In NY... unsubstantiated means
Dan Sullivan
there has to be "some credible evidence."
For NY CPS to "unsubstantiate" a report there has to be NO credible
evidence... NONE.
But that never stopped them from "founding" a report that I had hit my
son in the face on a weekend I was refused visitation.
Or "founding" a report of molestation because my daughter said "My
daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet." (the CW wrote in
the CR that she didn't know what my daughter was trying to say... but
determined the statement to be credible anyway)
Every report made against me that CPS determined to have "some
credible evidence" to support a "founded" determination was reversed
either in a Fair Hearing or in an Administrative Review.
In actuality definitions mean nothing to CPS.
The only thing that means anything is whether or not you can get CPS'
determinations reversed because they don't adhere to the law.
Best, Dan
Fern5827
No?
>But that never stopped them from "founding" a report that I had hit my
>son in the face on a weekend I was refused visitation.
Then you slapped him?
Doesn't your young daughter need wiping?
>My
>daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet." (the CW wrote in
>the CR that she didn't know what my daughter was trying to say... but
>determined the statement to be credible anyway)
>
Most kids under 5 do. Front to back, please.
Hey! I like the idea of the wipey bear. Keeps your hands clean.
Maybe he could be equipped with a toilet paper dispenser. :-)
...Hmmm..... I can see the infomercials now.
Dan sent in about DSS, ACS in NY:
>Subject: In NY... unsubstantiated means
>From: dsul...@optonline.net (Dan Sullivan)
>Date: 4/18/2004 8:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f9e1b700.04041...@posting.google.com>
Super Pissed Dad
it was a good idea to have a "witness" when I wiped/changed her diaper.That
isn't normal, but that is called protection.
spd
Greg Hanson
Was it's name "Poo" ?
Super Pissed Dad
little girl and her mother laughing,hugging,sleeping together must be a real
threat~huh? You didn't just fall off a turnip truck...do SOMETHING FAST. It
might mean moving out or ??? hows the job search coming along ?
spd
bobb
"Super Pissed Dad" <vis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040419111646...@mb-m06.aol.com...
It's so sad to resort to such measures to avoid being tossed into jail or
risk losing the children. I know of one father who will no longer bathe his
own children for the same reason.. even if mom is around. For the very,
very few incidents of incest..the larger population is made to suffer.
bobb
Kane
wrote:
>
>"Super Pissed Dad" <vis...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040419111646...@mb-m06.aol.com...
>> hey when I was involved in a dependency with my little girl, I
always
>thought
>> it was a good idea to have a "witness" when I wiped/changed her
>diaper.That
>> isn't normal, but that is called protection.
>>
>> spd
>
>
>It's so sad to resort to such measures to avoid being tossed into
jail or
>risk losing the children.
On the contrary. I think it's brave of the father, difficult as it is.
>I know of one father who will no longer bathe his
>own children for the same reason..
And you know the case intimately, just as The Plant does when It tells
us about how safe a relative is, and how drug free Girl Scout leaders
are? You know that he was innocent...right?
>even if mom is around.
Now THAT'S getting silly. He'll get past that in time hopefully.
>For the very,
>very few incidents of incest..the larger population is made to
suffer.
Yes. That is the case. Now to cut down on those cases of incest.
I find the same true of child sexual abuse in general. I no longer can
chat with little kids, a rewarding pastime in that they are so much
less biased and bigotted than so many folks I meet.
But then there are the kids in my own family.
On the other hand I've noticed that normal children tend to be shy of
strangers. Seems like it will all work out.
Fortunately children don't need to be bathed by parents for all that
many years.
Pity for folks like Greegor, and apparently you.
>
>bobb
>
Kane
bobb
"Kane" <pohakuy...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:7ed8d1be.04042...@posting.google.com...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:46:42 -0500, "bobb" <bob...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Super Pissed Dad" <vis...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20040419111646...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> >> hey when I was involved in a dependency with my little girl, I
> always
> >thought
> >> it was a good idea to have a "witness" when I wiped/changed her
> >diaper.That
> >> isn't normal, but that is called protection.
> >>
> >> spd
> >
> >
> >It's so sad to resort to such measures to avoid being tossed into
> jail or
> >risk losing the children.
>
> On the contrary. I think it's brave of the father, difficult as it is.
>
> >I know of one father who will no longer bathe his
> >own children for the same reason..
