PDA

View Full Version : The Plant answer DNA swab Question


Kane
September 19th 03, 01:18 PM
NOT...


but is consistent, along with Doug and cohorts, with promoting
activities that will result in more control by government.

The ONLY possible way there could be even minimal effective (and it
wouldn't be much) of pretaken DNA samples would be to hold them in a
vast database, just like the government is now doing with CRIMINALS.

One day the lurkers here, and the folks that have been duped by you
propogandists (sorry at it as you are) are going to figure out your
agenda, Pineapple and come hunting you.

Folks, the core of the anti CPS folks here are fascist wannabees in
the grand tradition of the fascist dictator ships we've seen arrise in
the last century.

They have an agenda and an organization of well integrated groups that
have as a goal the intrusion of factions not healthy to the body
politic.

The few among you that can think might want to do some research.

Mine is making it clearer and clearer what stunk the first time I came
across this ng.

If you continue to remove all that things that do not show themselves
to connect to the discussion, what remains must be the answer.

Ask yourself what is it the priciple players in the anti CPS club
NEVER discuss, and you have your answer. Even when it comes up?

Kane

Doug
September 19th 03, 06:47 PM
Kane writes:

> but is consistent, along with Doug and cohorts, with promoting
> activities that will result in more control by government.

Hi, Kane!

I am sorry you have misinterpreted my posts. I have tried to make a case
against federally mandated child welfare practice of today precisely because
it is an unwholesome and abusive misuse of government power. Unilaterial
decisions by CPS to forcibly remove children who they themselves have
unsubstantiated as being at risk of or actually maltreated is an abuse of
government power.

These governmental intrusions upon innocent families are being done under
the authorization of CAPTA and ASFA, both federal codes that mandate state
policy and practice.

> One day the lurkers here, and the folks that have been duped by you
> propogandists (sorry at it as you are) are going to figure out your
> agenda, Pineapple and come hunting you.

Kane, you would be well-served to pay attention to your side of the street.
Some of your posts include wording and approaches defined as propaganda.
Elements of propaganda include:

GLITTERING GENERALITIES -- making unattributed, generalized statements about
a group of people or given policy or practice without substantiation. Using
rare incidents to generalize across an entire population.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION -- To claim or imply that an debating opponent
associates with undesirables; to label an individual based upon her
association with others; to claim or imply an opponent is guilty of some
wrongdoing based upon the wrongdoing of someone else. "ie: Communists, in
MaCarthy's 50's.

PERSONAL ATTACK -- Attacking the messenger of information on a given issue
rather than debating the issue itself; placing personalities above
principals. Name calling. Hints that the proponent of an idea is somehow
morally deficient or derranged.

DEPERSONALIZATION -- Using terminlogy to imply that an individual expousing
ideas is less than human or evil rather than debating the idea.

FEAR AND INTIMIDATION -- Suggesting that an opponent is a member of some
sinister force that is out to get innocent people. Suggesting that
narrative arguing a point the propagandist opposes is less than sincere --
that the opponent really has a hidden agenda he is not disclosing.


> Folks, the core of the anti CPS folks here are fascist wannabees in
> the grand tradition of the fascist dictator ships we've seen arrise in
> the last century.

And, above, Kane, you immediately provide us an example of propaganda.

> They have an agenda and an organization of well integrated groups that
> have as a goal the intrusion of factions not healthy to the body
> politic.

What are the names of these "well-integrated groups" and who are these
unhealthy "factions" with intrusionary goals? What are the goals? How are
the groups integrated?

> The few among you that can think might want to do some research.

Where should they look in their research? What are they to look for, Kane?
What is the plot they should search out?

> Mine is making it clearer and clearer what stunk the first time I came
> across this ng.

What have you discovered in your research? What was your methodology for
that research? Where did you look? What were your findings? Without
specifics, what we have here is a glittering generality with no substance.
Any citations? Any source we should look at in our research?

> If you continue to remove all that things that do not show themselves
> to connect to the discussion, what remains must be the answer.

What things do not show themselves in discussions in this newsgroup? What
things are these? What things do not connect to the discussion and what
does remain after these things are removed?

> Ask yourself what is it the priciple players in the anti CPS club
> NEVER discuss, and you have your answer. Even when it comes up?

What should we ask ourselves? Who are the principal players in the
"Anti-CPS club"? What do they "NEVER" discuss?

Please provide us some information. Some beef. You seem to be making
charges here. Do you have any substantation for them? Share with us what
evil things you have discovered. And, please, for godsakes show us where we
can look to find the truth.

Otherwise, what you have provided in this post of yours is propaganda.

Ron
September 20th 03, 04:40 AM
"Doug" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Kane writes:
>
> > but is consistent, along with Doug and cohorts, with promoting
> > activities that will result in more control by government.
>
> Hi, Kane!
>
> I am sorry you have misinterpreted my posts. I have tried to make a case
> against federally mandated child welfare practice of today precisely
because
> it is an unwholesome and abusive misuse of government power. Unilaterial
> decisions by CPS to forcibly remove children who they themselves have
> unsubstantiated as being at risk of or actually maltreated is an abuse of
> government power.
>
> These governmental intrusions upon innocent families are being done under
> the authorization of CAPTA and ASFA, both federal codes that mandate state
> policy and practice.

Here we are, once again, with Doug insinuating that these removals are done
after the findings of the case.

Now, just why is it that Doug perpetuates this ........ "misunderstanding of
the facts" shall we say? The answer is quite simple really, once one reads
the tenor of Doug's posts over the last 3-4 years. Its for the
"Sensationalism" factor. Why stick to the boring old truth when a
sensational half truth will do?

> > One day the lurkers here, and the folks that have been duped by you
> > propogandists (sorry at it as you are) are going to figure out your
> > agenda, Pineapple and come hunting you.
>
> Kane, you would be well-served to pay attention to your side of the
street.
> Some of your posts include wording and approaches defined as propaganda.
> Elements of propaganda include:
>
> GLITTERING GENERALITIES -- making unattributed, generalized statements
about
> a group of people or given policy or practice without substantiation.
Using
> rare incidents to generalize across an entire population.

Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like some of your posts Doug.

> GUILT BY ASSOCIATION -- To claim or imply that an debating opponent
> associates with undesirables; to label an individual based upon her
> association with others; to claim or imply an opponent is guilty of some
> wrongdoing based upon the wrongdoing of someone else. "ie: Communists,
in
> MaCarthy's 50's.

Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like most of your posts Doug

> PERSONAL ATTACK -- Attacking the messenger of information on a given issue
> rather than debating the issue itself; placing personalities above
> principals. Name calling. Hints that the proponent of an idea is somehow
> morally deficient or derranged.

Hmmm, I must admit, this is one area that you do seem to try and avoid. Oh
well, we can't all be perfect.

> DEPERSONALIZATION -- Using terminlogy to imply that an individual
expousing
> ideas is less than human or evil rather than debating the idea.

Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like some of your posts Doug

> FEAR AND INTIMIDATION -- Suggesting that an opponent is a member of some
> sinister force that is out to get innocent people. Suggesting that
> narrative arguing a point the propagandist opposes is less than sincere --
> that the opponent really has a hidden agenda he is not disclosing.

Oh quite. Again, something that you are a past master at here Doug. In the
past I have called it "fear mongering", and it is a far more common element
in the posts of the anti-cps mob than in that of the cps supporters. Even
you are significantly guilty of this Doug. But then again you will never
admit it.

I'm not really sure what point Kane is attempting to get at in this post,
but it is quite clear where you are heading. I'd suggest that you ask him
directly, and avoid all this useless finger pointing. You waste our time,
our bandwidth, and indeed your own intelligence.

Ron

>
> > Folks, the core of the anti CPS folks here are fascist wannabees in
> > the grand tradition of the fascist dictator ships we've seen arrise in
> > the last century.
>
> And, above, Kane, you immediately provide us an example of propaganda.
>
> > They have an agenda and an organization of well integrated groups that
> > have as a goal the intrusion of factions not healthy to the body
> > politic.
>
> What are the names of these "well-integrated groups" and who are these
> unhealthy "factions" with intrusionary goals? What are the goals? How
are
> the groups integrated?
>
> > The few among you that can think might want to do some research.
>
> Where should they look in their research? What are they to look for,
Kane?
> What is the plot they should search out?
>
> > Mine is making it clearer and clearer what stunk the first time I came
> > across this ng.
>
> What have you discovered in your research? What was your methodology for
> that research? Where did you look? What were your findings? Without
> specifics, what we have here is a glittering generality with no substance.
> Any citations? Any source we should look at in our research?
>
> > If you continue to remove all that things that do not show themselves
> > to connect to the discussion, what remains must be the answer.
>
> What things do not show themselves in discussions in this newsgroup? What
> things are these? What things do not connect to the discussion and what
> does remain after these things are removed?
>
> > Ask yourself what is it the priciple players in the anti CPS club
> > NEVER discuss, and you have your answer. Even when it comes up?
>
> What should we ask ourselves? Who are the principal players in the
> "Anti-CPS club"? What do they "NEVER" discuss?
>
> Please provide us some information. Some beef. You seem to be making
> charges here. Do you have any substantation for them? Share with us what
> evil things you have discovered. And, please, for godsakes show us where
we
> can look to find the truth.
>
> Otherwise, what you have provided in this post of yours is propaganda.
>
>
>

Kane
September 20th 03, 05:14 AM
"Doug" > wrote in message news:<6jHab.8775
>...
> Kane writes:
>
> > but is consistent, along with Doug and cohorts, with promoting
> > activities that will result in more control by government.
>
> Hi, Kane!

Hi Doug!

> I am sorry you have misinterpreted my posts.

I haven't misunderstood a thing. Nor have I mininterpreted our posts.
Your misdirection is my focus. You just composed yet another one.

> I have tried to make a case

I love that you had such an obvious freudian slip. "Tried" is how
things never
come to fruition...trying to do something is precisely how not to get
it done.

"Try" to put your hand on a chair. The instant you do you negate that
you are "trying." No, you placed your hand on the chair. Trying would
mean you never do.

> against federally mandated child welfare practice of today precisely because
> it is an unwholesome and abusive misuse of government power.

We've never disagreed on this of yours.

I simply think you are lying based on your other posts to this ng, or
you are unbelievable ignorant and stupid, something I don't believe at
all.

> Unilaterial
> decisions by CPS to forcibly remove children who they themselves have
> unsubstantiated as being at risk of or actually maltreated is an abuse of
> government power.

That is correct and every instance should be prosecuted as fully as is
legally
possible. I have NOT ever seen you speak out against that that resort
to other
than legal means.

However, "unilateral" decisions of that kind are extremely rare except
if on the first visit of an investigator conditions that would
endanger the child NOW. In nearly all cases they must have evidence
and they must be prepared to have it reviewed by a judge and signed
off by same.

Your morals are the question here, Doug, and always have been for me.
And I'm
quite aware that you do consider yourself on a moral crusade and you
believe that you are a moral person. We just disagree.

> These governmental intrusions upon innocent families are being done under
> the authorization of CAPTA and ASFA, both federal codes that mandate state
> policy and practice.

