyone that's pissed at CPS can climb aboard that 'pull off
> their wings' bandwagon, it doesn't win cases often. In fact, most rarely.
krp wrote
> Worked for us for over 30 years.
Here Kane urges surrender as the optimal approach.
I have teased Dan for ages about the "Winning through Surrender"
approach.
Kane wrote
> The trick is simply to convince the judge CPS is wrong -- note the
> following carefully --- IN THIS CASE. In fact I've seen you do it by
> simply pointing out to CPS they don't have the credible evidence BEFORE
> they even got to court.
krp wrote
> Yeah that works! <heavy sarcasm>
Kane wrote
> YOu just show them they aren't going to win there. If they are stupid
> enough to ignore you, then guess what, they get to experience losing in
> court...because the judge decides.
krp wrote
> Ooooo I bet they skarrit of you!!
Here they view CPS as an extension of Juvenile Court itself.
Losing in court for them is like when your right hand loses to your
left.
Kane wrote
> That's really all it takes in the vast majority of cases.
krp wrote
> Bullshit.
Exactly.
But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
caseworker?
Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations and
conspiracy to do same?
He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs. who
sue the agency.
He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
Kane wrote
> Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
> by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
krp wrote
> Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
in Juvenile Court, they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of safety"
but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.
Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
Many hearings are also not transcribed.
So the Judge is never presented with a
"record they can't live with" and the family
has a tough time appealing with no transcript.
Greegor
> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those who
> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all, the
> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
> difference?
The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
The majority were put in the system under the "AT RISK OF" clause.
Not to mention the MAJOR slippery slope category of neglect
which ITSELF is decided by "AT RISK OF" again.
Actual abuse is a very tiny portion of child removals.
Then there is the 38% where even the agency themself
is forced to report to the Feds they have NO REASON
for removing them, not EVEN the "AT RISK OF" sleaze.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > In fact, they usually are so heavyweight that most lawyers don't even
> > bother to try....that's the claim in this newsgroup, at any rate.
>
> krp wrote
> > Most lawyers don't know how and don't give a rat's ass.
>
> Kane wrote
> > And if you can beat them before it goes to court, as Dan so often does?
>
> krp wrote
> > Beat them how? But agreeing to their performance plans and submitting to
> > their jurisdiction over your life forever????? THAT is a WIN in your book?
>
> ROFL!
>
> Kane wrote
> > The claim that you are more likely to win with an all out aggressive
> > lawyer trying to pull the wings off CPS is stupid, and makes CPS look like
> > the victim.
>
> krp wrote
> > Awwwww the POOR babies! Awwwwwwww!
>
> Here we see Kane trying to talk families OUT of finding
> an attorney who provides the VIGOROUS DEFENSE
> the family is entitled to!
>
> Kane wrote
> > Though most everyone that's pissed at CPS can climb aboard that 'pull off
> > their wings' bandwagon, it doesn't win cases often. In fact, most rarely.
Note that Kane didn't even mention lawyers or attornies as Greg
claimed..
> krp wrote
> > Worked for us for over 30 years.
>
> Here Kane urges surrender as the optimal approach.
NO surrender, Greg.
A win before Court by producing the real facts of the case.
> I have teased Dan for ages about the "Winning through Surrender"
> approach.
Teased me about something I never said.
> Kane wrote
> > The trick is simply to convince the judge CPS is wrong -- note the
> > following carefully --- IN THIS CASE. In fact I've seen you do it by
> > simply pointing out to CPS they don't have the credible evidence BEFORE
> > they even got to court.
>
> krp wrote
> > Yeah that works! <heavy sarcasm>
>
> Kane wrote
> > YOu just show them they aren't going to win there. If they are stupid
> > enough to ignore you, then guess what, they get to experience losing in
> > court...because the judge decides.
>
> krp wrote
> > Ooooo I bet they skarrit of you!!
>
> Here they view CPS as an extension of Juvenile Court itself.
> Losing in court for them is like when your right hand loses to your
> left.
>
> Kane wrote
> > That's really all it takes in the vast majority of cases.
>
> krp wrote
> > Bullshit.
>
> Exactly.
Wrong, because it's worked in almost every case I've helped with.
> But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
> caseworker?
> Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
> of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations and
> conspiracy to do same?
Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?
> He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs. who
> sue the agency.
>
> He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
Kane's retired and tends to his garden.
> Kane wrote
> > Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
> > by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
>
> krp wrote
> > Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
>
> In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
> in Juvenile Court, they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of safety"
> but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.
They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"
Citations for that, please.
And citations for the caselaw you mentioned, too.
> Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
> as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
So?
> The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
> by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.
It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
present.
It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.
> This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
> preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
> is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
Someone may consider you a genius, Greg.
It doesn't mean they're right.
> The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
> and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
>
> Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
> referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
> transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
> of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
> Many hearings are also not transcribed.
Citations for the "many hearings are not transcribed" claim.
> So the Judge is never presented with a
> "record they can't live with" and the family
> has a tough time appealing with no transcript.
What???
0:->
> Kane wrote
>> In fact, they usually are so heavyweight that most lawyers don't even
>> bother to try....that's the claim in this newsgroup, at any rate.
>
> krp wrote
>> Most lawyers don't know how and don't give a rat's ass.
>
> Kane wrote
>> And if you can beat them before it goes to court, as Dan so often does?
>
> krp wrote
>> Beat them how? But agreeing to their performance plans and submitting to
>> their jurisdiction over your life forever????? THAT is a WIN in your book?
>
> ROFL!
>
> Kane wrote
>> The claim that you are more likely to win with an all out aggressive
>> lawyer trying to pull the wings off CPS is stupid, and makes CPS look like
>> the victim.
>
> krp wrote
>> Awwwww the POOR babies! Awwwwwwww!
>
> Here we see Kane trying to talk families OUT of finding
> an attorney who provides the VIGOROUS DEFENSE
> the family is entitled to!
Really? Where did I say that?
> Kane wrote
>> Though most everyone that's pissed at CPS can climb aboard that 'pull off
>> their wings' bandwagon, it doesn't win cases often. In fact, most rarely.
>
> krp wrote
>> Worked for us for over 30 years.
>
> Here Kane urges surrender as the optimal approach.
Point out where anything I suggest is tantamount to 'surrender.'
> I have teased Dan for ages about the "Winning through Surrender"
> approach.
And each time you've been lying. Dan has not said to surrender. He's
said, metaphorically speaking, don't put your head in the noose of
grandstanding CPS slayer. It's never worked. They can't be slain in
family court.
They can be defeated there though, which is what Dan does, if not "slay"
them before, quite often.
>
> Kane wrote
>> The trick is simply to convince the judge CPS is wrong -- note the
>> following carefully --- IN THIS CASE. In fact I've seen you do it by
>> simply pointing out to CPS they don't have the credible evidence BEFORE
>> they even got to court.
>
> krp wrote
>> Yeah that works! <heavy sarcasm>
Which gives us a pretty good idea that he's promoting a loser attitude.
>
> Kane wrote
>> YOu just show them they aren't going to win there. If they are stupid
>> enough to ignore you, then guess what, they get to experience losing in
>> court...because the judge decides.
>
> krp wrote
>> Ooooo I bet they skarrit of you!!
I haven't appeared in court.
> Here they view CPS as an extension of Juvenile Court itself.
> Losing in court for them is like when your right hand loses to your
> left.
CPS is to the court system, as police are. The court has the authority
to call on CPS for certain services. That's not your implied "extension."
CPS has no judgment functions. But they do exercise enforcement
authority given them by the law....the legislative branch of government,
and they do follow orders of enforcement given by the judge.
That's how the system is designed, deliberately. Neither court nor CPS
are in defiance of any constitutional provisions, Greg.
>
> Kane wrote
>> That's really all it takes in the vast majority of cases.
>
> krp wrote
>> Bullshit.
>
> Exactly.
He's inviting families to death destruction. Not all cases, and in fact,
extremely few, need to got to an all out battle of destruction.
> But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
> caseworker?
You still haven't provided proof of him being a caseworker.
> Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
> of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations and
> conspiracy to do same?
Upset? It's the taxpayers money.
And if there is actual corruption I've no problem with the taking of any
legal action. I've said so many times in this ng.
And I'm perfectly happy to both accept and support actual CPS
Constitutional violations being prosecuted.
The problem I have, if any, is with you, a self admitted child abuser
attempting to extort the state of Iowa's citizens for a situation you
created and could have corrected.
> He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs. who
> sue the agency.
Never? That's obviously hyperbole. I've said, when a worker or employee
is actually shown to be a "perp," to hang them high.
>
> He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
I am neither retired, nor actively lobbying the legislature. I do
volunteer work on one issue at a time.
Don may be doing what you suggest, but I don't know, and neither do you.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
>> by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
>
> krp wrote
>> Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
No, he described grandstanding. He is encouraging people to try to try
CPS in court with "evidence," that in fact rarely works.
Mostly because you, and those like you, Greg, misinterpret the
Constitution, and misread case law.
You presume "your" case is related to these things when it is not.
> In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
> in Juvenile Court,
All cases that involve removal of children go to "adjudication" in the
first 72 hours of placement out of home. It's the law. (The hours vary
slightly state to state)
> they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of safety"
> but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.
Are you suggesting there is case law that children must be left during
the course of the investigation with those alleged to have abused or
neglected them?
Please show this case law establishing such a right.
You say 'all of the case law' so I suspect you will come up with much
case law to support this claim.
>
> Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
> as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
By whom?
> The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
> by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
They act under both legislative order (law) and judicial authority
ordering them to do so. They are not ordered to find out nice things.
> This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
> preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
> is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
Are the police ordered to and required to collect "nice" information
about the perp?
Neither is CPS.
> The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
> and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
Biased in favor of? Oh, you mean they look at the evidence presented by
both sides and sometimes find CPS provided the evidence that overwhelms
that of the other side. I see.
> Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
> referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
> transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
> of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
> Many hearings are also not transcribed.
Does the defense team hold meetings that are not recorded or transcribed?
> So the Judge is never presented with a
> "record they can't live with"
Please explain.
> and the family
> has a tough time appealing with no transcript.
You are lying.
0:->
> Ron wrote
>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those who
>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all, the
>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
>> difference?
>
> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
> The majority were put in the system under the "AT RISK OF" clause.
Putting someone at risk is abusive in itself.
You have attempted to do that, in fact, right in this newsgroup.
> Not to mention the MAJOR slippery slope category of neglect
> which ITSELF is decided by "AT RISK OF" again.
Nope. Neglect is very carefully defined in law. And a killer more often
than any other category of abuse.
>
> Actual abuse is a very tiny portion of child removals.
>
That is a lie. The mind of the criminal at work, minimizing and denying.
Any review of police and coroners records shows differently.
> Then there is the 38% where even the agency themself
> is forced to report to the Feds they have NO REASON
> for removing them, not EVEN the "AT RISK OF" sleaze.
Please provide a citation supporting this claim. The federal records of
the data, available on line, should do.
Be specific, and provide a link.
I'd like to see the 38% reference, "forced to report" force applied, and
the claim that they have no reason and admit to it, highlighted for us.
Otherwise, we can assume, as usual, you are lying.
0:-]
Greegor
Greg wrote > "Winning through Surrender" approach.
Dan wrote > Teased me about something I never said.
Never word for word, of course!
But the context of what you said was indeed that.
Your "deniability" stunts are amusing.
Dan wrote
> Wrong, because it's worked in almost every case I've helped with.
Proved by citations of messages posted anonymously by ""parents""
who turn out to be caseworkers, Social Workers or Fosters?
G > But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
G > caseworker?
G > Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
G > of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations
and
G > conspiracy to do same?
D > Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?
Other threads in ascps newsgroup.
G > He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
Dan wrote > Kane's retired and tends to his garden.
Yes, the newsgroup archive and his year of posted profanity shows it!
Dan wrote > They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"
Nope because that opens the Pandora's Box of child removals
"to play it safe", also known as bureaucratic CYA or the "shotgun
approach".
The idea of courts "erring on the side of safety" is
a serious copout excusing no evidence, no "imminent danger",
and basically making the court process a complete farce.
Why is the caselaw so important Dan?
Most courts ignore it anyway!
What the hell, they're cloaked with IMMUNITIES!
G > Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
G > as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
Dan wrote> So?
Then you know how crappy the courts are?
G > The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
G > by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
Dan wrote
> The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.
>
> It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
> present.
>
> It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.
And YET caseworkers have been sued for this "one sided reporting"
abuse and as a result the agencies try to include a ""token positive""
hoping that will negate the complaint.
(When it's TOTALLY one sided it's particularly obvious and rediculous.)
G > This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
G > preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
G > is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
D > Someone may consider you a genius, Greg.
D > It doesn't mean they're right.
Why does this concern you Dan?
Greg wrote
G > The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
G > and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
G >
G > Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
G > referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
G > transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
G > of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
G > Many hearings are also not transcribed.
Dan wrote > Citations for the "many hearings are not transcribed"
claim.
The last hearing I attended was that way, and many
others as well. Look in the archive for my description
of the Intervention hearing. In writing I was granted a hearing.
On appearance I was told it was denied, then I spoke
up saying "Your honor, I was granted a hearing." The Judge
looked in the papers and then scurried off to get the
transcriptionist. (The process was not being transcribed.)
The Judge refused to look at a huge pile of physical evidence
including a mountain of audio tapes. At the end the
GAL (suckup for the state) did a schoolground tattletale
routine that was hilarious, thinking I had tape recorded
the proceedings. The state actors including the Judge
were all hysterical thinking I had recorded them.
Miraculously, the abrupt beginning, taping accusation fiasco
and the refusal of evidence were all MISSING from
the transcript obtained later.
The rest of the process was off the record as openly
stated in court by the Judge.
> > So the Judge is never presented with a
> > "record they can't live with" and the family
> > has a tough time appealing with no transcript.
>
> What???
What I said.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> Greg wrote > I have teased Dan for ages about the
> Greg wrote > "Winning through Surrender" approach.
>
> Dan wrote > Teased me about something I never said.
>
> Never word for word, of course!
> But the context of what you said was indeed that.
> Your "deniability" stunts are amusing.
I'll stop denying it after you post the proof that my method is "Winning
through Surrender."
The actual "context of what you said" is how you put it, Greg.
Post the context.
> Dan wrote
> > Wrong, because it's worked in almost every case I've helped with.
>
> Proved by citations of messages posted anonymously by ""parents""
> who turn out to be caseworkers, Social Workers or Fosters?
Post the proof of that claim, Greg.
"Who turn out to be caseworkers, social workers, or fosters..."
> G > But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
> G > caseworker?
> G > Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
> G > of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations
> and
> G > conspiracy to do same?
>
> D > Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?
>
> Other threads in ascps newsgroup.
>
> G > He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
>
> Dan wrote > Kane's retired and tends to his garden.
>
> Yes, the newsgroup archive and his year of posted profanity shows it!
Shows that he's retired and tends to his garden?
> Dan wrote > They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"
>
> Nope because that opens the Pandora's Box of child removals
> "to play it safe", also known as bureaucratic CYA or the "shotgun
> approach".
I asked for citations, Greg.
Where are they?
And why did you delete my request in your response?
It doesn't.
I can't imagine anyone being THAT stupid!
> Greg wrote
> G > The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
> G > and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
> G >
> G > Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
> G > referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
> G > transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
> G > of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
> G > Many hearings are also not transcribed.
>
> Dan wrote > Citations for the "many hearings are not transcribed"
> claim.
>
> The last hearing I attended was that way, and many
> others as well. Look in the archive for my description
> of the Intervention hearing. In writing I was granted a hearing.
> On appearance I was told it was denied, then I spoke
> up saying "Your honor, I was granted a hearing." The Judge
> looked in the papers and then scurried off to get the
> transcriptionist. (The process was not being transcribed.)
How could it have been transcribed when the transcriptionist wasn't there,
Greg?
And even if she was, how should she have transcribed the Judge scurrying
off?
> The Judge refused to look at a huge pile of physical evidence
> including a mountain of audio tapes.
A mountain of audio tapes!!!!
How many hours of audio did you expect the Judge to listen to, Greg?
And what was in the other "huge pile?"
> At the end the
> GAL (suckup for the state) did a schoolground tattletale
> routine that was hilarious, thinking I had tape recorded
> the proceedings. The state actors including the Judge
> were all hysterical thinking I had recorded them.
You had a tape recorder in court?
> Miraculously, the abrupt beginning, taping accusation fiasco
> and the refusal of evidence were all MISSING from
> the transcript obtained later.
Because the transcriptionist wasn't there for it?
> The rest of the process was off the record as openly
> stated in court by the Judge.
So you knew it was off the record because the Judge said so.
I've said in Court when a Judge said we were going "off the record," Your
Honor, I would prefer everything be on the record in case there's a
mistake." And we stayed "on the record."
krp
It's not real hard for somebody not using a lwyer to quickly find
themselves in criminal court, and it isn't infrequent.
>> I'm sorry - it's the fact of life You do what it takes to fight.
> I believe you do what is necessary and appropriate to win your children
> bacck..
What is necessary is not giving CPS dominion in any way over your
family, and making sure that once it is over they never come back.
>> The ideas I have seen here to "negotiate" are plain stupid suggestions.
> But that tact has worked in a great deal of cases.
And it has proven to fail in the vast majority of cases.