>
> And you know the case intimately, just as The Plant does when It tells
> us about how safe a relative is, and how drug free Girl Scout leaders
> are? You know that he was innocent...right?
>
> >even if mom is around.
>
> Now THAT'S getting silly. He'll get past that in time hopefully.
In one sentence you say 'it's brave of the father, difficult as it is" and
in another sentence you say "THAT'S getting silly".
>
> >For the very,
> >very few incidents of incest..the larger population is made to
> suffer.
>
> Yes. That is the case. Now to cut down on those cases of incest.
True incest or imagined?
>
> I find the same true of child sexual abuse in general. I no longer can
> chat with little kids, a rewarding pastime in that they are so much
> less biased and bigotted than so many folks I meet.
You only have yourself to blame... keep ranting about the 'dangers'.. and
we'll all be living in even greater isolation.
>
> But then there are the kids in my own family.
>
> On the other hand I've noticed that normal children tend to be shy of
> strangers.
So it's the abnormal children who tends NOT to be shy of strangers?
Danger stranger... another fraud perpetrated on the public has been all
but done away with.... but not without great harm done to society.
>Seems like it will all work out.
>
> Fortunately children don't need to be bathed by parents for all that
> many years.
This is true.. but how many parents (relatives, friends, baby-sitters) were
wrongly investigated and even arrested for nothing more that someone's
perceived "inappropriate' touch" .
bobb
Greg Hanson
Villify me all you want, but as long
as you ignore the CPS "covering up" their own dirt
and refusal to investigate a known psycho
caretaker they SIDED WITH, it just doesn't add up.
There is no good rationale, logic or reasoning
other than CYA behavior to justify their cover
up of the psycho grandmother caretaker.
All of your "for the kids" rhetoric falls apart
when CPS sides with an 11 year Prozac patient,
rewards them for their spew with caretaker role,
and refuses to get them even the most cursory
psychological evaluation.
How do you justify a child caretaker taking 11
years of (quick fix) Prozac from a GP and
never seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist?
Do you pretend that if a parent had that sort
of background they would not be thoroughly
evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist?
Do you think that "taking sides" should exempt
such a person from a psych eval??
If that goes badly wrong, they aren't responsible
for "failure to protect" right?
Dan Sullivan
"Greg Hanson" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35120b16.04042...@posting.google.com...
> Kane:
> Villify me all you want, but as long
> as you ignore the CPS "covering up" their own dirt
> and refusal to investigate a known psycho
> caretaker they SIDED WITH, it just doesn't add up.
What is your credible evidence that this woman is a "psycho?"
> There is no good rationale, logic or reasoning
> other than CYA behavior to justify their cover
> up of the psycho grandmother caretaker.
Why have YOU chosen to refuse to take a psych eval, Greg?
> All of your "for the kids" rhetoric falls apart
> when CPS sides with an 11 year Prozac patient,
> rewards them for their spew with caretaker role,
> and refuses to get them even the most cursory
> psychological evaluation.
And YOUR psych eval, Greg?
> How do you justify a child caretaker taking 11
> years of (quick fix) Prozac from a GP and
> never seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist?
The doctor can legally prescribe that drug, correct?
What's your problem with an MD legitimately prescribing medications, Greg??
> Do you pretend that if a parent had that sort
> of background they would not be thoroughly
> evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist?
What about an unrelated adult male making it a ritual to be in the bathroom
everytime a little girl finished showering?
Should nothing be done about that?
What if the unrelated adult male made it his business to discipline the
little girl with cold showers and spankings?
What if the unrelated adult male moved into the mobile home with the little
girl and her mother and brought with him so much crap that a Family Court
Judge was petitioned to help collect the little girl's past due child
support so it could be spent on a storage unit for his excess belongings?
> Do you think that "taking sides" should exempt
> such a person from a psych eval??
Should YOU be exempt from a psych eval, Greg?
And if your answer is "yes" tell me why.
> If that goes badly wrong, they aren't responsible
> for "failure to protect" right?
The grandparents protected their granddaughter from YOU, Greg.
And the grandparents protected their granddaughter from her mother who
failed to protect the little girl from YOU.
As far as I understand, the little girl's personal boundaries haven't been
violated since she was removed from her mother's custody more than three
years ago.
Sounds like a happy ending to me, Greg.
BTW as long as the grandmother isn't adversely affected by the medications
prescribed by her physician and she can provide a safe and caring home for
the granddaughter, you're just peeing up a rope, Greg.