That is correct. In otherwords, according to law. The arguments put
forth here,
that you either support directly or indirectly by failure to correct
YOUR own
little lackeys needs to be pointed out to you. There are constant
claims that even the closest adherence to these laws constitues
violation of rights.

> > One day the lurkers here, and the folks that have been duped by you
> > propogandists (sorry at it as you are) are going to figure out your
> > agenda, Pineapple and come hunting you.
>
> Kane, you would be well-served to pay attention to your side of the street.

oooOOOOOOOOOOOooooo....I'm shakin' in my boots.

I pay close attention to the "street". I have a different style than
you. I point fingers without playing coy games.

> Some of your posts include wording and approaches defined as propaganda.

That's right:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda

Is about as good a meaning as any, four of them, none making a
judgement of
truth or lie, just a promotion of a doctrine or belief system. You'll
get my
drift eventually.

> Elements of propaganda include:

Oh they do? Please provide me with a valid and accessible referrence
to
coroborate YOUR definitions below. From what source did you draw these
definitions of "propoganda"?

You would be more accurate to say, "propaganda may include some of the
following but it can be the absolute truth as well."

> GLITTERING GENERALITIES -- making unattributed, generalized statements about
> a group of people or given policy or practice without substantiation. Using
> rare incidents to generalize across an entire population.

Yes, that is precisely what takes place on your side of the street in
this NG,
rather continuously. Some of the perps have been driven away, and I
suspect the
remainder are paid for their constant stream of exactly the above.
Especially
that last line. And you not only do not call anyone but me on what you
think is not true but glaringly fail to confront them.

> GUILT BY ASSOCIATION -- To claim or imply that an debating opponent
> associates with undesirables;

You do. I cite your recent defense of a layabout that has no business
displacing a child and her mother for his convenience.

> to label an individual based upon her
> association with others;

I lable, right here and right now, the woman that traded her daughter
for a little punk as associating with undesireables. What you gonna do
about it?

> to claim or imply an opponent is guilty of some
> wrongdoing based upon the wrongdoing of someone else.

Never have done any such thing. Each instance I make the claim someone
has done something wrong that's what I cite. I do point out you hang
together, which is what I intend to expand on. And I don't consider
any of you innocent, but rather all wrongdoers by virtue of
deliberately leading people astray that do NOT need to go down that
path when they are struggling to get their children back.

> "ie: Communists, in
> MaCarthy's 50's.

You, as most people, have made a reference, if you would look to the
research
would find is not true. It was the HUAC that went after communists
wholesale.
Not Senator McCarthy...House, Senate. Get the picture?

Youd be more accurately served if you simple said HUAC's 50's, as that
was the witch hunt. McCarthy was rude at times, but he came under far
more attack than he levied against others.

> PERSONAL ATTACK -- Attacking the messenger of information on a given issue
> rather than debating the issue itself; placing personalities above
> principals.

Are you seriously suggesting I do NOT discuss the issues even as I
label the
****heads that try to foist their crap on others? Please.

> Name calling.

Yes, it has an uncanny ability to draw out the vile types like
yourself and
expose you. And you just keep on biting.

> Hints that the proponent of an idea is somehow
> morally deficient or derranged.

"Hints"? Yah gottah be kidding.

But then I could be completely wrong. The motivations might be
economic and or
cause driven, and my question and speculation is about those things,
though the
economic is a trailing secondary. Now what might the cause
be....hhhhmmmmm?

I'm not wrong though. The evidence is far too clear. Just review in
your mind the statements and language of various people that have come
and gone in this ng that you have supported or not corrected when you
knew better.

> DEPERSONALIZATION -- Using terminlogy to imply that an individual expousing
> ideas is less than human or evil rather than debating the idea.

You and I, and all other posters here, are really nothing more than
electronic squiggles on a monitor. We are not persons.

I don't IMPLY, I state it emphatically. It isn't a matter of espousing
"ideas." It's lying and misleading. Putting those at risk that come
here for help.

But more to the point, the willingness to lie and more especially to
continually risk other peoples children and families is about as good
a reason
to name call and depersonalize someone as I've ever seen. You do that,
as do
your cohorts.

It's as much what you let them get away with without calling them on
it as
anything else.

>
> FEAR AND INTIMIDATION -- Suggesting that an opponent is a member of some
> sinister force that is out to get innocent people.

Who am I trying to intimidate and cause to fear you? And just like
they say
about paranoia, it isn't, if they are out to get you.

The unceasing yammering about CPS accompanied by off the wall
screwball media
articles that so often don't really say anything clearly enough to
actually
indict CPS and so often have nothing to do with them.

The name of this ng isn't alt.support.the-state, or
alt.support.the-cops, yet there is a regular string of references to
many kinds of state agencies that are completely unconnected to any
functions of CPS.

> Suggesting that
> narrative arguing a point the propagandist opposes is less than sincere --
> that the opponent really has a hidden agenda he is not disclosing.

I'm not suggesting it. I'm telling people to look and think for
themselves not
just swallow the propaganda efforts aimed at them in this ng. I found
one. It is a great deal more dangerous than I first thought. This has
become very serious business.

I believe there are some folks that come here that are taken in by
this agenda and a cause that is unspoken here, but represented
nontheless, and may make foolish and dangerous decisions by believing
it. I think there are a few
that believe it though they probably won't act on it in any
significant way,
just debaters. It's the former I'm really concerned about.

I believe the Christines, for instance, were taken in by just such
nonsense and suffered the consequences of acting on nonsense just such
as is posted here.

> > Folks, the core of the anti CPS folks here are fascist wannabees in
> > the grand tradition of the fascist dictator ships we've seen arrise in
> > the last century.
>
> And, above, Kane, you immediately provide us an example of propaganda.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism

I believe that in time it will become obvious what is going on, here
and on the
national level..and it will likely be too late to stop it peacefully.

I think the definition above at the URL listed makes it clear what I
mean by
the term.

I think you fit under the definition where it says:

"fascism
n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical
government (as
opposed to democracy or liberalism)"

> > They have an agenda and an organization of well integrated groups that
> > have as a goal the intrusion of factions not healthy to the body
> > politic.
>
> What are the names of these "well-integrated groups" and who are these
> unhealthy "factions" with intrusionary goals? What are the goals? How are
> the groups integrated?

In time, Doug, in good time. But they have been mentioned in this ng.

> > The few among you that can think might want to do some research.
>
> Where should they look in their research? What are they to look for, Kane?

Look too all organizations that involve themselves with family issues
at
government level. Some of them are just nonsense and blather. But some
are "suits" and intervene and advocate at the federal level.

It's the polite and reasonable sounding ones that are most often the
cons.

I think people can use the search tools available and find things for
themselves. It's a little early for a head on confrontation, Doug.

YOU may think I just curse and rant and have no skill, but I spent a
lot of
years in the military learning how to reach objectives effectively.

It took me five hard years to get my first CPS supervisor fired...see
what I mean about never giving up? Not once in the entire five years
did I have an interaction with CPS in any form that I did not continue
to research the issues involved, and the people involved, and develop
the plan I had set out at the beginning.

There were those even in CPS that came to me and thanked me profusely.
I thanked them because they took far more risks than I.

> What is the plot they should search out?

More control from the top down. And I do not believe you are telling
the truth
when you say you wish to stop the aquisition of more control from the
federal
level. I believe that you want the feds to determine what is and isn't
acceptable parenting, in a narrow and very frightening definition.

It remains to be seen if I am correct.

You have aligned with, right in these ngs, groups that most assuredly
act to intruding the lives of Americans to forward the agenda of their
special interest group at the expense of other citizens.

An aquaintance of mine many years ago, a writer and journalist into
exposing
similar such things was found dead at his typewriter (that long ago)
with a
bullet hole in the back of his head. No jealous husbands involved, no
debts, in
fact an all around sweetheart of a guy.

He just went too far too fast.

Me, I takes my time. I always have layers of various kinds of
protections in place, some that are very unpleasant indeed, and I
never give up.

> > Mine is making it clearer and clearer what stunk the first time I came
> > across this ng.
>
> What have you discovered in your research?

Rather a lot more than I had expected. Quite shocking even to me. What
are you
looking for, Doug, when you ask?

> What was your methodology for
> that research?

Search, read, question, compare.

That is usually how it's done for my purpose. I'm not writing a study
for peer
review. I'm interested in public review.

> Where did you look?

Here and there, archives, articles, books, new releases, government
sources,
library of congress. I don't think I'd leave anything out.

> What were your findings?

That I better start alerting other people to look. I don't care to be
the Lone
Ranger and wind up like my friend at the typewriter. Others knowing is
protection for me. There are already a few thousand that HAVE been
directed to
the information by others. It's not a secret any longer and the lies
and
coverups are being stripped away.

> Without
> specifics, what we have here is a glittering generality with no substance.

Why yes, that is how it appears. That's why I invite folks to dig
deeper on
their own.

Why haven't YOU suggested that, Doug. I mean after all it would prove
me wrong,
now wouldn't it?

> Any citations? Any source we should look at in our research?

I've put them here before. People that see actual citations very often
don't in
any appreciable numbers, actual go and look. Or if they do they
already suffer
from disbelief of the claims of the poster. I'm not going to describe
it for
them. They'll assume I am just mounting a propaganda campaign.

This is too important to do that. They have to come to it themselves.
It's like
accepting a religious faith. No one really does if they are drug
kicking and
screaming.

> > If you continue to remove all that things that do not show themselves
> > to connect to the discussion, what remains must be the answer.
>
> What things do not show themselves in discussions in this newsgroup?

My my you are full of questions, Doug. I wonder why.

Probably the one that stands out for me, concerning you and why I do
not trust
you, is that you consistently fail to call to question those that
adovate
violence and behaviors that would in fact lose their children and get
them in a
great deal of trouble.

That is the tactic of the Blood Dancer. Claim evil then cause actions
that fit your description of evil to take place.

Additionally you do NOT call your buddies on their outrageous nonsense
like
posting claims of CPS malfeasance when a reading of the posted
clipping shows
that CPS wasn't actually involved at all, or could have done nothing,
outside
of having powers and abilities NO organization can have for lack of
available
resources.

One would have to have half the nation working in child welfare to
meet the
criteria for stopping the other half from abuses of children.

And there is a constant stream of motives attributed to CPS workers or
foster parents that in fact do not exist except in the rarist of
instances.

You are not evenhanded, Doug.

> What
> things are these? What things do not connect to the discussion and what
> does remain after these things are removed?

As above, Doug.

> > Ask yourself what is it the priciple players in the anti CPS club
> > NEVER discuss, and you have your answer. Even when it comes up?
>
> What should we ask ourselves?

For the truth. You foment and encourage lies and halftruths by not
challenging your buddies when the lie.

> Who are the principal players in the
> "Anti-CPS club"?

R R R R , yah gotta be kidding. I don't think even the slow witted
Dennis could
miss knowing who the anti-cps folks are.

> What do they "NEVER" discuss?

Now there is the question I've been waiting for.

What DO you never discuss, Doug, just as they never do? Got any ideas?
It seems
just about everything is open to discussion except one subject.

