|Re: Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

[Kane]

On 08 Sep 2003 17:12:08 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--parkertrial0906sep06,0,54
>40815.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire
>
>Ex-Giants defensive end sentenced in child's death
>
>
>
>
>
>September 6, 2003, 1:48 PM EDT
>
>PATERSON, N.J. -- Former New York Giants defensive end Jeremiah
Parker received
>the maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for his role in the death
of an
>ex-girlfriend's 4-year-old son.
>
>Parker was sentenced Friday, two months after a jury convicted him of
>endangering the welfare of a child in the second degree. The same
jury
>acquitted him of first- and second-degree manslaughter.
>
>He also pleaded guilty Friday to marijuana possession and received a
six-month
>sentence, which will run concurrently with the longer one. He must
serve five
>years before being eligible for parole.
>
>Since his conviction, Parker has been held at the Passaic County
Jail.
>
>His attorney, Gerald Saluti, called the sentence "ridiculous" and
said he would
>file an appeal on Monday, including a request for bail.
>
>Saluti said the judge relied too heavily on testimony from Parker's
>ex-girlfriend, Tauleah Kelly, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in
January and
>was sentenced to seven years in prison.
>
>Prosecutors contended that 4-year-old Elijah Kelly endured two months
of abuse
>from both Parker and his own mother before he died May 14, 2001.
>
>"It was a house of horrors at 305 Heights Drive, and Elijah Kelly was
horrified
>every day," Senior Assistant Prosecutor Michael DeMarco said.
>
>According to testimony and statements, Parker regularly spanked
Elijah, twice
>hit the boy with a belt and punished him by placing him in a
refrigerator in
>the garage at his Haledon condominium.
>
>In April 2001, Elijah was taken to the hospital with a head injury
and,
>spotting healed scars, medical staff reported the situation to the
state
>Division of Youth and Family Services.
>
>A DYFS caseworker did not see any new injuries during a visit three
days before
>Elijah went to the hospital for the last time.
>
>The Giants drafted Parker in the seventh round in 2000, but he played
just four
>games as a defensive end due to an injury and Elijah's death.
>
>His defense attorney sought leniency during sentencing hearings,
saying Parker
>overcame a rough background in Richmond, Calif., and had no previous
brushes
>with the law.
>
>Parker attended the University of California at Berkeley to stay
close to his
>brother, who was paralyzed in a drive-by shooting, Saluti said.
>
>"He pulled himself through all of that without a scratch from the
justice
>system," Saluti said.
>
>Parker's current girlfriend, Catherine Cruz, testified that he would
never harm
>her 5-year-old daughter.
>
>"Day after day, she continually asks for Mr. Parker," Cruz said
through tears.
>"I lie to her. I tell her Mr. Parker is working. I become speechless.
.... Never
>will I give this man up in a million years. He has suffered for so
long and
>lost so much."
>
>But Superior Court Judge Randolph Subryan told Parker that the court
had no
>mercy to give him.
>
>"You gave none," Subryan said, "and you deserve none."
>
>
>....Hmmmm did the glamour of the football player cloud the assessment
of the
>DYFS worker?

Three days before the events that put the child in the hospital?

Could be, could be.

Could The Plant be trying to put doubts in folks minds? Could The
Plant be hoping they won't know they are being throughly patronized?
Could be. Could be.

>Or, thinking in another vein, do DYFS interventions make living
>conditions more difficult for children?

CPS caused the injuries? How would they go about doing that? I mean,
even you had a tiny bit of credibility when you tried to claim that
CPS interventions might have some deleterious affect on families with
teens, but in this case? A tiny child against a big athlete?
Puuuuuleeeeeeeze.

>Or is the man just a large bully? Were family called in for kinship
care?

What is your point? Just run out of smoke for your screen?

>Lots of questions in how DYFS handled this family.

But few from you that have any sense to them.

>Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child
deaths in the
>US.

What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
lessons from Duplicitous Doug?

Why do you say, "seems" instead of making a clear statement?

Why do you use the word "occurance" when the proper measure would and
should be "rate"?

In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
course, increased tremendously.

That shows something is keeping the rate down.

Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.

In other words, some factor IS in fact holding down the *rate* of
child deaths.

Is that factor you and your cronies, or is it CPS?

If you think it is you, et al, tell us why.

If you think it ISN'T CPS we'd also like to see your data and
supporting evidence.

Have a nice rainy fertilizer enriched day, Plant.

Kane

[Fern5827]

Kane your comments are inane and not apropos to the case at all.

DYFS was involved for a while.

>>....Hmmmm did the glamour of the football player cloud the assessment
>of the
>>DYFS worker?
>
>Three days before the events that put the child in the hospital?
>
>Could be, could be.

Already case had been opened. Ongoing.

http://www.vocalinfo.org NY site for parents and families harmed by ACS,
DYFS. etc.

[Kane]

(Kane) wrote in message >...
> On 08 Sep 2003 17:12:08 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>
> >http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--parkertrial0906sep06,0,54
> >40815.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire
> >
> >Ex-Giants defensive end sentenced in child's death
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >September 6, 2003, 1:48 PM EDT
> >
> >PATERSON, N.J. -- Former New York Giants defensive end Jeremiah
> Parker received
> >the maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for his role in the death
> of an
> >ex-girlfriend's 4-year-old son.
> >
> >Parker was sentenced Friday, two months after a jury convicted him of
> >endangering the welfare of a child in the second degree. The same
> jury
> >acquitted him of first- and second-degree manslaughter.
> >
> >He also pleaded guilty Friday to marijuana possession and received a
> six-month
> >sentence, which will run concurrently with the longer one. He must
> serve five
> >years before being eligible for parole.
> >
> >Since his conviction, Parker has been held at the Passaic County
> Jail.
> >
> >His attorney, Gerald Saluti, called the sentence "ridiculous" and
> said he would
> >file an appeal on Monday, including a request for bail.
> >
> >Saluti said the judge relied too heavily on testimony from Parker's
> >ex-girlfriend, Tauleah Kelly, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in
> January and
> >was sentenced to seven years in prison.
> >
> >Prosecutors contended that 4-year-old Elijah Kelly endured two months
> of abuse
> >from both Parker and his own mother before he died May 14, 2001.
> >
> >"It was a house of horrors at 305 Heights Drive, and Elijah Kelly was
> horrified
> >every day," Senior Assistant Prosecutor Michael DeMarco said.
> >
> >According to testimony and statements, Parker regularly spanked
> Elijah, twice
> >hit the boy with a belt and punished him by placing him in a
> refrigerator in
> >the garage at his Haledon condominium.
> >
> >In April 2001, Elijah was taken to the hospital with a head injury
> and,
> >spotting healed scars, medical staff reported the situation to the
> state
> >Division of Youth and Family Services.
> >
> >A DYFS caseworker did not see any new injuries during a visit three
> days before
> >Elijah went to the hospital for the last time.
> >
> >The Giants drafted Parker in the seventh round in 2000, but he played
> just four
> >games as a defensive end due to an injury and Elijah's death.
> >
> >His defense attorney sought leniency during sentencing hearings,
> saying Parker
> >overcame a rough background in Richmond, Calif., and had no previous
> brushes
> >with the law.
> >
> >Parker attended the University of California at Berkeley to stay
> close to his
> >brother, who was paralyzed in a drive-by shooting, Saluti said.
> >
> >"He pulled himself through all of that without a scratch from the
> justice
> >system," Saluti said.
> >
> >Parker's current girlfriend, Catherine Cruz, testified that he would
> never harm
> >her 5-year-old daughter.
> >
> >"Day after day, she continually asks for Mr. Parker," Cruz said
> through tears.
> >"I lie to her. I tell her Mr. Parker is working. I become speechless.
> ... Never
> >will I give this man up in a million years. He has suffered for so
> long and
> >lost so much."
> >
> >But Superior Court Judge Randolph Subryan told Parker that the court
> had no
> >mercy to give him.
> >
> >"You gave none," Subryan said, "and you deserve none."
> >
> >
> >....Hmmmm did the glamour of the football player cloud the assessment
> of the
> >DYFS worker?
>
> Three days before the events that put the child in the hospital?
>
> Could be, could be.
>
> Could The Plant be trying to put doubts in folks minds? Could The
> Plant be hoping they won't know they are being throughly patronized?
> Could be. Could be.
>
> >Or, thinking in another vein, do DYFS interventions make living
> >conditions more difficult for children?
>
> CPS caused the injuries? How would they go about doing that? I mean,
> even you had a tiny bit of credibility when you tried to claim that
> CPS interventions might have some deleterious affect on families with
> teens, but in this case? A tiny child against a big athlete?
> Puuuuuleeeeeeeze.
>
> >Or is the man just a large bully? Were family called in for kinship
> care?
>
> What is your point? Just run out of smoke for your screen?
>
> >Lots of questions in how DYFS handled this family.
>
> But few from you that have any sense to them.
>
> >Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child
> deaths in the
> >US.
>
> What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
> lessons from Duplicitous Doug?
>
> Why do you say, "seems" instead of making a clear statement?
>
> Why do you use the word "occurance" when the proper measure would and
> should be "rate"?
>
> In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
> the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
> course, increased tremendously.
>
> That shows something is keeping the rate down.
>
> Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
> economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
> occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.
>
> In other words, some factor IS in fact holding down the *rate* of
> child deaths.
>
> Is that factor you and your cronies, or is it CPS?
>
> If you think it is you, et al, tell us why.
>
> If you think it ISN'T CPS we'd also like to see your data and
> supporting evidence.
>
> Have a nice rainy fertilizer enriched day, Plant.
>
> Kane

Notice, folks, how carefully The Plant skirted answering my refuting
It's nonsense. Notice It's clever snippage with out showing the
removal of my refuting It's nonsense. Here's the reply, such as it is:

On 08 Sep 2003 19:14:25 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>Kane your comments are inane and not apropos to the case at all.

Really? I'll let the reader judge the inanity, but I'll point out I
answered EVERY claim you made using the evidence you supplied (none
for the most part) and still kicked your silly Pumpkin ass.

You haven't supplied "the case" just a passing referance. Do you
always assume others know what goes on in your mind without you
actually revealing it?

Look THAT up in the DSM IV.

>
>DYFS was involved for a while.

Yes.....................and.....................

Scared to put out all the information. Relying on biased media info or
partial information (your usual MO)?

> >>....Hmmmm did the glamour of the football player cloud the assessment
>>of the
>>>DYFS worker?
>>
>>Three days before the events that put the child in the hospital?
>>
>>Could be, could be.
>
>Already case had been opened. Ongoing.

So tell us, are you going to actually provide some information or
continue to patronizingly mess with the minds of those who might know
what a thoroughgoing ditz you really are?

Kane

[Doug]

Fern wrote:

> >Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child
> deaths in the
> >US.

To which, Kane responds:

> What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
> lessons from Duplicitous Doug?

Hi, Kane!

Who could resist such an invitation. Fern did not need to be "careful" in
her wording. The RATE of child fatalities due to abuse/neglect has not
diminished. Neither has the occurance.

> Why do you say, "seems" instead of making a clear statement?

No need to say, "seems." It is a fact.

> Why do you use the word "occurance" when the proper measure would and
> should be "rate"?

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

These rates mark an increase over previous years.

Child abuse rates overall have increased to 12.4 per 1,000, up from 12.2 per
1,000 children in 2000.

> In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
> the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
> course, increased tremendously.

The occurance has raised, as has the population. The rate has increased.

> Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
> economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
> occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.

1) No, the rate went up in 2001.
2) Do you have a source for your unattributed claim that the economy
increases
child abuse?