>> You can't negotiate with those folks.
> Not at all?
Mostly no. Most of the CPS folks have agendas all their own. CAPTA makes
sure they do.
>> You stand a 100 times BETTER chance of
>> negotiating yourself out of the big pot in the starving cannibal village.
>> Making people think they can trust CPS workers is not helping people.
> I don't make people do anything.
Ok - leading them to believe they can trust CPS workers is NOT helping
people.
krp
"Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ZT%lh.13664$E%7....@newsfe19.lga...
>>>>> The answer is you go after CPS with all the forces you
>>>>> can muster to discredit them. A very aggressive lawyer who knows the
>>>>> ropes,
>>>>> experts, investigators and you pull the wings off the CPS flies.
>>>>
>>>> I wish everyone had the funds to finance that, but most don't.
>>
>>> And that's not the only problem. It's rare one can carry a case to that
>>> high a level.
>>
>> Actually many people can and do.
>>
>>> My take is that CPS has the AG's office on their side, and providing a
>>> great deal of legal power if it's needed.
>>
>> Not usually.
>>
>>> In fact, they usually are so heavyweight that most lawyers don't even
>>> bother to try....that's the claim in this newsgroup, at any rate.
>>
>> Most lawyers don't know how and don't give a rat's ass.
>>
>>> And if you can beat them before it goes to court, as Dan so often does?
>>
>> Beat them how? But agreeing to their performance plans and submitting
>> to their jurisdiction over your life forever????? THAT is a WIN in your
>> book?
> The only "Win" that counts is one where the kids are in a safe home, be it
> their parents home or elsewhere. All other types of "Win" are window
> dressing, and useless.
A "win" that has the children at home "tempoprarily" is not a win at
all.
> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those who
> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all, the
> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
> difference?
I am NOT a lawyer - I'm a trial consultant. Maybe you missed the uproar
from a couple folks about the "people we won't represent" page on our
website. We do run across guilty people. We try to get them real help.
I am not sure I agree with you that the "vast majority of kids in the
system are victims" at least not the way you intended it. Not of their
family. But many become victims in the system. I don't do victim counseling
so I don't say anything to those individuals, nor should I. It isn't my
place. Yeah - I KNOW the difference quite well.
krp
>>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those
>>> who
>>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all,
>>> the
>>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
>>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
>>> difference?
>> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
> False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
majority" are NOT victims.
>> The majority were put in the system under the "AT RISK OF" clause.
> Putting someone at risk is abusive in itself.
Oh really? Then EVERY child in America should be taken from their homes
without exception. And because the care within the system is equally at
risk, what are you going to do? Send them to another planet?
Dan Sullivan
It's been infrequent in the cases I've worked on.
The DA even declined to prosecute Ellen Storck.
> >> I'm sorry - it's the fact of life You do what it takes to fight.
>
> > I believe you do what is necessary and appropriate to win your children
> > bacck..
>
> What is necessary is not giving CPS dominion in any way over your
> family,
If CPS removes the children they've taken dominion over the family.
> and making sure that once it is over they never come back.
All it takes is an annoymous phone call to the hotline for CPS to start
with the family again.
> >> The ideas I have seen here to "negotiate" are plain stupid suggestions.
>
> > But that tact has worked in a great deal of cases.
>
> And it has proven to fail in the vast majority of cases.
I've lost in two cases. One there was a ridiculous criminal
prosecution. And in the other the children were removed because CPS
claimed the parents were overwhelmed by their children... when the real
reason was the parents were suing the school district for the abuse of
their disabled son on a school bus.
> >> You can't negotiate with those folks.
>
> > Not at all?
>
> Mostly no. Most of the CPS folks have agendas all their own. CAPTA makes
> sure they do.
But it can be done and I help people prevail over CPS almost all the
time.
As I said I've only lost twice.
> >> You stand a 100 times BETTER chance of
> >> negotiating yourself out of the big pot in the starving cannibal village.
> >> Making people think they can trust CPS workers is not helping people.
>
> > I don't make people do anything.
>
> Ok - leading them to believe they can trust CPS workers is NOT helping
> people.
I never said I lead them to believe they can trust a CPS worker.
I lead them to believe they can prevail in the CPS system if they do
the right things the right way.
krp
You know - I know lots of "activists" who make the same claim. Too bad
it is almost never true when you look closely at the claims. Bullshit does
NOT win cases, EVIDENCE does, PROOF does and a vigorous lawyer compelling
the judge to hear it.
>> But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
>> caseworker?
>> Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
>> of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations and
>> conspiracy to do same?
> Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?
>> He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs. who
>> sue the agency.
>> He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
> Kane's retired and tends to his garden.
>> Kane wrote
>> > Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
>> > by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
>>
>> krp wrote
>> > Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
>>
>> In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
>> in Juvenile Court, they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of safety"
>> but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.
> They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"
Dan the object should be to NOT ERR AT ALL!!!
>> Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
>> as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
> So?
So people get their families destroyed by these "helpers" who operate on
hidden agendas and folk myth bullshit.
>> The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
>> by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
> The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.
And dependency courts. It's a bitch to deal with - with an INCESTOUS
legal system where everyone is againt the family. Where EVERYONE draws a
paycheck from the same source and are all part of the same sorority.
> It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
> present.
You mean "BULLSHIT" that they present!
> It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.
It is the accused's job to make sure the Judge hears that what the
caseworkers presented was BULLSHIT!
>> This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
>> preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
>> is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
> Someone may consider you a genius, Greg. It doesn't mean they're right.
Same for you Dan.
>> The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
>> and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
>> Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
>> referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
>> transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
>> of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
>> Many hearings are also not transcribed.
> Citations for the "many hearings are not transcribed" claim.
Well - he's right in cases where the person isn't represented by an
attorney and where nobody has asked for one. CPS almost NEVER requests one,
only in the most eggregious cases.
>> So the Judge is never presented with a "record they can't live with" and
>> the family has a tough time appealing with no transcript.
> What???
You claim to be this "GREAT EXPERT" and you didn't understand that? It
is almost impossible to appeal a case where there is no transcript of the
proceedings, but I thought with all your VAST legal knowledge, you'd know
that? In every state I am aware of a judge is granted broad discretion by
appeals courts, to get a reversal you must show error. You can't do that
easily if there is no record to prove the judge was wrong.
Dan Sullivan
Of course bullshit doesn't win cases.
Credible evidence does.
> >> But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
> >> caseworker?
> >> Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
> >> of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations and
> >> conspiracy to do same?
>
> > Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?
>
> >> He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs. who
> >> sue the agency.
>
> >> He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
>
> > Kane's retired and tends to his garden.
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
> >> > by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
> >>
> >> In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
> >> in Juvenile Court, they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of safety"
> >> but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.
>
> > They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"
>
> Dan the object should be to NOT ERR AT ALL!!!
Of course.
But we live in the real world.
> >> Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
> >> as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
>
> > So?
>
> So people get their families destroyed by these "helpers" who operate on
> hidden agendas and folk myth bullshit.
Which helpers?
Which hidden agendas?
> >> The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
> >> by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
>
> > The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.
>
> And dependency courts. It's a bitch to deal with - with an INCESTOUS
> legal system where everyone is againt the family. Where EVERYONE draws a
> paycheck from the same source and are all part of the same sorority.
True.
> > It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
> > present.
>
> You mean "BULLSHIT" that they present!
Yes, and it's the family's job to prove that.
> > It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.
>
> It is the accused's job to make sure the Judge hears that what the
> caseworkers presented was BULLSHIT!
Agreed.
> >> This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
> >> preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
> >> is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
>
> > Someone may consider you a genius, Greg. It doesn't mean they're right.
>
> Same for you Dan.
Same for you, krp.
> >> The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
> >> and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
>
> >> Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
> >> referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
> >> transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
> >> of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
> >> Many hearings are also not transcribed.
>
> > Citations for the "many hearings are not transcribed" claim.
>
> Well - he's right in cases where the person isn't represented by an
> attorney and where nobody has asked for one. CPS almost NEVER requests one,
> only in the most eggregious cases.
I've been in NY Family Court many times and I've never seen a case not
be transcribed.
> >> So the Judge is never presented with a "record they can't live with" and
> >> the family has a tough time appealing with no transcript.
>
> > What???
>
> You claim to be this "GREAT EXPERT" and you didn't understand that?
I never claimed to be a "GREAT EXPERT."
Who told you that?
But no, I didn't understand it.
> It
> is almost impossible to appeal a case where there is no transcript of the
> proceedings, but I thought with all your VAST legal knowledge, you'd know
> that?
Is that what Greg was trying to say?
> In every state I am aware of a judge is granted broad discretion by
> appeals courts, to get a reversal you must show error.
Usually a procedural error.
> You can't do that easily if there is no record to prove the judge was wrong.
Greg could have been a bit more clear in what he was trying to say.
krp
That's what I said. How many ordinary folks do you know that understand
the Rules of Evidence?
>> >> But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
>> >> caseworker?
>> >> Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
>> >> of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations
>> >> and
>> >> conspiracy to do same?
>>
>> > Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?
>>
>> >> He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs. who
>> >> sue the agency.
>>
>> >> He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
>>
>> > Kane's retired and tends to his garden.
>>
>> >> Kane wrote
>> >> > Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
>> >> > by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
>> >>
>> >> krp wrote
>> >> > Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
>> >>
>> >> In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
>> >> in Juvenile Court, they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of
>> >> safety"
>> >> but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.
>>
>> > They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"
>>
>> Dan the object should be to NOT ERR AT ALL!!!
> Of course. But we live in the real world.
Yeah that's why there is an "A-TEAM!"
>> >> Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
>> >> as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
>>
>> > So?
>> So people get their families destroyed by these "helpers" who operate
>> on
>> hidden agendas and folk myth bullshit.
> Which helpers? Which hidden agendas?
CPS workers. What hidden agendas? Funding via CAPTA for one. Sometimes
political agendas of the radical feminists or lesbian activists that work
for CPS across the nation, sometimes it is just the mental problems of the
caseworkers who believe themselves to have been abuse victims so they are on
personal crusades. There's more than one or two agendas in tens of thousands
of caseworkers over the country. Sometimes it is simple "authority complex."
People who NEED to dominate others. You see it in lots of cops and lots of
CPS case workers.
>> >> The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
>> >> by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
>
>> > The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.
>>
>> And dependency courts. It's a bitch to deal with - with an INCESTOUS
>> legal system where everyone is againt the family. Where EVERYONE draws a
>> paycheck from the same source and are all part of the same sorority.
> True.
>> > It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
>> > present.
>> You mean "BULLSHIT" that they present!
> Yes, and it's the family's job to prove that.
That's why they need a good lawyer and NOT some internet jackass giving
BAD "legal advice."
>> > It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.
>> It is the accused's job to make sure the Judge hears that what the
>> caseworkers presented was BULLSHIT!
> Agreed.
And is easier said than done, even most lawyers fail at it.
>> >> This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
>> >> preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
>> >> is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
>> > Someone may consider you a genius, Greg. It doesn't mean they're right.
>> Same for you Dan.
> Same for you, krp.
I suppose but then I've been certified to do it for many years.
>> >> The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
>> >> and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
>> >> Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
>> >> referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
>> >> transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
>> >> of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
>> >> Many hearings are also not transcribed.
>> > Citations for the "many hearings are not transcribed" claim.
>> Well - he's right in cases where the person isn't represented by an
>> attorney and where nobody has asked for one. CPS almost NEVER requests
>> one,
>> only in the most eggregious cases.
> I've been in NY Family Court many times and I've never seen a case not be
> transcribed.
I've been in courts in all 50 states, and I have seen most are not
transcribed.
>> >> So the Judge is never presented with a "record they can't live with"
>> >> and
>> >> the family has a tough time appealing with no transcript.
>> > What???
>>
>> You claim to be this "GREAT EXPERT" and you didn't understand that?
> I never claimed to be a "GREAT EXPERT." Who told you that?
Your mannerisms of arguing here. It seems yours is the ONLY way... I
made it clear long ago that I recognize the good work of others who have a
very different approach from ours, you don't seem to be able to do that.
> But no, I didn't understand it.
>> It is almost impossible to appeal a case where there is no transcript of
>> the
>> proceedings, but I thought with all your VAST legal knowledge, you'd know
>> that?
> Is that what Greg was trying to say?
It's the way I read it.
>> In every state I am aware of a judge is granted broad discretion by
>> appeals courts, to get a reversal you must show error.
> Usually a procedural error.
Usually, but also an unreasonable verdict based on the facts presented.
Such as accepting a premise argued by CPS that has otherwise been show to be
bullshit, such as testimony based on the SAC dolls.
>> You can't do that easily if there is no record to prove the judge was
>> wrong.
> Greg could have been a bit more clear in what he was trying to say.
He seemed clear enough for me, but then I'm not antagonistic to him, I'm
not looking to prove him wrong at every turn. I give both of you guys wide
berths to turn around in,.
Ron
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167664116....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> Ron wrote
>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those who
>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all, the
>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
>> difference?
>
> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
Opinion. Unsupported.
> The majority were put in the system under the "AT RISK OF" clause.
Opinion. Unsupported.
> Not to mention the MAJOR slippery slope category of neglect
> which ITSELF is decided by "AT RISK OF" again.
Opinion. Unsupported.
> Actual abuse is a very tiny portion of child removals.
Physical Abuse Only 10.3%
Neglect Only 57.9%
Sexual Abuse Only 6.9%
Psychological Maltreatment Only, Other Only, or Unknown Only 9.4%
Multiple Maltreatments 15.5%
Not that thin gregg.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table5_4.htm
> Then there is the 38% where even the agency themself
> is forced to report to the Feds they have NO REASON
> for removing them, not EVEN the "AT RISK OF" sleaze.
And the link supporting that "38%" quote is?
Ron
0:->
Let's see if he'll answer you. I believe I asked that same question on
that same issue, just recently...and got no reply. Big surprise.
Kane
>
> Ron
>
>
Ron
>
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:maKdnYYFKdo4qATY...@scnresearch.com...
>
>>>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those
>>>> who
>>>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all,
>>>> the
>>>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say
>>>> to
>>>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
>>>> difference?
>
>>> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
>
>> False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
>
> Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
> majority" are NOT victims.
"During 2004, an estimated total of 3 million referrals, including
approximately 5.5 million children, were made to CPS agencies."
"CPS agencies screened in 62.7 percent of referrals and screened out 37.3
percent."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chaptertwo.htm#screen
CPS is not responsible for the actions of others. They get the calls, and
are required to give each call a disposition, and from there either
investigate or not depending on the disposition each call is given.
Required to do so by LAW. IOW, not given a choice.
Of those cases investigated, 25.7% are substantiated, 60.7% are not.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table2_4.htm
Not a "VAST" majority by any means. But once again, CPS is not responsible
for what is reported, only what their investigations reveal. If there is no
reason to substantiate then they do not do so. When there is reason to
substantiate, they do so. Seems to me that since the majority of
investigations reveal that there is no abuse, neglect, or other reason to
substantiate, that CPS is working FOR families rather than against them.
But then of course, even in those families that they do substantiate on they
only sometimes remove the kids preferring to provide services to the
families to strengthen them rather than seperate them.
"Nearly one-quarter of child victims (23.8%) received family preservation
services and 6.9 percent had received family reunification services within
the previous 5 years."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chaptersix.htm#post
>>> The majority were put in the system under the "AT RISK OF" clause.
>
>> Putting someone at risk is abusive in itself.
>
> Oh really? Then EVERY child in America should be taken from their
> homes without exception. And because the care within the system is equally
> at risk, what are you going to do? Send them to another planet?
Some risk is acceptable, normal, a part of life. Some is not. Legislators
for each state attempt to determine which is which and write laws to cover
as much as they can. From there it is up to the humans of CPS to read the
laws and decide what does and does not fall into which category. Those
decisions are easy to second guess, hindsight being 20-20 and all. Until
one is actually in the hot seat, the one making those decisions, one cannot
reasonably expect to be taken seriously when they spout an opinion.
And last but not least: Most removals are not made by CPS personnel. Most
are made by Law Enforcement Officers.
Ron
Dan Sullivan
krp wrote:
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:maKdnYYFKdo4qATY...@scnresearch.com...
>
> >>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those
> >>> who
> >>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all,
> >>> the
> >>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
> >>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
> >>> difference?
>
> >> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
>
> > False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
>
> Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
> majority" are NOT victims.
It all depends what you mean by "in the system."
Are children not found to be maltreated "in the system?"
Are children found to be maltreated but are still with their parents
"in the system?"
Or are the children "in the system" the ones in fostercare?
Truthfully I believe base on my experience that most founded reports
are in error.
And a great number of kids in foster care should be home with their
family, if not their parents, then their relatives.
0:->
Every word so far, Ron, jibes exactly with what I have observed in 30
years of studying CPS.
And of course it's kind of hard to argue with the data from ACF.
Most states have it stated clearly in statute that both Police and
Doctors can remove on their own assessment.
They don't need a 'warrant.'
>
> Ron
>
Kane
freedom
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007, " krp" <web2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:1167698342.0...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>> You mean "BULLSHIT" that they present!
>
>> Yes, and it's the family's job to prove that.
>
> That's why they need a good lawyer and NOT some internet jackass giving
>BAD "legal advice."