I think I'll just leave you the puzzle to worry for awhile. I enjoy
your sweat
immensely.

> Please provide us some information.

I have. And times I have you haven't responded to the issue I brought
up. You
turned tail on those. It's what you wouldn't discuss. Why should I ask
yet again?

> Some beef.

I already cooked it well done, pulled it off the spit, and slapped it
on your
platter. You ran.

> You seem to be making
> charges here.

Seem to be? Seem to be? R R R R R

> Do you have any substantation for them?

Yes. But I insist people do their own searching.

This medium highlights a characteristic of humans that has always
amused me. When someone gives them advice or information they fall
immediately into a defensive dismissing mode.

If they find it themselves, they will take better ownship more
immediately.

I never force things down people's throat...I think you do, very
cleverly.

> Share with us what
> evil things you have discovered.

Have. You ignored them...well, you avoided them and turned tail and
ran.

> And, please, for godsakes

Lowcase? Hmmmmm......

> show us where we
> can look to find the truth.

It's a wide wide world, now isn't it? But you can start in USENET,
expand to
the WWW, access some of the great resources available. But take it all
with a
grain of salt.

> Otherwise, what you have provided in this post of yours is propaganda.

Absofukinlootly...

And propaganda can be presented through absolute truth in every word.

I do have an agenda and am not the least shy about stating it. It's to
stop you
and those like you from escalating the war on parents to the federal
level
while pretending it's to help parents.

Kane

Doug
September 21st 03, 12:51 AM
Kane writes:

> I love that you had such an obvious freudian slip. "Tried" is how
> things never
> come to fruition...trying to do something is precisely how not to get
> it done.

Hi, Kane!

No Freudian slip, although that term along with this theorist's concept that
half a world envied the other half due to the lack of an appendage, is
pretty much disputed today. Freud was a slip. <g>

Anyway, I meant exactly what I said. I used the word "tried" intentionally,
since it appears from your post that you misunderstood the thrust of my
posts. Since you misunderstood, my attempt to communicate failed. I tried.

> "Try" to put your hand on a chair. The instant you do you negate that
> you are "trying." No, you placed your hand on the chair. Trying would
> mean you never do.

Apparently, in this case, I did not.

> We've never disagreed on this of yours.

Good.

> I simply think you are lying based on your other posts to this ng, or
> you are unbelievable ignorant and stupid, something I don't believe at
> all.

What you may think of the messenger is irrelevant. Although, I must confess
that it gives me considerable joy. It is the issues we discuss here that
are important to me.

If you cannot address those issues or challenge my contentions, then you are
certainly welcome to use your bandwith in this forum as you wish. I just
think you damage your cause by personal attacks.

> > Unilaterial
> > decisions by CPS to forcibly remove children who they themselves have
> > unsubstantiated as being at risk of or actually maltreated is an abuse
of
> > government power.
>
> That is correct and every instance should be prosecuted as fully as is
> legally
> possible. I have NOT ever seen you speak out against that that resort
> to other
> than legal means.

I am afraid I do not understand what you are saying above, sir. Do you mind
clarifying?

> However, "unilateral" decisions of that kind are extremely rare except
> if on the first visit of an investigator conditions that would
> endanger the child NOW. In nearly all cases they must have evidence
> and they must be prepared to have it reviewed by a judge and signed
> off by same.

Unfortunately, the USDHHS estimates that only 17.5% of the 517,449 child
victims had court action as part of their child protective cases.
http://tinyurl.com/9uhv

> Your morals are the question here, Doug, and always have been for me.

No, my morals are not in question here, Kane.

You may, as you say, have been consumed with them for some time. You
believe, apparently, that you can make moral judgments based upon what
contributors on this newsgroup have to write about child welfare issues.
You have also made a DSM-IV diagnosis on the basis of what a poster has
written.
I hope you understand that your moral judgments have value only to you.

> And I'm
> quite aware that you do consider yourself on a moral crusade and you
> believe that you are a moral person. We just disagree.

You are, yet again, quite wrong in your assessment of what I consider myself
to be. I am not on a moral crusade at all in this newsgroup. And all that
you know of me is based upon my writing in this newsgroup.

>
> > These governmental intrusions upon innocent families are being done
under
> > the authorization of CAPTA and ASFA, both federal codes that mandate
state
> > policy and practice.
>
> That is correct. In otherwords, according to law. The arguments put
> forth here,
> that you either support directly or indirectly by failure to correct
> YOUR own
> little lackeys needs to be pointed out to you. There are constant
> claims that even the closest adherence to these laws constitues
> violation of rights.

Many CPS interventions do, indeed, constitute a violation of the children's
or their families rights. This has been decided by assorted federal and
state appeals courts and the text of some of these decisions have been
posted to this very newsgroup.

Historically, many actions have been taken by the state under color of
existing law and later ruled unConstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Such
is the nature of Constitutional law.

> > > One day the lurkers here, and the folks that have been duped by you
> > > propogandists (sorry at it as you are) are going to figure out your
> > > agenda, Pineapple and come hunting you.
> >
> > Kane, you would be well-served to pay attention to your side of the
street.
>
> oooOOOOOOOOOOOooooo....I'm shakin' in my boots.

My intention was not to scare you, but to point out what you later agree to
doing -- propagandizing.

> I pay close attention to the "street". I have a different style than
> you. I point fingers without playing coy games.

Thieves live in terror of being robbed. Game players suspect that the world
around them is playing games.

> > Some of your posts include wording and approaches defined as propaganda.
>
> That's right:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda
>
> Is about as good a meaning as any, four of them, none making a
> judgement of
> truth or lie, just a promotion of a doctrine or belief system. You'll
> get my
> drift eventually.
>
> > Elements of propaganda include:
>
> Oh they do? Please provide me with a valid and accessible referrence
> to
> coroborate YOUR definitions below. From what source did you draw these
> definitions of "propoganda"?

Henslin, James M. (1995). Sociology: A down to earth approach. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

A more extensive list can be retrieved from most political science
textbooks. Glittering Generalities and Guilt by Association are always
mentioned as elements. There are more.

> You would be more accurate to say, "propaganda may include some of the
> following but it can be the absolute truth as well."

No, I wouldn't have. I am comfortable with the terminlogy I did use.

> > GLITTERING GENERALITIES -- making unattributed, generalized statements
about
> > a group of people or given policy or practice without substantiation.
Using
> > rare incidents to generalize across an entire population.
>
> Yes, that is precisely what takes place on your side of the street in
> this NG,
> rather continuously. Some of the perps have been driven away, and I
> suspect the
> remainder are paid for their constant stream of exactly the above.

One of the problems CPS agencies do not have is substantiating someone as a
"perp" of child abuse based on commentary in an internet news group.

There exists to my knowledge absolutely no evidence to suggest that any
member of this forum is being paid for their contributions, let alone your
"perps." Unless you have some sort of documentation or evidence that leads
you to that conclusion, your charges are simply. . . well, propaganda.

> Especially
> that last line. And you not only do not call anyone but me on what you
> think is not true but glaringly fail to confront them.

Do you think I am picking on you, Kane? Actually, I have challenged many
posters on the positions they have taken on child welfare issues. Many.
They make their points. I make mine.

It may be that you perceive you are being isolated because I don't challenge
the same people you do. I think that is what you are saying. Am I wrong?

> > GUILT BY ASSOCIATION -- To claim or imply that an debating opponent
> > associates with undesirables;
>
> You do. I cite your recent defense of a layabout that has no business
> displacing a child and her mother for his convenience.

I decidedly did not claim or imply that anyone -- including the gentleman I
think you reference -- was guilty of anything based upon their associations.
Your citation has no merit.

> > to label an individual based upon her
> > association with others;
>
> I lable, right here and right now, the woman that traded her daughter
> for a little punk as associating with undesireables. What you gonna do
> about it?

LOL!! What am I going to do about it? Nothing, of course. This isn't a
playground. I have no interest in doing anything about it.

> > to claim or imply an opponent is guilty of some
> > wrongdoing based upon the wrongdoing of someone else.
>
> Never have done any such thing. Each instance I make the claim someone
> has done something wrong that's what I cite. I do point out you hang
> together, which is what I intend to expand on.

Oh, I suspect people who share like positions on some child welfare issues
appear to some members as sticking together. An example, I suppose, would
be you and Ron. I think it is a natural tendency for people to group
participants according to the thrust of their comments. Ron, for instance,
is fond of labeling two factions: pro-cps mob and anti-cps mob. It is more
complicated than that, of course. In reality, each of us have our own,
individual views.

>And I don't consider
> any of you innocent, but rather all wrongdoers by virtue of
> deliberately leading people astray that do NOT need to go down that
> path when they are struggling to get their children back.

I have no evidence or reason to believe that any member of this forum
intentionally leads parents astray. I think the claim is absurd -- mostly
because any attempt to judge motives of another human being is as fruitless
as it is unethical. I know that I have never, to my knowledge, led anyone
astray. I certainly had no intention of doing so.

> > "ie: Communists, in
> > MaCarthy's 50's.
>
> You, as most people, have made a reference, if you would look to the
> research
> would find is not true. It was the HUAC that went after communists
> wholesale.
> Not Senator McCarthy...House, Senate. Get the picture?

It was, indeed, Senator McCarthy, in his capacity as a member of that
infamous committee. It was also the committee itself, of course. I never
said differently.

> Youd be more accurately served if you simple said HUAC's 50's, as that
> was the witch hunt. McCarthy was rude at times, but he came under far
> more attack than he levied against others.

I was more accurately served by the description I did share in this
newsgroup. I disagree with yours. McCarthy levied far more attacks against
citizens than were ever levied against him. Those launched against the
citizens were generally false. Further, McCarthy had the power to destroy
human beings. And he used it.

> > PERSONAL ATTACK -- Attacking the messenger of information on a given
issue
> > rather than debating the issue itself; placing personalities above
> > principals.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting I do NOT discuss the issues even as I
> label the
> ****heads that try to foist their crap on others? Please.

As a general rule, you avoid difficult issues by calling the messenger
names, yes. I notice the language gets especially harsh when you are
challenged on misinformation you have posted. But that could be simply my
perception.

The language you used in attacking Fern recently went far beyond normal
human boundaries. It was abuse.

> > Name calling.
>
> Yes, it has an uncanny ability to draw out the vile types like
> yourself and
> expose you. And you just keep on biting.

The name-calling has "exposed" anything. It does say a lot about you.

> > Hints that the proponent of an idea is somehow
> > morally deficient or derranged.
>
> "Hints"? Yah gottah be kidding.

Well, yes, you do a bit more than hint. Point taken.

> But then I could be completely wrong. The motivations might be
> economic and or
> cause driven, and my question and speculation is about those things,
> though the
> economic is a trailing secondary. Now what might the cause
> be....hhhhmmmmm?

I have no idea. It's your speculation, not mine.

> I'm not wrong though. The evidence is far too clear. Just review in
> your mind the statements and language of various people that have come
> and gone in this ng that you have supported or not corrected when you
> knew better.