> In other words, some factor IS in fact holding down the *rate* of
> child deaths.

No, rate of child fatalities has gone up.

[Kane]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:35:59 GMT, "Doug" > wrote:

>Fern wrote:
>
>> >Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child
>> deaths in the
>> >US.
>
>To which, Kane responds:
>
>> What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
>> lessons from Duplicitous Doug?
>
>Hi, Kane!
>
>Who could resist such an invitation. Fern did not need to be "careful" in
>her wording. The RATE of child fatalities due to abuse/neglect has not
>diminished. Neither has the occurance.

Oh, The Plant posted something untrue then?

And you aren't going after IT for that error? Hmmm.. wonder why.

>> Why do you say, "seems" instead of making a clear statement?
>
>No need to say, "seems." It is a fact.
>
>> Why do you use the word "occurance" when the proper measure would and
>> should be "rate"?
>
>The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
>100,000.
>http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child
>The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
>care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma
>
>These rates mark an increase over previous years.
>
>Child abuse rates overall have increased to 12.4 per 1,000, up from 12.2 per
>1,000 children in 2000.
>
>> In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
>> the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
>> course, increased tremendously.
>
>The occurance has raised, as has the population. The rate has increased.
>
>> Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
>> economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
>> occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.
>
>1) No, the rate went up in 2001.
>2) Do you have a source for your unattributed claim that the economy
>increases
>child abuse?
>
>> In other words, some factor IS in fact holding down the *rate* of
>> child deaths.
>
>No, rate of child fatalities has gone up.

Sucker. Look at what you just proved compared to prior claims.

Kane

[Doug]

> >Fern wrote:
> >
> >> >Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child
> >> deaths in the
> >> >US.
> >
> >To which, Kane responds:
> >
> >> What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been taking
> >> lessons from Duplicitous Doug?
> >
> >Hi, Kane!
> >
> >Who could resist such an invitation. Fern did not need to be "careful"
in
> >her wording. The RATE of child fatalities due to abuse/neglect has not
> >diminished. Neither has the occurance.
>
> Oh, The Plant posted something untrue then?
>

Hi, Kane!

No, what Fern posted is true. Your challenge -- that while occurance of
child fatalities has gone up, the RATE of fatalities has decreased -- is
untrue.

In point of fact, the RATE of fatalities due to abuse/neglect increased in
2001. As mentioned, in that year 1.81 per 100,000 children died as the
result of abuse/neglect inflicted in the general population and 3.40 per
100,000 children died as the result of abuse/neglect inflicted in foster
care.

Fern's initial statement was:

"Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child
deaths in the US."

She was correct.

Rates of fatalities (which, of course, adjust for population increase) have
gone up.

> And you aren't going after IT for that error? Hmmm.. wonder why.

....Because Fern did not make an error. She was correct. In fact, child
fatalities due to abuse and neglect have not only increased in occurance, as
she states, but also in rate.

[Kane]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 06:03:10 GMT, "Doug" >
wrote:

>> >Fern wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of
child
>> >> deaths in the
>> >> >US.
>> >
>> >To which, Kane responds:
>> >
>> >> What careful wording in an attempt to mislead the reader. Been
taking
>> >> lessons from Duplicitous Doug?
>> >
>> >Hi, Kane!
>> >
>> >Who could resist such an invitation. Fern did not need to be
"careful"
>in
>> >her wording. The RATE of child fatalities due to abuse/neglect
has not
>> >diminished. Neither has the occurance.
>>
>> Oh, The Plant posted something untrue then?
>>
>
>Hi, Kane!
>
>No, what Fern posted is true. Your challenge -- that while occurance
of
>child fatalities has gone up, the RATE of fatalities has decreased --
is
>untrue.
>
>In point of fact, the RATE of fatalities due to abuse/neglect
increased in
>2001. As mentioned, in that year 1.81 per 100,000 children died as
the
>result of abuse/neglect inflicted in the general population and 3.40
per
>100,000 children died as the result of abuse/neglect inflicted in
foster
>care.
>
>Fern's initial statement was:
>
>"Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of child
>deaths in the US."
>
>She was correct.
>
>Rates of fatalities (which, of course, adjust for population
increase) have
>gone up.
>
>> And you aren't going after IT for that error? Hmmm.. wonder why.
>
>...Because Fern did not make an error. She was correct. In fact,
child
>fatalities due to abuse and neglect have not only increased in
occurance, as
>she states, but also in rate.

You should call the cops, Doug. Someone has been posting under your
addy and refuting your claims. Tsk.

Subject: Re: New Child Welfare Head in Florida Is Drawing Fire
From: "Doug"
Date: 8/19/2002 1:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: k.net>

............................

In cases of serious child abuse, the argument is moot. Police are
already actively involved in investigating (and DA's prosecuting)
child abuse and neglect. Most states require that CPS agencies notify
police of child abuse reports they receive and specially trained
detectives conduct independent or collateral investigations.
Naturallly, CPS caseworkers have no authority over police or the
prosecutors who use the fruits of the investigation to bring child
abusers to trial. Criminal investigation and prosecution requires
that caregivers be afforded due process of law and, of course, the
jury trials are open to the public.

The involvement of police has not impacted the fatality rate of
children who are abused/neglected. The per capita rate of child
fatalities due to abuse/neglect has remained relatively constant for
decades.

...........................................

Not your words, Doug?

Can't have it both ways, Doug, or can you?

My point wasn't that there was no change, or even that there was, but
that The Plant, and you to follow, seem to be extremely careful to
create an impression that the fault lies with CPS.

You don't know that, and neither does It.

It's like your old argument that foster parents cause more fatalities
of children than bio parents, when the data is clearly labeled as IN
foster care NOT by foster caregivers. But BY bio parents, not IN the
care of the bio parents.

Such careful wording by reporters is noteworthy, and makes it rather
clear that they aren't counting convictions of fosters, but they very
likely ARE of bio parents.

The reporting and harvesting of data isn't quite as simple as you'd
like folks to believe.

Your assumptive attempts to isolate bits and pieces of data and con
the reader is duly noted.

This is a field with massive amounts of data and many varying opinions
and analyses of such. It makes it fertile ground for grow nonsense
Trees. Like yours and The Plants.

Though it's terribly heavy going I recommend a visit to

http://tinyurl.com/n44h

if for no other reason than to see the enormity of this field of
interest.

And for those with a bent to research I'm sure they'll find you are
full of ****. At least part of the time and from place to place,
source to source, analyst to analyst.

It isn't that data can't be found that you quote...but that data can
be found to support many points of view, all peer reviewed, and nicely
packaged.

In other words, YOU, gentle reader, just as Doug, can find something
to support your position no matter how much you change it from time to
time. R R R R.

A favorite hobby of mine, when reading such data sources is to note
things about collection and source, and what is missing. Some of the
data you and I have gone over before had massive amounts of missing
reportage from various states but you insisted that the data had
validity for your point of view, but not mine. Consistency is a
continuing and unsolved challenge.

More of your nonsense.

Kane

[Doug]

Fern had written in a previous post:

> >> >> >Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of
> child
> >> >> deaths in the
> >> >> >US.
> >> >

To which, Kane had responded:

>>In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the years
>>the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
>>course, increased tremendously.

>>Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
>>economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
>>occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.

I then replied that the RATE of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect
has NOT gone down, as Kane claims. His claim that occurance has remained
steady while rates have gone down because of population growth is incorrect.

Fern's statement, which Kane refutes, is correct. In fact, the rate of
fatalities slightly increased. So, both occurance and rate slightly
increased in 2001.

My point was that Fern's initial comment that fatalities have NOT gone down
was correct -- both in terms of rates and occurances -- Kane's refutation
was incorrect.

Secondily, I asked Kane in my post for a source to his claim that fatality
rates normally go up and down in correlation with the economy. While he
did not respond to that request, Kane switches in his next post from calling
Fern names for posting facts that he wrongly disputes to wrongly challenging
my comments.

> You should call the cops, Doug. Someone has been posting under your
> addy and refuting your claims. Tsk.

To pull off this awkward attempt, Kane digs back and retrieves a post I
wrote more than a year ago -- 8 months BEFORE data on 2001 fatalities were
published.

>
> Subject: Re: New Child Welfare Head in Florida Is Drawing Fire
> From: "Doug"
> Date: 8/19/2002 1:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> Message-id: k.net>
>

Note the date of my post: 8/19/2002.
........................
>
> In cases of serious child abuse, the argument is moot. Police are
> already actively involved in investigating (and DA's prosecuting)
> child abuse and neglect. Most states require that CPS agencies notify
> police of child abuse reports they receive and specially trained
> detectives conduct independent or collateral investigations.
> Naturallly, CPS caseworkers have no authority over police or the
> prosecutors who use the fruits of the investigation to bring child
> abusers to trial. Criminal investigation and prosecution requires
> that caregivers be afforded due process of law and, of course, the
> jury trials are open to the public.
>
> The involvement of police has not impacted the fatality rate of
> children who are abused/neglected. The per capita rate of child
> fatalities due to abuse/neglect has remained relatively constant for
> decades.
>
> ..........................................
>
> Not your words, Doug?

Yes, my words, Kane. I appreciate you republishing them. They were all
factual and accurate a year ago and they still are for that reporting
period. At that time, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System was
reporting on child fatalities through 2000.

In April, 2003, the US Department of Health and Human Services published the
NCANDS data on child fatalities for 2001. In the September, 2003 post to
which you respond, I wrote that there was an increase in child fatalities
due to abuse and neglect from 2000 to 2001, citing that very source. Here
is my exact quote:

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

> Can't have it both ways, Doug, or can you?

LOL!

Well, yes we can, Kane. You see, in 2000, the child fatality rate was
relatively steady and, in 2001, there was an increase in child fatality rate
..

Did you think you were fooling someone? You reached back for a post I made
more than a year ago citing an entirely different source for an entirely
different year of occurances.

My suggestion would be that, in the future, you consider citing the sources
of your claims when you refute someone or quote them, as you have done
above. If you do so, instead of "shooting from the hip" in your zeal to
attack another member of this group, you may discover in looking for the
source that what you are about to claim is incorrect. Secondily, my
suggestion would be that you check my citations. If you had done so, you
would have realized that two different sources (and reporting years) were
involved in my post of a year ago and the present one.

> My point wasn't that there was no change, or even that there was, but
> that The Plant, and you to follow, seem to be extremely careful to
> create an impression that the fault lies with CPS.

No, your point, based upon the false assumption that fatality rates had gone
down, was that CPS had something to do with those statistics. You asked
Fern whether she credited the "decrease" to organizations she supports or to
CPS.

Now that we have learned that those rates did NOT go down, my question of
you would be do you think CPS or this other organizations are to blame for
that situation?

> You don't know that, and neither does It.

What do you wish to accomplish by attempting to dehumanize another human
being by using the word "it" instead of "she?" How does such uncooth,
childish language reflect upon anyone else but who uses it? Come on. You
disagree with another member of this forum. No problem. In this particular
case, she happens to be right in a dispute over some numbers. Big deal.
You have been right on other issues. Why not stick to those issues...or
numbers...rather than personal attacks?

> It's like your old argument that foster parents cause more fatalities
> of children than bio parents, when the data is clearly labeled as IN
> foster care NOT by foster caregivers. But BY bio parents, not IN the
> care of the bio parents.

My statement, reprinted yet again above with citation, was a comparison
between to fatalities due to abuse/neglect occurring in the general
population and fatalities due to abuse/neglect occuring in foster care.

The language in the source cited decidedly DOES NOT say "But by bio parents"
as you, again, falsely claim. On the one side, the data measures ALL
fatalities in the general population, which includes abuse neglect committed
by ALL caregivers, INCLUDING foster caregivers -- NOT just parents. The
data on the other side measures fatalities occurring as the result of abuse
and neglect in foster care.