And which of these categories do you fall under? Let's visit Google Groups
and do a search for posts authored by you, to get the answer to that one:
web2...@verizon.net
k...@atlantic.net
judge...@ij.net
kenpa...@aol.com
kenpa...@earthlink.net
pa...@aol.com
>>> > Someone may consider you a genius, Greg. It doesn't mean they're right.
>
>>> Same for you Dan.
>
>> Same for you, krp.
>
> I suppose but then I've been certified to do it for many years.
Is your certification bogus, like your faked psychology degree from
Shaftesbury University/diploma mill?
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBRZnC1gu6zDezw650EQK/wACg5TWZgVGQP5CnrDyYcRsAq+etWbgAoLeS
FGcdz5n2MQf/6pJE/LdTeXHK
=V+3P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dan Sullivan
news:L6imh.6648$0F1.6128@trnddc02...
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:1167698342.0...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> ROFL!
> >> > NO surrender, Greg.
> >> >> krp wrote
> >> >> > Bullshit.
> >> >> Exactly.
Ordinary people need to learn to respond to each and every accusation
with the credible evidence that proves the accusations aren't based in
reality.
And everyone else that knows how to get kids back from CPS.
> >> >> Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
> >> >> as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
> >> > So?
> >> So people get their families destroyed by these "helpers" who
operate
> >> on
> >> hidden agendas and folk myth bullshit.
> > Which helpers? Which hidden agendas?
> CPS workers. What hidden agendas? Funding via CAPTA for one. Sometimes
> political agendas of the radical feminists or lesbian activists that work
> for CPS across the nation, sometimes it is just the mental problems of the
> caseworkers who believe themselves to have been abuse victims so they are
on
> personal crusades. There's more than one or two agendas in tens of
thousands
> of caseworkers over the country. Sometimes it is simple "authority
complex."
> People who NEED to dominate others. You see it in lots of cops and lots of
> CPS case workers.
I've met more than a few of those people.
> >> >> The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
> >> >> by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
> >> > The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.
> >> And dependency courts. It's a bitch to deal with - with an
INCESTOUS
> >> legal system where everyone is againt the family. Where EVERYONE draws
a
> >> paycheck from the same source and are all part of the same sorority.
> > True.
> >> > It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
> >> > present.
> >> You mean "BULLSHIT" that they present!
> > Yes, and it's the family's job to prove that.
> That's why they need a good lawyer and NOT some internet jackass
giving
> BAD "legal advice."
Are you referring to someone in particular?
> >> > It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.
> >> It is the accused's job to make sure the Judge hears that what the
> >> caseworkers presented was BULLSHIT!
> > Agreed.
> And is easier said than done, even most lawyers fail at it.
> >> >> This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
> >> >> preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
> >> >> is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
> >> > Someone may consider you a genius, Greg. It doesn't mean they're
right.
> >> Same for you Dan.
> > Same for you, krp.
> I suppose but then I've been certified to do it for many years.
You've been certified to do what?
> >> > What???
And that would be your opinion.
> > But no, I didn't understand it.
> >> It is almost impossible to appeal a case where there is no transcript
of
> >> the
> >> proceedings, but I thought with all your VAST legal knowledge, you'd
know
> >> that?
> > Is that what Greg was trying to say?
> It's the way I read it.
> >> In every state I am aware of a judge is granted broad discretion by
> >> appeals courts, to get a reversal you must show error.
> > Usually a procedural error.
> Usually, but also an unreasonable verdict based on the facts
presented.
A Family Court Judge's decision is at his own discretion.
> Such as accepting a premise argued by CPS that has otherwise been show to
be
> bullshit, such as testimony based on the SAC dolls.
> >> You can't do that easily if there is no record to prove the judge was
> >> wrong.
> > Greg could have been a bit more clear in what he was trying to say.
> He seemed clear enough for me, but then I'm not antagonistic to him,
I'm
> not looking to prove him wrong at every turn. I give both of you guys wide
> berths to turn around in,.
Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and that's
why he gets what he gets.
How many emails did Greg send you?
Greegor
with Kane (Donald L. Fisher) posting a long series of
filibusters hoping to change the subject.
I love the part where Dan tells people not to bring up Constitutional
issues until appeal, when you CAN NOT bring up new issues.
And Kane (Donald L. Fisher) the former Oregon caseworker
openly lobbies for more money for the agencies at the same
time he still pretends to be a Family Rights advocate.
The connection between Dan and Don is not mere
"guilt by association". These two have mutually
posted "references" for each other at great length for YEARS.
All you have to do is look through the archive in ascps
and you can see that Dan and Kane answer for each
other constantly, like they're attached at the hip.
Kane's advice AGAINST having an agressive
"vigorous defense" was hilarious!
Almost as funny as watching his upset when news stories
damning or embarassing to CPS agencies are posted.
Dan's urging of Faustian bargains with the CPS devil is funny.
As a "Boll Weevil" burrowing into Family Rights groups,
how long did Dan expect his charade to go unnoticed?
Will the stooges and sock puppets from the "Cult of Dan"
be enough to cover this up?
krp wrote:
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:1167667392.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
> >> caseworker?
> >> Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
> >> of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations and
> >> conspiracy to do same?
>
> > Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?
>
> >> He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs. who
> >> sue the agency.
>
> >> He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
>
> > Kane's retired and tends to his garden.
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
> >> > by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
> >>
> >> In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
> >> in Juvenile Court, they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of safety"
> >> but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.
>
> > They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"
>
> Dan the object should be to NOT ERR AT ALL!!!
>
> >> Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
> >> as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
>
> > So?
>
> So people get their families destroyed by these "helpers" who operate on
> hidden agendas and folk myth bullshit.
>
> >> The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
> >> by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
>
> > The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.
>
> And dependency courts. It's a bitch to deal with - with an INCESTOUS
> legal system where everyone is againt the family. Where EVERYONE draws a
> paycheck from the same source and are all part of the same sorority.
>
> > It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
> > present.
>
> You mean "BULLSHIT" that they present!
>
> > It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.
>
> It is the accused's job to make sure the Judge hears that what the
> caseworkers presented was BULLSHIT!
>
> >> This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
> >> preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
> >> is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
>
> > Someone may consider you a genius, Greg. It doesn't mean they're right.
>
> Same for you Dan.
>
> >> The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
> >> and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
>
> >> Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
> >> referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
> >> transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
> >> of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
> >> Many hearings are also not transcribed.
>
> > Citations for the "many hearings are not transcribed" claim.
>
> Well - he's right in cases where the person isn't represented by an
> attorney and where nobody has asked for one. CPS almost NEVER requests one,
> only in the most eggregious cases.
>
> >> So the Judge is never presented with a "record they can't live with" and
> >> the family has a tough time appealing with no transcript.
>
> > What???
>
> You claim to be this "GREAT EXPERT" and you didn't understand that? It
> is almost impossible to appeal a case where there is no transcript of the
> proceedings, but I thought with all your VAST legal knowledge, you'd know
> that? In every state I am aware of a judge is granted broad discretion by
> appeals courts, to get a reversal you must show error. You can't do that
> easily if there is no record to prove the judge was wrong.
krp wrote:
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >> I'm sorry - it's the fact of life You do what it takes to fight.
>
> > I believe you do what is necessary and appropriate to win your children
> > bacck..
>
> What is necessary is not giving CPS dominion in any way over your
> family, and making sure that once it is over they never come back.
>
> >> The ideas I have seen here to "negotiate" are plain stupid suggestions.
>
> > But that tact has worked in a great deal of cases.
>
> And it has proven to fail in the vast majority of cases.
>
> >> You can't negotiate with those folks.
>
> > Not at all?
>
> Mostly no. Most of the CPS folks have agendas all their own. CAPTA makes
> sure they do.
>
> >> You stand a 100 times BETTER chance of
> >> negotiating yourself out of the big pot in the starving cannibal village.
> >> Making people think they can trust CPS workers is not helping people.
>
> > I don't make people do anything.
>
> Ok - leading them to believe they can trust CPS workers is NOT helping
> people.
krp wrote:
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:maKdnYYFKdo4qATY...@scnresearch.com...
>
> >>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those
> >>> who
> >>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all,
> >>> the
> >>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
> >>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
> >>> difference?
>
> >> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
>
> > False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
>
> Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
> majority" are NOT victims.
>
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> I can hardly wait for the "Cult of Dan" to respond to this,
> with Kane (Donald L. Fisher) posting a long series of
> filibusters hoping to change the subject.
Change the subject like you just did, Greg?
Did you think no one would notice?
> I love the part where Dan tells people not to bring up Constitutional
> issues until appeal, when you CAN NOT bring up new issues.
Not true.
Citations, please.
> And Kane (Donald L. Fisher) the former Oregon caseworker
> openly lobbies for more money for the agencies at the same
> time he still pretends to be a Family Rights advocate.
Kane is an entirely different person than me.
And what you say about him isn't true either.
> The connection between Dan and Don is not mere
> "guilt by association". These two have mutually
> posted "references" for each other at great length for YEARS.
Kane has helped me on every case I've helped with.
> All you have to do is look through the archive in ascps
> and you can see that Dan and Kane answer for each
> other constantly, like they're attached at the hip.
>
> Kane's advice AGAINST having an agressive
> "vigorous defense" was hilarious!
I never saw that.
Post the citations, Greg, if there are any.
> Almost as funny as watching his upset when news stories
> damning or embarassing to CPS agencies are posted.
>
> Dan's urging of Faustian bargains with the CPS devil is funny.
I don't know what you're talking about, Greg.
You have citations for that statement?
> As a "Boll Weevil" burrowing into Family Rights groups,
> how long did Dan expect his charade to go unnoticed?
What charade?
Exposing morons with terrible advice.
Morons like you who tell people to get themselves arrested in Court.
Morons like you who tell people there's a "bight side" to a TPR
Hearing.
Morons who tell people agreeing to a service plan is admitting guilt.
Morons who tell people to ask for a jury trial in Family Court.
> Will the stooges and sock puppets from the "Cult of Dan"
> be enough to cover this up?
What is the proper cover for a pile of Greg Hanson's horse shit?
Will a tarp be sufficient?
Earl
> I can hardly wait for the "Cult of Dan" to respond to this,
> with Kane (Donald L. Fisher) posting a long series of
> filibusters hoping to change the subject.
>
> I love the part where Dan tells people not to bring up Constitutional
> issues until appeal, when you CAN NOT bring up new issues.
>
> And Kane (Donald L. Fisher) the former Oregon caseworker
> openly lobbies for more money for the agencies at the same
> time he still pretends to be a Family Rights advocate.
>
> The connection between Dan and Don is not mere
> "guilt by association". These two have mutually
> posted "references" for each other at great length for YEARS.
>
> All you have to do is look through the archive in ascps
> and you can see that Dan and Kane answer for each
> other constantly, like they're attached at the hip.
Dan and Don Fishers connection is much deeper. Here's Dan's
knock...knock post where he insinuates d'geezer is a LEO at his[Dan's]
command ready to 'fill out the 'paperwork' on folks who dare to expose
them as agents.
He challenges ASCPS to figure out who d'geezer is and why he is doing
his[Dan's] 'job'.
Well we know d'geezer Don Fisher Kane - scumbag CPS worker who made
internet history by being so fucking disgusting as to spam Oregon's most
vulnerable children (complete w/photos and bio's] to usenet. 'Come fill
out a form and take home a kiddie' he bubbled on alt.adoption. I think
it's Danno's daddy.
So - how 'bout it Danno - what is your 'job' here??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Hello People,
>
> Here's a Grand Slam from d'geezer,
>
> BTW, while your at it, figure out who d'geezer is and why he was
> "doing my job" as he engaged and studied the posts on this NG, (hint)
> take note of the posts he quoted and the commonality of those posts.
> He may be gone?, but he should NOT be forgotten, unless someone
> doesn't care about a government sponsored LENGTHY vacation because
> d'geezer can reappear at the drop of a bluster and threat.
>
> Or maybe he's just too busy filling out the paperwork for the next
> step.
>
> Didn't someone discover d'geezer was posting from a government
> computer?
>
> Please note the following quotes,
> 1) "Isn't it odd that you didn't spend
> any time in police custody.......hmmmmmmmmm?"
>
> 2) "Your posts were full of other justification and rationale
> for murder and your last comment above would be a "Tom Metzger"
> for sure in a court of law."
>
> 3) "The state has very large men with guns, handcuffs,
> clubs, pepperspray, and iron bars, to take care of those that
> bluster and threaten when they are wrong."
>
>
> Someone should keep his underwear clean and a new toothbrush handy.
>
> Maybe pick up some stationery and stamps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
krp
> Ordinary people need to learn to respond to each and every accusation with
> the credible evidence that proves the accusations aren't based in reality.
Look Dan - even most lawyers, after 3 years of law school are piss poor
on the rules of evidence. Now you THINK that some emotionally over taxed lay
person is going to act like a PTRO after 5 minutes of some bullshit from
some asshole on the internet?
>> >> >> But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
>> >> >> caseworker?
>> >> >> Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
>> >> >> of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations
>> >> >> and conspiracy to do same?
>> >>
>> >> > Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?
>> >>
>> >> >> He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs.
>> >> >> who
>> >> >> sue the agency.
>> >> >> He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
>> >>
>> >> > Kane's retired and tends to his garden.
>> >>
>> >> >> Kane wrote
>> >> >> > Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
>> >> >> > by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> krp wrote
>> >> >> > Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
>> >> >> in Juvenile Court, they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of
>> >> >> safety"
>> >> >> but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.
>> >>
>> >> > They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"
>> >>
>> >> Dan the object should be to NOT ERR AT ALL!!!
>>
>> > Of course. But we live in the real world.
>>
>> Yeah that's why there is an "A-TEAM!"
> And everyone else that knows how to get kids back from CPS.
Some who *think* they do and have absolutely NO "responsibility" when
they give BAD advice that costs the family their children! They find others
to blame.
>> >> >> Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
>> >> >> as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
>> >>
>> >> > So?
>> >> So people get their families destroyed by these "helpers" who
>> >> operate
>> >> on hidden agendas and folk myth bullshit.
>
>> > Which helpers? Which hidden agendas?
>
>> CPS workers. What hidden agendas? Funding via CAPTA for one.
>> Sometimes
>> political agendas of the radical feminists or lesbian activists that work
>> for CPS across the nation, sometimes it is just the mental problems of
>> the
>> caseworkers who believe themselves to have been abuse victims so they are
>> on
>> personal crusades. There's more than one or two agendas in tens of
>> thousands
>> of caseworkers over the country. Sometimes it is simple "authority
>> complex."
>> People who NEED to dominate others. You see it in lots of cops and lots
>> of
> CPS case workers.
> I've met more than a few of those people.
With the agendas?
>> >> >> The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
>> >> >> by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
>> >
>> >> > The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.
>> >> And dependency courts. It's a bitch to deal with - with an
>> >> INCESTOUS
>> >> legal system where everyone is againt the family. Where EVERYONE draws
>> >> a
>> >> paycheck from the same source and are all part of the same sorority.
>> > True.
>>
>> >> > It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
>> >> > present.
>> >> You mean "BULLSHIT" that they present!
>> > Yes, and it's the family's job to prove that.
>> That's why they need a good lawyer and NOT some internet jackass
>> giving
>> BAD "legal advice."
> Are you referring to someone in particular?
Not here yet, but in general, yes. I have seen "activists" who give
incredibly BAD advice to people. Idiots who COPY the work of others and
think they know the game because it has worked a few times for them. Some of
them even have websites to their towering egos.
>> >> > It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.
>> >> It is the accused's job to make sure the Judge hears that what the
>> >> caseworkers presented was BULLSHIT!
>>
>> > Agreed.
>>
>> And is easier said than done, even most lawyers fail at it.
>>
>> >> >> This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
>> >> >> preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
>> >> >> is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
>>
>> >> > Someone may consider you a genius, Greg. It doesn't mean they're
>> >> > right.
>> >> Same for you Dan.
>> > Same for you, krp.
>> I suppose but then I've been certified to do it for many years.
> You've been certified to do what?
Consult on such cases.
>> >> > What???
> I couldn't care less what you recognize.
That's obvious as well, you have a very high regard for yourself.
Difference between us Dan, I have a regard for my ability, but I also have a
high regard for others who have proven themselves for many years. You only
regard yourself. That rings loudly.
>> > But no, I didn't understand it.
>> >> It is almost impossible to appeal a case where there is no transcript
>> >> of the
>> >> proceedings, but I thought with all your VAST legal knowledge, you'd
>> >> know
>> >> that?
>> > Is that what Greg was trying to say?
>> It's the way I read it.
>> >> In every state I am aware of a judge is granted broad discretion by
>> >> appeals courts, to get a reversal you must show error.
>>
>> > Usually a procedural error.
>>
>> Usually, but also an unreasonable verdict based on the facts
>> presented.
> A Family Court Judge's decision is at his own discretion.
No - not necessarily when there is a record.
>> Such as accepting a premise argued by CPS that has otherwise been show to
>> be
>> bullshit, such as testimony based on the SAC dolls.
>> >> You can't do that easily if there is no record to prove the judge was
>> >> wrong.
>> > Greg could have been a bit more clear in what he was trying to say.
>> He seemed clear enough for me, but then I'm not antagonistic to him,
>> I'm
>> not looking to prove him wrong at every turn. I give both of you guys
>> wide
>> berths to turn around in,.
> Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and that's why
> he gets what he gets.
> How many emails did Greg send you?
None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
krp
>>>>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those
>>>>> who
>>>>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all,
>>>>> the
>>>>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say
>>>>> to
>>>>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
>>>>> difference?
>>>> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
>>> False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
>> Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
>> majority" are NOT victims.
> "During 2004, an estimated total of 3 million referrals, including
> approximately 5.5 million children, were made to CPS agencies."
> "CPS agencies screened in 62.7 percent of referrals and screened out 37.3
> percent."
Ah a NEW statistical table showing that 99.9999999999999999999% of the
acc8sed are guilty. WHAAT A SHOCK coming from CPS!? In the official reports
the "UNFOUNDED" rate is near 70%.
> CPS is not responsible for the actions of others. They get the calls, and
> are required to give each call a disposition, and from there either
> investigate or not depending on the disposition each call is given.
> Required to do so by LAW. IOW, not given a choice.
> Of those cases investigated, 25.7% are substantiated, 60.7% are not.
> Not a "VAST" majority by any means. But once again, CPS is not
> responsible
Let's repeat that because it really is the tune here.
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
But once again, CPS is not responsible
Getting it now Ron?
krp
>> And last but not least: Most removals are not made by CPS personnel.
>> Most are made by Law Enforcement Officers.
>
> Every word so far, Ron, jibes exactly with what I have observed in 30
> years of studying CPS.
>
> And of course it's kind of hard to argue with the data from ACF.
Not hard at all since much of it is pure BULLSHIT!
krp
>> >>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those
>> >>> who
>> >>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all,
>> >>> the
>> >>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say
>> >>> to
>> >>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
>> >>> difference?
>> >> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
>>
>> > False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
>>
>> Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
>> majority" are NOT victims.
> It all depends what you mean by "in the system."
Those for whom case files are created.
> Are children not found to be maltreated "in the system?"
Very few. Mostly because you have people with NO real training to tell
real from not real allegations of abuse.
> Are children found to be maltreated but are still with their parents "in
> the system?"
Yes and some DIE as a result because you have people in CPS who don't
know what the hell they are doing!
> Or are the children "in the system" the ones in fostercare?
Some are and some die there too.
> Truthfully I believe base on my experience that most founded reports are
> in error.
Most? I don't know, but many are.
> And a great number of kids in foster care should be home with their
> family, if not their parents, then their relatives.
Often kids in foster care are in more peril than they would have been at
home even IF the allegations about their parent had been true.
freedom
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007, " krp" <web2...@verizon.net> wrote:
So they'd be better off with you, who purchased your college degrees from a
diploma mill and didn't spend a day in a classroom? Compared to that, 3
years of law school sounds pretty damn good.
And how much of your certification is based upon your phony college
degrees?
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBRZqCwwu6zDezw650EQLGlgCfUaZ9t0NhZAt7W5Wbqgbo8C3QJlIAnjOt
x3qlPD/DD3m6QEwLAo6en/we
=K26d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dan Sullivan
> > he gets what he gets.
>
> > How many emails did Greg send you?
>
> None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
Thought so.
Ron
>
> "Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:rUkmh.85814$V34....@newsfe17.lga...
>
>>>>>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those
>>>>>> who
>>>>>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
>>>>>> difference?
>
>>>>> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
>
>>>> False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
>
>>> Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
>>> majority" are NOT victims.
>
>> "During 2004, an estimated total of 3 million referrals, including
>> approximately 5.5 million children, were made to CPS agencies."
>> "CPS agencies screened in 62.7 percent of referrals and screened out 37.3
>> percent."
>
> Ah a NEW statistical table showing that 99.9999999999999999999% of the
> acc8sed are guilty. WHAAT A SHOCK coming from CPS!? In the official
> reports the "UNFOUNDED" rate is near 70%.
We patiently await the link to support your assumptions.
>> CPS is not responsible for the actions of others. They get the calls,
>> and are required to give each call a disposition, and from there either
>> investigate or not depending on the disposition each call is given.
>> Required to do so by LAW. IOW, not given a choice.
>
>> Of those cases investigated, 25.7% are substantiated, 60.7% are not.
>
>> Not a "VAST" majority by any means. But once again, CPS is not
>> responsible
>
>
> Let's repeat that because it really is the tune here.
>
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
> Getting it now Ron?
>
> But once again, CPS is not responsible
Surely I do, but it seems that you once again miss the point.
CPS responds to the calls, investigates, and makes a determination based
upon the laws of the state. Calls made by citizens, just like yourself.
Just like me, and just like gregg. Not only can CPS not read minds, but
they cannot tell the future. They can only make an assessment based upon
observed data and historical fact. Fact, not conjecture. Facts like... a
spiral fracture of the ulna is most likely caused by a twisting motion upon
wrist of the individual with the fracture from an outside source. Little
things like that. Other explanations are possible, but the probability's
are pretty obvious and statistically proven.
So, you seem to be a "CPS is NEVER right" kind of individual. And a "CPS is
to blame for everything" kind as well. You don't believe that CPS is a
service agency, one that responds, not one that instigates calls or
investigations. We had one of those around this news group some time back.
Believed that CPS workers drove around neighborhoods looking for kids to
remove, with or without cause. He was never able to support his belief,
never even tried. Just one more inane unsane series of posts completely
without foundation. Never supporting what he wrote.
And it seems that you are just about the same. You deride the facts and
statistics others provide, completely without any supporting data of your
own. Which begs the questions "do you have any data to support your
belief's?" and "do you deny the statistical data provided and can provide
data that proves it wrong?" Or are you just one more of a long series of
posters with lots of words, but no facts.
Ron
Greegor
why can't you tell us more about your employment and education?
You do ask other people about such things right?
Dan Sullivan
Nope.
krp
>> > Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and that's
>> > why
>> > he gets what he gets.
>> > How many emails did Greg send you?
>> None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
> Thought so.
So he called me to ask me for some info about myself. Actually he was
sort of accusatory buying into the stalker's claims. I did my best to answer
his questions.
krp
>>>>>>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell
>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After
>>>>>>> all, the
>>>>>>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you
>>>>>>> say to
>>>>>>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
>>>>> False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
>>>> Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
>>>> majority" are NOT victims.
>>> "During 2004, an estimated total of 3 million referrals, including
>>> approximately 5.5 million children, were made to CPS agencies."
>>> "CPS agencies screened in 62.7 percent of referrals and screened out
>>> 37.3 percent."
>> Ah a NEW statistical table showing that 99.9999999999999999999% of the
>> accused are guilty. WHAT A SHOCK coming from CPS!? In the official
>> reports the "UNFOUNDED" rate is near 70%.
> We patiently await the link to support your assumptions.
START HERE: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/1999/child.htm
In 1996, 969,018 cases of child abuse and neglect were reported nationwide
from a total of 47 states. Nearly 80 percent of these cases involved abuse
and neglect by parents. An additional 11 percent involved other relatives.
(National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. (1998). Child Maltreatment 1996: Reports From the States for
the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.)
http://www.uab.edu/educ/FAC/jambor/abneg.htm
In creating the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Congress
mandated that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to receive
funding. For that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to
receive funding. For instance, in the state of Alabama, these efforts have
resulted in the system of administrative complaints aand hearings
administrated by the Department of Human Resources (D.H.R.). When
information is reported or received of possible child abuse or neglect, the
office of D.H.R. initiates an investigation. .The state agency has broad
powers to investigate and prosecute charges and to maintain a central
registry of actions and findings (3).
>>> CPS is not responsible for the actions of others. They get the calls,
>>> and are required to give each call a disposition, and from there either
>>> investigate or not depending on the disposition each call is given.
>>> Required to do so by LAW. IOW, not given a choice.
>>
>>> Of those cases investigated, 25.7% are substantiated, 60.7% are not.
>>
>>> Not a "VAST" majority by any means. But once again, CPS is not
>>> responsible
>>
>>
>> Let's repeat that because it really is the tune here.
>>
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>> Getting it now Ron?
>>
>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
> Surely I do, but it seems that you once again miss the point.
Nope not at all. I get the point, that's why I do what I do.
> CPS responds to the calls, investigates, and makes a determination based
> upon the laws of the state. Calls made by citizens, just like yourself.
> Just like me, and just like gregg. Not only can CPS not read minds, but
> they cannot tell the future. They can only make an assessment based upon
> observed data and historical fact. Fact, not conjecture. Facts like... a
> spiral fracture of the ulna is most likely caused by a twisting motion
> upon wrist of the individual with the fracture from an outside source.
> Little things like that. Other explanations are possible, but the
> probability's are pretty obvious and statistically proven.
Can't make a "fact" based "assessment" when you have't a frigging clue
what you are talking about.
> So, you seem to be a "CPS is NEVER right" kind of individual.
Nope. CPS is right sometimes, but not very damn often!
> And a "CPS is to blame for everything" kind as well. You don't believe
> that CPS is a service agency, one that responds, not one that instigates
> calls or investigations. We had one of those around this news group some
> time back. Believed that CPS workers drove around neighborhoods looking
> for kids to remove, with or without cause. He was never able to support
> his belief, never even tried. Just one more inane unsane series of posts
> completely without foundation. Never supporting what he wrote.
No I believe that for the most part CPS is the blind trying to lead the
blind. When you have "caseworkers" with a BA in "Bible Studies" and a grand
total of 15 MINUTES of "in-service training" before they go out and pass
judgment on abuse cases I think they do more harm than good. Which is why
there has been such attacks on the agencies across the country. It is what
cauised the State of Florida to try to dismantle its old HRS. Too bad they
hired the same damn clowns in the nedw agency and had all the same problems
deja-vu again.
> And it seems that you are just about the same. You deride the facts and
> statistics others provide, completely without any supporting data of your
> own. Which begs the questions "do you have any data to support your
> belief's?" and "do you deny the statistical data provided and can provide
> data that proves it wrong?" Or are you just one more of a long series of
> posters with lots of words, but no facts.
I deride self serving "facts" and statistics the agency used to defend
itself against wide spread and VALID criticism. I given you sources many
times you guys just love to ignore them, snip them out and pretend they
don't exist.
Ron
FINALLY! A link! Congratulations. Unfortunately the data in that link
still DOES NOT support your belief's or statements. Why is that? Where is
the support for the 70% figure you quote? Oh, and just a side note here,
your figures are just about a decade old. Couldnt find anything more
recent? I have after all pointed you in the direction of more recent data.
> http://www.uab.edu/educ/FAC/jambor/abneg.htm
>
> In creating the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Congress
> mandated that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to receive
> funding. For that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to
> receive funding. For instance, in the state of Alabama, these efforts have
> resulted in the system of administrative complaints aand hearings
> administrated by the Department of Human Resources (D.H.R.). When
> information is reported or received of possible child abuse or neglect,
> the office of D.H.R. initiates an investigation. .The state agency has
> broad powers to investigate and prosecute charges and to maintain a
> central registry of actions and findings (3).
This is all well and good, but of little use.
>>>> CPS is not responsible for the actions of others. They get the calls,
>>>> and are required to give each call a disposition, and from there either
>>>> investigate or not depending on the disposition each call is given.
>>>> Required to do so by LAW. IOW, not given a choice.
>>>
>>>> Of those cases investigated, 25.7% are substantiated, 60.7% are not.
>>>
>>>> Not a "VAST" majority by any means. But once again, CPS is not
>>>> responsible
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's repeat that because it really is the tune here.
>>>
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>> Getting it now Ron?
>>>
>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>
>> Surely I do, but it seems that you once again miss the point.
>
> Nope not at all. I get the point, that's why I do what I do.
Hmmm, then exactly what point is it you are getting?
>> CPS responds to the calls, investigates, and makes a determination based
>> upon the laws of the state. Calls made by citizens, just like yourself.
>> Just like me, and just like gregg. Not only can CPS not read minds, but
>> they cannot tell the future. They can only make an assessment based upon
>> observed data and historical fact. Fact, not conjecture. Facts like...
>> a spiral fracture of the ulna is most likely caused by a twisting motion
>> upon wrist of the individual with the fracture from an outside source.
>> Little things like that. Other explanations are possible, but the
>> probability's are pretty obvious and statistically proven.
>
> Can't make a "fact" based "assessment" when you have't a frigging clue
> what you are talking about.
Interesting opinion. Based upon what facts?
>> So, you seem to be a "CPS is NEVER right" kind of individual.
>
> Nope. CPS is right sometimes, but not very damn often!
"CPS agencies screened in 62.7 percent of referrals and screened out 37.3
percent."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chaptertwo.htm#screen
So, of the 3 million plus calls CPS nation wide decides that 62.7% of those
calls are credible enough to require additional attention. Of those:
"More than one-quarter of investigations resulted in a disposition of
substantiated (25.7%)"
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chaptertwo.htm#screen
So now we have a figure of about 25%. 25% of the referals that they get
from the general population turn out to have something to them. But then
again:
"More than one-half (60.7%) of investigations led to a finding that the
alleged maltreatment was unsubstantiated."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chaptertwo.htm#screen
So, of the 62.7% of the calls that they believe require additional action,
25% of them turn out to be actual cases of abuse, neglect, or some other
form of maltreatment. Interesting, wouldn't you say? One must remember
that they are responding to calls from the general population, individuals
who, for the most part, have absolutely no training, formal or informal, in
abuse or neglect issues. Wow, and all of this with a workforce of roughly
27,000 people. 27,000 people to service a nation of more than 300 million.
More bang for your buck you will NEVER receive.
>> And a "CPS is to blame for everything" kind as well. You don't believe
>> that CPS is a service agency, one that responds, not one that instigates
>> calls or investigations. We had one of those around this news group some
>> time back. Believed that CPS workers drove around neighborhoods looking
>> for kids to remove, with or without cause. He was never able to support
>> his belief, never even tried. Just one more inane unsane series of posts
>> completely without foundation. Never supporting what he wrote.
>
> No I believe that for the most part CPS is the blind trying to lead the
> blind. When you have "caseworkers" with a BA in "Bible Studies" and a
> grand total of 15 MINUTES of "in-service training" before they go out and
> pass judgment on abuse cases I think they do more harm than good.
15 minutes. Hmmm, interesting. Unfortunately, again, this is not supported
by the facts.
Here is some of the job requirements from the state of Nebraska for the jobs
you are concerned about.
"REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree required; prefer Bachelors degree in social
work, psychology, sociology, counseling, human development, mental health
care, education, or closely related area."
http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
Of course thats just for the entry level positions. Supervisors have the
following requirements:
"REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree in social work, psychology, sociology,
counseling, human development, mental health care, education, or closely
related academic area, AND experience performing casework activities in
counseling, protective services, alcohol/drug abuse, juvenile justice
probation or social services delivery; prefer Masters degree. Previous
Protection and Safety experience required."
http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
So, while your opinions are entertaining they are not based on fact. Thats
just one state. I imagine that all 50 have requirements that are somewhat
similar, although different in some respects.
> Which is
> why there has been such attacks on the agencies across the country. It is
> what cauised the State of Florida to try to dismantle its old HRS. Too bad
> they hired the same damn clowns in the nedw agency and had all the same
> problems deja-vu again.
Florida has a number of problems, of which this is only one.
>> And it seems that you are just about the same. You deride the facts and
>> statistics others provide, completely without any supporting data of your
>> own. Which begs the questions "do you have any data to support your
>> belief's?" and "do you deny the statistical data provided and can provide
>> data that proves it wrong?" Or are you just one more of a long series of
>> posters with lots of words, but no facts.
>
>
> I deride self serving "facts" and statistics the agency used to defend
> itself against wide spread and VALID criticism. I given you sources many
> times you guys just love to ignore them, snip them out and pretend they
> don't exist.
Valid? How can these criticism's be truly valid when they are based not
upon facts but like yours upon belief's and hysteria?
As for the facts, self serving or otherwise, until someone can come up with
data that is accurate and supported we must use what is available. You
believe that the data is inaccurate but can provide nothing to support that
belief. The data that you have provided so far either has little to do with
your beliefs or fails to support them.
Welcome to the news group. I have been doing this for a bit more than 7
years, here and in other news groups. With you being a relative new comer
to the group I can understand your not quite up to speed on the issues or on
the locations of the relevant data. Its and educational opportunity for
you, one with a fairly steep learning curve. But if you insist on entering
the debate with unfounded belief's and no data to support them don't be
surprised when those who have been here a while take you to task for being
wrong. Good luck. You are going to need it.
Ron
0:->
I find it fascinating that folks like this one, and many even that have
been here for the life of this ng make claims, even quote "authorities"
(propaganda based "reseach") then when showed evidence, such as the
hiring criteria just fade away or change the subject.
I challenge them to look up THEIR state's job requirement's for these
positions that PROVE their claims.
Here and there an employee might move up from staff aide to caseworker
but you can be assured they are required, if they do not have a
batchelors at least, to get their butts back to school and get one.
In fact states FINANCE their education if needed, including up to
Master's degree, just like other industries, and require a contract
from years of service...if broken requiring them to pay back the
financing.
This PAs (don't ask) NEVER prove their claims. Just more ranting
blather.
I want to see the name and location of the employee with a degree in
'bible studies.'
I want to see his state's job requirements for new caseworker, and for
CPS supervisors.
>
> Ron
HNY, Ron and many more of 'em
Kane
Greegor
Dan thinks there is some dirt to be had with this.