I haven't a clue about what you are talking about. If there is "evidence"
you will have to spell it out so people can understand what you mean. You
have chosen not to be specific, which is certainly your choice. But please
don't expect me to sort out some meaning from what people don't say. I could
care less. I am having a hard enough time encoding the meaning of what
people in this newsgroup are saying. <g>

I can say that I see nothing mysterious or inherently evil in the language
used by any member of this newsgroup. I see no conspiracies of commission
or omission.

> > DEPERSONALIZATION -- Using terminlogy to imply that an individual
expousing
> > ideas is less than human or evil rather than debating the idea.
>
> You and I, and all other posters here, are really nothing more than
> electronic squiggles on a monitor. We are not persons.

I am a person. So are you.

> I don't IMPLY, I state it emphatically. It isn't a matter of espousing
> "ideas." It's lying and misleading. Putting those at risk that come
> here for help.

That a member of this newsgroup takes a position you disagree with does not
make him or her a liar. You have made many statements that are false. In
those cases, I challenge them, citing authorities. You have made statements
that I think are misleading. In such cases, I share my opposing viewpoint.
Regardless, I do not bother trying to determine your motives or whether or
not you are intentionally sharing information you know to be false. I
assume you believe it to be true or you wouldn't post it.

> But more to the point, the willingness to lie and more especially to
> continually risk other peoples children and families is about as good
> a reason
> to name call and depersonalize someone as I've ever seen. You do that,
> as do
> your cohorts.

No, I do not do that.

> It's as much what you let them get away with without calling them on
> it as
> anything else.

You may find more peace of mind concentrating on what you have contributed
to this newsgroup and the substance of my replies to you, rather than
worrying about how I respond to other members.

> > FEAR AND INTIMIDATION -- Suggesting that an opponent is a member of some
> > sinister force that is out to get innocent people.
>
> Who am I trying to intimidate and cause to fear you?

I was listing elements to propaganda in general. Personally, I don't think
you are intimidating anyone. And, while I appreciate your concern, nothing
you have written has caused anyone to fear me. Nothing you have written has
caused me to fear anyone else. We just disagree on many child welfare
issues, Kane. No biggie.

>And just like
> they say
> about paranoia, it isn't, if they are out to get you.

Paranoid? That seems to be an tortured bit of syntax given the context of
your message. I have had some clients who claim they are out to get me, but
no one in this newsgroup has any such design. Since the gist of your
premise is incorrect, neither paranoia or the absence of it applies in this
case. I have no reason to fear anyone in this newsgroup and they have no
reason to fear me.

It's just words, Kane. We debate child welfare issues in this forum. Just
words. Nothing to worry about, Kane. Every little piece of the sky will
still be there in the morning.

> The unceasing yammering about CPS accompanied by off the wall
> screwball media
> articles that so often don't really say anything clearly enough to
> actually
> indict CPS and so often have nothing to do with them.

Well, yes, we do yammer quite a bit about CPS in
alt.support.childprotectiveservices. I find the posting of news articles
very informative. You have posted your share of newsstories.

> The name of this ng isn't alt.support.the-state, or
> alt.support.the-cops, yet there is a regular string of references to
> many kinds of state agencies that are completely unconnected to any
> functions of CPS.

Yes, I see some news articles posted that have nothing to do with child
welfare. Most do.

> > Suggesting that
> > narrative arguing a point the propagandist opposes is less than
sincere --
> > that the opponent really has a hidden agenda he is not disclosing.
>
> I'm not suggesting it. I'm telling people to look and think for
> themselves not
> just swallow the propaganda efforts aimed at them in this ng. I found
> one. It is a great deal more dangerous than I first thought. This has
> become very serious business.

Oh--eee--owww. Sounds very sinister. I wish you the best of luck in
conducting the serious business of looking into this conspiracy. Meanwhile,
I hope that you don't mind my disinterest. Without specifics, I have no
idea what you are talking about.

When you mention your concern about members of this newsgroup swallowing
propaganda, are you talking about yours?

> I believe there are some folks that come here that are taken in by
> this agenda and a cause that is unspoken here, but represented
> nontheless, and may make foolish and dangerous decisions by believing
> it.

How does one become taken in by a cause that is unspoken?

>I think there are a few
> that believe it though they probably won't act on it in any
> significant way,
> just debaters. It's the former I'm really concerned about.

I share your concern about parents unquestioningly accepting the advice of
members in this newsgroup. Different situations demand different responses
and, too often, cookie-cutter advice is shared. I fear for parents in a
given situation that accept your advice, for example, without researching
the question and thinking for themselves.

But I understand that I cannot change what other members are going to think
or do. I have a hard enough time making decisions on what I am going to do
next.

> I believe the Christines, for instance, were taken in by just such
> nonsense and suffered the consequences of acting on nonsense just such
> as is posted here.
>
> > > Folks, the core of the anti CPS folks here are fascist wannabees in
> > > the grand tradition of the fascist dictator ships we've seen arrise in
> > > the last century.

So, voicing opposition to CPS practice makes one a fascist?

> > And, above, Kane, you immediately provide us an example of propaganda.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism
>
> I believe that in time it will become obvious what is going on, here
> and on the
> national level..and it will likely be too late to stop it peacefully.

Wow. Oh, well. It would have been nice to know in time to stop "it." But
I am confident you know what you are doing. Keep it on the hush-hush. How
many pieces of the sky have fallen so far?

> I think the definition above at the URL listed makes it clear what I
> mean by
> the term.

> I think you fit under the definition where it says:
>
> "fascism
> n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical
> government (as
> opposed to democracy or liberalism)"

I disagree. I am not a fascist. I just disagree with you a lot. In the
context of child welfare, I think the CPS bureaucracy and the policy that
drives it is too authoritarian.

> > > They have an agenda and an organization of well integrated groups that
> > > have as a goal the intrusion of factions not healthy to the body
> > > politic.
> >
> > What are the names of these "well-integrated groups" and who are these
> > unhealthy "factions" with intrusionary goals? What are the goals? How
are
> > the groups integrated?
>
> In time, Doug, in good time. But they have been mentioned in this ng.

Okay, Kane. I am sure you will let us know when the time is right.

> > > The few among you that can think might want to do some research.

Everyone on this newsgroup can think, Kane. It is one of the things that
make members of this forum delightfully human.

> > Where should they look in their research? What are they to look for,
Kane?
>
> Look too all organizations that involve themselves with family issues
> at
> government level. Some of them are just nonsense and blather. But some
> are "suits" and intervene and advocate at the federal level.

Excellent. I admire people and their organizations that choose to lobby
members of the legislative branch. Since current child welfare practice is
driven by federal law, this is where reform of child protective services
could start. CAPTA and ASFA should be repealed, for instance.

> It's the polite and reasonable sounding ones that are most often the
> cons.

Oh.

> I think people can use the search tools available and find things for
> themselves. It's a little early for a head on confrontation, Doug.

Oh, okay.

> YOU may think I just curse and rant and have no skill, but I spent a
> lot of
> years in the military learning how to reach objectives effectively.

I am certain you will do a fine job, Kane.

> It took me five hard years to get my first CPS supervisor fired...see
> what I mean about never giving up? Not once in the entire five years
> did I have an interaction with CPS in any form that I did not continue
> to research the issues involved, and the people involved, and develop
> the plan I had set out at the beginning.

Excellent. Congradulations.

> There were those even in CPS that came to me and thanked me profusely.
> I thanked them because they took far more risks than I.
>
> > What is the plot they should search out?
>
> More control from the top down. And I do not believe you are telling
> the truth
> when you say you wish to stop the aquisition of more control from the
> federal
> level. I believe that you want the feds to determine what is and isn't
> acceptable parenting, in a narrow and very frightening definition.

To the contrary, I want the state to stop its current path of sending
bureaucrats out to determine what is and isn't acceptable parenting. ASFA
does a lot of that and it should be repealed. I have no desire to increase
the power of the feds. I want to reduce their power, along with that of the
states.

> It remains to be seen if I am correct.

Some of us may have learned by now you were correct if you had told us what
it is you are talking about. But you have your reasons not to do so, I am
sure.

> You have aligned with, right in these ngs, groups that most assuredly
> act to intruding the lives of Americans to forward the agenda of their
> special interest group at the expense of other citizens.

I have not aligned with any group dedicated to intruding further on the
lives of Americans.

> An aquaintance of mine many years ago, a writer and journalist into
> exposing
> similar such things was found dead at his typewriter (that long ago)
> with a
> bullet hole in the back of his head. No jealous husbands involved, no
> debts, in
> fact an all around sweetheart of a guy.

Oh.

> He just went too far too fast.

Oh.

> Me, I takes my time. I always have layers of various kinds of
> protections in place, some that are very unpleasant indeed, and I
> never give up.

I have no idea of what you are talking about, but no matter. I do offer you
congrats for persisting. I admire people who never give up.

> > > Mine is making it clearer and clearer what stunk the first time I came
> > > across this ng.
> >
> > What have you discovered in your research?
>
> Rather a lot more than I had expected. Quite shocking even to me. What
> are you
> looking for, Doug, when you ask?

Well, you mentioned you were discovering something. I was curious what it
was, so I asked. It was a passing thing. I will get over it. <g>

> > What was your methodology for
> > that research?
>
> Search, read, question, compare.

Excellent.

> That is usually how it's done for my purpose. I'm not writing a study
> for peer
> review. I'm interested in public review.

Excellent. I understand the distinction.

> > Where did you look?
>
> Here and there, archives, articles, books, new releases, government
> sources,
> library of congress. I don't think I'd leave anything out.
>
> > What were your findings?
>
> That I better start alerting other people to look. I don't care to be
> the Lone
> Ranger and wind up like my friend at the typewriter. Others knowing is
> protection for me. There are already a few thousand that HAVE been
> directed to
> the information by others. It's not a secret any longer and the lies
> and
> coverups are being stripped away.

You seem intent on keeping "it" a secret from us. At least for the
time-being. I am sure you will let us know when you think the time is
right.

> > Without
> > specifics, what we have here is a glittering generality with no
substance.
>
> Why yes, that is how it appears. That's why I invite folks to dig
> deeper on
> their own.

Good advice. I try to suggest the same thing.

> Why haven't YOU suggested that, Doug. I mean after all it would prove
> me wrong,
> now wouldn't it?

....Because I haven't a clue to what the hell you are talking about.

>
> > Any citations? Any source we should look at in our research?
>
> I've put them here before. People that see actual citations very often
> don't in
> any appreciable numbers, actual go and look. Or if they do they
> already suffer
> from disbelief of the claims of the poster. I'm not going to describe
> it for
> them. They'll assume I am just mounting a propaganda campaign.

It is possible that some readers consider your secretive pronouncement of
doom is propaganda.

> This is too important to do that. They have to come to it themselves.
> It's like
> accepting a religious faith. No one really does if they are drug
> kicking and
> screaming.

Oh.

> > > If you continue to remove all that things that do not show themselves
> > > to connect to the discussion, what remains must be the answer.
> >
> > What things do not show themselves in discussions in this newsgroup?
>
> My my you are full of questions, Doug. I wonder why.

You seem to have some questions of your own.