Have you or the little girl's mother figured out that the authorities locked
the door and threw away the key, Greg?
Kane
wrote:
>Kane:
>Villify me all you want,
Thanks. But I don't need permission. It's a duty.
>but as long
>as you ignore the CPS "covering up" their own dirt
I question the accuracy of that claim if YOU know about it. Odd about
facts. They WILL bite you in the ass every time. There is only one way
you can win, and your buddies along with you, and that is by telling
the truth.
Course you'd run out of things to post and we'd miss you. Tah.
And, who said I was ignoring? How would you know I'm ignoring. Tell
you what, when the g'mother gets on Usenet and presents her view of
the situation I may have some comments. I certainly wouldn't ignore
your SO if she were to post here, or the child for that matter, but so
far, all we have is YOU you lovely sweet boy.
So in closing on this sordid bit of attempt to play at being Douggie
(you blew it, as usual) we close with:
I've been known to not comment on what I don't know. Fancy that.
And comment on what I do. Fancy that even more.
>and refusal to investigate a known psycho
>caretaker they SIDED WITH, it just doesn't add up.
How do you know they haven't investigated? Because YOU haven't been
questioned about her? Or have you? I suspect you have and you just
don't like it that CPS didn't do what YOU wanted.
Imagine. They think the child safer with someone YOU think is nutso.
What does that say about YOU?
Oh, that you can't "add up" I guess.
>There is no good rationale, logic or reasoning
>other than CYA behavior to justify their cover
>up of the psycho grandmother caretaker.
I'm sorry. The generality "CYA behavior" doesn't clarify your position
one bit.
I have it on good authority that investigators rarely, unless it
serves their purpose, share much with alledged perps...those we used
to call "suspects" in the old b-movies. You are one...and no, not a
b-movie.
And how are you qualified to determine if the g'mother is unfit to be
a caretaker? And are you qualified to know who in that household is
actually caring for the little girl? It could be the
grandfather...and...as you've mentioned, the FATHER, whose child
support money YOU wanted so you could store YOUR shit overflowing the
house. You are just a theif that hasn't been nailed yet. One day,
greegor. One day.
Greegor, you missed the boat again. You see we remember what you've
posted in the past, and we even bother on occasion, when you get too
mind numbingly self absorbed, to look it up to be sure.
Want some citations of your own posts? You might do a google hit on
your name for the archives first and read them. It might save you the
embarrassment of having one of us dredge them up and display them
again for the visitors to this ng.
Make your pinkie tingle, little narcissist?
>All of your "for the kids" rhetoric
Well, since I don't limit myself to "for the kids" it appears more
like your claim "falls apart."
>falls apart
>when CPS sides with an 11 year Prozac patient,
>rewards them for their spew with caretaker role,
Wipe the spittle off your monitor, reel in your eyeballs, and see if
you can rephrase that to be meaningful. As it is, it amounts to
nothing but rabid blather.
YOu have told us the father has access to the household, and that g'pa
is present. I warrant the child is much safer there than with a pre
emergent pedophile. What WERE you doing monitoring her showering so
much?
>and refuses to get them even the most cursory
>psychological evaluation.
"Them?" I though the g'pa was a fine fellow. He had the mental
stability to recognize and take some much needed action against a
threat to his g'daughter. Who is this "them?'
How'd YOUR psych eval for the state come out by the way? Got the
report in hand to read, or did they cite HIPPA on yah for being too
dangerous to yourself and others to have the information? Give us the
skinny. How did yah do on the MMPI?
>How do you justify a child caretaker taking 11
>years of (quick fix) Prozac from a GP and
>never seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist?
Guessing I'd say she had a mental illness. That's usually the reason,
but then
I don't, as it's not my call, now is it?
Given your posting history and the occasional surprizes you have come
up with, vis a vis the truth, I have some doubts about this claim of
yours.
And Prozac in low dosages may or may not require more supervision from
shrinks than GPs. GPs aren't without some training in medicines and
Tx, and Dx, and might just send a patient that was showing signs of
the need for psychiatric help. Yah know, shrinks cost lots of money,
and usually their patients are referred by...guess who....GPs.
Do you think you and I should sit here, especially me with no posts
from granny to parse, and you a meandering self absorbed little twit
with no empathy for the child or the mother, and decide for the MDs?