You have discredited Dan so severely that the pack is getting
desperate.
Did you notice how the old "Where there's smoke there's fire." insult
went in other threads? Profuse posting of demands for proof,
MASSIVE DENIALS, a detailed archival report, lots of bluster,
THEN it's proven that he did in fact use the lame insult.
One that is particularly hilarious because Dan claims he HIMSELF
survived 15 investigations and reversed 5 "founded's".
How smart do you think it is for a guy who claims that experience
to use "Where there's smoke there's fire" on an opponent?
And then profusely DENY that he used that insult??
Does that strike you as a demonstration of "finesse"?
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> krp wrote:
> > "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:1167757704.2...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >> > Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and that's
> > >> > why
> > >> > he gets what he gets.
> >
> > >> > How many emails did Greg send you?
> >
> > >> None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
> >
> > > Thought so.
> >
> > So he called me to ask me for some info about myself. Actually he was
> > sort of accusatory buying into the stalker's claims. I did my best to answer
> > his questions.
>
> Dan thinks there is some dirt to be had with this.
I do?
> You have discredited Dan so severely that the pack is getting
> desperate.
>
> Did you notice how the old "Where there's smoke there's fire." insult
> went in other threads? Profuse posting of demands for proof,
You've yet to produce the citations for the first time I said it, Greg.
You've been saying for years that I did, but to this day you never
provided the proof.
> MASSIVE DENIALS, a detailed archival report, lots of bluster,
> THEN it's proven that he did in fact use the lame insult.
The only time up to the very recent was when it was quoted from Bobb.
If I'm mistaken, show me the proof.
> One that is particularly hilarious because Dan claims he HIMSELF
> survived 15 investigations and reversed 5 "founded's".
And not a hint of smoke.
> How smart do you think it is for a guy who claims that experience
> to use "Where there's smoke there's fire" on an opponent?
It's appropriate when it's applicable.
> And then profusely DENY that he used that insult??
Show me when and where I said it first, Greg.
Greegor
What does "first" have to do with it?
Considering your OWN claimed past even if you
only "joined in" it would have been incredibly stupid.
> It's appropriate when it's applicable.
You mean like the cliche' conveniently and inexplicably
doesn't apply to yourself, but of course the same cliche'
applies to somebody you want to insult?
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> > Show me when and where I said it first, Greg.
>
> What does "first" have to do with it?
For years you claimed I said it.
For years I asked for the citations.
And to this day you have failed to provide proof of your claims.
> Considering your OWN claimed past even if you
> only "joined in" it would have been incredibly stupid.
Not at all.
> > It's appropriate when it's applicable.
>
> You mean like the cliche' conveniently and inexplicably
> doesn't apply to yourself,
That saying does not apply to me or my situation.
> but of course the same cliche'
> applies to somebody you want to insult?
That saying does apply to you, Greg.
And if you feel insulted for having someone explain how it applies to
you... that's your problem.
Greegor
G > inexplicably doesn't apply to yourself,
D > That saying does not apply to me or my situation.
G > but of course the same cliche'
G > applies to somebody you want to insult?
D > That saying does apply to you, Greg.
D > And if you feel insulted for having someone explain
D > how it applies to you... that's your problem.
You've got 15 incidents of smoke versus my 2.
But "Where there's smoke there's fire." makes sense to you?
That's like you trying to light my cotton shorts
on fire while you're soaked with gasoline.
Good luck with that.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> G > You mean like the cliche' conveniently and
> G > inexplicably doesn't apply to yourself,
>
> D > That saying does not apply to me or my situation.
>
> G > but of course the same cliche'
> G > applies to somebody you want to insult?
>
> D > That saying does apply to you, Greg.
> D > And if you feel insulted for having someone explain
> D > how it applies to you... that's your problem.
>
> You've got 15 incidents of smoke versus my 2.
I don't have incidents of smoke.
I never committed or admitted to incidents of inappropriate behavior.
You did, Greg.
> But "Where there's smoke there's fire." makes sense to you?
Read the explanation I posted yesterday.
Now GFYS.
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> krp wrote:
> > "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:1167757704.2...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >> > Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and that's
> > >> > why
> > >> > he gets what he gets.
> >
> > >> > How many emails did Greg send you?
> >
> > >> None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
> >
> > > Thought so.
> >
> > So he called me to ask me for some info about myself. Actually he was
> > sort of accusatory buying into the stalker's claims. I did my best to answer
> > his questions.
>
> Dan thinks there is some dirt to be had with this.
If you align yourself with those that use innuendo, instead of proof,
then my boy, there IS dirt.
Your's.
> You have discredited Dan so severely that the pack is getting
> desperate.
Really? List one thing that is the truth this troll has posted about
Dan.
> Did you notice how the old "Where there's smoke there's fire." insult
> went in other threads?
Those were not made by Dan.
> Profuse posting of demands for proof,
Something wrong with asking for proof when other's attack you?
> MASSIVE DENIALS, a detailed archival report, lots of bluster,
> THEN it's proven that he did in fact use the lame insult.
No he didn't.
> One that is particularly hilarious because Dan claims he HIMSELF
> survived 15 investigations and reversed 5 "founded's".
So?
How many have you?
> How smart do you think it is for a guy who claims that experience
> to use "Where there's smoke there's fire" on an opponent?
Very smart, when he's defeated all accustions, and you have defeated
NONE.
>
> And then profusely DENY that he used that insult??
>
Why not? He used it truthfully, and you by lying.
> Does that strike you as a demonstration of "finesse"?
Compared to you, clodhopper, he's doing just fine.
You are here for nothing more than to sow discord. You attack people
that have defeated CPS when YOU HAVE NOT, and you lie and congratulate
liars. You attack parents fighting CPS that have also won, and
newcomers to this newsgroup that are trying to find help.
YOU ARE A CPS AGENT, GREG. There is NO doubt about it given what you
have been doing here for 5 years.
0:-]
Greegor
> YOU ARE A CPS AGENT, GREG. There is NO doubt
> about it given what you have been doing here for 5 years.
You are Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker.
You lobby for more money for the agencies.
You make excuses most times they screw up.
How's that Methwatch going Donald?
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > YOU ARE A CPS AGENT, GREG. There is NO doubt
> > about it given what you have been doing here for 5 years.
>
> You are Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker.
Nope. Show you proof.
> You lobby for more money for the agencies.
I do advocate that CPS be properly funded for the levels of abuse it
has to deal with.
> You make excuses most times they screw up.
Nope. Provide your proof. And don't waste your time showing where I
explain what most likely happened given policy, statute, standard
accepted social work practice, and the limitations imposed by lack of
adequate funding and case worker overload.
When they have committed a crime, and done egregious harm deliberatly,
not only have I said they should be hung for it, I PARTICPATED IN
GETTING A SUPERVISOR HUNG FOR IT MYSELF.
> How's that Methwatch going Donald?
I don't believe he's involved in anything called, "Methwatch."
If you have proof he is, please post it here.
Thanks, liar, and vandal.
You have done all you could to destroy this newsgroup and it's
usefulness to families in distress, Greg.
I have to assume you are proud of yourself. You seem to be.
Why do you attack all successful parents that come to this newsgroup to
share and help?
Why do you attack and ridicule newcomers that come here to ask for
information and support, Greg?
Is it because you are a vandal?
Why, Greg, to you continually lie?
0:-}
Greegor
Kane (Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker) wrote
> Nope. Provide your proof. And don't waste your time showing where I
> explain what most likely happened given policy, statute, standard
> accepted social work practice, and the limitations imposed by lack of
> adequate funding and case worker overload.
Because you don't think all that crap is EXCUSES and apology?
Good luck with that!
Kane wrote
> When they have committed a crime, and done egregious harm deliberatly,
> not only have I said they should be hung for it, I PARTICPATED IN
> GETTING A SUPERVISOR HUNG FOR IT MYSELF.
Once, YOU SAY, and clearly they LOVED YOU for that didn't they Don?
Relegated you do the Web Site job after that right?
You thought they shoulda given you a medal right?
K > Why, Greg, to you continually lie?
Yes, to me you continually lie.
krp
Click on the statistical pages.
>> In creating the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Congress
>> mandated that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to
>> receive
>> funding. For that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to
>> receive funding. For instance, in the state of Alabama, these efforts
>> have
>> resulted in the system of administrative complaints aand hearings
>> administrated by the Department of Human Resources (D.H.R.). When
>> information is reported or received of possible child abuse or neglect,
>> the office of D.H.R. initiates an investigation. .The state agency has
>> broad powers to investigate and prosecute charges and to maintain a
>> central registry of actions and findings (3).
> This is all well and good, but of little use.
It's the source.
>>>> Let's repeat that because it really is the tune here.
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>
>>>> Getting it now Ron?
>>>>
>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>
>>> Surely I do, but it seems that you once again miss the point.
>>
>> Nope not at all. I get the point, that's why I do what I do.
> Hmmm, then exactly what point is it you are getting?
CPS is broken and cannot be fixed. It needs to be scrapped, rethought,
and started over with QUALIFIED people.
>>> CPS responds to the calls, investigates, and makes a determination based
>>> upon the laws of the state. Calls made by citizens, just like yourself.
>>> Just like me, and just like gregg. Not only can CPS not read minds, but
>>> they cannot tell the future. They can only make an assessment based
>>> upon
>>> observed data and historical fact. Fact, not conjecture. Facts like...
>>> a spiral fracture of the ulna is most likely caused by a twisting motion
>>> upon wrist of the individual with the fracture from an outside source.
>>> Little things like that. Other explanations are possible, but the
>>> probability's are pretty obvious and statistically proven.
>> Can't make a "fact" based "assessment" when you have't a frigging clue
>> what you are talking about.
> Interesting opinion. Based upon what facts?
Based on the FACT that FEW of the CPS workers have a degree in anything
that would REMOTELY qualify them to make an "assessment" about whether or
not a child has been victimized. Tell me, oh great Ron, HOW somebody with a
BA in "ART HISTORY" can interpret a colposcopic photo? How do they
determine how to use the SAC dolls and claim they are "state of the art
scientific evidence?" Based on WHAT education? Or do you mean that 15
minute "IN-SERVICE TRAINING" is what qualifies them?
>>> So, you seem to be a "CPS is NEVER right" kind of individual.
>> Nope. CPS is right sometimes, but not very damn often!
> "CPS agencies screened in 62.7 percent of referrals and screened out 37.3
> percent."
Oh Ron - care to guess how many of the infanticide cases that occur
every year in America were cases in which CPS was involved?
> So, of the 3 million plus calls CPS nation wide decides that 62.7% of
> those
> calls are credible enough to require additional attention. Of those:
Most of those cases BY YOUR OWN DATA actually did NOT turn out to
actually require the invasive state intervention. Or are you too mentally
feeble to understand the HARM done by inappropriate action b y caseworkers
where none was needed? Do your sources have bullshit self-serving
statistical tables on that too?
> "More than one-quarter of investigations resulted in a disposition of
> substantiated (25.7%)"
Tell me oh great Swami - how many of those turn out to have been wrong
over time?
> So now we have a figure of about 25%. 25% of the referals that they get
> from the general population turn out to have something to them. But then
> again:
Do you think that none of them eventually are shown to have been wrong?
> "More than one-half (60.7%) of investigations led to a finding that the
> alleged maltreatment was unsubstantiated."
But what has occured to the family in tiem time it takes to learn that
the allegations were bullshit? What of the HARM done by inappropriate state
intrusion into the family?
> So, of the 62.7% of the calls that they believe require additional action,
> 25% of them turn out to be actual cases of abuse, neglect, or some other
> form of maltreatment. Interesting, wouldn't you say? One must remember
> that they are responding to calls from the general population, individuals
> who, for the most part, have absolutely no training, formal or informal,
> in
> abuse or neglect issues. Wow, and all of this with a workforce of roughly
> 27,000 people. 27,000 people to service a nation of more than 300
> million.
> More bang for your buck you will NEVER receive.
Even MORE reason to have people who know what the hell they are doing
and who don't ruush in like a bull in a china shop.
>>> And a "CPS is to blame for everything" kind as well. You don't believe
>>> that CPS is a service agency, one that responds, not one that instigates
>>> calls or investigations. We had one of those around this news group
>>> some
>>> time back. Believed that CPS workers drove around neighborhoods looking
>>> for kids to remove, with or without cause. He was never able to support
>>> his belief, never even tried. Just one more inane unsane series of
>>> posts
>>> completely without foundation. Never supporting what he wrote.
>
>> No I believe that for the most part CPS is the blind trying to lead
>> the
>> blind. When you have "caseworkers" with a BA in "Bible Studies" and a
>> grand total of 15 MINUTES of "in-service training" before they go out and
>> pass judgment on abuse cases I think they do more harm than good.
> 15 minutes. Hmmm, interesting. Unfortunately, again, this is not
> supported by the facts.
Yeah sadly IT IS in court transcript after transcript.
> Here is some of the job requirements from the state of Nebraska for the
> jobs you are concerned about.
> "REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree required; prefer Bachelors degree in
> social work, psychology, sociology, counseling, human development, mental
> health care, education, or closely related area."
> http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
Sorry your "LINK" doesn't refer to CPS workers. I don't have the time to
look up the ACTUAL "case worker CPS" requirements, but the last time I was
involved in a Nebraska cae "ANY" degree counted.
> Of course thats just for the entry level positions. Supervisors have the
> following requirements:
> "REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree in social work, psychology, sociology,
> counseling, human development, mental health care, education, or closely
> related academic area, AND experience performing casework activities in
> counseling, protective services, alcohol/drug abuse, juvenile justice
> probation or social services delivery; prefer Masters degree. Previous
> Protection and Safety experience required."
> http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
Again Ron I'll put the best stripe on this misquote as I can before I
just call you deliberately deceptive, that is for COUNSELLING and NOT for
CPS case workers. Maybe a different link supports your claims.
> So, while your opinions are entertaining they are not based on fact.
> Thats just one state. I imagine that all 50 have requirements that are
> somewhat similar, although different in some respects.
From what I can see YOURS are not.
>> Which is why there has been such attacks on the agencies across the
>> country. It is
>> what cauised the State of Florida to try to dismantle its old HRS. Too
>> bad
>> they hired the same damn clowns in the nedw agency and had all the same
>> problems deja-vu again.
> Florida has a number of problems, of which this is only one.
Florida's problems are FAR from unique.
>>> And it seems that you are just about the same. You deride the facts and
>>> statistics others provide, completely without any supporting data of
>>> your
>>> own. Which begs the questions "do you have any data to support your
>>> belief's?" and "do you deny the statistical data provided and can
>>> provide
>>> data that proves it wrong?" Or are you just one more of a long series
>>> of
>>> posters with lots of words, but no facts.
>> I deride self serving "facts" and statistics the agency used to defend
>> itself against wide spread and VALID criticism. I given you sources many
>> times you guys just love to ignore them, snip them out and pretend they
>> don't exist.
> Valid? How can these criticism's be truly valid when they are based not
> upon facts but like yours upon belief's and hysteria?
Like I said NCCAAN is the preferred source because it has been
independent and its data is not SELF SERVING.
> Welcome to the news group. I have been doing this for a bit more than 7
> years, here and in other news groups. With you being a relative new comer
> to the group I can understand your not quite up to speed on the issues or
> on the locations of the relevant data. Its and educational opportunity
> for you, one with a fairly steep learning curve. But if you insist on
> entering the debate with unfounded belief's and no data to support them
> don't be surprised when those who have been here a while take you to task
> for being wrong. Good luck. You are going to need it.
Sonny I have been at this work for OVER 30 years!
krp
Maybe IF you looked at his citation it is for COUNSELING and NOT for a
CPS caseworker. Ah but I don't expect propagandists to do that.
krp
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167854438....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and that's
>> >> > why
>> >> > he gets what he gets.
>>
>> >> > How many emails did Greg send you?
>>
>> >> None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
>>
>> > Thought so.
>>
>> So he called me to ask me for some info about myself. Actually he was
>> sort of accusatory buying into the stalker's claims. I did my best to
>> answer
>> his questions.
> Dan thinks there is some dirt to be had with this.
Well given the allegations from my stalker he could have had the honesty
to confront me as you did directly. I hope I satisfactorily answered your
questions.
> You have discredited Dan so severely that the pack is getting desperate.
I find today's foray with a cite to butress a claim that Nebraska
requires CPS caseworkers to be the story. The reference he used was not for
CPS case workers but for counsellors. Maybe it was just a slip of the finger
and he'll correct it. Criticism has been so severe of the screwups by these
agencies and so public (media such as O'Reilly) that I am sure some now may
require actual related degrees. By and large across the country that is NOT
the case.
> Did you notice how the old "Where there's smoke there's fire." insult
> went in other threads? Profuse posting of demands for proof,
> MASSIVE DENIALS, a detailed archival report, lots of bluster,
> THEN it's proven that he did in fact use the lame insult.
I'm not into that.
krp
>
> Greegor wrote:
>> krp wrote:
>> > "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> > news:1167757704.2...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > >> > Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and
>> > >> > that's
>> > >> > why
>> > >> > he gets what he gets.
>> >
>> > >> > How many emails did Greg send you?
>> >
>> > >> None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
>> >
>> > > Thought so.
>> >
>> > So he called me to ask me for some info about myself. Actually he
>> > was
>> > sort of accusatory buying into the stalker's claims. I did my best to
>> > answer
>> > his questions.