> Probably the one that stands out for me, concerning you and why I do
> not trust
> you, is that you consistently fail to call to question those that
> adovate
> violence and behaviors that would in fact lose their children and get
> them in a
> great deal of trouble.
>
> That is the tactic of the Blood Dancer. Claim evil then cause actions
> that fit your description of evil to take place.

It does sound like a tactic of a blood dancer. But it is not a tactic I
use.

> Additionally you do NOT call your buddies on their outrageous nonsense
> like
> posting claims of CPS malfeasance when a reading of the posted
> clipping shows
> that CPS wasn't actually involved at all, or could have done nothing,
> outside
> of having powers and abilities NO organization can have for lack of
> available
> resources.
>
> One would have to have half the nation working in child welfare to
> meet the
> criteria for stopping the other half from abuses of children.
>
> And there is a constant stream of motives attributed to CPS workers or
> foster parents that in fact do not exist except in the rarist of
> instances.
>
> You are not evenhanded, Doug.

Perhaps not. Do you feel that you are?

> > What
> > things are these? What things do not connect to the discussion and what
> > does remain after these things are removed?
>
> As above, Doug.

Cool. Well, please forgive me if I don't bother myself looking for things
that were not said on this newsgroup.

> > > Ask yourself what is it the priciple players in the anti CPS club
> > > NEVER discuss, and you have your answer. Even when it comes up?
> >
> > What should we ask ourselves?
>
> For the truth. You foment and encourage lies and halftruths by not
> challenging your buddies when the lie.

> > Who are the principal players in the
> > "Anti-CPS club"?
>
> R R R R , yah gotta be kidding. I don't think even the slow witted
> Dennis could
> miss knowing who the anti-cps folks are.
>
> > What do they "NEVER" discuss?
>
> Now there is the question I've been waiting for.

> What DO you never discuss, Doug, just as they never do? Got any ideas?
> It seems
> just about everything is open to discussion except one subject.

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever.

> I think I'll just leave you the puzzle to worry for awhile. I enjoy
> your sweat
> immensely.

I am not worried in the slightest. Since I have no idea what you are
talking about, I need not bother myself trying nibble at doughnut holes. I
really couldn't care less.

> > Please provide us some information.
>
> I have. And times I have you haven't responded to the issue I brought
> up. You
> turned tail on those. It's what you wouldn't discuss. Why should I ask
> yet again?

There remains on this current message list many of my posts that you have
not responded to. Is this silence part of the secret?

> > Some beef.
>
> I already cooked it well done, pulled it off the spit, and slapped it
> on your
> platter. You ran.

I am right here. But then I am getting a little too old to run, especially
when I have nothing to run from.

> You seem to be making
> > charges here.
>
> Seem to be? Seem to be? R R R R R
>
> > Do you have any substantation for them?
>
> Yes. But I insist people do their own searching.

This medium highlights a characteristic of humans that has always
> amused me. When someone gives them advice or information they fall
> immediately into a defensive dismissing mode.
>
> If they find it themselves, they will take better ownship more
> immediately.
>
> I never force things down people's throat...I think you do, very
> cleverly.
>
> > Share with us what
> > evil things you have discovered.
>
> Have. You ignored them...well, you avoided them and turned tail and
> ran.

Nope.

> > And, please, for godsakes
>
> Lowcase? Hmmmmm......

Yep.

>
> > show us where we
> > can look to find the truth.
>
> It's a wide wide world, now isn't it? But you can start in USENET,
> expand to
> the WWW, access some of the great resources available. But take it all
> with a
> grain of salt.

Well, looks a little too ambitious for me.

> > Otherwise, what you have provided in this post of yours is propaganda.
>
> Absofukinlootly...
>
> And propaganda can be presented through absolute truth in every word.
>
> I do have an agenda and am not the least shy about stating it. It's to
> stop you
> and those like you from escalating the war on parents to the federal
> level
> while pretending it's to help parents.

I am working for reform on the federal level because I feel the feds are
funding the states to wage war on children and their families.

Greg Hanson
September 21st 03, 07:02 AM
> > Unilaterial decisions by CPS to forcibly remove
> > children who they themselves have unsubstantiated
> > as being at risk of or actually maltreated is an
> > abuse of government power.
>
> That is correct and every instance should be
> prosecuted as fully as is legally possible. I have
> NOT ever seen you speak out against that that resort
> to other than legal means.

PROSECUTED? BY WHO? Aren't you being coy when
you pretend you are so naive as to think that CPS
would be PROSECUTED? You know very well that
the state agency has sovereign immunity, and the
caseworkers and supervisors have a high level of
immunity. It's hard to break that down to sue.
(Unless you can get the state's PERMISSION to be sued!)

Do you think ANY prosecutor would go after CPS workers
who removed without substantiation?
They did for THREE WEEKS in our case. No court order.
Acted like they had legal standing when they had none.
Even tried to allege violation of a no contact order
that DID NOT EXIST! Major twits, wielding major power.

They had egg on their faces and scurried to "save face"
by spinning criticisms into a case using a big lie.

Prosecuting bad caseworkers is a bit like the idea
of prosecuting false accusers. Political and loyalty
reasons stand in the way, and it just doesn't happen.

Doug
September 21st 03, 01:01 PM
I wrote:

Unilaterial
> > decisions by CPS to forcibly remove children who they themselves have
> > unsubstantiated as being at risk of or actually maltreated is an abuse
of
> > government power.
> >
> > These governmental intrusions upon innocent families are being done
under
> > the authorization of CAPTA and ASFA, both federal codes that mandate
state
> > policy and practice.

To which, Ron replies:

> Here we are, once again, with Doug insinuating that these removals are
done
> after the findings of the case.

Hi, Ron!

You may want to read my statement above again. What sources do you have
that document these removals are done even BEFORE any findings are in on the
case?

> Now, just why is it that Doug perpetuates this ........ "misunderstanding
of
> the facts" shall we say? The answer is quite simple really, once one
reads
> the tenor of Doug's posts over the last 3-4 years. Its for the
> "Sensationalism" factor. Why stick to the boring old truth when a
> sensational half truth will do?

I have shared the facts. If you have a different understanding of them,
please post your comments along with citations of your authorities. I would
like to see you join the discussion, Ron.

> > GUILT BY ASSOCIATION -- To claim or imply that an debating opponent
> > associates with undesirables; to label an individual based upon her
> > association with others; to claim or imply an opponent is guilty of some
> > wrongdoing based upon the wrongdoing of someone else. "ie: Communists,
> in
> > MaCarthy's 50's.
>
> Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like most of your posts Doug

Please feel free to cut and paste an example, Ron. My supposition is that
you won't find any such examples in my posts.

BTW, have to found the posts where I stated I was a USDHHS statistician yet,
like you promised? How is the search coming? I recall you saying that it
would be a simple one since you claimed I had made the statement many times.

> > PERSONAL ATTACK -- Attacking the messenger of information on a given
issue
> > rather than debating the issue itself; placing personalities above
> > principals. Name calling. Hints that the proponent of an idea is
somehow
> > morally deficient or derranged.
>
> Hmmm, I must admit, this is one area that you do seem to try and avoid.
Oh
> well, we can't all be perfect.

> > DEPERSONALIZATION -- Using terminlogy to imply that an individual
> expousing
> > ideas is less than human or evil rather than debating the idea.
>
> Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like some of your posts Doug

Have any examples? If I really have done so in any of my posts, I would
appreciate you posting an example so I have the opportunity to apologize for
the mistake.

> > FEAR AND INTIMIDATION -- Suggesting that an opponent is a member of some
> > sinister force that is out to get innocent people. Suggesting that
> > narrative arguing a point the propagandist opposes is less than
sincere --
> > that the opponent really has a hidden agenda he is not disclosing.

> Oh quite. Again, something that you are a past master at here Doug. In
the
> past I have called it "fear mongering", and it is a far more common
element
> in the posts of the anti-cps mob than in that of the cps supporters. Even
> you are significantly guilty of this Doug. But then again you will never
> admit it.

No. If you can find an example of me using such a tactic, please point it
out. I will be happy to correct for my error in such an instance. Please
provide some documentation of your charges. Otherwise, they are unfounded
attacks.

By the way, just what is the "anti-cps mob"?

> I'm not really sure what point Kane is attempting to get at in this post,
> but it is quite clear where you are heading. I'd suggest that you ask him
> directly, and avoid all this useless finger pointing. You waste our time,
> our bandwidth, and indeed your own intelligence.

Kane stated he is not willing to tell us what he is attempting to get at in
his post. He said he is waiting for another, more opportune time when I did
ask. I am sure that Kane will clue us in about his conspiracy when he
thinks the time is right. I think it is important for Kane that we know for
the time-being that the sky is falling. He will fill us in on the missing
pieces later.

Kane
September 22nd 03, 01:31 AM
"Doug" > wrote in message >...
> Kane writes:
>
> > This thread began with a scumbag claiming that CPS forces families
> > apart. My response was to offer information on why that happens.
> >
> > Your immediate attempt to claim that I said it happens all the time,
> > in all instances, leaves me pondering why you do not bring a similar
> > attention to all the many instances that your little followers do
> > exactly that...post a statement that implies, far more than mine, that
> > ALL CPS WORKERS ARE CROOKS, OR ALL FOSTER PARENTS ARE IN IT FOR THE
> > MONEY.
>
> Hi, Kane!
>
> What you did say was, "And to investigate (and thanks for the excuse to
> describe this yet again...I think three times this month) they must get
> either the
> nonoffending parents agreement move out the alleged perp and not
> communicate with him or her."
>
> And I replied it was incorrect to assume that to investigate the caseworker
> MUST get one of the parents agreement to move out the alleged offender.

Nor did I assume that. I pointed out to the poster why those things
happen, not that they must happen every time. I pointed out that when
it happens that is the reason for it.

And when it happens it's because there is something in the nature of
the charge, or the initial findings in the investigation that call for
protection of the accuser, or victim, or the part of the investigation
that follows.

Nothing that nowhere in what you quouted or anything else I said is
there a time line claimed. Nor is there a claim that it must be so in
every investigation.

> That, instead, it would depend on the initial findings of the investigation,
> the severity of the allegations and a host of other variables. MOST child
> sexual abuse investigations do not involve the ultimatim you insist the
> caseworker MUST offer.

My response to The Whore was to clarify why it happened when it did,
not at claim that it happens in all or most instances.

This little foreys of yours into hair splitting and reframing the
opponents statements are amusing. And obvious.

> Remember, you were talking about conditions required to investigate.

No I'm not. I'm talking about SOME conditions for SOME investigations.
I didn't say the poster, Dip****, claimed all, nor should you reframe
mystatement to make it appear I did.

> (Please read your quoted paragraph again.) Can you clarify why you would
> use the distinction "non-offending parent" in describing the time frame
> BEFORE an investigation is conducted?

It would be more accurate to say, "non-accused caregiver," but for
that not invested as you are in hairsplitting the claim down to
something you think you can deal with, it's close enough for the
public to understand.

> The first object of the investigation
> is to determine if sexual abuse occurred and whether there are any
> offenders.

Chronologically or priority?

The first objective of investigations I've seen tend toward doing what
needs to be done to ensure the safety of the alledged victim, before
any serious exchanges take place as part of the investigation.