>Do you pretend that if a parent had that sort
>of background they would not be thoroughly
>evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist?
I don't pretend. I try to go with the information I have.
Why don't you ask The Plant, the advocate for Relatives taking the
child placement? I ask you again...why do YOU think YOU would be, or
the SO, would be apprized of someone else's having had a psychsoc eval
or not?
If you are telling the truth--that somehow you have and inside track
to the confidential information on someone else, highly unlikely as
you usually don't KNOW the truth about much of anything, then yes,
everyone is fuckin' ducks, but you you dear dear boy.
If you are wrong, it's you quacken in little whispers and laying a
trail of corn to your fly. .
>Do you think that "taking sides" should exempt
>such a person from a psych eval??
Yah got me there, but then I'm not clear on who "such a person" might
be. The doc? The granny? CPS?
You're babbling.
>If that goes badly wrong, they aren't responsible
>for "failure to protect" right?
Yah got me again. I always thought that whoever is the guardian of the
child, should things go wrong, they are to blame, and that includes
CPS.
Please show in any instance where the state has failed to protect the
child, when it could do so, I have defended the state.
I have pointed out the hurdles the state has. I have pointed out the
nature of human beings to err. But I have not excused anyone from
responsibility. I tend not even to excuse the mentally ill. In many
cases that does not mean they are incompetent. They are simply
different.
In you case I am perfectly willing to not blame you, when you exhibit
some kind of remorse and intent and action to correct your malfeasance
with regard to the child.
All you would have had to do to have all this whining fodder NOT
available to you would be to have left, or gotten a job and married
the mother. One would have absolutely insured the return of the child,
and the other would have moved the odds that direction to a level the
house enjoys in Los Vegas and Atlantic City.
YOU, self serving narcisisstic prick, are still there. No job. No
marriage. And have contributed only one thing to the mix....The
Motion.
Show us how you have helped this women and her child. Show us how
bleating about the mentally ill g'mother has helped anyone, or
endangered the child?
Mentally ill parents are not automatically disqualified from
parenting. Why should mentally ill g'parents be?
Many types of mental illness are not risky for the victim or the
public around them.
Now, stop your whining, and take your medicine. Get a job, get
married, or get your worthless sleazy ass out of there and let this
family come back together. YOU are the weakest link, not granny.
Kane
Greg Hanson
If a person ot Prozac as a "quick fix" from
a General Practitioner and has taken it
(unreliably by the way) for 11 YEARS, and
if that person never ever saw a psychologist
or psychiatrist, and this person is a
CARETAKER OF A CHILD.....
What qualifies a CPS caseworker to make
such a ""diagnosis"" of psychiatry?
(I say psychiatry because medication is involved.)
Why would I say the person is a nut case?
The person is, IN FACT, a mental case.
That status existed long before I even
knew the person existed.
Are you a big fan of psychotropics issued
by GP's for long term psychiatric problems?
Doesn't that, by definition make the person
factually a MENTAL CASE?
Super Pissed Dad
Greg,
There are some people with a mental condition that require them to take
meds~some are fit to parent and some are not. I guess I see your argument about
a General Practioner giving out the Prozac and not the Psychiatrist but...
Your idea isn't working...
spd
Kane
wrote:
>Kane:
>If a person ot Prozac as a "quick fix"
You are either over tired from trying to keep up here, or you are
loaded and babbling again.
Clarify your phrase please.
Oh, I think you meant "got." The grammar is so bad I had trouble
sorting your meaning. Usually I'm quicker than that and forgive a typo
and move on....we'll accept that I'm right unless you tell me other
wise, It's:
"If a person got Prozac as a "quick fix""
>from
>a General Practitioner and has taken it
>(unreliably by the way) for 11 YEARS,
By the way, just an aside. You didn't say who this person is. That is,
if consistent, a symptom of self absorbed neurosis, commonly referred
to a narcissism. It can get much worse if you continue unchecked and
untreated.
We all like to occasionally use impersonal terms for others, but you
do it soooo much. Like talking about the girl but not calling her by
name or portraying positives about her, or concerns for her feelings,
but rather blaming her for YOU spanking her, giving her shower
attendance, and getting CPS to remove her, after trying to get her
daddies support money to give to you for storage...oh, wait, I've got
that wrong. Sorry.
>and
>if that person never ever saw a psychologist
>or psychiatrist, and this person is a
>CARETAKER OF A CHILD.....