>>
>> Dan thinks there is some dirt to be had with this.
>
> I do?
Don't you? Gotta tell you - his call starred VERY confrontational.
krp
>
> Greegor wrote:
>> krp wrote:
>> > "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> > news:1167757704.2...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > >> > Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and
>> > >> > that's
>> > >> > why
>> > >> > he gets what he gets.
>> >
>> > >> > How many emails did Greg send you?
>> >
>> > >> None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
>> >
>> > > Thought so.
>> >
>> > So he called me to ask me for some info about myself. Actually he
>> > was
>> > sort of accusatory buying into the stalker's claims. I did my best to
>> > answer
>> > his questions.
>>
>> Dan thinks there is some dirt to be had with this.
>
> If you align yourself with those that use innuendo, instead of proof,
> then my boy, there IS dirt.
>
> Your's.
>
>> You have discredited Dan so severely that the pack is getting
>> desperate.
> Really? List one thing that is the truth this troll has posted about Dan.
Considering that I ahve not posted anything about "Dan" that'd be a
little hard to to. Back at ya, however, show us something that I have said
about Dan that ISN'T true?????
Dan Sullivan
krp wrote:
> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167854438....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and that's
> >> >> > why
> >> >> > he gets what he gets.
> >>
> >> >> > How many emails did Greg send you?
> >>
> >> >> None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
> >>
> >> > Thought so.
> >>
> >> So he called me to ask me for some info about myself. Actually he was
> >> sort of accusatory buying into the stalker's claims. I did my best to
> >> answer
> >> his questions.
>
> > Dan thinks there is some dirt to be had with this.
>
> Well given the allegations from my stalker he could have had the honesty
> to confront me as you did directly.
I have no interest in confronting you about anything, Ken.
Dan
krp
HA HA!
0:->
> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167854438....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>>> Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and that's
>>>>>> why
>>>>>> he gets what he gets.
>>>>>> How many emails did Greg send you?
>>>>> None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
>>>> Thought so.
>>> So he called me to ask me for some info about myself. Actually he was
>>> sort of accusatory buying into the stalker's claims. I did my best to
>>> answer
>>> his questions.
>
>> Dan thinks there is some dirt to be had with this.
>
> Well given the allegations from my stalker he could have had the honesty
> to confront me as you did directly. I hope I satisfactorily answered your
> questions.
>
>> You have discredited Dan so severely that the pack is getting desperate.
>
> I find today's foray with a cite to butress a claim that Nebraska
> requires CPS caseworkers to be the story. The reference he used was not for
> CPS case workers but for counsellors. Maybe it was just a slip of the finger
> and he'll correct it.
Could be. Are you insinuating anything?
> Criticism has been so severe of the screwups by these
> agencies and so public (media such as O'Reilly) that I am sure some now may
> require actual related degrees. By and large across the country that is NOT
> the case.
No, by and large, it rare it isn't required.
You are woefully ignorant of CPS matters anywhere, and certainly not
across the country.
You failed to read the entire available reference. I hope you don't do
work on CPS cases this sloppily.
You simply went to the wrong place on the page.
Protection & Safety Worker/Trainee; $2277-$2631/mo; Available in the
following locations:
* #25-31172-1, Gering. CLOSING DATE: OPEN.
* #25-35732-10, Fremont. CLOSING DATE: 1/3/07.
* #25-32172-1, McCook. CLOSING DATE: 1/9/07.
* #25-32101, North Platte. CLOSING DATE: 1/9/07.
* #25-38999-12, Omaha/Papillion. Filling multiple positions.
CLOSING DATE: 2/20/07.
Promotion to Protection & Safety Worker will typically occur at six
months; required training will continue as will probationary status for
total of one year. Investigate allegations of abuse/neglect. Visit
homes, conduct family assessments, establish safety plans, and initiate
court interventions. Develop, implement, and evaluate treatment plans;
authorize, coordinate, and provide family services. Prepare cases with
appropriate legal staff and testify in court. Develop community
resources; work with schools, law enforcement, and mental health
providers; inform the public of protection and safety services. Perform
crisis intervention. Prepare documentation, correspondence, and court
reports. Casework may be with children/juveniles who have been
adjudicated as delinquent or status offenders. REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors
degree required; prefer Bachelors degree in social work, psychology,
sociology, counseling, human development, mental health care, education,
or closely related area. After hire, must be certified in training which
de-escalates and manages communication and physical interactions
(MANDT). Valid driver's license required. REQUIRES COMPLETION OF
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE.
Protection and Safety Supervisor #25-37159R-4; $3269/mo;
Lincoln-Gold's Building. Schedule: Days/Monday - Friday, plus some
additional hours. Provide supervision, direction, support, etc. for OJS,
Status Offense, 3(a), and Dual Adjudicated protective services for
Southeast Service Area. Perform full range of supervisory duties such as
hiring, evaluating staff performance, staff development, etc. Work with
community in developing relationships and partnerships to enhance
protective services for children and families. Community contacts could
be with schools, courts, law enforcement personnel, county attorneys,
and over available resources. REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree in social
work, psychology, sociology, counseling, human development, mental
health care, education, or closely related academic area, AND experience
performing casework activities in counseling, protective services,
alcohol/drug abuse, juvenile justice probation or social services
delivery; prefer Masters degree. Previous Protection and Safety
experience required. Must have strong organizational skills. Desire
experience as a supervisor or assisting a supervisor within a protective
services/case management function or program. CLOSING DATE: 1/3/07.
The URL name doesn't not represent everything that is on the page.
Ron's quotes are not inclusive of the full entry for the position, but
they are most certainly from it, and no "counselor's" job description
would include those items listed in the quoted descriptions of the jobs
above.
Here is what Ron copied from each of them.
You'll see they are duplicates...obviously from the same material as above:
REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree required; prefer Bachelors degree in
social work, psychology, sociology, counseling, human development,
mental health care, education, or closely related area."
http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
Of course thats just for the entry level positions. Supervisors have the
following requirements:
"REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree in social work, psychology, sociology,
counseling, human development, mental health care, education, or closely
related academic area, AND experience performing casework activities in
counseling, protective services, alcohol/drug abuse, juvenile justice
probation or social services delivery; prefer Masters degree. Previous
Protection and Safety experience required."
http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
As I said, do you do research this sloppily when you are getting paid
for it?
>
>> Did you notice how the old "Where there's smoke there's fire." insult
>> went in other threads? Profuse posting of demands for proof,
>> MASSIVE DENIALS, a detailed archival report, lots of bluster,
>> THEN it's proven that he did in fact use the lame insult.
>
> I'm not into that.
You are not much into anything that would relate to the truth, are you?
Or was that just a mistake above?
Ron posted the job requirements. They are not counseling positions.
They are safety worker (caseworker) and supervisor of same.
I guess I shouldn't have plonked you in my reader. I almost missed this.
You took it as license, apparently.
Glad I happened to notice this exchange in google.
In your other posts, which I've now also checked you appear to be
extraordinarily ignorant of actual CPS operations.
Have a nice new year.
Kane
>
>
0:->
Like a good little propagandist yourself you didn't actually bother to
LOOK for his citation from the page. It is INDEED extracted from the
entry for both entry level trainees, and supervisors in "child safety"
which of course, according to the entry is in fact, CASE WORK in child
protection.
NO, his citation is not for "counseling." That's simply a desired skill
but not required.
And your response does NOT go to my challenge.
And YOU did not thoroughly..though it's damned easy, bother to find the
actual entries Ron drew those requirements from, did you KRP?
It's called "egg." And it's on what should be a red "face." Yours.
Wear it in good health in the coming year.
>
>
>
>
>
Ron
Love to, but there is no link to a "statistical pages" on the page
referenced. Care to provide it?
>>> In creating the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Congress
>>> mandated that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to
>>> receive
>>> funding. For that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to
>>> receive funding. For instance, in the state of Alabama, these efforts
>>> have
>>> resulted in the system of administrative complaints aand hearings
>>> administrated by the Department of Human Resources (D.H.R.). When
>>> information is reported or received of possible child abuse or neglect,
>>> the office of D.H.R. initiates an investigation. .The state agency has
>>> broad powers to investigate and prosecute charges and to maintain a
>>> central registry of actions and findings (3).
>
>> This is all well and good, but of little use.
>
> It's the source.
The source of?
>
>
>>>>> Let's repeat that because it really is the tune here.
>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting it now Ron?
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>
>>>> Surely I do, but it seems that you once again miss the point.
>>>
>>> Nope not at all. I get the point, that's why I do what I do.
>
>> Hmmm, then exactly what point is it you are getting?
>
> CPS is broken and cannot be fixed. It needs to be scrapped, rethought,
> and started over with QUALIFIED people.
Ahhh, yes, the old "Its broken beyond repair" argument. Once again totally
without any thought as to what can replace it.
Or do you have a suggestion? I have been waiting for such for more than 5
years now, and of course nothing has been provided that can do the work
required. A few "Pie in the Sky" dreams, but nothing that can actually be
put into practice. Maybe you will be the first?
Nice opinion, but where are the facts? I have provided links to the
relevant job postings here in Nebraska, I'm sure with a few seconds effort
you can do the same for some other state where a degree in an associated
field is not required.
>>>> So, you seem to be a "CPS is NEVER right" kind of individual.
>
>>> Nope. CPS is right sometimes, but not very damn often!
>
>> "CPS agencies screened in 62.7 percent of referrals and screened out 37.3
>> percent."
>
> Oh Ron - care to guess how many of the infanticide cases that occur
> every year in America were cases in which CPS was involved?
No idea, but I'd be happy to review any link you provide that provides the
data.
>> So, of the 3 million plus calls CPS nation wide decides that 62.7% of
>> those
>> calls are credible enough to require additional attention. Of those:
>
> Most of those cases BY YOUR OWN DATA actually did NOT turn out to
> actually require the invasive state intervention. Or are you too mentally
> feeble to understand the HARM done by inappropriate action b y caseworkers
> where none was needed? Do your sources have bullshit self-serving
> statistical tables on that too?
Of course they didnt, which is why 37.3% of the calls were never
investigated. Of the 62.7% that were, only 25% or so of those were found to
be actual cases of abuse or neglect.
But just how would you suggest that the facts be determined? Crystal ball?
Chicken entrails? Conferring with the spirit world? After all, we are
talking about the life of a child in the balance. That makes it a fairly
important decision, one that we really don't want made incorrectly. If you
have a better and more accurate method of ferreting out the data please put
it on the table.
>> "More than one-quarter of investigations resulted in a disposition of
>> substantiated (25.7%)"
>
> Tell me oh great Swami - how many of those turn out to have been wrong
> over time?
Good question. Care to provide a link to that data?
>> So now we have a figure of about 25%. 25% of the referals that they get
>> from the general population turn out to have something to them. But then
>> again:
>
> Do you think that none of them eventually are shown to have been wrong?
I'm sure they do. But historically in this news group, no one has been able
to provide a reliable link to the data.
>> "More than one-half (60.7%) of investigations led to a finding that the
>> alleged maltreatment was unsubstantiated."
>
> But what has occured to the family in tiem time it takes to learn that
> the allegations were bullshit? What of the HARM done by inappropriate
> state intrusion into the family?
Inappropriate? Care to make a suggestion on how that determination can be
made without an investigation?
Pie in the sky dreams of being able to wave a magic wand and know all the
facts without ever having to intrude into a family are nice, but not
practical. Until one of you super-brains can come up with a better and more
reliable method, one that is both practical and realistic, the state uses
what it has.
>> So, of the 62.7% of the calls that they believe require additional
>> action,
>> 25% of them turn out to be actual cases of abuse, neglect, or some other
>> form of maltreatment. Interesting, wouldn't you say? One must remember
>> that they are responding to calls from the general population,
>> individuals
>> who, for the most part, have absolutely no training, formal or informal,
>> in
>> abuse or neglect issues. Wow, and all of this with a workforce of
>> roughly
>> 27,000 people. 27,000 people to service a nation of more than 300
>> million.
>> More bang for your buck you will NEVER receive.
>
> Even MORE reason to have people who know what the hell they are doing
> and who don't ruush in like a bull in a china shop.
"ruush in like a bull in a china shop", hmmm. A childs life may be in
danger, and you would prefer that they take their time before making sure?
My my, how callous!
>>>> And a "CPS is to blame for everything" kind as well. You don't
>>>> believe
>>>> that CPS is a service agency, one that responds, not one that
>>>> instigates
>>>> calls or investigations. We had one of those around this news group
>>>> some
>>>> time back. Believed that CPS workers drove around neighborhoods looking
>>>> for kids to remove, with or without cause. He was never able to
>>>> support
>>>> his belief, never even tried. Just one more inane unsane series of
>>>> posts
>>>> completely without foundation. Never supporting what he wrote.
>>
>>> No I believe that for the most part CPS is the blind trying to lead
>>> the
>>> blind. When you have "caseworkers" with a BA in "Bible Studies" and a
>>> grand total of 15 MINUTES of "in-service training" before they go out
>>> and
>>> pass judgment on abuse cases I think they do more harm than good.
>
>> 15 minutes. Hmmm, interesting. Unfortunately, again, this is not
>> supported by the facts.
>
> Yeah sadly IT IS in court transcript after transcript.
Well now, transcripts of court cases are not available on the web now are
they. I suppose that you have a link to other data that supports your
statement, right?
>> Here is some of the job requirements from the state of Nebraska for the
>> jobs you are concerned about.
>
>> "REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree required; prefer Bachelors degree in
>> social work, psychology, sociology, counseling, human development, mental
>> health care, education, or closely related area."
>
>> http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
>
> Sorry your "LINK" doesn't refer to CPS workers. I don't have the time
> to look up the ACTUAL "case worker CPS" requirements, but the last time I
> was involved in a Nebraska cae "ANY" degree counted.
I know, its an educational issue. You just never really learned to read did
you. Look again. Dam them state sponsored schools and all, they never have
been any good at teaching.
>> Of course thats just for the entry level positions. Supervisors have the
>> following requirements:
>
>> "REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree in social work, psychology, sociology,
>> counseling, human development, mental health care, education, or closely
>> related academic area, AND experience performing casework activities in
>> counseling, protective services, alcohol/drug abuse, juvenile justice
>> probation or social services delivery; prefer Masters degree. Previous
>> Protection and Safety experience required."
>> http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
>
> Again Ron I'll put the best stripe on this misquote as I can before I
> just call you deliberately deceptive, that is for COUNSELLING and NOT for
> CPS case workers. Maybe a different link supports your claims.
I know, its an educational issue. You just never really learned to read did
you. Look again. Dam them state sponsored schools and all, they never have
been any good at teaching.
I see now where you made your mistake, you didnt actually read the page that
was linked, you read the link only. Hmmm, you can lead a horse to
water.....
>> So, while your opinions are entertaining they are not based on fact.
>> Thats just one state. I imagine that all 50 have requirements that are
>> somewhat similar, although different in some respects.
>
> From what I can see YOURS are not.
If you had actually read the page the link takes you to you would have
actually seen that these are job postings for:
" Protection & Safety Worker/Trainee"
and
" Protection and Safety Supervisor #25-37159R-4"
But I suppose asking you to acctually read the page the link takes to you is
asking a bit much. I'll tell you what I can do for you, send me your snail
mail address and I'll get a local 7 year old to do it for you.
>>> Which is why there has been such attacks on the agencies across the
>>> country. It is
>>> what cauised the State of Florida to try to dismantle its old HRS. Too
>>> bad
>>> they hired the same damn clowns in the nedw agency and had all the same
>>> problems deja-vu again.
>
>> Florida has a number of problems, of which this is only one.
>
> Florida's problems are FAR from unique.
Really? And your support for this belief is?
>>>> And it seems that you are just about the same. You deride the facts
>>>> and
>>>> statistics others provide, completely without any supporting data of
>>>> your
>>>> own. Which begs the questions "do you have any data to support your
>>>> belief's?" and "do you deny the statistical data provided and can
>>>> provide
>>>> data that proves it wrong?" Or are you just one more of a long series
>>>> of
>>>> posters with lots of words, but no facts.
>
>>> I deride self serving "facts" and statistics the agency used to
>>> defend
>>> itself against wide spread and VALID criticism. I given you sources many
>>> times you guys just love to ignore them, snip them out and pretend they
>>> don't exist.
>
>> Valid? How can these criticism's be truly valid when they are based not
>> upon facts but like yours upon belief's and hysteria?
>
> Like I said NCCAAN is the preferred source because it has been
> independent and its data is not SELF SERVING.
Interesting. I did a google search on the term "NCCAAN" and found a grand
total of 20 references to this acronym, only one of which is both in english
and has something to do with child abuse or neglect. Here is the reference:
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/nnfr/research/pv/pv_forward.html
Now, assuming that you misspelled the acronym somehow I am willing to
entertain another attempt on your part to get it right.
On the other hand, you have yet to provide ANYTHING that supports your
contention that the NCANDS data is either incorrect or "SELF SERVING" in any
way. I'm patient, I have been here a very long time, and I am known for
waiting sometimes years to get supporting data from individuals with your
belief's.