> > > > Don't you every get tired of being a weasel?
> > >
> > > Propaganda. Have you stopped beating your wife?
> >
> > I never have and never will.
> >
> > Can you say the same for your implication that I said something I
> > didn't?
> >
> > I made the weasel statement as an example of your paragraph above, a
> > perfect example of "have you stopped beating your wife?"
>
> Oh, okay. So the weasel statement was just an example. Thank you for
> pointing that out.

You are welcome.

How about answering the question instead of offering a pointless
diversion?

"Can you say the same for your implication that I said something I
didn't?"

> > > However, this move comes AFTER the worker has subjectively determined
> during
> > > the assessment or investigation that something is wrong or the child may
> be,
> > > sometime in the future, at some kind of risk, maybe.
> >
> > I find nothing to disagree with, but you are pursuing this now as
> > though I did. I simply pointed out that CPS investigates, and that
> > they may well remove one parent who is named as the perp by someone,
> > often the child themself. The value of "often" in this case is roughly
> > about half the time, a bit more
>
> CPS does not have the authority to remove one parent who is named by someone
> as the offender during the investigation.

You are mistaken. They have as much authority as any police
investigator does. If a police officer thinks someone poses a risk to
others, or to the investigation they have the authority to take
control of the situation.

With a CPS investigator you and others assume they don't have that
authority and go into challenge and even attack mode. The results are
easily seen.

While the investigator may not be trained to detain someone they have
at their disposal, with the full support of the court under the law,
LEO's to do the hands on work. If you don't think so, try getting in
the face of a CPS investigator and see what happens.

Lacking a police escort they'll simply leave and go get one and the
next encounter will not be as polite. There won't even be a question
until the misinformed person is in cuffs.

And that is a perfect way to precipitate removal of children if you
wish to advise people to refuse to cooperate.

Do you so advise?

> As we both state later in our
> respective posts, the practice is cases where the allegations against the
> parent are credible and serious, the other parent is asked to take the child
> to a location where they can be interviewed (in some jurisdictions, an
> appointment may be made with a CARES unit; in others the parent and child
> may follow the worker to a facility practicing interview methods I described
> in my post).

Nothing I have said in this thread precludes this from happening. Very
little I've said is what you claim I've said.

I answered the Fool Towelboy, when he ranted about families (and he
doesn't qualify) being separated at the insistence of CPS. We were not
debating when and how, only that it happens. I explain ONE of the
circumstances.

It does not follow that I am claiming there are not other
circumstance.

Why are you pretended I am, or building this into one of your long
rambling soap box preachings?

And answer my question please. Not just another diversion. Why are you
preaching?

> > > It is NOT done
> > > automatically in lieu of the investigation or as a protective measure
> during
> > > the 14 hour investigation.
> >
> > Didn't use the work automatically, and didn't say it would happen in
> > every case their is an allegation. I gave NO freqency to the reply to
> > Greegor the Whore. Just that it happens.
>
> Good. Thanks for clarifying.

That should suffice then to answer your questions. Will you end or
will you continue in your disengenuous and immoral defense of The
Whore?

Let's see, shall we.

> > > CPS has no power to order the parents to do anything.
> >
> > Did I say CPS did? If so I stand corrected but I am unable to find
> > that myself.
>
> Yes, you did. But it is now clarified.

No it isn't. I am still unable to find where I claimed that "CPS has
the power to order the parents to do anything."

In other words, Weaselboy, I claimed it had certain powers to do
certain things. And in the course of an investigation if an
investigator sees cause to have someone removed they are going to be
removed lawfully. Just a policeman lawfully removes or detains or
otherwise controls the situation and the people in it for safety and
to further the investigation.

While the investigator is not, unless they are a sworn police officer,
authorized to affect the means they are authorized to call on those
that are, LEOs.

In lieu of that, they offer the parties involved options to cooperate
in the best interests of all. If they refuse, it's LEO time.

Why do you think CPS investigators so often have the police meet them
at the site of the investigation? Coffee and donuts?

> > On the other hand, CPS is not the only player, as you well know. The
> > just CAN order the parent and can take action if the parent does not.
> > The investigator goes to the judge within a set number of hours after
> > initial contact for that assignment of their enforcement role...by the
> > judge. And the document produced is the same one presented to the feds
> > for IV-E funding. You betcha one exists.
>
> As I mentioned in my prior post, courts were involved with only an estimated
> 17.5% of 517,449 child victims in 2001. http://tinyurl.com/9uhv Most CPS
> investigations do not involve the courts and it is rare that a worker will
> go to a judge for an order at this stage of the investigation. If she does,
> she will need to have gathered enough evidence so far in the investigation
> to establish probable cause.

Bull****ting again, Doug. This number varies considerably. But it is
not true. Virtually all such cases, after the initial visit, are going
to court. It is required by law in all states I've every dealt with
and certainly by ASFA.

You can cut a fine hair on this one and say, no it isn't, but then you
have to deal with the fact that the state will be penalized under ASFA
if they do not in fact take every case where there is a removal of a
child to a judge in a set number of hours.

That's called the penalty portion of a law.

> > > Nor are the parents
> > > under any obligation to sign the agreement.
> >
> > That depends entirely upon the evidence uncovered. But you are correct
> > that is not obligatory. They can refuse and take the consequences.
>
> Yes. And an investigation has to take place to gather evidence. If the
> safety plan suggests they have done something they haven't done, they should
> not sign it. Dan has also suggested, if I understand him, that the parent
> should not sign anything without first consulting their attorney.

This is rather far outside the topic of the claim I made. It isn't
anything I have an argument with. In fact I have made the same
suggestion myself. Though I've also made the suggestion that some
attorney's are worth spit in such matters. They may well urge the
client to agree to things they should not, and have been known to do
so as reported in this ng.

I believe, if I understand him correctly, that Dan advises not signing
in just such circumstance, and signing and performing the plan if it
does no define the signer as being guilty of some shortcomings.

I have suggested before to families in similar circumstances that they
do what business people do with such things. Simply get up with the
document in hand, walk out of the meeting with the words, "I will have
to review this CONTRACT and I will get back to you in three working
days with my decision."

Unless you are under arrest or being detained by the police (and even
then you may well get away with it) that puts you back in control
without appearing in any way uncooperative. In fact you can insist
that you are cooperating MORE fully by your care and consideration of
the CONTRACT.

You can run it at your leisure by an attorney, or use it to line your
birdcage, but it important to think about your children who have been
taken, if they have, and proceed with that in mind.

It't common in other circumstances like these to treat the contracts
with care, making and initialing needed changes (representing your
interests), and with a service plan or safety plan (call it what you
will in your area) include what the other party will do, and do not
sign it until they do in your presence and that of a witness you have
produced.

My first encounter with CPS was very much like that. They caved. No
service agreement contract was completed and the child was not removed
from the parent.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't give legal advice but I do point out what
is sensible and well within any legal constraints or expectations.
When asked to sign a contract one can refuse and take the
consequences, or they can agree with stipulations as I've pointed out,
time and editing priveleges, and refuse to sign a one sided
contract...as it isn't unless both sides are represented.

An agreement can be one sided, but a contract cannot and should not.
So the object is to turn the onesided pile of crap into a nice two
sided bouquet of flowers.

> > > Innocent Parents often
> > > mistakenly sign this plan under actual or perceived threats.
> >
> > You are correct. The innocent mistakenly sign this plan. They should
> > simply go to the wall and fight CPS from the getgo, having their
> > children in foster care for up to a year, maybe year and a half, and
> > very possibly lose them in the end.
>
> No, they should calmly and with courtesy decline to sign a safety plan that
> suggests they have done something wrong if they haven't done anything wrong
> (innocent). Or, they should politely ask the caseworker to wait while they
> review the document with their attorney and receive her recommendation
> whether to sign it or not.

And they should feel perfectly free to signal their cooperation to any
judge waiting down the line somewhere in the process by editing and
adding a line where the worker or supervisor (latter is prefered) has
to sign it BEFORE the parent does, with witnesses who come with the
parent.

Balking on the part of CPS at this point while retaining the
child(ren) puts them in an untenable position in court. THEY didn't
cooperate with perfectly reasonable requests of the parents. That's
why the witnesses are important.

Many a time CPS caves unless they have a solid case with ample
evidence.

So the advice I suggest in no way will help the guilty get their child
back. Those instances should run the course to insure there WILL be
compliance, but they can still and should, insist on both parties
signing and outcomes spelled out clearly in the contract: "when steps
one, two, three are completed the child will be returned within 48
hours" or words to that effect.

> > I rather like Dan's solution much better than yours, or what it
> > appears to me yours is. I believe, and I urge him to correct me if I
> > am mistaken, he advises they sign the PLAN but not if it includes any
> > wording that could be construed as accepting they are guilty or have a
> > condition they do not.
>
> I like Dan's solution in this situation as well.
>
> > For instance, a service plan that includes an area that says they must
> > submit to drug testing, sans any claim of drug use would be one that
> > would not be signed unedited. A plan that said the parent agreed to
> > take parenting classes would be signed on the grounds it is sensible
> > to accept that no parent knows everything.
>
> ...Only if the parent's attorney has read the safety plan and advises the
> parent to sign it. One must be very careful not to stipulate to anything
> that may be determined to put the child at risk or suggest guilt, thereby
> negating their case at the adjucication hearing. This is the only
> opportunity the parent has to challenge CPS allegations and CPS has the
> burden of proof.

That is exactly why the document should be returned with editing
initialed by the parent but no signiture of the parent on it until CPS
puts pen to paper.

It's The Whore solution made sane and reasonable. But then his is not
to get the child back but to sue later. That's an entirely different
ballgame. Me, I want the child back. Don't call me when it's time to
sue. I'm not well versed in that aspect.

> > In fact, the INNOCENT.....R R R R, OR CLAIMED TO BE
> > INNOCENT....Greegor the Whore, could have had that child back in the
> > home pdq had he agreed to take a psych eval.
> >
> > Agreeing to take a psych eval does not in any way label a person as
> > crasy before the exam. In fact agreeing can be argues as a very sane
> > and confident act to do.....if the person is nuts now is the time to
> > find out, if they are not, again, now is the time to find out.
>
> Agreeing to take a psychological evaluation from one of the therapists in
> CPS's stable is a crucial error.

Bull**** again.

You simply walk into the evaluation session with a copy of the
evaluation of YOUR psychologist in hand and ask the current shrink,
smiling of course, their opinion of this evaluation.

Damn, don't you people know ANYTHING tactically? What actually works
is so damn simple when you don't spend your time ranting hysterically
to "kill CPS" when you are in no position to do so.

> The parent should obtain an independent
> psychological evaluation from a therapist of their choosing.

They can STILL show the court their willingness to take the CPS pscyh
eval. That is a very powerful statement.

Of course if they ARE nuts this will bite them in the butt, but I have
not a qualm about that. I prefer they face the truth. 1

Don't you?

> That
> evaluation report will be provided to the client (the parent). Evaluators
> in CPS stable make a good deal of their income (if not all) from CPS and
> they provide the parent's evaluation report to their client (CPS). If a
> stable therapist doesn't have a history of saying what CPS wants to hear
> they are taken out of the stable.