Okay, I follow you so far, except for one little thing. Who told you
she hadn't? How many years have you known her? We'll assume g'm is of
whom I speak, my not being a narcissistic twit that can't refer
directly to someone, habitually.
Yah know, if it was the SO, considering who she hooked up with, how
unwilling she is to get her daughter back by the simple expediant of
throwing out a low life (maybe your hung like a horse, who knows), and
the thought of you two planning a life of leisure based on bilking the
public of their tax dollars, I think any of you trusting any of you
for the truth is kind of foolish, don't you?
>What qualifies a CPS caseworker to make
>such a ""diagnosis"" of psychiatry?
>(I say psychiatry because medication is involved.)
The grandmother has a case of "psychiatry?"
You want to try that again, doper? Or is it just tiredness? You have a
lot of lies and such to keep track of. And now Douggies added to
yours....well, tsk tsk. You need a vacation. You work sooooo hard
>Why would I say the person is a nut case?
How about saying she is mentally ill. That could be simple and easily
controlled low grade clinical depression...the most prevalent of
mental "illnessesm" which it is, just a chemical imbalance as it turns
out. Or it could be full blown shit fuck out of her mind raving
psychosis (page 1423, DSM IV).
In the former case you'd be getting way out of bounds to make our
accusations of her not being able to parent. In the latter case, SHIT
MAN CALL THE COPS AND TURN HER IN.
>The person is, IN FACT, a mental case.
Couldnt' tell by me. She doesn't post here. YOU do. I go by what I see
and what the person tells me about himself. YOu seem an honest lad.
You spill your guts about being who and what you are daily. I like
that about you.
>That status existed long before I even
>knew the person existed.
So you know she's been on Prozac, and using occasionally,
uncontrolled, unseen by a doctor (oh wait, she HAS a doctor,
qualifited ot prescribe and to Dx his patient and refer her or not as
he or she sees fit). And you know this from before you met
her...mmmmhhhhhmmmmm. Go on please.
>Are you a big fan of psychotropics issued
>by GP's for long term psychiatric problems?
Nope. I turned down some from my own GP when I was being stalked by a
murderous thug and his buddies. I preferred being just a tad engarde'
and clear headed, to being mellow and dead.
But then it's all a matter of circumstances, now isn't it. Her problem
isn't violent thugs, except you possibly, though I think you are too
cowardly to be all that violent unless it's just a 6 year old little
girl, naked in the shower.
>Doesn't that, by definition make the person
>factually a MENTAL CASE?
No. I'd have to know considerably more, from HER, not someone with an
obvious bias against her looking for evidence so he can sue the state
for MY tax dollars. Thank you very much.
You seemed to be quite at ease with Kathleen and even encouraging her
and taking hits off her bong, as it were. How is it the grandmother
doesn't get a similar break?
You have some reason for looking for corrobaration of YOUR bias about
her?
To what end? That we feel more sorry for you and pity for you?
Won't work. I feel as sorry for you and pity you about as much as I
can, and that's a lot.
Here's how you determine if she is actually mentally ill to the point
she could be a risk to the child (and remember, you'd be fuckin' with
the lives of hundreds of thousands of people with children who are
also diagnosed and maintained on low occasional dosage of anti
depressants...like you care).
First you got to report her to CPS. Or better to the police. I'm not
going to tell you how to do that anonymously, of course, but you have
friends...right?
Then go and commiserate with her, and ask her if she'll let you see
the results of the psychsoc evaluation. She'll do that, won't she, you
being so loving and faithful to her granddaughter's mother and all?
Get back to us.
Kane
Dan Sullivan
> If a person ot Prozac as a "quick fix" from
> a General Practitioner and has taken it
> (unreliably by the way) for 11 YEARS, and
> if that person never ever saw a psychologist
> or psychiatrist, and this person is a
> CARETAKER OF A CHILD.....
11 years of Prozac is a "quick fix?"
Apparently you have a pretty distorted concept of time, Greg.
Medication usage doesn't make a person unfit as a caretaker of a child.
It's what a person does to the child that determines whether they're unfit
or not.
> What qualifies a CPS caseworker to make
> such a ""diagnosis"" of psychiatry?
There is no such thing as a "diagnosis" of psychiatry.
Doctors diagnose illnesses, maladies, conditions...etc...
You're off in la la land, Greg.
> (I say psychiatry because medication is involved.)