Here is my exact quote yet again, complete with citations.

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

> Such careful wording by reporters is noteworthy, and makes it rather
> clear that they aren't counting convictions of fosters, but they very
> likely ARE of bio parents.

Nope. The NCANDS data does not count *convictions* in either of the
categories. It does not even consider criminal charges. NCANDS data is
based upon data submitted by state CPS agencies and their civil findings.

Your claim is yet again false.

> The reporting and harvesting of data isn't quite as simple as you'd
> like folks to believe.

Who are you talking to here, Kane? It is good thing for you to keep in
mind.

> Your assumptive attempts to isolate bits and pieces of data and con
> the reader is duly noted.

Please review the thread again. As we have seen above, it has been your
inaccurate assumptions that have been problematic. You attempted to dispute
valid data offered by another poster with a false assumption and then went
on to make charges against what she had written based upon your false
assumption. You go further still to isolate one of my posts made to this
newsgroup in August of last year to attempt to discredit my statement based
on current data made available 8 months after the post you selectively
pasted.

Who is attempting to con who?

> This is a field with massive amounts of data and many varying opinions
> and analyses of such. It makes it fertile ground for grow nonsense
> Trees. Like yours and The Plants.

Yes. Massive pools of data. Please feel free to post your claims based
upon the data and cite that data so that we can all see the basis of your
point. Thus far, all you have done is shoot from the hip with assumptions.
These assumptions have been proven to be incorrect.

I agree with you that the available data can lead to a writer to reach many
conclusions. I try to cite the source of the data I draw upon to make my
conclusions. If you do the same, I will be able to see where you are coming
from. Your attempt to challenge the comparative data in this post fails
because, as pointed out, you assumed language that was not in the source
material cited. You *assumed* the categories and sources of the data had
something to do with criminal *convictions* when the data in both categories
(foster care and general population) has nothing to do with criminal
charges, let alone convictions.

> Though it's terribly heavy going I recommend a visit to
>
> http://tinyurl.com/n44h
>
> if for no other reason than to see the enormity of this field of
> interest.

I will go there. Are you citing any specific information from this source
to support claims that you have made? If so, please restate the those
positions you have taken here that are supported by this source.

> And for those with a bent to research I'm sure they'll find you are
> full of ****. At least part of the time and from place to place,
> source to source, analyst to analyst.

I am certain that I will make mistakes from time to time. I am a human
being, so mistakes can be a birth defect. If I do, I would hope a reader
would dispute my conclusions based upon cited sources of information or data
that challenges my conclusions, rather than shooting from the hip with
assumptions that have no basis in fact. I would rather spend time here
discussing the issues than disproving your assumptions.

> It isn't that data can't be found that you quote...but that data can
> be found to support many points of view, all peer reviewed, and nicely
> packaged.

Where is it?

Please...share it with us in the same way that I share the data I have
found. I would be overjoyed to review data that challenges the data that I
have cited. It's the only way I can learn more about child welfare. A
discussion that draws upon multiple sources of data would be enlightening
for all of us in this forum.

> In other words, YOU, gentle reader, just as Doug, can find something
> to support your position no matter how much you change it from time to
> time. R R R R.

As clearly documented above, I have not in any way changed my position
regarding child fatalities due to abuse and neglect. I have, however, drawn
upon new data as it has become available, citing each source separately. In
April of 2003, data on the year 2001 became available and I cited it in
making a comparision to 2000.

> A favorite hobby of mine, when reading such data sources is to note
> things about collection and source, and what is missing. Some of the
> data you and I have gone over before had massive amounts of missing
> reportage from various states but you insisted that the data had
> validity for your point of view, but not mine. Consistency is a
> continuing and unsolved challenge.

What data are you talking about, Kane? The data for the immediate issue --
child fatalities due to abuse and neglect -- is not missing "massive amounts
of reportage from various states." If you could specify what positions I
have taken based upon missing data and cite sources of that data, I will be
able to respond. It is impossible to respond to shoot from the hip
generalities.

[Kane]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:59:05 GMT, "Doug" >
wrote:

>Fern had written in a previous post:
>
>> >> >> >Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of
>> child
>> >> >> deaths in the
>> >> >> >US.
>> >> >
>
>To which, Kane had responded:
>
>>>In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the
years
>>>the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
>>>course, increased tremendously.
>
>>>Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
>>>economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
>>>occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.
>
>I then replied that the RATE of child fatalities due to abuse and
neglect
>has NOT gone down, as Kane claims. His claim that occurance has
remained
>steady while rates have gone down because of population growth is
incorrect.
>
>Fern's statement, which Kane refutes, is correct. In fact, the rate
of
>fatalities slightly increased. So, both occurance and rate slightly
>increased in 2001.
>
>My point was that Fern's initial comment that fatalities have NOT
gone down
>was correct -- both in terms of rates and occurances -- Kane's
refutation
>was incorrect.
>
>Secondily, I asked Kane in my post for a source to his claim that
fatality
>rates normally go up and down in correlation with the economy.
While he
>did not respond to that request, Kane switches in his next post from
calling
>Fern names for posting facts that he wrongly disputes to wrongly
challenging
>my comments.
>
>> You should call the cops, Doug. Someone has been posting under your
>> addy and refuting your claims. Tsk.
>
>To pull off this awkward attempt, Kane digs back and retrieves a post
I
>wrote more than a year ago -- 8 months BEFORE data on 2001 fatalities
were
>published.
>
>>
>> Subject: Re: New Child Welfare Head in Florida Is Drawing Fire
>> From: "Doug"
>> Date: 8/19/2002 1:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>> Message-id: k.net>
>>
>
>Note the date of my post: 8/19/2002.
>.......................
>>
>> In cases of serious child abuse, the argument is moot. Police are
>> already actively involved in investigating (and DA's prosecuting)
>> child abuse and neglect. Most states require that CPS agencies
notify
>> police of child abuse reports they receive and specially trained
>> detectives conduct independent or collateral investigations.
>> Naturallly, CPS caseworkers have no authority over police or the
>> prosecutors who use the fruits of the investigation to bring child
>> abusers to trial. Criminal investigation and prosecution requires
>> that caregivers be afforded due process of law and, of course, the
>> jury trials are open to the public.
>>
>> The involvement of police has not impacted the fatality rate of
>> children who are abused/neglected. The per capita rate of child
>> fatalities due to abuse/neglect has remained relatively constant
for
>> decades.
>>
>> ..........................................
>>
>> Not your words, Doug?
>
>Yes, my words, Kane. I appreciate you republishing them. They were
all
>factual and accurate a year ago and they still are for that reporting
>period. At that time, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data
System was
>reporting on child fatalities through 2000.
>
>In April, 2003, the US Department of Health and Human Services
published the
>NCANDS data on child fatalities for 2001. In the September, 2003
post to
>which you respond, I wrote that there was an increase in child
fatalities
>due to abuse and neglect from 2000 to 2001, citing that very source.
Here
>is my exact quote:
>
> The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
>100,000.
>http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child
>The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in
foster
>care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma
>
>> Can't have it both ways, Doug, or can you?
>
>LOL!
>
>Well, yes we can, Kane. You see, in 2000, the child fatality rate
was
>relatively steady and, in 2001, there was an increase in child
fatality rate
>.
>
>Did you think you were fooling someone? You reached back for a post
I made
>more than a year ago citing an entirely different source for an
entirely
>different year of occurances.
>
>My suggestion would be that, in the future, you consider citing the
sources
>of your claims when you refute someone or quote them, as you have
done
>above. If you do so, instead of "shooting from the hip" in your zeal
to
>attack another member of this group, you may discover in looking for
the
>source that what you are about to claim is incorrect. Secondily, my
>suggestion would be that you check my citations. If you had done so,
you
>would have realized that two different sources (and reporting years)
were
>involved in my post of a year ago and the present one.
>
>> My point wasn't that there was no change, or even that there was,
but
>> that The Plant, and you to follow, seem to be extremely careful to
>> create an impression that the fault lies with CPS.
>
>No, your point, based upon the false assumption that fatality rates
had gone
>down, was that CPS had something to do with those statistics. You
asked
>Fern whether she credited the "decrease" to organizations she
supports or to
>CPS.
>
>Now that we have learned that those rates did NOT go down, my
question of
>you would be do you think CPS or this other organizations are to
blame for
>that situation?
>
>> You don't know that, and neither does It.
>
>What do you wish to accomplish by attempting to dehumanize another
human
>being by using the word "it" instead of "she?" How does such
uncooth,
>childish language reflect upon anyone else but who uses it? Come on.
You
>disagree with another member of this forum. No problem. In this
particular
>case, she happens to be right in a dispute over some numbers. Big
deal.
>You have been right on other issues. Why not stick to those
issues...or
>numbers...rather than personal attacks?
>
>> It's like your old argument that foster parents cause more
fatalities
>> of children than bio parents, when the data is clearly labeled as
IN
>> foster care NOT by foster caregivers. But BY bio parents, not IN
the
>> care of the bio parents.
>
>My statement, reprinted yet again above with citation, was a
comparison
>between to fatalities due to abuse/neglect occurring in the general
>population and fatalities due to abuse/neglect occuring in foster
care.
>
>The language in the source cited decidedly DOES NOT say "But by bio
parents"
>as you, again, falsely claim. On the one side, the data measures ALL
>fatalities in the general population, which includes abuse neglect
committed
>by ALL caregivers, INCLUDING foster caregivers -- NOT just parents.
The
>data on the other side measures fatalities occurring as the result of
abuse
>and neglect in foster care.
>
>Here is my exact quote yet again, complete with citations.
>
>The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81
per
>100,000.
>http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child
>The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in
foster
>care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma
>
>> Such careful wording by reporters is noteworthy, and makes it
rather
>> clear that they aren't counting convictions of fosters, but they
very
>> likely ARE of bio parents.
>
>Nope. The NCANDS data does not count *convictions* in either of the
>categories. It does not even consider criminal charges. NCANDS data
is
>based upon data submitted by state CPS agencies and their civil
findings.
>
>Your claim is yet again false.
>
>> The reporting and harvesting of data isn't quite as simple as you'd
>> like folks to believe.
>
>Who are you talking to here, Kane? It is good thing for you to keep
in
>mind.
>
>> Your assumptive attempts to isolate bits and pieces of data and con
>> the reader is duly noted.
>
>Please review the thread again. As we have seen above, it has been
your
>inaccurate assumptions that have been problematic. You attempted to
dispute
>valid data offered by another poster with a false assumption and then
went
>on to make charges against what she had written based upon your false
>assumption. You go further still to isolate one of my posts made to
this
>newsgroup in August of last year to attempt to discredit my statement
based
>on current data made available 8 months after the post you
selectively
>pasted.
>
>Who is attempting to con who?
>
>> This is a field with massive amounts of data and many varying
opinions
>> and analyses of such. It makes it fertile ground for grow nonsense
>> Trees. Like yours and The Plants.
>
>Yes. Massive pools of data. Please feel free to post your claims
based
>upon the data and cite that data so that we can all see the basis of
your
>point. Thus far, all you have done is shoot from the hip with
assumptions.
>These assumptions have been proven to be incorrect.
>
>I agree with you that the available data can lead to a writer to
reach many
>conclusions. I try to cite the source of the data I draw upon to
make my
>conclusions. If you do the same, I will be able to see where you are
coming
>from. Your attempt to challenge the comparative data in this post
fails
>because, as pointed out, you assumed language that was not in the
source
>material cited. You *assumed* the categories and sources of the data
had
>something to do with criminal *convictions* when the data in both
categories
>(foster care and general population) has nothing to do with criminal
>charges, let alone convictions.
>
>> Though it's terribly heavy going I recommend a visit to
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/n44h
>>
>> if for no other reason than to see the enormity of this field of
>> interest.
>
>I will go there. Are you citing any specific information from this
source
>to support claims that you have made? If so, please restate the
those
>positions you have taken here that are supported by this source.
>
>> And for those with a bent to research I'm sure they'll find you are
>> full of ****. At least part of the time and from place to place,
>> source to source, analyst to analyst.
>
>I am certain that I will make mistakes from time to time. I am a
human
>being, so mistakes can be a birth defect. If I do, I would hope a
reader
>would dispute my conclusions based upon cited sources of information
or data
>that challenges my conclusions, rather than shooting from the hip
with
>assumptions that have no basis in fact. I would rather spend time
here
>discussing the issues than disproving your assumptions.
>
>> It isn't that data can't be found that you quote...but that data
can
>> be found to support many points of view, all peer reviewed, and
nicely
>> packaged.
>
>Where is it?
>
>Please...share it with us in the same way that I share the data I
have
>found. I would be overjoyed to review data that challenges the data
that I
>have cited. It's the only way I can learn more about child welfare.
A
>discussion that draws upon multiple sources of data would be
enlightening
>for all of us in this forum.
>
>> In other words, YOU, gentle reader, just as Doug, can find
something
>> to support your position no matter how much you change it from time
to
>> time. R R R R.
>
>As clearly documented above, I have not in any way changed my
position
>regarding child fatalities due to abuse and neglect. I have,
however, drawn
>upon new data as it has become available, citing each source
separately. In
>April of 2003, data on the year 2001 became available and I cited it
in
>making a comparision to 2000.
>
>> A favorite hobby of mine, when reading such data sources is to note
>> things about collection and source, and what is missing. Some of
the
>> data you and I have gone over before had massive amounts of missing
>> reportage from various states but you insisted that the data had
>> validity for your point of view, but not mine. Consistency is a
>> continuing and unsolved challenge.
>
>What data are you talking about, Kane? The data for the immediate
issue --
>child fatalities due to abuse and neglect -- is not missing "massive
amounts
>of reportage from various states." If you could specify what
positions I
>have taken based upon missing data and cite sources of that data, I
will be
>able to respond. It is impossible to respond to shoot from the hip
>generalities.