You are as usual either lying or badly misinformed. A few months back
I spent a profitable afternoon, three billable hours, consulting with
a worker that was finding a counselor evaluating (obviously to route a
family back to MORE therapy) with bias...in fact three involved
therapists.

The resolution? With my facilitation of the worker examining the
circumstances and what SHE knew the family needed: reuniting without
further services divided up between the three shrinks, just a few
wind-up sessions for the family together, that little bull**** number
by the shrinks ended.

I heard the howl from 50 miles away, but this is not an unusual action
by a worker. I had to remind her that she was the case manager, not
the shrinks. And they hadn't a decent argument to support their
evaluation.

> > > Signing the
> > > safety plan stipulates to wrongdoing in the home and obligates them to
> > > follow through with the terms and conditions of the plan. Now, children
> CAN
> > > be removed solely on the basis of failure to follow the "plan."
> >
> > It does not do the former, it does the latter, and the outcome is
> > likely given the failure. On the other hand families often get a great
> > many chances to get their acts together.
>
> And all that is usually accomplished is that some become great actors.

All that cons do is become great actors. That does not equate with
letting them out of jail before their sentence is up.

Your use of the word "usually" is a mistake on your part. On the
contrary. What usually happens is that some parts of the service plan
stick and rehabilitation takes place, and children return to parents
that are more understanding of children's needs and meet them at least
a few degrees better, if not a great deal better.

> > A sample safety plan usually includes some of the following: the
> > parent will attend an anger management class; (1) have a drug eval and
> > followup evaluations (2); attend a parenting class(3); clean up the drug
> > paraphenalia in the household (4); get a real job not picking up bottles
> > in the ball park for pocket change (well It's not quite THAT
> > specific....r r r )(5); take up a separate residence until the results of
> > a CARES evaluation is completed(6).
>
> (1) The parent should not sign a safety plan with such a condition unless
> she has an anger control problem. Or upon the advice of her attorney. Who
> needs anger management classes?

Anyone that acts out their anger on their child, or others.

How many people that have such problems have you met that will admit
to them? I'd say a runin with CPS in such situations is a much needed
eye opener for some of those folks.

I recall LoyalFan pointing out that he had had a very difficult
problem with anger, and Dan gave him a little class in anger
management...that better control of his behavior and more carefully
direction of his energies would more likely produced the desired
results.

Seems to have worked, and that is usually the major content of anger
management classes.

Too many people assume wrongly that it's about holding your anger in
or becoming somekind of wimp. Any decent anger management class
celebrates the emotion, shows how it is related to more primary
emotions and what to do with the energy to gain reasonable desired
outcomes.

> (2) The parent should sign a safety plan with such a condition only when (a)
> subsequent "follow ups" are detailed in timeline (b) They have a drug abuse
> or dependence problem (c) There is probable cause to believe they have a
> chemical dependency problem (d) upon the expressed advice of her attorney.

You just nicely set someone up to have a judge nail them hard. There
is NO problem with submitting to a drug evaluation plan of any kind if
the person is not a user and of course then is clean. In fact I've
advised people to insist on one being added to their agreement, just
to addle the workers and give the judge something to think about.

**** testing is a perfect way to prove there are no drugs involved.

> (3) The parent should sign a safety plan with such a condition only if
> wording is included that specifies that the parent is not alleged to have
> any problems with parenting, that no deficiencies in parenting are claimed
> by CPS, and that the she did not, at any time, place her child at risk. ....
> Or upon the advice of her attorney. (CPS will not allow such wording, BTW).

Now you are pulling a Greegor the Whore. You are making it impossible
for CPS to return the children. If there was no such need then it
would follow that CPS is going to balk.

The correct response for effect is: "I love parenting. I can't get
enough books and videos and classes on it, can you recommend more than
the one you offer?"

Personally I think every parent should, just to cover their asses,
take half a dozen parenting related courses. Be able to quote some of
the CPS favorites, Ginnot et al.

I've recommended to parents they google up the latest and add them to
their shelves, or at least check them out of the library and ask for a
chit from the librarian to prove it.

One of the claims CPS so often makes is that a particular child has a
condition the parent isn't providing proper help for.

Well, if the child has a condition they are right if the parent
insists on remaining ignorant. Read up on the condition, the latest,
especially the ones being recommended by CPS to workers and
therapists.

Goldstein is a good bet these days. Impresses the hell out of workers
that haven't had time to read him themselves. And a lot of kids will
benefit by parents knowing and understanding the various kinds of
challenges kids have developmentally and what some tools are for
helping them.

> (3) The parent should consult with his/her attorney before signing a safety
> plan with this condition. This looks like a substantiated case. Outside
> the range of the typical "cookie cutter" safety plan, at least. This is not
> simply a condition to a safety plan but, indeed, an allegation and a charge
> of a criminal offense.

Of course. You have shown yourself to be irony impared and satire
deficient. I recommend some good books on both subjects. Want a
bibliography? r r r r

> (4) The parent should sign a safety plan with this condition only if they
> are unemployed, able to work, and are, indeed, picking up bottles and
> reselling them. Or upon the advice of their attorney.

Oh, maybe you aren't irony impaired. Do I detect a smidgeon?

> (5) The parent should consider signing a safety plan with this condition
> only upon the advice of their attorney and only if the time of the
> seperation is specified (how long will the CARES exam take and how long
> before results come back?).
>
> I am assuming, of course, that the parent is innocent of child abuse or
> child neglect, which we were talking about. I have no approach to suggest
> to those who are guilty of the allegations. I wouldn't know how to defend
> against true charges of child abuse and have no willingness to do so.

I would and I do, because humans are fallible. Parents are not
perfect, and I'm not interested in having the law changed to let them
off the hook, but I am interested in them getting at least some
chances to rehab and do what's right.

And I've seen it work, by many means, again and again. Even the lady I
helped way back in 1976 needed to clean up her act a bit, and did. She
really did have a dirty house to the point her toddler was putting
things in his mouth he shouldn't. Her floor was dirt...seriously. Bare
ground. I taught her what I'd learned from some southwest indians,
water sprinkling and sweeping a couple of times a day to build up a
hard slick cleanable surface.

I'm a practicle fellow, and I do not think that parents that goof even
those that put their children at risk, should be either ignored until
they kill, or cut off without a chance to turn it around.

So, I have a question or two for you.

Do you think all parents that in fact do break the law and hurt their
children should automatically lose their children and just be fined
and locked up?

Do you support the use of corporal punishment as a valid parenting
practice?

> > In other words, if the parent wants to say none of these things are
> > related to them, they are certainly free to take the consequences.
>
> What are the consequences to the innocent parent who says none of these
> things are related to them?

What a stupid and obviously leading question. We've been discussing
them. You've asked that question in many forms in this thread so far
and I've answered them.

Duly noted and answered is my response.

> > On the other hand, when the child has supperating injuries untreated
> > for weaks, is emaciated, shows drugs in their body by test, has an
> > unexplained broken bone or two, I'd like to suggest, that if they want
> > their child back they best get with the program.
>
> Assuming the parent inflicted ALL of this abuse and neglect, why should he
> get his child back?

I have seen people do such things and still turn their lives around.
If they can't the child goes. If they can and can satisfy the judge
they can do you still wish the child to lose their parents?

Is it any wonder I refer to you as a fascist? You are so uptight you
must need a firehose for an enema.

Do you seriously think I think they should get a SECOND chance? Are
you trying to sell the reader that I want NO controls over dangerous
parents?

Hell, your buddies around here have accused me of being TOO harsh on
parents, yet I've always confined myself to being harshly critical of
abusive parents.

> Is that what it is all about . . . how well one gets
> with the program.

Why would you take a statment of mine and change the context to make
it appear that is the only thing I would suggest in such cases?

If that were so, in fact if your silliness were so, then it all could
be done by computer. Not judgement would be needed. Just the facts fed
into the program and action on the required penalty.

You have a bad habit of reframing everything to make your argument
instead of arguing the actual claim.

This expansiveness of yours is one of the reason I call you a liar so
often. Any attempt to decieve, by omission or commission is a lie in
my book.

>I thought we were talking about the safety of children.

No, actually that was not the original subject of this thread. Any
such subject would have been interjected by you, as usual, to divert
from the original subject.

It's a good subject and bringing it up strongly suggests you want the
reader to believe I'm NOT infavor of it or am remiss in not making it
plain in every other breath, but nothing I've suggested is against the
safety of the child.

> > > Some do not show the level of risk or circumstances that makes an
> > > investigator chose that level of intervention...removal of child or
> > > alleged perp.
> >
> > Yes. The issue is one of timing. You seem to be insisting that this
> action
> > is taken at the beginning, before an investigation.
>
> >Talk about misinterpreting. It can happen at any time. When the level
> >of the evidence reaches a certain level they must investigate. That's
> >all I said.
>
> Evidence gathered to reach a given level is gathered during the
> investigation. It is not when the level of evidence meets a given level,
> they must investigate, but when a certain amount of evidence is collected
> during the investigation, they must act. Is that what you are saying?

I don't think so, but I'm afraid in one of your little fits of
reframing the poster you've managed to obscure the point nicely. Calm
down. Try to get your thoughts together.

You are usually far more skilled at being diversionary and redirecting
the argument. I'm shocked.

> >And it was in the context you have conveniently from you first reply
> >left out...the Whore's referrence to kickin' daddy/boyfriend/whoever
> >out, I believe on the claim by a teenager that he was sexually
> >molesting her.
>
> >So basically, Doug, as usual, you have taken your argument completely
> >out of context except by the remotest connections...in hopes the
> >reader will carry a vague unclear memory that will convince them that
> >your argument I am wrong is based on some fact waaaay back
> >there...that doesn't ****in' exist, Doug.
>
> I will keep my posts shorter to make the issues more distinct. Perhaps by
> taking sections at a time, attribution and context can be better digested.

That might work. But I don't think you can discipline yourself well
enough to carry it off successfully.

> >Do you wonder that I call you Duplicitious and why the name calling?
> >Figger it out, liar.
>
> I have never wondered why you call me the particular names you mention and
> others.

If you have never wondered then why would you speculate.........

> It has always seemed to me that you do so when you lack the
> resources to address the issues.

Seems to me like you are wondering quite nicely there.

> In either case, I have always known that
> your habit

It's not a habit. If you think so how is it that I have posted many
times and voiced disagreement with others and never spoken a harsh
word to them or called them a name?

I had just such a conversation with Tere, I belive it was, just
recently. You are too busy assessing me, Doug. Far too busy, and
additionally busy with trying to cover up you doing what you claim I
do.

> of calling those you disagree with names has nothing to do with
> me.

What an odd statement.

You stand above all that do you? You aren't engaged? Really? After all
the comment on it, the many screens full of responses to me, you think
it has nothing to do with you?

How curious.

You do not so address those you disagree with when they name call, or
post incorrect information.

I'd say you are very involved, Doug, very, and "it" whatever your "it"
might be in that sentence, has a great deal to do with you.

Kane

Greg Hanson
September 24th 03, 07:55 AM
Ron said
> I'd suggest that you ask him directly,

He DID, and you even quoted that very part below Ron!