>> Welcome to the news group. I have been doing this for a bit more than 7
>> years, here and in other news groups. With you being a relative new
>> comer to the group I can understand your not quite up to speed on the
>> issues or on the locations of the relevant data. Its and educational
>> opportunity for you, one with a fairly steep learning curve. But if you
>> insist on entering the debate with unfounded belief's and no data to
>> support them don't be surprised when those who have been here a while
>> take you to task for being wrong. Good luck. You are going to need it.
>
>
> Sonny I have been at this work for OVER 30 years!
Wow, and you still have nothing that supports your belief's? What have you
been doing with the time?
Ron
Dan Sullivan
Ron,
Check your emails.
Dan
0:->
What do you think he's looking at?
>>> In creating the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Congress
>>> mandated that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to
>>> receive
>>> funding. For that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to
>>> receive funding. For instance, in the state of Alabama, these efforts
>>> have
>>> resulted in the system of administrative complaints aand hearings
>>> administrated by the Department of Human Resources (D.H.R.). When
>>> information is reported or received of possible child abuse or neglect,
>>> the office of D.H.R. initiates an investigation. .The state agency has
>>> broad powers to investigate and prosecute charges and to maintain a
>>> central registry of actions and findings (3).
>
>> This is all well and good, but of little use.
>
> It's the source.
Of what?
>
>
>
>>>>> Let's repeat that because it really is the tune here.
>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting it now Ron?
>>>>>
>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>> Surely I do, but it seems that you once again miss the point.
>>> Nope not at all. I get the point, that's why I do what I do.
>
>> Hmmm, then exactly what point is it you are getting?
>
> CPS is broken and cannot be fixed. It needs to be scrapped, rethought,
> and started over with QUALIFIED people.
R R R ....that brands you as a fool.
What will the states do with abuse and neglect of children during the
time of there being NO CPS?
Whose going to respond to allegations?
Who will investigate?
Where will these "qualified people" come from?
You spout the same propaganda as the rest of the dimwits that don't
bother to think things through.
Do you think there is an entire set of "qualified people" lined up and
waiting for poor pay jobs with horrendous working conditions?
So, tell us, what would "qualify" someone to be one of YOUR child
protection workers, krp?
What education? Where?
What training? Where?
What experience? And especially WHERE?
>>>> CPS responds to the calls, investigates, and makes a determination based
>>>> upon the laws of the state. Calls made by citizens, just like yourself.
>>>> Just like me, and just like gregg. Not only can CPS not read minds, but
>>>> they cannot tell the future. They can only make an assessment based
>>>> upon
>>>> observed data and historical fact. Fact, not conjecture. Facts like...
>>>> a spiral fracture of the ulna is most likely caused by a twisting motion
>>>> upon wrist of the individual with the fracture from an outside source.
>>>> Little things like that. Other explanations are possible, but the
>>>> probability's are pretty obvious and statistically proven.
>
>>> Can't make a "fact" based "assessment" when you have't a frigging clue
>>> what you are talking about.
He's discussing spiral fractures and you challenge him with reference to
forensic examination of female genitalia?
Yeah, like that's brilliant. I hope you don't suggest such thing in
court cases.
>
>> Interesting opinion. Based upon what facts?
>
> Based on the FACT that FEW of the CPS workers have a degree in anything
> that would REMOTELY qualify them to make an "assessment" about whether or
> not a child has been victimized.
Nonsense. You are about to use an example that does not apply to workers
at all. But to forensic study by medical personnel. Just how stupid are
you, sonny?
http://txpeds.org/u/documents/medical_evaluation_of_sexual_abuse_manual.pdf
> Tell me, oh great Ron, HOW somebody with a
> BA in "ART HISTORY" can interpret a colposcopic photo?
They don't. This proves your ignorance.
Do you know what "vendor" means in CPS parlance?
How can you be so ignorant and claim you work on CPS cases.
No caseworker is asked to interpret vaginal photos. Where do you get
this nonsense?
They simply read the report from the technicians, doctors usually. It
goes in the case file, and is submitted to the court.
They can, like anyone else, rely on knowledge of other such reports to
build up some knowledge on a subject, but the reference would always be
back to the report of the forensic pediatrician.
> How do they
> determine how to use the SAC dolls and claim they are "state of the art
> scientific evidence?" Based on WHAT education? Or do you mean that 15
> minute "IN-SERVICE TRAINING" is what qualifies them?
CPS workers do not all do such interviews. Only those specially trained.
It's a bit more than 15 minutes training. It's not "in-service," but in
fact instructed by others with experience and training the field. Often
doctors themselves. And the trainees are all master's level employees.
>
>>>> So, you seem to be a "CPS is NEVER right" kind of individual.
>
>>> Nope. CPS is right sometimes, but not very damn often!
>
>> "CPS agencies screened in 62.7 percent of referrals and screened out 37.3
>> percent."
>
> Oh Ron - care to guess how many of the infanticide cases that occur
> every year in America were cases in which CPS was involved?
No. Let's not guess. Let's see your data.
Or you can guess how many cases of infanticide are never discovered.
>> So, of the 3 million plus calls CPS nation wide decides that 62.7% of
>> those
>> calls are credible enough to require additional attention. Of those:
>
> Most of those cases BY YOUR OWN DATA actually did NOT turn out to
> actually require the invasive state intervention.
So you are suggesting they not be investigated because they turned out
to be valid.
Let me see now...this computes logically as DON'T INVESTIGATE ANY CASES
THAT AREN'T ALREADY INVESTIGATED TO PROVE THE HARM AND ACTS TOOK PLACE.
You do understand that is complete nitwittery, right?
> Or are you too mentally
> feeble to understand the HARM done by inappropriate action b y caseworkers
> where none was needed? Do your sources have bullshit self-serving
> statistical tables on that too?
He's quoting government sources.
And please define and substantiate "HARM," and "inappropriate action b y
caseworkers" and how one determines "beforehand" what was needed and not
needed.
You seem to forget...CPS does not go hunting. They can only respond to
calls alleging. Hence they can't have investigated to determine all you
require, until they....yes, you guessed it: INVESTIGATE.
>
>> "More than one-quarter of investigations resulted in a disposition of
>> substantiated (25.7%)"
>
> Tell me oh great Swami - how many of those turn out to have been wrong
> over time?
No, you tell us. If there are no such figures, admit it. If there are,
make your argument. Fallacious debate ploys don't fly well here. We are
all too familiar with such dodges by past posters that tried all you've
come up with so far, and more.
>> So now we have a figure of about 25%. 25% of the referals that they get
>> from the general population turn out to have something to them. But then
>> again:
>
> Do you think that none of them eventually are shown to have been wrong?
I would estimate that to be very small indeed.
>> "More than one-half (60.7%) of investigations led to a finding that the
>> alleged maltreatment was unsubstantiated."
>
> But what has occured to the family in tiem time it takes to learn that
> the allegations were bullshit?
And that would be learned how?
> What of the HARM done by inappropriate state
> intrusion into the family?
Again, define the harm. Define what is inappropriate.
Not from a sidewalk superintendent Monday morning quarterback
perspective, but from what CPS is faced with...an allegation, and a
choice of either to not investigate, or investigate.
Those are the only two choices they have.
On what would you base the choice to not investigate?
>> So, of the 62.7% of the calls that they believe require additional action,
>> 25% of them turn out to be actual cases of abuse, neglect, or some other
>> form of maltreatment. Interesting, wouldn't you say? One must remember
>> that they are responding to calls from the general population, individuals
>> who, for the most part, have absolutely no training, formal or informal,
>> in
>> abuse or neglect issues. Wow, and all of this with a workforce of roughly
>> 27,000 people. 27,000 people to service a nation of more than 300
>> million.
>> More bang for your buck you will NEVER receive.
>
> Even MORE reason to have people who know what the hell they are doing
> and who don't ruush in like a bull in a china shop.
Describe for us the bull in the china shop investigation, and the one
you think should be conducted.
>>>> And a "CPS is to blame for everything" kind as well. You don't believe
>>>> that CPS is a service agency, one that responds, not one that instigates
>>>> calls or investigations. We had one of those around this news group
>>>> some
>>>> time back. Believed that CPS workers drove around neighborhoods looking
>>>> for kids to remove, with or without cause. He was never able to support
>>>> his belief, never even tried. Just one more inane unsane series of
>>>> posts
>>>> completely without foundation. Never supporting what he wrote.
>>> No I believe that for the most part CPS is the blind trying to lead
>>> the
>>> blind. When you have "caseworkers" with a BA in "Bible Studies" and a
>>> grand total of 15 MINUTES of "in-service training" before they go out and
>>> pass judgment on abuse cases I think they do more harm than good.
>
>> 15 minutes. Hmmm, interesting. Unfortunately, again, this is not
>> supported by the facts.
>
> Yeah sadly IT IS in court transcript after transcript.
Which would be a matter of public record. Please list a few.
It would be extremely rare a caseworker would have only a BA in "bible
studies" and never a chance they would go out on an abuse case with 15
minutes of in-service training.
Entry level folks are given at least two weeks of preservice training in
most states, and continue with professional development with annual
requirements of many hours of train, most often in an academic
setting...not 'on the job' if that's what you mean by "in service."
All training after one is employeed is "in service," loudmouthed dummy.
Are you suggesting they must be fully trained before being hired and
receive no more training after?
You're just full of little catchphrases, and hot button words calculated
to excite the reader's emotions.
One of the wonderful things about the Internet is that it has tended to
expose, more and more, this kind of mind fuck bullshit you are engaging
in. And being caught at.
>> Here is some of the job requirements from the state of Nebraska for the
>> jobs you are concerned about.
>
>> "REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree required; prefer Bachelors degree in
>> social work, psychology, sociology, counseling, human development, mental
>> health care, education, or closely related area."
>
>> http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
>
> Sorry your "LINK" doesn't refer to CPS workers.
Sure it does. Don't let the URL fool you. Go look, dummy.
> I don't have the time to
> look up the ACTUAL "case worker CPS" requirements, but the last time I was
> involved in a Nebraska cae "ANY" degree counted.
Oh, you wish to claim he is NOT correct, but you aren't going to take
the time to look for yourself.
Yet you have ample time to argue. Or should I say, spew nonsense you
know little about?
And '"ANY" degree counted,' for what?
Were you questioning actual workers? Were they aides, or full fledged
caseworkers?
If you can't be bothered to KNOW by your own examination what the job
requirements are for caseworker I find it likely you damn well don't
know the different JOBS involved in CPS work over all.
And I'd bet Ron, who works in the field in Nebraska DOES know.
>
>> Of course thats just for the entry level positions. Supervisors have the
>> following requirements:
>
>> "REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree in social work, psychology, sociology,
>> counseling, human development, mental health care, education, or closely
>> related academic area, AND experience performing casework activities in
>> counseling, protective services, alcohol/drug abuse, juvenile justice
>> probation or social services delivery; prefer Masters degree. Previous
>> Protection and Safety experience required."
>> http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
>
> Again Ron I'll put the best stripe on this misquote as I can before I
> just call you deliberately deceptive, that is for COUNSELLING and NOT for
> CPS case workers. Maybe a different link supports your claims.
Nope. The link is correct. Your failure to READ THE FUCKING PAGE IS
OBVIOUS. You have admitted to it, and you used the URL as the entire
indication of what was on the page. That doesn't fly.
You are wrong, Sir. He drew those from the actual job requirements
listed for child safety worker trainee...entry level.
Don't be misled by the URL ending. That's just one entry on a long page
of jobs. ... go look for what he actually quoted. Or don't you know how
to search a document?
What "counseling" job, krp, have you ever seen that would require what
is listed from the above entry he provided?
Your reading of his comment on this was shoddy and sloppy. That IS the
entry for supervisor above, for CHILD SAFETY WORKER SUPERVISOR.
Try looking again, and this time search on a keyword, such as 'supervisor.'
It worked for me. About the third hit or so, up popped just what Ron
posted for CHILD SAFETY WORKER SUPERVISOR.
http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
You'll find the same true for the entry level trainee position as well.
>
>> So, while your opinions are entertaining they are not based on fact.
>> Thats just one state. I imagine that all 50 have requirements that are
>> somewhat similar, although different in some respects.
>
> From what I can see YOURS are not.
What you 'can see?' R R R R R ...that's the problem. You can't see
what's on the page in front of you, except that part you wish to see.
Go back and look at his reference. He's exactly correct. You are not.
>>> Which is why there has been such attacks on the agencies across the
>>> country. It is
>>> what cauised the State of Florida to try to dismantle its old HRS. Too
>>> bad
>>> they hired the same damn clowns in the nedw agency and had all the same
>>> problems deja-vu again.
>
>> Florida has a number of problems, of which this is only one.
>
> Florida's problems are FAR from unique.
Yep. But they all tend to trace back to trying to do child protection on
the cheap.
Money, pal. Money. You'll get better workers doing better work when you
pay them and don't overload them with work.
I noticed that Nebraska also does what some other states do...can you
imagine requiring a caseworker to present the case in court?
With already a 25 to 40 client caseload?
>>>> And it seems that you are just about the same. You deride the facts and
>>>> statistics others provide, completely without any supporting data of
>>>> your
>>>> own. Which begs the questions "do you have any data to support your
>>>> belief's?" and "do you deny the statistical data provided and can
>>>> provide
>>>> data that proves it wrong?" Or are you just one more of a long series
>>>> of
>>>> posters with lots of words, but no facts.
>
>>> I deride self serving "facts" and statistics the agency used to defend
>>> itself against wide spread and VALID criticism. I given you sources many
>>> times you guys just love to ignore them, snip them out and pretend they
>>> don't exist.
>
>> Valid? How can these criticism's be truly valid when they are based not
>> upon facts but like yours upon belief's and hysteria?
>
> Like I said NCCAAN is the preferred source because it has been
> independent and its data is not SELF SERVING.
Using a citation does not insure you have used it correctly, or even
understand it.
You don't.
In fact it's obvious YOU do not stay up in the field. NCCAAN no longer
exists, stupid. It's consolidated now. And has been for some time.
And the very idea that it's independent......R RRRR R R . The government
is "independent?" And it's not "SELF SERVING?"
You got to be kidding me.
If it weren't for the bureaucrats that survive from administration to
administration we would have NO data that we could even begin to trust.
It's one of the things we should appreciate about bureaucrats. In order
to survive they have to do at least SOME ignoring of politicos that are
elected or appointed. Good old Civil Service.
They never are appreciated fully. Take a bad rap because they DON'T try
to please everybody. Dull boring MORE ACCURATE pencil pushers. Got to
love'm.
>> Welcome to the news group. I have been doing this for a bit more than 7
>> years, here and in other news groups. With you being a relative new comer
>> to the group I can understand your not quite up to speed on the issues or
>> on the locations of the relevant data. Its and educational opportunity
>> for you, one with a fairly steep learning curve. But if you insist on
>> entering the debate with unfounded belief's and no data to support them
>> don't be surprised when those who have been here a while take you to task
>> for being wrong. Good luck. You are going to need it.
>
>
> Sonny I have been at this work for OVER 30 years!
And you have learned little in that time apparently.
You can't even get a page of requirements for jobs read correctly.
In fact you think YOUR time is not too valuable to argue idiotically,
but it is to look up the support for your arguments.
Is THIS how you consult on CPS cases?
I hope to shit not.
Ron is wrong about you. You may be a newcomer to this ng, but you aren't
to bullshit propaganda peddling about CPS issues.
You look like a danger to families to me, boy.
I have 30 years at this too. Both inside and outside the system.
You peddle shit.
0:-]
0:->
By now you get that you are wasting your time, right?
He's just another of the phonies, a fraud at that, that have hijacked
this newsgroup almost from it's inception.
Throwing up fog and diversion, the last thing they want is for families
to be helped, or valid information to be examined and discussed.
I'm tired of entertaining them in their delusional simple mindless
babbling.
>>>> In creating the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Congress
>>>> mandated that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to
>>>> receive
>>>> funding. For that states maintain certain minimal reporting efforts to
>>>> receive funding. For instance, in the state of Alabama, these efforts
>>>> have
>>>> resulted in the system of administrative complaints aand hearings
>>>> administrated by the Department of Human Resources (D.H.R.). When
>>>> information is reported or received of possible child abuse or neglect,
>>>> the office of D.H.R. initiates an investigation. .The state agency has
>>>> broad powers to investigate and prosecute charges and to maintain a
>>>> central registry of actions and findings (3).
>>> This is all well and good, but of little use.
>> It's the source.
>
> The source of?
See? Just mindless babble. No actual debate on an issue at all.
>>
>>>>>> Let's repeat that because it really is the tune here.
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Getting it now Ron?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again, CPS is not responsible
>>>>> Surely I do, but it seems that you once again miss the point.
>>>> Nope not at all. I get the point, that's why I do what I do.
>>> Hmmm, then exactly what point is it you are getting?
>> CPS is broken and cannot be fixed. It needs to be scrapped, rethought,
>> and started over with QUALIFIED people.
>
> Ahhh, yes, the old "Its broken beyond repair" argument. Once again totally
> without any thought as to what can replace it.
Oh, you don't see a way to run child protection while the new system is
built, people recruited that are already educated with MSWs and trained
and experienced?
Why there's a long line of them out there just waiting to come aboard,
when "The Plan" is finalized.
If we didn't know this was a crackpot bullshit artist like others we
haven and have had in the past here we certainly know it now by that
piece of garbage.
It's a total waste of time, once one has established these blowhard
crackpots are just that, to even think about discussing such things with
them.