So far, Doug, you have stuck to your story of fatalies in foster care
being the same as fatalities caused by foster caregivers.

No such information is available.

The chart in question said clearly, By Bio parents, and IN foster
care. They were not being COMPARED, yet you continually, along with
other fools use data that does not say what you claim it does to make
a claim that foster caregivers have a higher rate of killing children
than bio families do.

Unproven and you won't admit it. ALL your claims are poisoned by that
stubborn refusal to differentiate between IN an BY.

The chart cited was not posted for such comparisions and you know it.

And in this instance we are discussing, the claim isn't even what you
say it is. We aren't discussing up or down, but what The Plant's
intent it.

And yours.

Your campaign to turn child welfare into a fascist exercise has been
well documented here, by you.

The bottom line is you are pushing for a police state.

Go **** up a rope.

Kane

[Doug]

Kane writes:

> So far, Doug, you have stuck to your story of fatalies in foster care
> being the same as fatalities caused by foster caregivers.
>
> No such information is available.
>
> The chart in question said clearly, By Bio parents, and IN foster
> care. They were not being COMPARED, yet you continually, along with
> other fools use data that does not say what you claim it does to make
> a claim that foster caregivers have a higher rate of killing children
> than bio families do.

Hi, Kane!

My statement and the cited reference distinctly DID NOT say BY bio-parents.
The references I cited provided data for fatalities due to abuse/neglect
occurring overall in the general population (including foster care) and
fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care.

Let's take a look at my now thrice-repeated statement with its citations.

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

Let's look at the first reference for the mention of "by bio-parents" you
insist is there.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child

Looking down the USDHHS page referenced above, we come to the pertinent
passage, which I quote exactly.

"For 2001, a national estimate of 1,300 child deaths at a rate of 1.81
children of every 100,000 children in the population died from abuse or
neglect. Many States were able to supplement the automated data from the
child welfare agency with statistics from other agencies in their States.
Included in the reported 1,300 fatalities were 150 fatalities reported from
such agencies as health departments and fatality review boards.

"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the
child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective services
(CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care. Of
these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the coroner's
office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the States
occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting."

Kane, where in this reference is there any mention of "by bio-parents"?
There is no problems with differentiation between "in" and "by" because both
populations are defined by "in."

> Unproven and you won't admit it. ALL your claims are poisoned by that
> stubborn refusal to differentiate between IN an BY.

> The chart cited was not posted for such comparisions and you know it.

The narrative cited does make a comparision. The exact breakdown in foster
care among the 48 states reporting is provided in my second citation.
http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

> And in this instance we are discussing, the claim isn't even what you
> say it is. We aren't discussing up or down, but what The Plant's
> intent it.

We most certainly were discussing up or down.

Fern's initial statement beginning the thread was that occurances of
fatalities due to abuse and neglect had not gone down. You inaccurately
challenged her assertion by stating that, since population had gone up, the
RATE of fatalities had gone down. You called her names for that. I replied
that, in fact, the RATE of fatalities had not gone down . . . that you were
wrong.

> And yours.
>
> Your campaign to turn child welfare into a fascist exercise has been
> well documented here, by you.

How is reporting the accurate number of child fatalities due to abuse or
neglect a "fascist exercise?" Are you saying that if rates of fatalities
have not gone down, as you inaccurately claimed, then child welfare practice
is fascist? Or are you saying that the claim that child welfare agencies
have been unsuccessful in reducing child fatalities is the same as calling
those agencies fascist?

> The bottom line is you are pushing for a police state.

LOL! Holding CPS agencies accountable for protecting children against
lethal child abuse is a call for a police state? Expecting that children
placed in the care of state agencies will not be killed by their caretakers
is pushing for a police state?

I think the thrust of the discussion in this thread has been reportage of
the number of children who die at the hands of a police state.

> Go **** up a rope.

I would be willing to give it a try if such an action would bring back any
of these children. But it won't. All we can collectively do is work toward
reform of the child welfare system so that increasing numbers of children do
not perish in the future.

[Kane]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:37:49 GMT, "Doug" >
wrote:

>Kane writes:

And watch Doug try despritely to diverge from the actual point of my
reply and posts do avoid the truth. That he and his are a flock of
****ty little crappers that haven't an honest bone in their useless
bodies.

>
>> So far, Doug, you have stuck to your story of fatalies in foster
care
>> being the same as fatalities caused by foster caregivers.
>>
>> No such information is available.
>>
>> The chart in question said clearly, By Bio parents, and IN foster
>> care. They were not being COMPARED, yet you continually, along with
>> other fools use data that does not say what you claim it does to
make
>> a claim that foster caregivers have a higher rate of killing
children
>> than bio families do.
>
>Hi, Kane!
>
>My statement and the cited reference distinctly DID NOT say BY
bio-parents.

And they are charts that are NOT about who killed who but WHERE IT
TOOK PLACE.

Watch this develop folks. Those of you that have been down this road
may want to kick back with a brewski and watch some TV. This is the
usual crap from Doug, and his refusal to see the OTHER CHARTS THAT
SHOW WHO THE PERPS ACTUALLY ARE.

>The references I cited provided data for fatalities due to
abuse/neglect
>occurring overall in the general population (including foster care)
and
>fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care.

Yes, and that is relevant to the issue of who kills the most children
in what way again? Did you miss the word "IN" yet AGAIN?

Parse your last phrase carefully. Even YOU are agreeing with me once
again.

Children that die in foster care from abuse and neglect may well be
dying, as I've pointed out so many times before, from the affects of
injury or neglect received before going into foster care, that is from
their own parents, or even from others.

That particular chart is very carefully worded to NOT say foster
carers are the perp.

If you want the "identity of PERP data" you have to go to the chart
that gives that information specifically "identity of PERP", not this
chart that avoids naming the perp but serves your duplicitious
purposes so nicely.

IN care does NOT equate 1 to 1 that the death is caused BY the carer.

It's a locale, not a perp by title.

In Foster Care does not equate directly with by Foster Carer.

But, think on this. Parent, with out saying "in family" means the
parent was the perp, by any normal logical means of deducing the
wording of the chart.

>Let's take a look at my now thrice-repeated statement with its
citations.
>
>The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81
per
>100,000.
>http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child

What it actually says, unless the page has a hidden portion only you
know of is:

"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision
of the child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective
services (CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster
care. Of these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the
coroner's office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities
reported by the States occurred in some type of out-of-home placement
setting."

"Egregious" just means bad or offensive, (no argument there) and does
not pertain to the numbers of, rates, or percentages. It's fluff, but
we'll indulge the author by pointing out: It's also "egregious" that
natural parents kill their children, no?

More importantly:

Notice, "1.5 percent in out of home placement." That means that
parents, relatives and others, somebody other than foster parents,
killed children how many percent of the occurances, Doug? How many? I
think that 1.5% from 100% is 98.5 ****ing Percent DOUG.

And out of home placement includes NON FOSTER CARERS.

Do you consider this of no relevance?

>The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in
foster
>care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

But it does NOT say the foster carers killed the children. Some did,
but not all, by far.

Actually, what the citation also says, oh duplicitious one that hopes
and prays no one will actually go look is:

Percentage of Child Fatalities that
Occurred in Foster Care
1.5
for 48 states
reporting.

Notice it says IN foster care, not by foster caregivers. This is not a
perp chart. It is a locale chart.

It isn't a chart of who killed who, this is a mortality chart...by ANY
CAUSE AT ALL...with locales named not perps.

Here is how the compilers, researchers I presume, comment on their own
data chart, from the tiny URL you listed:

"Percentage of fatalities that occurred in foster care is based on
total fatalities in States that reported on fatalities in foster care.

A "fatality" is not a murder. It can be, but it can be other causes of
death. Hospitals have boards that review hospital fatalities. There
are studies on traffic fatalities. There are charts of gun fatalities.
The presumption that each of these restricts themselves to murder only
is nonsense. They include accidents, acts of God (so called),
negligence, AND murder.

States that did not provide perpetrator relationship data are not
included in this analysis I cited above.

This table compares the number of child fatalities associated with
foster care to all child fatalities. The first column lists all of the
States and the second column lists the total number of fatalities. The
third column reports the number of child fatalities from foster care
according to CPS and the fourth reports child fatalities from other
agencies for a grand total of foster care deaths in the fifth column.
The last column gives a percentage of fatalities that occurred in
foster care as compared to the total number of fatalities. Among the
48 States reporting, the percentage of fatalities in foster care was
calculated to be 1.5 percent.
"
First sentence, "...fatalities occured in..." Not murders, not perps
and victims, just deaths in a location. It would undoubtedly include
those victims killed BY foster parents, but it is NOT exclusive to
that population.

Note that last line. " ...the percentage of fatalities in foster
care..." still doesn't make the foster CARER the perp. This is a weep
and wail chart, not useful for anything but to draw attention to the
need to do MORE generally about children at risk from all causes,
including foster care, but not exclusive of parental care failings as
well.

And finally, what's the percentage again of children who die IN foster
care? Only 1.5 of all fatalities? Right? Asshole.

98.5% percent die OUTSIDE foster care.

>Let's look at the first reference for the mention of "by bio-parents"
you
>insist is there.