And you believe a CPS caseworker diagnosed the woman?
What leads you to believe that?
> Why would I say the person is a nut case?
Because if you're the nut case (which you are) then you won't be able to sue
the Iowa DSS (which is never gonna happen).
> The person is, IN FACT, a mental case.
Is that your official diagnosis, Greg?
> That status existed long before I even
> knew the person existed.
And you know that how?
> Are you a big fan of psychotropics issued
> by GP's for long term psychiatric problems?
Gee, Greg, at the beginning of this message you claimed the Prozac was a
"quick fix."
Now in the same message you claim it's "long term."
Your own claims are in 180 degree opposition of each other.
> Doesn't that, by definition make the person
> factually a MENTAL CASE?
This is the first statement you got right so far, Greg.
Kane
> Wait a minute, you did get to visit your son?
>
> No?
>
> >But that never stopped them from "founding" a report that I had hit my
> >son in the face on a weekend I was refused visitation.
>
> Then you slapped him?
R R R R....GOOD ONE Ms Potatohead.
That's teach him to mess with an expert on "so when did you stop
beating your wife" debating skills. You are GOOOOOOOD, Gloxinia.
> Doesn't your young daughter need wiping?
No, his daughter is a polarbear cub that shits in the snow, didn't you
know?
He was founded for shooting polar bears in the icehole, and reversed
it to the polar bear shooting him in the elbow.
> >My
> >daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet." (the CW wrote in
> >the CR that she didn't know what my daughter was trying to say... but
> >determined the statement to be credible anyway)
> >
>
> Most kids under 5 do. Front to back, please.
I'm sure Dan needs a lot of help with toileting young children. My
hunch is he's also badly in need of showering little girl instruction
though. Know anyone that could help him out?
> Hey! I like the idea of the wipey bear. Keeps your hands clean.
>
> Maybe he could be equipped with a toilet paper dispenser. :-)
Ah I can see the kid going potty all by themselve for the first time,
with their favorite poobear under their arm, the one without the
toilet paper dispenser.
YOu forget, as usual, old Alzheimers, how very literal kids can be at
toddler age.
>
> ...Hmmm..... I can see the infomercials now.
Bye some stock. It's sure to go up.
Have you ever wondered what a "topic" is?
Kane
Kane
>
>"Greg Hanson" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:35120b16.04042...@posting.google.com...
>> Kane:
>> If a person ot Prozac as a "quick fix" from
>> a General Practitioner and has taken it
>> (unreliably by the way) for 11 YEARS, and
>> if that person never ever saw a psychologist
>> or psychiatrist, and this person is a
>> CARETAKER OF A CHILD.....
>
>11 years of Prozac is a "quick fix?"
>
>Apparently you have a pretty distorted concept of time, Greg.
>
>Medication usage doesn't make a person unfit as a caretaker of a child.
>
>It's what a person does to the child that determines whether they're unfit
>or not.
>
>> What qualifies a CPS caseworker to make
>> such a ""diagnosis"" of psychiatry?
>
>There is no such thing as a "diagnosis" of psychiatry.
>
>Doctors diagnose illnesses, maladies, conditions...etc...
>
>You're off in la la land, Greg.
>
>> (I say psychiatry because medication is involved.)
>
>And you believe a CPS caseworker diagnosed the woman?
>
>What leads you to believe that?
>
>> Why would I say the person is a nut case?
>
>Because if you're the nut case (which you are) then you won't be able to sue
>the Iowa DSS (which is never gonna happen).
>
>> The person is, IN FACT, a mental case.
>
>Is that your official diagnosis, Greg?
>
>> That status existed long before I even
>> knew the person existed.
>
>And you know that how?
>
>> Are you a big fan of psychotropics issued
>> by GP's for long term psychiatric problems?
>
>Gee, Greg, at the beginning of this message you claimed the Prozac was a
>"quick fix."
>
>Now in the same message you claim it's "long term."
>
>Your own claims are in 180 degree opposition of each other.
>
>> Doesn't that, by definition make the person
>> factually a MENTAL CASE?
>
>This is the first statement you got right so far, Greg.
Henh henh henh. ...snicker.
Poor greegor. He should never post when he's fixin'
Prozac won't fix that.