You've given him more than a break, and he's taken more than he
deserves. He's quickly proven to be just another Vandal as surely as the
trolls currently abusing this ng.
> Or do you have a suggestion? I have been waiting for such for more than 5
> years now, and of course nothing has been provided that can do the work
> required. A few "Pie in the Sky" dreams, but nothing that can actually be
> put into practice. Maybe you will be the first?
R R R R R ... oh sure, that's why he starts with the propagandist's
"evil CPS must be destroyed" pitch.
Like that's a new ploy for this newsgroup. R R R R R
He won't even take time to look, making a presumption, erroneously, that
it's about 'counselors' because that happens to be in the URL you provided.
One quick look at the document shows that indeed, both job descriptions
are exactly as you quoted.
He's a fraud and a liar. Nothing, really, but a semiconscious troll.
Until responsible posters start cutting these pissants off at the knees
about three posts in, they'll keep babbling on like they are something
important.
It's our own fault they infest this place.
>>>>> So, you seem to be a "CPS is NEVER right" kind of individual.
>>>> Nope. CPS is right sometimes, but not very damn often!
>>> "CPS agencies screened in 62.7 percent of referrals and screened out 37.3
>>> percent."
>> Oh Ron - care to guess how many of the infanticide cases that occur
>> every year in America were cases in which CPS was involved?
>
> No idea, but I'd be happy to review any link you provide that provides the
> data.
He won't produce anything relevant. He doesn't actually know what
"screened in means," in terms of investigation.
>
>>> So, of the 3 million plus calls CPS nation wide decides that 62.7% of
>>> those
>>> calls are credible enough to require additional attention. Of those:
>> Most of those cases BY YOUR OWN DATA actually did NOT turn out to
>> actually require the invasive state intervention. Or are you too mentally
>> feeble to understand the HARM done by inappropriate action b y caseworkers
>> where none was needed? Do your sources have bullshit self-serving
>> statistical tables on that too?
>
> Of course they didnt, which is why 37.3% of the calls were never
> investigated. Of the 62.7% that were, only 25% or so of those were found to
> be actual cases of abuse or neglect.
Doesn't mean a thing to him. He's a fraud. Read his website and check a
few facts. It will be apparent pretty quickly.
> But just how would you suggest that the facts be determined? Crystal ball?
> Chicken entrails? Conferring with the spirit world? After all, we are
> talking about the life of a child in the balance. That makes it a fairly
> important decision, one that we really don't want made incorrectly. If you
> have a better and more accurate method of ferreting out the data please put
> it on the table.
Oh sure. Like he can tie his shoes without help.
>>> "More than one-quarter of investigations resulted in a disposition of
>>> substantiated (25.7%)"
>> Tell me oh great Swami - how many of those turn out to have been wrong
>> over time?
>
> Good question. Care to provide a link to that data?
Questions without answers, the GREAT debating ploy.
>>> So now we have a figure of about 25%. 25% of the referals that they get
>>> from the general population turn out to have something to them. But then
>>> again:
>> Do you think that none of them eventually are shown to have been wrong?
>
> I'm sure they do. But historically in this news group, no one has been able
> to provide a reliable link to the data.
But they will babble on about it.
>>> "More than one-half (60.7%) of investigations led to a finding that the
>>> alleged maltreatment was unsubstantiated."
>> But what has occured to the family in tiem time it takes to learn that
>> the allegations were bullshit? What of the HARM done by inappropriate
>> state intrusion into the family?
>
> Inappropriate? Care to make a suggestion on how that determination can be
> made without an investigation?
Mmmm....he's a physic...opps, make that psychic. 0;-]
> Pie in the sky dreams of being able to wave a magic wand and know all the
> facts without ever having to intrude into a family are nice, but not
> practical. Until one of you super-brains can come up with a better and more
> reliable method, one that is both practical and realistic, the state uses
> what it has.
Well, first you must dismantle CPS. Then when it's all gone. You have
one day to replace it. And that must be using NO ONE that's worked there
before, because they only have degrees in 'Bible studies," etc.
You must do it without workers, then, Without money, and you must have a
"plan."
>>> So, of the 62.7% of the calls that they believe require additional
>>> action,
>>> 25% of them turn out to be actual cases of abuse, neglect, or some other
>>> form of maltreatment. Interesting, wouldn't you say? One must remember
>>> that they are responding to calls from the general population,
>>> individuals
>>> who, for the most part, have absolutely no training, formal or informal,
>>> in
>>> abuse or neglect issues. Wow, and all of this with a workforce of
>>> roughly
>>> 27,000 people. 27,000 people to service a nation of more than 300
>>> million.
>>> More bang for your buck you will NEVER receive.
>> Even MORE reason to have people who know what the hell they are doing
>> and who don't ruush in like a bull in a china shop.
>
> "ruush in like a bull in a china shop", hmmm. A childs life may be in
> danger, and you would prefer that they take their time before making sure?
> My my, how callous!
Of course.
The great thing about waiting for the death or severe injury is that you
can blame CPS for waiting then...oh wait, they do that already.
>>>>> And a "CPS is to blame for everything" kind as well. You don't
>>>>> believe
>>>>> that CPS is a service agency, one that responds, not one that
>>>>> instigates
>>>>> calls or investigations. We had one of those around this news group
>>>>> some
>>>>> time back. Believed that CPS workers drove around neighborhoods looking
>>>>> for kids to remove, with or without cause. He was never able to
>>>>> support
>>>>> his belief, never even tried. Just one more inane unsane series of
>>>>> posts
>>>>> completely without foundation. Never supporting what he wrote.
>>>> No I believe that for the most part CPS is the blind trying to lead
>>>> the
>>>> blind. When you have "caseworkers" with a BA in "Bible Studies" and a
>>>> grand total of 15 MINUTES of "in-service training" before they go out
>>>> and
>>>> pass judgment on abuse cases I think they do more harm than good.
>>> 15 minutes. Hmmm, interesting. Unfortunately, again, this is not
>>> supported by the facts.
>> Yeah sadly IT IS in court transcript after transcript.
>
> Well now, transcripts of court cases are not available on the web now are
> they. I suppose that you have a link to other data that supports your
> statement, right?
He's a known liar, methinks. Those in doubt need only do fact checking
on his CV claims on his website.
>>> Here is some of the job requirements from the state of Nebraska for the
>>> jobs you are concerned about.
>>> "REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree required; prefer Bachelors degree in
>>> social work, psychology, sociology, counseling, human development, mental
>>> health care, education, or closely related area."
>>> http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
>> Sorry your "LINK" doesn't refer to CPS workers. I don't have the time
>> to look up the ACTUAL "case worker CPS" requirements, but the last time I
>> was involved in a Nebraska cae "ANY" degree counted.
>
> I know, its an educational issue. You just never really learned to read did
> you. Look again. Dam them state sponsored schools and all, they never have
> been any good at teaching.
He's not going to look. He's a trolling for dollars sap.
Yet another parent and family destroyer invited here by Greg and the
Goonsquad.
>>> Of course thats just for the entry level positions. Supervisors have the
>>> following requirements:
>>> "REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree in social work, psychology, sociology,
>>> counseling, human development, mental health care, education, or closely
>>> related academic area, AND experience performing casework activities in
>>> counseling, protective services, alcohol/drug abuse, juvenile justice
>>> probation or social services delivery; prefer Masters degree. Previous
>>> Protection and Safety experience required."
>>> http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/nejobs/pro.htm#counseling
>> Again Ron I'll put the best stripe on this misquote as I can before I
>> just call you deliberately deceptive, that is for COUNSELLING and NOT for
>> CPS case workers. Maybe a different link supports your claims.
>
> I know, its an educational issue. You just never really learned to read did
> you. Look again. Dam them state sponsored schools and all, they never have
> been any good at teaching.
>
> I see now where you made your mistake, you didnt actually read the page that
> was linked, you read the link only. Hmmm, you can lead a horse to
> water.....
...and he will spew shit, as per usual with this batch.
>>> So, while your opinions are entertaining they are not based on fact.
>>> Thats just one state. I imagine that all 50 have requirements that are
>>> somewhat similar, although different in some respects.
>> From what I can see YOURS are not.
>
> If you had actually read the page the link takes you to you would have
> actually seen that these are job postings for:
>
> " Protection & Safety Worker/Trainee"
>
> and
>
> " Protection and Safety Supervisor #25-37159R-4"
>
> But I suppose asking you to acctually read the page the link takes to you is
> asking a bit much.
Of course it is. Just like Greg, he's way too important to actually do
any work, or provide any support for claims.
Narcissists all.
One has to wonder if he's collected fees he's not really entitled to.
Certainly if this is any indication of his work product ......... ?
>
> Ron
>
Let the fool go. I'm done with him. It's pointless to "debate" the
various clones of Greg that show up here. Next Greg will invite Kathleen
back.
He brought this diddly do whopper into the newsgroup.
It's all about distraction from real issues that might help serious
inquirers to this newsgroup.
The aim is to hijack this newsgroup...but of course the was done years
ago. No serious inquirer is allowed to stay here and find answers. No
parent is left unattacked.
Those with actual knowledge of how CPS and the system really works is
allowed to share that information without massive lying fraudulent
attacks against them.
They simply want to use this ng as their propaganda "front."
Any real debate is dead in the water here.
Too bad really.
But then newcomers don't have too hard a time figuring out these vicious
little thugs.
0:->
Ron
>
> Ron,
>
> Check your emails.
>
> Dan
Back at ya big guy!
Ron
Dan Sullivan
Thanks.
krp
>>>>>>> Well I've been reading Greg's lies and bullshit for years and that's
>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>> he gets what he gets. How many emails did Greg send you?
>>>>>> None so far that I can recall. He did phone me once.
>>>>> Thought so.
>>>> So he called me to ask me for some info about myself. Actually he
>>>> was
>>>> sort of accusatory buying into the stalker's claims. I did my best to
>>>> answer
>>>> his questions.
>>> Dan thinks there is some dirt to be had with this.
>
>> Well given the allegations from my stalker he could have had the
>> honesty to confront me as you did directly. I hope I satisfactorily
>> answered your questions.
>>> You have discredited Dan so severely that the pack is getting desperate.
>> I find today's foray with a cite to butress a claim that Nebraska
>> requires CPS caseworkers to be the story. The reference he used was not
>> for CPS case workers but for counsellors. Maybe it was just a slip of the
>> finger and he'll correct it.
> Could be. Are you insinuating anything?
No I stated a FACT. The cite doesn't refer to CPS case workers but to
"counsellors."
>> Criticism has been so severe of the screwups by these agencies and so
>> public (media such as O'Reilly) that I am sure some now may require
>> actual related degrees. By and large across the country that is NOT the
>> case.
> No, by and large, it rare it isn't required.
I can't find it. First of all Universities don't turn out that many
people.
> You are woefully ignorant of CPS matters anywhere, and certainly not
> across the country.
You are sadly mistaken. I am VERY familiar with them.
> You failed to read the entire available reference. I hope you don't do
> work on CPS cases this sloppily.
THIS forum is nother a court nor is it a degree program that I will get
credit for. Lots of CPS people know how thorough I am. They wish otherwise.
Let me assist you with your READING!!!!!REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors
> degree required; prefer Bachelors degree in social work, psychology,
> sociology, counseling, human development, mental health care, education,
> or closely related area.
I rest my case. No "REQUIREMENT" thjat the degree actually be in a
mental health field. It may be preferred. Which in ENGLISH means that if
they have an opening and 2 people apply, one has a Bachelors's in social
work and the other in art history, the social work degree wil be PREFERRED
all other things being equal, but if NONE apply Then they take whatever they
get.
Want to speak REALITY here? CPS agencies report a near 600% turnover
rate in a 2 year period for caseworkers. The pay sucks, the job sucks and
the working environment sucks. (Most of their coworkers are assholes.) Most
folks know they are being asked to do jobs they are not qualified to do. We
start with that fact. If one has a master's degree in social work what IDIOT
would want to work at a CPS agency for $27,000 a year when in private
practice they can earn several times that?????? What IDIOT would opt for
$27,000 a year versus $100,000 a year? Do a little math here. Private
practice doing "psychotherapy" an MSW can earn $150 an hour to $250 an hour.
9 hours a day 5 days a week, that can come to what?
> Protection and Safety Supervisor #25-37159R-4; $3269/mo;
WOW $39,000 a year! WOWSIE WOWSER!
> REQUIREMENTS: Bachelors degree in social work, psychology, sociology,
> counseling, human development, mental health care, education, or closely
> related academic area, AND experience performing casework activities in
> counseling, protective services, alcohol/drug abuse, juvenile justice
> probation or social services delivery; prefer Masters degree. Previous
> Protection and Safety experience required. Must have strong organizational
> skills. Desire experience as a supervisor or assisting a supervisor within
> a protective services/case management function or program. CLOSING DATE:
> 1/3/07.
A BSW - - - Oooooooo! to be a SUPERVISOR, but "we'd LIKE to have a
master's.." KANE grow up. What person with a Master's is going to go for
that?
When they can earn $ 1500 a DAY in private practice and no BULLSHIT to deal
with?
> The URL name doesn't not represent everything that is on the page.
> Ron's quotes are not inclusive of the full entry for the position, but
> they are most certainly from it, and no "counselor's" job description
> would include those items listed in the quoted descriptions of the jobs
> above.
READ what you cite and THINK Kane.
krp
No I did actually. He offered that page for a "CASEWORKER" representing that
to be HIRED you need a degree in social work, psychology or related, and
that is NOT what it said. I was gentle in my response. I could have said he
tried to LIE, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt as I have you. I'll
judge by how you respond to my pervious reply.
krp
>> CPS is broken and cannot be fixed. It needs to be scrapped, rethought,
>> and started over with QUALIFIED people.
> Ahhh, yes, the old "Its broken beyond repair" argument. Once again
> totally
> without any thought as to what can replace it.
The "old" argument? Yes I suppose it is because I made that argument to
a state legislature in 1980. They argeed with me and TRIED to reform the
agency and failed. I've given LOTS of thought as to how to replace it.
> Or do you have a suggestion? I have been waiting for such for more than 5
> years now, and of course nothing has been provided that can do the work
> required. A few "Pie in the Sky" dreams, but nothing that can actually be
> put into practice. Maybe you will be the first?
First you CLOSE the present agency. Then you also start with not
rehiring ANY of the people who worked for the old agency! You start with
QUALIFIED people at the top. A doctorate as a MINIMUM. In a related field.
You also screen out ANY "activists." You do a complete background check and
family history on all applicants. You also do a thorough psychological
screening on all people to be hired. That means evaluate also for sexual
deviencey. Then you develop REAL operational manuals, you don't use VOO DOO
like SAC dolls and the like. You make certain that you outside sources, such
as hospitals have qualified staff (meaning BOARD CERTIFICATION) in their
fields. That's a start. You set behavioral standards for case workers. You
stablish a policy that any case worker who testifies along the lines as " it
is well known that the ONLY reason a father has his daughter sit on his lap
is for the proximity of his penis to her vagina." be immediately terminated!
That's more detaile dthan any of the bullshit I have seen posted here.
You MISTATED the cite. Go back and read it again.
krp
> He won't even take time to look, making a presumption, erroneously, that
> it's about 'counselors' because that happens to be in the URL you
> provided.
>
> One quick look at the document shows that indeed, both job descriptions
> are exactly as you quoted.
Take a BETTER look the REQUIREMENT for a Mental health degree is for
SUPERVISIORS. His problem and yours is that you apply it to ENTRY LEVEL
caseworkers and the cite contradicts that. It clearly says ANY Bachellor's
degree AT ALL..
> He's a fraud and a liar. Nothing, really, but a semiconscious troll. Until
> responsible posters start cutting these pissants off at the knees about
> three posts in, they'll keep babbling on like they are something
> important.
Wanna TRY big man? If that's the best shot you two SHILLS for CPS
have... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
lostintranslation
It said or in a closely related field. I think it's safe to say that
if someone walked in to apply for a position and the only bachelors
they had was in accounting, they would not be considered for the job.
So, not EVERY person with a bachelors degree will be eligible for the
job. You aren't comprehending it very well, are you?
t...@cotse.net
" it is well known that the ONLY reason a father has his daughter
sit on his lap is for the proximity of his penis to her vagina."
Looks like you're off the hook then, Kakes, since it turned out
that Megs wasn't your bio daughter.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
krp
<t...@cotse.net> wrote in message
news:1168016485....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> " it is well known that the ONLY reason a father has his daughter
> sit on his lap is for the proximity of his penis to her vagina."
>
> Looks like you're off the hook then, Kakes, since it turned out
> that Megs wasn't your bio daughter.
Moore you are and never will be anything more than a CREEP! You make women's
skin crawl, ask Linda your ex. I bet she has LOADS to say about how
revolting you are.
krp
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9N2dnUrRDusw-ADY...@scnresearch.com...
>
>> He won't even take time to look, making a presumption, erroneously, that
>> it's about 'counselors' because that happens to be in the URL you
>> provided.
I went to look at one of your sources the PDF and it so totally locked my
system I even had problems rebooting.
krp
"lostintranslation" <lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168016013....@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
No it does NOT say anything like that. read again. It said ANY degree,
but that a degree in SW, psych etc would be "Preferred"...
LEARN TO READ!