>http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child

Okay, asshole, let's look at that page, and I'll paste a quote from
it:

"Parental Status of Perpetrators (Child File)
Most child fatalities, 82.8 percent, were maltreated by their parent
or parents (figure 5-2).4 Almost one-third (32.4%) of fatalities were
perpetrated just by their mother.5 These percentages are consistent
with the findings reported in previous years.
"

This is consistent with the chart I'm going to post for you, that I've
posted before that IS what you claim, but not what you wish....the
calculation of the estimated actual PERPS....foster and other
caregivers vs PARENTS AND THOSE IN CAHOOTS WITH THEM.

>Looking down the USDHHS page referenced above, we come to the
pertinent
>passage, which I quote exactly.

And watch me pick it apart along the way:

>"For 2001, a national estimate of 1,300 child deaths at a rate of
1.81
>children of every 100,000 children in the population died from abuse
or
>neglect. Many States were able to supplement the automated data from
the
>child welfare agency with statistics from other agencies in their
States.
>Included in the reported 1,300 fatalities were 150 fatalities
reported from
>such agencies as health departments and fatality review boards.
>
>"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision
of the
>child welfare agency are especially egregious.

It does not say CAUSED BY THE STATE SUPERVISION, just in state
supervision. While I no more forgive the state for being so negligent
as to allow a child to die while in their care, I am aware some deaths
are simply not preventable and I cut natural parents the same slack,
but you wish to use this figure to somehow blame foster parents and or
the state for killing children. Asshole.

> Child protective services
>(CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care.
Of
>these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the
coroner's
>office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the
States
>occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting."

Notice the "some type of out-of-home placement setting?"

A setting, not a perp. Out-of-home, not exclusively foster placement.

That does NOT establish the perp. In fact, if we are going to cut it
to a truly fine point, to try to use this figures to find blame is
pointless, for either parents or foster parents.

Now crawfish and go back to "I'm just reporting the figures and
leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions" or some similar
bullhockey you like to pull on the unwary.

>Kane, where in this reference is there any mention of "by
bio-parents"?

I did not cite this particular chart in our most recent exchange. I
simply pointed out the truth, this is NOT a perp identity chart and
there IS such a chart that you have run around the end of countless
time's in our debates and my challenges to you and your nonsense.

THERE it is By Bio Parent, and lists ALL THE PERPS, not the locales.

And for those that care I now offer the truth, not His
Duplicitiousness' Bull****.

The Perp Chart: (URL below)

Table 4-4: Maltreatment Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship,
1999 DCDC

Relationship of Number of Percentage
Perpetrator to Victim Fatality Victims of Fatality Victims
Male Parent and Other 5 1.1% *
Unknown 12 2.7%
Family Relative 20 4.5% *
Other 25 5.7%
Substitute Care-
Provider(s) 27 6.1%
Male Parent Only 47 10.7% *
Female Parent-
and Other 72 16.3% *
Both Parents 94 21.3% *
Female Parent Only 139 31.5% *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 441 100.0%

Kane: Note that of all perps only sub-care providers, which would
include some foster parents but not only FPs, such as day care, is 6.1
percent.

Notice that the percentage of fatalities by perp that are partners or
parents or relatives that I've marked with *, totals 89.2% while
the only possible categories, and that is stretching it a bit, that
could include foster parents is Unknown, Other, and Sub care providers
(the latter having to include all sub care providers NOT fosters such
as day care providers, and inpatient and outpatient mental health
treatment centers) comes to 10.8%.

The results:

Related and other with related: 89.2%
Foster and all nonrelated unaffiliated with parents: 10.2%

This was the clear indictation to me the charts you are touting as
reason to indict foster parents as murderous thugs who kill children
was not what you claimed it was. They still aren't.

You still are a liar by misdirection, manipulation, and avoidance. .

Learn to read and tell the truth at this URL from one of your
favorite sources:

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm99/table4d.htm

>There is no problems with differentiation between "in" and "by"
because both
>populations are defined by "in."

And that shows who murdered the child how again?

Most especially pay attention to the fact fatalities are not
exclusively killings by intent or neglect.

>
>> Unproven and you won't admit it. ALL your claims are poisoned by
that
>> stubborn refusal to differentiate between IN an BY.
>
>> The chart cited was not posted for such comparisions and you know
it.
>
>The narrative cited does make a comparision. The exact breakdown in
foster
>care among the 48 states reporting is provided in my second citation.
>http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

And it is NOT a perp identity cite.

The citations you offer and have always offered are not only weak for
the premise you give but they are NOT even close to the issue at hand:
are children safer with foster parents or with natural parents who are
shown to be, by CPS, creating risk to the child?

Comparing foster parents to all parents (and in fact the census
figures used by the chart authors include "families" that have NO
children)

ALL children aren't put in foster care. The majority in foster care
come from parents that CPS claims would have harmed them had they been
left there, and the perp chart makes it damn clear that IS the case.

If only CPS were omnipotent as you and cronies claim it should be.

If CPS were omnipotent and prescent it would totally stop all child
fatalities, and you prey on that impossibility and pretend that CPS
needs reform in areas were it does not...in fact it needs MORE power
in some areas, precisely the ones you want stripped from CPS, to be
able to reduce child fatalities.

You want to give to the police exclusive investigative powers and
strip CPS of any power to persuade parents to reform.

Police do not reduce child fatalities any more than they reduce drug
use through The War on Drugs.

The same principles that have proven to reduce drug use apply in
improving the parenting abuse and neglect situation. Pursuasion with a
stick and carrot approach. One can't offer the carrot and its
benefits, in this instance, without using the stick to get the person
to take a bite and see just how good it can be, and good for you.

Considering that 60% or so of the families that meet with the stick,
take a bite of the carrot, and get their kids back (the service plan,
dummy, the service plan), I'd say it's working rather well, dispite
some failures.

It is CPS and CPS alone, barring changing demographics for other
reasons, that is charged with reducing child abuse, neglect and
fatalities, and given the barriers in their way, budget, assholes like
you and your cronies that lie lie lie about it, they do a tremendous
job YOU CAN'T DO AND FAILED AT, didn't you Doug? Didn't you?

You couldn't deal with the reality of the messiness. Could you?

You are a classic prissyassed overcontrolling ****up that left CPS to
"expose" by pointing to things CPS cannot deal with for many valid
acceptable reasons, and is not mandated to deal with by logic, but is
forced to by statute.

You are just another lowlife kneebreaker, but with a conman's smiling
ingratiating slyness. You make me wanta puke.

>> And in this instance we are discussing, the claim isn't even what
you
>> say it is. We aren't discussing up or down, but what The Plant's
>> intent it.
>
>We most certainly were discussing up or down.

Blah blah blah. YOU and A Plant are attempting to do that to divert
from the truth. There are murderous parents out there, and there are
far fewer murderous foster parents.

It is EASY to spot a murderous foster parent, as they are under state
scrutiny specifically because they are foster parents and known and
listed with their agency.

No such oversight exists for natural parents. Hence natural parents
can and do kill more children by number and percentage. RATES tells us
near to nothing as long as they are confined to LOCUS rather than
identified PERPS. When you have a perp RATE let me know. And even then
it's not going to be of much use because generally FOSTERS can't get
away with murder and natural parents CAN. Difference in strength of
oversight. That means, as the researchers surely know as indicated in
their unwilliness to try and produce the numbers, that lots of parents
kill and aren't caught, hence are not reflected accurately in the
numbers reported.

>Fern's initial statement beginning the thread was that occurances of
>fatalities due to abuse and neglect had not gone down.

Who gives a ****? It's Its endless intent to discredit and lie lie lie
that I'm concerned with. A stupid manipulator, where you are only a
tiny bit smarter.

You and IT have to be called on your malicious gossip method of
"reform."

>You inaccurately
>challenged her assertion by stating that, since population had gone
up, the
>RATE of fatalities had gone down. You called her names for that.

I call It names for many things. In this case for one more of IT's
lying bits of misconstrued bull****, just like the other crap she cuts
and pastes that are lies in themselves, like the unconstitutional
ruling that in fact isn't quoted in the article that claims it.

You and they are fit comrades.

> I replied
>that, in fact, the RATE of fatalities had not gone down . . . that
you were
>wrong.

You may well be right AND I DON'T ****ING CARE, ASSHOLE.

The point is that your intent is to pretend that state care is more
dangerous than parental care by those identified as likely perps.

A piece of blathering crap.

I pointed that out to you and you are now crawfishing once again.

The up or down rate is damn near irrelevant for support of your
position of CPS needing reform.

Just as, and you have just failed again to support your position, on
the rate of fatalities IN foster care, as opposed to the rate of
fatalities BY foster carers.

None of the charts or statements you point to shows that, as they do
NOT list who the perp is. My chart DOES, and you are running from it.

>> And yours.
>>
>> Your campaign to turn child welfare into a fascist exercise has
been
>> well documented here, by you.
>
>How is reporting the accurate number of child fatalities due to abuse
or
>neglect a "fascist exercise?"

I didn't say that and you know it. I said YOUR CAMPAIGN is a fascist
exercise, asshole.

In other words this crap of yours along with all the other nonsense
you post is a CAMPAIGN. And I said turn "child welfare into a fascist
exercise" not that what you posted on child fatalities was a fascist
exercise...though now that you mention it....r r r r

It's just one small part of your goal.

Your support of the obviously right wing fundy-christian ridden HSLDA
is a clear indication of your politics.

Most of us do NOT want a fundy christian interpretation of what is and
isn't acceptable parenting, but you championed the involvement of
HSLDA with the feds to do exactly that...start the ball rolling on
deciding by the FEDS, and of course HSLDA through their influence,
what is and isn't acceptable parenting.

And...........

Your pointing to federal control of child welfare as a solution to CPS
reform and MORE police involvement in child protection (as though they
don't do so already), and the removal of CPS in an enforcement role,
is clearly a fascist solution.

YOU want, or are too stupid to see the danger of, the Feds beginning
to define what is and isn't appropriate parenting.

YOU want, or are too stupid to see the danger of, the millions of
families that lack information and skill being either arrested, or
simply turned loose on their innocent children with NO attempts, other
than volunteering...r r r r...to help them learn to do better and
safer parenting of their children.

YOU ARE A ****ING FASCIST ASSHOLE. And a danger to children to and
families.

>Are you saying that if rates of fatalities
>have not gone down, as you inaccurately claimed, then child welfare
practice
>is fascist?

No, asshole. I'm simply pointing out, once again, the measure of your
morals and ethics and that of The Plant and your other
co-conspiritors. You lie and manipulate.

You selectively cut and paste. You ignore things that refute your
little sick belief system.

>Or are you saying that the claim that child welfare agencies
>have been unsuccessful in reducing child fatalities is the same as
calling
>those agencies fascist?

Are you saying that you are a lying asshole?

>
>> The bottom line is you are pushing for a police state.
>
>LOL!

I'm not diverted. Try again.

>Holding CPS agencies accountable for protecting children against
>lethal child abuse

That isn't what you are doing. You are trying to make them accountable
for things they have little to NO control over. That is what you are
doing. You isolate or inflate the meaning of data to fit your agenda.
I just caught you at it again and proved it right here.

You were stupid enough to post an URL that included OTHER information
that proved you wrong.

> is a call for a police state?

Yes, as you do it, yes, yes, yes. That IS what you want, isn't it?

What would you call not giving a family that ****ed up a chance to
reform? That's what you have repeatedly said you want. They must be
criminally charged and all OTHERS CUT LOOSE. Am I correct in my
summation of your beliefs in this?

Post again for us your solutions. You know, like the one where you
think all child abuse and neglect complaints should go directly to the
police for investigation and action. NO CPS involvement with families
except by voluntary seeking out by the families.