Kane
bobb
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:n9lic.2538$GN3.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> "Greg Hanson" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:35120b16.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > Kane:
> > If a person ot Prozac as a "quick fix" from
> > a General Practitioner and has taken it
> > (unreliably by the way) for 11 YEARS, and
> > if that person never ever saw a psychologist
> > or psychiatrist, and this person is a
> > CARETAKER OF A CHILD.....
>
> 11 years of Prozac is a "quick fix?"
>
> Apparently you have a pretty distorted concept of time, Greg.
>
> Medication usage doesn't make a person unfit as a caretaker of a child.
Should medication make a person unfit? The recent spate of fratricide by
mothers under medical/phsychiatic suggests the possibility. I'm of the
opinon many drugs create problems.
I'm begining to beleive there's a lot more going on and it's called
suggestibility.. something like the hypocondriac. People are sick, in the
mind, because we are telling them they are, or giving them excuses to be
sick.
We're being told that 60 and 70 percent of the nation is in need of mental
health. That can only be true if the 30 percent see the rest of us as out of
balance. Where are the 70 percent who don't stand up and say there's
nothing wrong with us?
We're told this and we're told that by the few... and people get suckered
in. We're influcenced by brain-washing professionals called advertising and
marketing expects. Just looks that advertisments... "ask you doctor if
(fill in the blank) is good for you". If you're are 20 lbs overweight.. you
need this or that.. a new pill, formula, or book to set you straight.
Since lawyers have been able to advertise.. we are all victims of something
or another.. and need to have are rights defended. They are merely drumming
up business and preying on those 30 percent who are already out of balance.
The rest of us know better... and don't drive with hot cups of coffee
between our legs.. and blame someone else.
It's about time we give less time, and credibility to the 1%, 10%, 20% and
30% of the population who have set their own agendas.
bobb
Dan Sullivan
"bobb" <bob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:25qdnU3LPJB...@comcast.com...
You jumped the gun, bobb.
The next sentence sets the parameters.
Greg Hanson
In this case there are many "indicators" that
the Prozac User needs a psychiatric evaluation.
But conveniently (for DHS) DHS gets to decide
that, for THEIR ASSOCIATE, the indicators are
meaningless, and rather than MAKING CERTAIN
that the Prozac patient caretaker is not a
danger to the child, they have swept this
wrinkle under the rug.
Iowa DHS has reveled in this sort of
conflict of interest in several public
cases, like the boy given enemas as punishment
in their DHS facility in Cherokee Iowa.
DHS got to find themselves innocent of child abuse.
How convenient.
Dan Sullivan
>
> In this case there are many "indicators" that
> the Prozac User needs a psychiatric evaluation.
And those indicators are???
> But conveniently (for DHS) DHS gets to decide
> that, for THEIR ASSOCIATE, the indicators are
> meaningless, and rather than MAKING CERTAIN
> that the Prozac patient caretaker is not a
> danger to the child, they have swept this
> wrinkle under the rug.
There is no "wrinkle."
You simply wish there was.
Was the little girl safe with you living in her home, spanking her,
disciplining her with cold showers, and going into the bathroom whenever she
finished showering?
Or is she safer living with her grandparents for the last three years?
Time for you to throw in a red herring, Greg.
Greg Hanson
Dan Sullivan
I'm not whitewashing anything, Greg.
You're as guilty as sin.
The facts from your own mouth bear that out.
Mountain Bill
>
> "Greg Hanson" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:35120b16.04042...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Where do you buy your whitewash, Dan?
>
> I'm not whitewashing anything, Greg.
>
> You're as guilty as sin.
heh,,,how guilty do you Dan think sin really is?
Billy
Kane
Hi everybody. Would you all please post at least once to little billy
here, he's trying to score 500 before his twelfth birthday next week.
He will git a great award if he does. The Virtual Troll High
Five...here's a rendition.
_ _
........( * ).....
........| | |.....
Good luck Junior Troll.
Kane
Greg Hanson
> > You're as guilty as sin.
Are you saying that you are without sin?
I see you casting stones.
Dan Sullivan
> Dan Wrote
> > > You're as guilty as sin.
>
> Are you saying that you are without sin?
Did I say that, Greg?
> I see you casting stones.
You do?
Greg Hanson
which one of you is the top?
Sherman
> which one of you is the top?
Get a J-O-B!
Sherman.
Greg Hanson
Non-sequitur.
Sherman
> > Get a J-O-B!
>
> Non-sequitur.
I guess that means NO. And you are still living off a woman who has, as a
result, lost her little girl's care to her parents?
Sherman.