I can just see the lines winding around the block now.

Or are you willing to have the police simply do what CPS does, and
refer the families under threat of removal to learn how to better
parent? What point would that prove? It would be an exact dulicate
of what we have now, with the need for current CPS workers to go to
work for the police so evaluations by trained personnel could be
undertaken.

You don't really want the police doing psych evals, do you?

>Expecting that children
>placed in the care of state agencies will not be killed by their
caretakers
>is pushing for a police state?

Are you bucking for Asshole of the Year?

You know I did not say that. You know what I said.

Reframing it as you do is simply more lying on your part.

>I think the thrust of the discussion in this thread has been
reportage of
>the number of children who die at the hands of a police state.

You don't "think." You lie, cleverly, consistently, and repeatedly.

The thrust of this discussion, as I made clear in a prior response, is
the lying you do, and The Plant does.

Look again at the deaths in FC vs by Foster Carers again.

One chart vs another, not a NON PERP ID chart against itself.

You lied back when we first discussed it and you just did again.

>> Go **** up a rope.
>
>I would be willing to give it a try if such an action would bring
back any
>of these children.

Liar. You, just as The Plant, love it when a child dies, no matter at
whose hands because you can blame CPS if the child was in state care,
and you can blame CPS if the child was in the care of their parents
because CPS didn't foresee and intervene adequately, all the while
screaming with and supporting others that scream that CPS intervenes
TOO much.

And you don't even properly differentiate between a death and a
murder.

****ing Blood Dancers is what you are.

>But it won't. All we can collectively do is work toward
>reform of the child welfare system so that increasing numbers of
children do
>not perish in the future.

When has that NOT been the case?

Stating the obvious as though it's you and your little coterie's
wonderful new discovery, you big bad Crusaders you, is a crock.

Reform came with and as a part of CPS the day it came into being. It's
always underway, from within and without, by honest, hardworking
people from many disciplines. You people lie about that continually. I
sit on boards and committees that do that work and I know the truth,
and the truth is you lie.

Stop your silly pretense. You take a personal ride on the smallest or
most difficult to avoid failings of both parents and the state and you
love those failings for that ride it gives you.

You get to pretend you are a REFORMER, when you are little more than a
nagging flea biting at the ankle of society. A ****ant.

Actual reform would defeat you.

The only reform you want is the reform of MORE state, that is higher
levels of the state, the Feds, to have control because it will serve
you more.

Things will be far worse. You'll have lots more to do. Bloodsucker.

Asshole.

What I hope for, in this exchange, for those reading it (and I thank
them for their patience) is to go to that page you cite. Read it from
top to bottom. It reveals a good deal of the truth.

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child

It shows, for instance, the lie you assholes perpetrate when you quote
the media on all the times CPS is involved with a family that kills
their children...blaming CPS for the family killing, pretending it's a
huge problem when it is one of the small but nagging difficulties
common to beaurocracies of ALL kinds...no one has successfully
defeated it, only held it at bay :

Here's some truth:

"Fatalities by Prior Contact with CPS
Less than 10 percent (8.8%) of the families of 2001 child fatality
victims had received family preservation services in the 5 years prior
to the death of victims. Less than 1 percent (0.9%) of child fatality
victims had been returned to their families prior to their deaths.7
For 2000, those percentages were 14.9 and 2.6, respectively.
"
Think about all the familes that DID have family preservation services
that DIDN'T KILL THEIR CHILDREN, and try to pass off your nonsense
that CPS needs top to bottom reform.

Think about the success, likely way ahead of other government
agencies, of only a 10% failure rate. People in CPS, the courts, the
legislature, are working their asses off to make that success happen
and against overwhelming odds they keep doing it.

Have you ever noticed that I support some AntiCPS people in this ng
and not others? Do you understand the difference between them that I
apply to make that determination of who I support and who I don't.

It's really simple. Some lie, and some do not. Some are mistaken, but
they don't lie. They get my support even when I disagree.

Liars get my middle finger.

|
n|n

Enjoy.

or this:

"Parental Status of Perpetrators (Child File)
Most child fatalities, 82.8 percent, were maltreated by their parent
or parents (figure 5-2).4 Almost one-third (32.4%) of fatalities were
perpetrated just by their mother.5 These percentages are consistent
with the findings reported in previous years.
"

And they haven't changed much since. Read it and weep, creep.

If there were an equal number of foster families and natural families
with children, both subject to the same scrutiny and oversight of CPS,
you'd find out soon enough who endangers children the most.

And if the police state, federal and law enforcement, solution ever
comes into place fully I'll look you up and stand outside with a sign,
changed daily, to enumerate the children it's killed and the families
destroyed that could have been saved. I'll remind you of what YOU
wanted and what you got.

But it won't come to that if I have my way, and I will.

Kane

[Doug]

"Kane" writes:

> And watch Doug try despritely to diverge from the actual point of my
> reply and posts do avoid the truth. That he and his are a flock of
> ****ty little crappers that haven't an honest bone in their useless
> bodies.

Hi, Kane!

What does a dishonest bone look like?

> >> The chart in question said clearly, By Bio parents, and IN foster
> >> care. They were not being COMPARED, yet you continually, along with
> >> other fools use data that does not say what you claim it does to
> make
> >> a claim that foster caregivers have a higher rate of killing
> children
> >> than bio families do.
> >

My statement and the cited reference distinctly DID NOT say BY
bio-parents.

>And they are charts that are NOT about who killed who but WHERE IT
>TOOK PLACE.

> Watch this develop folks. Those of you that have been down this road
> may want to kick back with a brewski and watch some TV. This is the
> usual crap from Doug, and his refusal to see the OTHER CHARTS THAT
> SHOW WHO THE PERPS ACTUALLY ARE.
>
The references I cited provided data for fatalities due to
abuse/neglect occurring overall in the general population (including foster
care)
and fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care.

> Yes, and that is relevant to the issue of who kills the most children
> in what way again? Did you miss the word "IN" yet AGAIN?

Yet again, the comparison I made was between all fatalities due to abuse and
neglect in the entire population (including foster care) and fatalities due
to abuse and neglect occurring in foster care. The information I cited
(this will be the fourth time) clearly makes the distinction.

> Children that die in foster care from abuse and neglect may well be
> dying, as I've pointed out so many times before, from the affects of
> injury or neglect received before going into foster care, that is from
> their own parents, or even from others.

In 2001, 528 children died in foster care -- a rate of 97.4 per 100,000
children. http://tinyurl.com/hoei 18 of those children died as the result
of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

> That particular chart is very carefully worded to NOT say foster
> carers are the perp.
>
> If you want the "identity of PERP data" you have to go to the chart
> that gives that information specifically "identity of PERP", not this
> chart that avoids naming the perp but serves your duplicitious
> purposes so nicely.

Here is my exact quotation, along with the citations of relevant data, to
which you respond.

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

> IN care does NOT equate 1 to 1 that the death is caused BY the carer.
>
> It's a locale, not a perp by title.

Yet again, the comparison is between child fatalities as the result of abuse
and neglect in the entire US population (including foster care) and
fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care. The rates
are, respectively, 1.81 per 100,000 children and 3.40 per 100,000 children.

> In Foster Care does not equate directly with by Foster Carer.

> But, think on this. Parent, with out saying "in family" means the
> parent was the perp, by any normal logical means of deducing the
> wording of the chart.

My statement and the sources I stated said nothing about "parents." Yet
again, it was a comparison between child fatalities as the result of abuse
and neglect in the entire US population (including foster care) and child
fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care. Please read
the source material again.

> >The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81
> per
> >100,000.
>
>http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child
>
> What it actually says, unless the page has a hidden portion only you
> know of is:
>
> "Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision
> of the child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective
> services (CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster
> care. Of these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the
> coroner's office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities
> reported by the States occurred in some type of out-of-home placement
> setting."

I cut and pasted in my post what it actually said. You snipped the first
part. Here it is again.

"For 2001, a national estimate of 1,300 child deaths at a rate of 1.81
children of every 100,000 children in the population died from abuse or
neglect. Many States were able to supplement the automated data from the
child welfare agency with statistics from other agencies in their States.
Included in the reported 1,300 fatalities were 150 fatalities reported from
such agencies as health departments and fatality review boards.

"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the
child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective services
(CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care. Of
these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the coroner's
office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the States
occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting."

> "Egregious" just means bad or offensive, (no argument there) and does
> not pertain to the numbers of, rates, or percentages. It's fluff, but
> we'll indulge the author by pointing out: It's also "egregious" that
> natural parents kill their children, no?

The quote was "ESPECIALLY egregious." The meaning is very clear -- while
all fatalities due to abuse or neglect are egregious, fatalities occurring
as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care is especially egregious.

> More importantly:
>
> Notice, "1.5 percent in out of home placement." That means that
> parents, relatives and others, somebody other than foster parents,
> killed children how many percent of the occurances, Doug? How many? I
> think that 1.5% from 100% is 98.5 ****ing Percent DOUG.

Of course, because the number of children in the entire population
(72,941,000) is 134 times the number of children in foster care (541,000).
That is why the source I quoted and my statement expresses the fatalities in
rates per 100,000. Certainly, you must know that you cannot compare
disparate populations without using per capita rates.

If the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in the general population
were equal to the rates of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect in
foster care, then the total number of fatalities for 2001 would have been
2,480 instead of 1,300.
Or, vis versa, if the rate of child abuse and neglect in foster care was the
same as in the overall population, 10 children rather than 18 would have
perished.

This is why social science always uses rates expressed in "per 1,000" or
"per 100,000" figures.

It is absurdly misleading to take a grand total of incidents occurring in
two disparate populations and divide it by the number of incidents in the
smaller population to arrive at a "percentage." Let me give you an example.
Let's say there were 10,000 homicides in the US in 2001. Let's say 100 of
those murders happened in Rhode Island. Since only 99% of the murders
happened in states other than Rhode Island, does that make the other 49
states more dangerous?

The rate of child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in the
overall US child population was 1.81 per 100,000 children. The rate of
child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care was 3.40
per 100,000 children.

> And out of home placement includes NON FOSTER CARERS.
>
> Do you consider this of no relevance?

Yet again, the comparison was between fatalities as the result of abuse and
neglect in the entire population and fatalities as the result of abuse and
neglect in foster care. All 18 children were in state care. Here is the
USDHHS quote again:

"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision of the
child welfare agency are especially egregious. Child protective services
(CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care."

> >The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in
> foster
> >care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma
>
> But it does NOT say the foster carers killed the children. Some did,
> but not all, by far.

> Actually, what the citation also says, oh duplicitious one that hopes
> and prays no one will actually go look is:
>
> Percentage of Child Fatalities that
> Occurred in Foster Care
> 1.5
> for 48 states
> reporting.

Yes. Note also that the statement says the other fatalities occurred due to
abuse and neglect in the general population.

> Notice it says IN foster care, not by foster caregivers. This is not a
> perp chart. It is a locale chart.

Notice it also says in the general population. Yet again, the comparison is
between child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in the general
population and child fatalities as the result of abuse and neglect in foster
care.

> It isn't a chart of who killed who, this is a mortality chart...by ANY
> CAUSE AT ALL...with locales named not perps.

No, it concerns only those fatalities due to abuse and neglect. As
mentioned previously in this post, 528 children died in foster care in 2001.
If the foster children died of causes other than child abuse or neglect
occurring in foster care, they would be among those 528 children but not
among the 18 we are discussing. The information I shared was NOT mortality
rates. The mortality rate in foster care for 2001 was 97.4 per 100,000
children. The rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in foster care
was, as said before, 3.40 per 100,000 children.

> Here is how the compilers, researchers I presume, comment on their own
> data chart, from the tiny URL you listed:
>
> "Percentage of fatalities that occurred in foster care is based on
> total fatalities in States that reported on fatalities in foster care.
>
> A "fatality" is not a murder. It can be, but it can be other causes of
> death. Hospitals have boards that review hospital fatalities. There
> are studies on traffic fatalities. There are charts of gun fatalities.
> The presumption that each of these restricts themselves to murder only
> is nonsense. They include accidents, acts of God (so called),
> negligence, AND murder.

No, these statistics included only child fatalities as the result of child
abuse and neglect, as I have made abundantly clear in the statement
(repeated now for the fifth time). Many times more than 1,300 children died
during 2001. Many times more foster children died in foster care during
2001 than 18. As stated, 528 foster children died in foster care that year.

> This table compares the number of child fatalities associated with
> foster care to all child fatalities. The first column lists all of the
> States and the second column lists the total number of fatalities. The
> third column reports the number of child fatalities from foster care
> according to CPS and the fourth reports child fatalities from other
> agencies for a grand total of foster care deaths in the fifth column.
> The last column gives a percentage of fatalities that occurred in
> foster care as compared to the total number of fatalities. Among the
> 48 States reporting, the percentage of fatalities in foster care was
> calculated to be 1.5 percent.
> "
> First sentence, "...fatalities occured in..." Not murders, not perps
> and victims, just deaths in a location. It would undoubtedly include
> those victims killed BY foster parents, but it is NOT exclusive to
> that population.

They were fatalities exclusively due to abuse and neglect. If you don't
want to call them murders, I don't know what to say.

> Note that last line. " ...the percentage of fatalities in foster
> care..." still doesn't make the foster CARER the perp. This is a weep
> and wail chart, not useful for anything but to draw attention to the
> need to do MORE generally about children at risk from all causes,
> including foster care, but not exclusive of parental care failings as
> well.

The information provides ample reason to weep and wail. 1,300 child
fatalities as the result of abuse and negect is a terrifying figure. The
rates of child abuse fatalities in BOTH populations (1.81 per 100,000 in the
general population and 3.40 per 100,000 in foster care) is reason to cry.

> And finally, what's the percentage again of children who die IN foster
> care? Only 1.5 of all fatalities? Right? Asshole.

The rate of children who die as the result of child abuse and neglect in
foster care is 3.40 per hundred thousand -- considerably less than 1%. This
rate is higher than the rate child fatalities as the result of abuse and
neglect in the general population (1.81 per 100,000).

> 98.5% percent die OUTSIDE foster care.

Yes. Because 99.3% of children live outside of foster care.

> >Let's look at the first reference for the mention of "by bio-parents"
> you
> >insist is there.
>
>
>http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterfive.htm#child
>
> Okay, asshole, let's look at that page, and I'll paste a quote from
> it:
>
> "Parental Status of Perpetrators (Child File)
> Most child fatalities, 82.8 percent, were maltreated by their parent
> or parents (figure 5-2).4 Almost one-third (32.4%) of fatalities were
> perpetrated just by their mother.5 These percentages are consistent
> with the findings reported in previous years.
> "
>
> This is consistent with the chart I'm going to post for you, that I've
> posted before that IS what you claim, but not what you wish....the
> calculation of the estimated actual PERPS....foster and other
> caregivers vs PARENTS AND THOSE IN CAHOOTS WITH THEM.
>
> >Looking down the USDHHS page referenced above, we come to the
> pertinent
> >passage, which I quote exactly.
>
> And watch me pick it apart along the way:
>
> >"For 2001, a national estimate of 1,300 child deaths at a rate of
> 1.81
> >children of every 100,000 children in the population died from abuse
> or
> >neglect. Many States were able to supplement the automated data from
> the
> >child welfare agency with statistics from other agencies in their
> States.
> >Included in the reported 1,300 fatalities were 150 fatalities
> reported from
> >such agencies as health departments and fatality review boards.
> >
> >"Deaths that occur while a child is under the custody or supervision
> of the
> >child welfare agency are especially egregious.
>
> It does not say CAUSED BY THE STATE SUPERVISION, just in state
> supervision. While I no more forgive the state for being so negligent
> as to allow a child to die while in their care, I am aware some deaths
> are simply not preventable and I cut natural parents the same slack,
> but you wish to use this figure to somehow blame foster parents and or
> the state for killing children. Asshole.

Yet again, the comparison was between two populations who were cut the same
slack. The comparison was between child fatalities due to abuse and neglect
in the general population to fatalities due to abuse and neglect in foster
care.

> > Child protective services
> >(CPS) in 48 States reported 18 deaths that occurred in foster care.
> Of
> >these, six deaths were reported by other agencies such as the
> coroner's
> >office. Approximately 1.5 percent of child fatalities reported by the
> States
> >occurred in some type of out-of-home placement setting."
>
> Notice the "some type of out-of-home placement setting?"

Notice also "in the general population." What's your point? All 18
children who died as the result of abuse and neglect in foster care were in
state custody or supervision.

> A setting, not a perp. Out-of-home, not exclusively foster placement.

Both comparative populations were fatalities due to abuse and neglect
occurring in settings. In one case, the general population. In the other,
foster care.

> That does NOT establish the perp. In fact, if we are going to cut it
> to a truly fine point, to try to use this figures to find blame is
> pointless, for either parents or foster parents.

You're right, its pointless to use these figures to find blame. But it is
you that repeatedly brings up the blame issue. Who to blame or not to blame
seems to be your point. Mine was that the rate of fatalities due to abuse
and neglect in state care (3.40) is higher than the rate of fatalities due
to abuse and neglect in the general population (1.81).

> Now crawfish and go back to "I'm just reporting the figures and
> leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions" or some similar
> bullhockey you like to pull on the unwary.

> >Kane, where in this reference is there any mention of "by
> bio-parents"?
>
> I did not cite this particular chart in our most recent exchange. I
> simply pointed out the truth, this is NOT a perp identity chart and
> there IS such a chart that you have run around the end of countless
> time's in our debates and my challenges to you and your nonsense.

> THERE it is By Bio Parent, and lists ALL THE PERPS, not the locales.

I don't recall any "By Bio Parent" charts. It seems to be strange language
for social science researchers to use.

> And for those that care I now offer the truth, not His
> Duplicitiousness' Bull****.
>

The chart below reports on fatalities due to abuse and neglect during 1999.
My statement and sources concerned fatalities due to abuse and neglect in
2001. The chart below comes from an entirely different publication,
published two years before the one I cited. Obviously, the numbers of
fatalities occurring in 1999 are different than numbers of fatalities in
2001. How can we compare the two? Apples and oranges?

Kane, this is the second time within a week that you have reached back two
years to attempt to challenge my statements based on current data (NCANDS
data for 2001 is the latest available). Who do you think you are fooling?

> The Perp Chart: (URL below)
>
> Table 4-4: Maltreatment Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship,
> 1999 DCDC
>
> Relationship of Number of Percentage
> Perpetrator to Victim Fatality Victims of Fatality Victims
> Male Parent and Other 5 1.1% *
> Unknown 12 2.7%
> Family Relative 20 4.5% *
> Other 25 5.7%
> Substitute Care-
> Provider(s) 27 6.1%
> Male Parent Only 47 10.7% *
> Female Parent-
> and Other 72 16.3% *
> Both Parents 94 21.3% *
> Female Parent Only 139 31.5% *
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Total 441 100.0%
>
> Kane: Note that of all perps only sub-care providers, which would
> include some foster parents but not only FPs, such as day care, is 6.1
> percent.

There were only 441 fatalities due to abuse and neglect in 1999? I think
not. If we had a total number of fatalities due to abuse and neglect we
could determine rates of fatalities by perp, controling for population. I
can tell you right now, that given the percentage of the 441 victims cited
(6.1%), the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in substitute care
is going to be many times higher than in the general population. In the
2001 figures we were discussing, 18 children died as the result of abuse and
neglect in foster care. In your 1999 table, 27 children are shown as dying
as the result of abuse and neglect inflicted by substitute care providers.

> Notice that the percentage of fatalities by perp that are partners or
> parents or relatives that I've marked with *, totals 89.2% while
> the only possible categories, and that is stretching it a bit, that
> could include foster parents is Unknown, Other, and Sub care providers
> (the latter having to include all sub care providers NOT fosters such
> as day care providers, and inpatient and outpatient mental health
> treatment centers) comes to 10.8%.

That percentage (6.1%) of the 441 child fatalities shown comes out to around
47 children. If the percentages remained constant for the remaining 800 or
so children who died of child abuse and neglect in 1999 and are not shown on
the chart, the number of children who died as the result of abuse and
neglect inflicted by caregivers in the categories you mention could be as
high as 128 children. That is 7 times the 2001 number we were discussing
(18).

You make my point for me.

> The results:
>
> Related and other with related: 89.2%
> Foster and all nonrelated unaffiliated with parents: 10.2%

Related and other with related concern 99.3 percent of the child population.
Yet a whopping 10.2 percent of those fatalities shown were among .7 of one
percent of the child population. (Although, I agree with your implication
that not all of the perps in those categories are foster caregivers. We
would have to know that number to get an accurate rate per 100,000 and
control for population size.)

> This was the clear indictation to me the charts you are touting as
> reason to indict foster parents as murderous thugs who kill children
> was not what you claimed it was. They still aren't.

First, your 1999 chart does not in the slightest challenge the findings I
reported concerning 2001 data or my conclusions drawn from that data. In
fact, it shows a number of fatalities in alternative care that is many times
higher than the 18 I was talking about. The chart you paste above not only
confirms my statement but goes beyond it to report even higher numbers of
fatalities in alternative care.

Secondily, nowhere in this thread have I "touted" any charts as supporting
your contention that foster caregivers are "murderous thugs." That is your
wording.

> You still are a liar by misdirection, manipulation, and avoidance. .

There is no misdirection in the posts to which you respond. No
manipulation. No avoidance. Your response goes beyond merely confirming my
statements to arrive at even a higher number of fatalities due to abuse and
neglect in alternative care.

> Learn to read and tell the truth at this URL from one of your
> favorite sources:

Good advice to heed, Kane.

> >There is no problems with differentiation between "in" and "by"
> because both
> >populations are defined by "in."
>
> And that shows who murdered the child how again?

We can go with your numbers from the 1999 data. They measure a much higher
rate of fatalities in foster care.

> Most especially pay attention to the fact fatalities are not
> exclusively killings by intent or neglect.

No, they are fatalities due to abuse and neglect.

> >> Unproven and you won't admit it. ALL your claims are poisoned by
> that
> >> stubborn refusal to differentiate between IN an BY.
> >
> >> The chart cited was not posted for such comparisions and you know
> it.
> >
> >The narrative cited does make a comparision. The exact breakdown in
> foster
> >care among the 48 states reporting is provided in my second citation.
> >http://tinyurl.com/n1ma
>
> And it is NOT a perp identity cite.
>

Your chart was, right? We can go by those numbers if you wish.

> The citations you offer and have always offered are not only weak for
> the premise you give but they are NOT even close to the issue at hand:
> are children safer with foster parents or with natural parents who are
> shown to be, by CPS, creating risk to the child?

Nope. To the contrary, a large percentage of children placed into foster
care are unsubstantiated by CPS itself as being at risk of child abuse or
neglect. In a couple of states, the majority of children taken into state
custody come from families CPS unsubstantiated for creating risk to their
children.

> Comparing foster parents to all parents (and in fact the census
> figures used by the chart authors include "families" that have NO
> children)

Absolutely not. Geez, Kane, look at the data. The authors used the CHILD
POPULATION. They did not measure the number of families, whether they had
children or not.

> ALL children aren't put in foster care. The majority in foster care
> come from parents that CPS claims would have harmed them had they been
> left there, and the perp chart makes it damn clear that IS the case.

> If only CPS were omnipotent as you and cronies claim it should be.
>
> If CPS were omnipotent and prescent it would totally stop all child
> fatalities, and you prey on that impossibility and pretend that CPS
> needs reform in areas were it does not...in fact it needs MORE power
> in some areas, precisely the ones you want stripped from CPS, to be
> able to reduce child fatalities.

If CPS were omnipotent and prescent, it would remove more children and more
children would die in foster care.

> You want to give to the police exclusive investigative powers and
> strip CPS of any power to persuade parents to reform.

Are you saying that CPS uses its investigative powers to persuade parents to
reform? Shouldn't it be using those powers to determine if parents have
done something or failed to do something that indicates they are in need of
reform?
What about innocent parents?

> > Police do not reduce child fatalities any more than they reduce drug
> use through The War on Drugs.

> The same principles that have proven to reduce drug use apply in
> improving the parenting abuse and neglect situation. Pursuasion with a
> stick and carrot approach. One can't offer the carrot and its
> benefits, in this instance, without using the stick to get the person
> to take a bite and see just how good it can be, and good for you.

Sticks don't work well in casework. It's been proven over and over again.

> Considering that 60% or so of the families that meet with the stick,
> take a bite of the carrot, and get their kids back (the service plan,
> dummy, the service plan), I'd say it's working rather well, dispite
> some failures.

> It is CPS and CPS alone, barring changing demographics for other
> reasons, that is charged with reducing child abuse, neglect and
> fatalities, and given the barriers in their way, budget, assholes like
> you and your cronies that lie lie lie about it, they do a tremendous
> job YOU CAN'T DO AND FAILED AT, didn't you Doug? Didn't you?

No.

> You couldn't deal with the reality of the messiness. Could you?

I explain the messiness and its reality on a regular basis. I have never
had trouble dealing with it. That is not to say that I like what the
messiness does to innocent children.

> You are a classic prissyassed overcontrolling ****up that left CPS to
> "expose" by pointing to things CPS cannot deal with for many valid
> acceptable reasons, and is not mandated to deal with by logic, but is
> forced to by statute.

LOL! Discussion of the issues have Gotcha again. Back to the childish name
calling?

> You are just another lowlife kneebreaker, but with a conman's smiling
> ingratiating slyness. You make me wanta puke.

I am delighted. However, your uneasy stomache is more likely a ramification
of defeat. If you end up on the short end of the stick in discussing the
issues, you resort to name-calling. I would feel a little quesy if I cut
and pasted outdated data that supported my opponent's position.

They say that the quickest way to a man's ego is through his stomache.

>> And in this instance we are discussing, the claim isn't even what
> you
> >> say it is. We aren't discussing up or down, but what The Plant's
> >> intent it.
> >
> >We most certainly were discussing up or down.
>
> Blah blah blah. YOU and A Plant are attempting to do that to divert
> from the truth. There are murderous parents out there, and there are
> far fewer murderous foster parents.

1) No, you posted that Fern's claim rates of fatalities due to abuse were
not going down were false. In fact, she was right and your challenge that
they were going down was wrong.

2) There are less murderous foster caregivers than murderous parents because
there are far less foster caregivers than there are parents. There are also
far less blue-eyed foster caregivers than blue-eyed parents. There are also
far less left-handed foster caregivers than there are left-handed parents.
There are much less non-murderous, kind foster caregivers than there are
non-murderous, kind parents.

> It is EASY to spot a murderous foster parent, as they are under state
> scrutiny specifically because they are foster parents and known and
> listed with their agency.

Anyone who murders children comes under rather intense state scrutiny.

> No such oversight exists for natural parents. Hence natural parents
> can and do kill more children by number and percentage.

No, not by percentage. Parents kill a smaller percentage of their children
than foster caregivers kill their wards.

RATES tells us
> near to nothing as long as they are confined to LOCUS rather than
> identified PERPS.

The only way to compare different sized populations is by using rates. You
do know that, don't you?

>When you have a perp RATE let me know.

Give me the number of killed children in the chart you posted and I will be
happy to calculate the rate.

And even then
> it's not going to be of much use because generally FOSTERS can't get
> away with murder and natural parents CAN. Difference in strength of
> oversight. That means, as the researchers surely know as indicated in
> their unwilliness to try and produce the numbers, that lots of parents
> kill and aren't caught, hence are not reflected accurately in the
> numbers reported.

Oh. So rates, percentages, numbers are not of any use anyway, because only
foster caregivers get caught for child murder?

> >Fern's initial statement beginning the thread was that occurances of
> >fatalities due to abuse and neglect had not gone down.
>
> Who gives a ****? It's Its endless intent to discredit and lie lie lie
> that I'm concerned with. A stupid manipulator, where you are only a
> tiny bit smarter.

Who cares? Well, those of us who noticed that you called Fern a liar for
stating the truth; those of us who noted that you claimed, inaccurately,
that the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect had gone down. It is a
crediablity thing, Kane.

By the way, do you remember your argument that one must use RATES to measure
fatalities because the child population varies? You call Fern "stupid"
because you inaccurately challenged the truth she told and were caught at
it.

> You and IT have to be called on your malicious gossip method of
> "reform."

> >You inaccurately
> >challenged her assertion by stating that, since population had gone
> up, the
> >RATE of fatalities had gone down. You called her names for that.
>
> I call It names for many things. In this case for one more of IT's
> lying bits of misconstrued bull****, just like the other crap she cuts
> and pastes that are lies in themselves, like the unconstitutional
> ruling that in fact isn't quoted in the article that claims it.

Her statement that child fatalities due to abuse and neglect had not gone
down was not a lying bit of misconstrued information, but the truth. You
wrongly called it a lie and were caught at it.

> You and they are fit comrades.
>
> > I replied
> >that, in fact, the RATE of fatalities had not gone down . . . that
> you were
> >wrong.
>
> You may well be right AND I DON'T ****ING CARE, ASSHOLE.

Fern was right. I was right. You were wrong. No biggie. I am sure it
works out the other way around sometimes. But, yes, you have made it
evident for some time that you don't care.

> The point is that your intent is to pretend that state care is more
> dangerous than parental care by those identified as likely perps.

My point was that the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in foster
care is higher than the rate of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in the
general population.

> A piece of blathering crap.

LOL!

> I pointed that out to you and you are now crawfishing once again.
>
> The up or down rate is damn near irrelevant for support of your
> position of CPS needing reform.

It was relevant in pointing out that your supposition that fatality rates
decreased was wrong.

> Just as, and you have just failed again to support your position, on
> the rate of fatalities IN foster care, as opposed to the rate of
> fatalities BY foster carers.

Well, thanks to your chart, we know that rates of fatalities due to abuse
and neglect in substitute care is much higher than fatalities due to abuse
and neglect in the general population in 1999.

> None of the charts or statements you point to shows that, as they do
> NOT list who the perp is. My chart DOES, and you are running from it.

I have explained five times what my statements and respective citations
point out.

> >> Your campaign to turn child welfare into a fascist exercise has
> been
> >> well documented here, by you.
> >
> >How is reporting the accurate number of child fatalities due to abuse
> or
> >neglect a "fascist exercise?"
>
> I didn't say that and you know it. I said YOUR CAMPAIGN is a fascist
> exercise, asshole.

> In other words this crap of yours along with all the other nonsense
> you post is a CAMPAIGN. And I said turn "child welfare into a fascist
> exercise" not that what you posted on child fatalities was a fascist
> exercise...though now that you mention it....r r r r

Where's the beef, Kane? Name-calling says a lot about you but does not
address child welfare issues we are discussing on this forum.

> It's just one small part of your goal.

What is my goal? Where do you get the idea you can determine such a thing?

> Your support of the obviously right wing fundy-christian ridden HSLDA
> is a clear indication of your politics.

I whole heartedly support the CAPTA amendment this organization drafted
providing families rights to due process. Thanks to this ammendment, CPS
workers will now be trained on Constitutional rights and they will be
compelled to tell parents what allegations have been made against them. I
fully support the exceptional legal representation they have provided
parents who encounter wrongful CPS interventions.

> Most of us do NOT want a fundy christian interpretation of what is and
> isn't acceptable parenting, but you championed the involvement of
> HSLDA with the feds to do exactly that...start the ball rolling on
> deciding by the FEDS, and of course HSLDA through their influence,
> what is and isn't acceptable parenting.

CPS practice is currently driven by federal guidelines of what is and is not
acceptable parenting. HSLDA's ammendment toned down that federal push by
placing some reasonable, due process requirements on the state. The
organization has curtailed federal control, not increased it.

Other than its work to protect children and their families, I know little
about HSLDA.


> Your pointing to federal control of child welfare as a solution to CPS
> reform

The feds already have control. CPS practice is driven by CAPTA and ASFA,
both federal statutes. A good start for CPS reform would be to repeal both
of those federal laws.

and MORE police involvement in child protection (as though they
> don't do so already), and the removal of CPS in an enforcement role,
> is clearly a fascist solution.

> YOU want, or are too stupid to see the danger of, the Feds beginning
> to define what is and isn't appropriate parenting.

The feds define what is and is not appropriate parenting currently. I seek
to repeal CAPTA and ASFA.

> YOU want, or are too stupid to see the danger of, the millions of
> families that lack information and skill being either arrested, or
> simply turned loose on their innocent children with NO attempts, other
> than volunteering...r r r r...to help them learn to do better and
> safer parenting of their children.

Nope. I want the practice of forcibly removing children from innocent
families to stop. By their own admission, CPS removes thousands of children
it has unsubstantiated as being at risk of maltreatment.

> YOU ARE A ****ING FASCIST ASSHOLE. And a danger to children to and
> families.

I don't think so. But, then again, that's me.

> >Are you saying that if rates of fatalities
> >have not gone down, as you inaccurately claimed, then child welfare
> practice
> >is fascist?
>
> No, asshole. I'm simply pointing out, once again, the measure of your
> morals and ethics and that of The Plant and your other
> co-conspiritors. You lie and manipulate.

Well, the sum and total of this thread was pointing out your mistatement.

> You selectively cut and paste. You ignore things that refute your
> little sick belief system.

> >Or are you saying that the claim that child welfare agencies
> >have been unsuccessful in reducing child fatalities is the same as
> calling
> >those agencies fascist?
>
> Are you saying that you are a lying asshole?
>

No.

> >
> >> The bottom line is you are pushing for a police state.
> >
> >LOL!
>
> I'm not diverted. Try again.

LOL!

>
> >Holding CPS agencies accountable for protecting children against
> >lethal child abuse
>
> That isn't what you are doing. You are trying to make them accountable
> for things they have little to NO control over. That is what you are
> doing. You isolate or inflate the meaning of data to fit your agenda.
> I just caught you at it again and proved it right here.

I inflated nothing. We have both posted data proving my contention.

> You were stupid enough to post an URL that included OTHER information
> that proved you wrong.

Not at all. I was hoping that people would go to the URL and read all the
material. You went to a similar URL and brought back a chart from two years
ago that proved me right.

> is a call for a police state?
>
> Yes, as you do it, yes, yes, yes. That IS what you want, isn't it?
>
> What would you call not giving a family that ****ed up a chance to
> reform? That's what you have repeatedly said you want. They must be
> criminally charged and all OTHERS CUT LOOSE. Am I correct in my
> summation of your beliefs in this?

No.