> and avoid all this useless finger pointing.
> You waste our time, our bandwidth, and indeed your own intelligence.

Ron, you complained about finger pointing and in
the very next line you did EXACTLY THAT!
Did you KNOW that you did that? :)

Odd that you didn't feel this compunction about FINGER POINTING aimed my way!

Kane said
> > > They have an agenda and an organization of well
> > > integrated groups that have as a goal the intrusion
> > > of factions not healthy to the body politic.

Geez, Kane, JUST WHO determines that a faction is an
INTRUSION, or NOT HEALTHY for the body politic?

YOU?

Kinda reminds me of that old Trek episode where exceptions
need to be brainwashed around to the "Will of Landru".
You should especially like that one Kane, because while
on the face it was slapping at communism, it was secretly
slapping at zombie like religion as being equally dangerous.
"Are you not OF the body?"

But the romper room social worker mentality was not as
revealed and reviled as it is getting to be in decades since.

Social Workers who do not speak up when a family has shown
them paper proof that CPS has done a FRAME UP JOB to make a
case, they are not "healthy to the body politic" either.
There are LOTS of them my family discovered!
Other SW's gesticulate about the problem but act powerless.

Doug ASKED
> > What are the names of these "well-integrated groups" and who are these
> > unhealthy "factions" with intrusionary goals? What are the goals? How
> > are the groups integrated?
> >
> > > The few among you that can think might want to do some research.
> >
> > Where should they look in their research?
> > What are they to look for, Kane?
> > What is the plot they should search out?
> >
Kane said
> > > ...the first time I came across this ng.

You mean when Dan Sullivan asked you to join, right?

> > What have you discovered in your research? What was your methodology for
> > that research? Where did you look? What were your findings? Without
> > specifics, what we have here is a glittering generality with no substance.
> > Any citations? Any source we should look at in our research?
> >
> > > If you continue to remove all that things that do not show themselves
> > > to connect to the discussion, what remains must be the answer.
> >
> > What things do not show themselves in discussions in this newsgroup? What
> > things are these? What things do not connect to the discussion and what
> > does remain after these things are removed?
> >
> > > Ask yourself what is it the [principle] players in the anti CPS club
> > > NEVER discuss, and you have your answer. Even when it comes up?
> >
> > What should we ask ourselves? Who are the principal players in the
> > "Anti-CPS club"? What do they "NEVER" discuss?
> >
> > Please provide us some information. Some beef. You seem to be making
> > charges here. Do you have any substantation for them? Share with us what
> > evil things you have discovered. And, please, for godsakes show us
> > where we can look to find the truth.
> >
> > Otherwise, what you have provided in this post of yours is propaganda.

More often than not, it wouldn't even qualify as propaganda.
Much I see is attempted insult.
Then when it doesn't work, complaints that I have no shame! Ha! :)

Dan Sullivan
September 24th 03, 11:05 AM
"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...

<<<snip>>>

> Kane said
> > > > ...the first time I came across this ng.
>
> You mean when Dan Sullivan asked you to join, right?

How could I ask someone to join this NG when I didn't know they existed
until they posted here?

Was this on a Star Trek episode?

Dan

Doug
September 24th 03, 12:44 PM
Kane writes:

> > > ALL CPS WORKERS ARE CROOKS, OR ALL FOSTER PARENTS ARE IN IT FOR THE
> > > MONEY.

Hi, Kane!

You are the only member of this newsgroup that has ever said that.

> > What you did say was, "And to investigate (and thanks for the excuse to
> > describe this yet again...I think three times this month) they must get
> > either the
> > nonoffending parents agreement move out the alleged perp and not
> > communicate with him or her."

> And when it happens it's because there is something in the nature of
> the charge, or the initial findings in the investigation that call for
> protection of the accuser, or victim, or the part of the investigation
> that follows.

The initial findings of the investigation, yes. If those initial findings
of the investigation amount to probable cause that the child is a risk of
abuse or neglect, then the child is often removed. But those initial
findings of probable cause not make it a substantiated case. We still need
to account for the 103,144 children removed from families CPS
unsubstantiated for risk of child abuse or neglect. http://tinyurl.com/9psd

Protection of the accuser, unless the reporter is the child himself, is
obviously not accomplished by removing the child. Reporter's names are kept
confidential and not released to the parents.

If you could be specific as to the "nature of the charge" being cause alone
for forcible removal of a child from her family, it would be helpful. Are
you saying that a child is removed from his home based solely upon the
"charge," without any investigation or finding that the charge may be true?

> Nothing that nowhere in what you quouted or anything else I said is
> there a time line claimed. Nor is there a claim that it must be so in
> every investigation.

Precisely. However, timeline is extemely important. For this reason, I
posted the timeline of the average investigation in my reply to your post.

> > (Please read your quoted paragraph again.) Can you clarify why you
would
> > use the distinction "non-offending parent" in describing the time frame
> > BEFORE an investigation is conducted?
>
> It would be more accurate to say, "non-accused caregiver," but for
> that not invested as you are in hairsplitting the claim down to
> something you think you can deal with, it's close enough for the
> public to understand.

Well, the public needs also to understand that many child maltreatment
investigations begin with such a prejudice toward guilt. This is why the
system is overloaded with false-postive findings. Instead, workers need to
begin the investigation with a neutral stance.

> > The first object of the investigation
> > is to determine if sexual abuse occurred and whether there are any
> > offenders.
>
> Chronologically or priority?

It would depend on when you consider an investigation beginning. If you are
considering the investigation as starting at the hotline desk, then I
suppose, chronologically the phone call is the first thing that is done.
That doesn't sound investigative to me, so I have looked at the
investigation as starting when the worker gets to the home to, well,
investigate. (Background information on parents and past CA/N reports would
have already been retrieved. If the parents lived out of state, that
state's records would have been retrieved. But this information, which
would be pertinent if a substantiated finding is later made, should not
contribute to determining if the abuse or risk of abuse/neglect occurred in
the present case). If investigation begins at the doorstep, then the answer
to your question is both.

> The first objective of investigations I've seen tend toward doing what
> needs to be done to ensure the safety of the alledged victim, before
> any serious exchanges take place as part of the investigation.

> > > > > Don't you every get tired of being a weasel?
> > > >
> > > > Propaganda. Have you stopped beating your wife?
> > >
> > > I never have and never will.
> > >
> > > Can you say the same for your implication that I said something I
> > > didn't?
> > >
> > > I made the weasel statement as an example of your paragraph above, a
> > > perfect example of "have you stopped beating your wife?"
> >
> > Oh, okay. So the weasel statement was just an example. Thank you for
> > pointing that out.
>
> You are welcome.
>
> How about answering the question instead of offering a pointless
> diversion?

I did not imply you said something you did not, so obviously I cannot "say
the same" about it. In other words, your question:
"Can you say the same for your implication that I said something I
didn't?" is propaganda -- the same as asking if I stopped beating my wife.

Is your question another "example"?

> > > > However, this move comes AFTER the worker has subjectively
determined
> > during
> > > > the assessment or investigation that something is wrong or the child
may
> > be,
> > > > sometime in the future, at some kind of risk, maybe.
> > >
> > > I find nothing to disagree with, but you are pursuing this now as
> > > though I did. I simply pointed out that CPS investigates, and that
> > > they may well remove one parent who is named as the perp by someone,
> > > often the child themself. The value of "often" in this case is roughly
> > > about half the time, a bit more

Please share you source for this information. It appears highly inaccurate
to me. Please provide a citation.

> > CPS does not have the authority to remove one parent who is named by
someone
> > as the offender during the investigation.
>
> You are mistaken. They have as much authority as any police
> investigator does. If a police officer thinks someone poses a risk to
> others, or to the investigation they have the authority to take
> control of the situation.

CPS workers do not have as much authority as any police investigator does.
You are incorrect.

> With a CPS investigator you and others assume they don't have that
> authority and go into challenge and even attack mode. The results are
> easily seen.

> While the investigator may not be trained to detain someone they have
> at their disposal, with the full support of the court under the law,
> LEO's to do the hands on work. If you don't think so, try getting in
> the face of a CPS investigator and see what happens.

CPS workers do not have the power to detain adults and children only when
they have a court order. Law enforcement officers, who often accompany CPS
workers as a courtesy can only arrest, detain or otherwise act in accordance
with their regular procedures. In other words, if the officer acts, he acts
in his capacity of enforcing criminal law not as an adjunct to the CPS
worker's civil authority.

> Lacking a police escort they'll simply leave and go get one and the
> next encounter will not be as polite. There won't even be a question
> until the misinformed person is in cuffs.

Not so. Or are you going to say again that this only happens in some cases?
It does happen in those cases where citizens are charged with violating
criminal law.

> And that is a perfect way to precipitate removal of children if you
> wish to advise people to refuse to cooperate.

The parent's response depends upon the individual situation, of course. Did
you want me to google up a post where you advise parents to send CPS packing
and not cooperate at all? Did you want the children removed in such cases?

> Do you so advise?

The parent's correct response depends upon the multiple, unique variables
involved in their particular situation. It depends upon what brings the
worker to the door. It is impossible to answer that question generally.

> > As we both state later in our
> > respective posts, the practice is cases where the allegations against
the
> > parent are credible and serious, the other parent is asked to take the
child
> > to a location where they can be interviewed (in some jurisdictions, an
> > appointment may be made with a CARES unit; in others the parent and
child
> > may follow the worker to a facility practicing interview methods I
described
> > in my post).
>
> Nothing I have said in this thread precludes this from happening. Very
> little I've said is what you claim I've said.

What I said precludes forcible removal of the child and taking the child
into custody.

> And answer my question please. Not just another diversion. Why are you
> preaching?

Since I am not preaching, it is impossible to answer "why" I am not doing
so. Is this another "example?"

Why have you stopped beating your wife?

> > > Didn't use the work automatically, and didn't say it would happen in
> > > every case their is an allegation. I gave NO freqency to the reply to
> > > Greegor the Whore. Just that it happens.
> >
> > Good. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> That should suffice then to answer your questions. Will you end or
> will you continue in your disengenuous and immoral defense of The
> Whore?

> Let's see, shall we.

I continued the thread to answer your questions and to correct some
misinformation you posted in your reply . . . as you can see.

> > > > CPS has no power to order the parents to do anything.
> > >
> > > Did I say CPS did? If so I stand corrected but I am unable to find
> > > that myself.
> >
> > Yes, you did. But it is now clarified.
>
> No it isn't. I am still unable to find where I claimed that "CPS has
> the power to order the parents to do anything."

I can find a quote in this post.

"You are mistaken. THEY [CPS] HAVE AS MUCH AUTHORITY AS ANY POLICE
INVESTIGATOR DOES. If a police officer thinks someone poses a risk to
others, or to the investigation they have the authority to take
control of the situation." (My emphasis)

> While the investigator is not, unless they are a sworn police officer,
> authorized to affect the means they are authorized to call on those
> that are, LEOs.

The CPS worker does not have the same authority as a police officer. If the
police officer acts, he acts in enforcing criminal law and under his
agency's guidelines for arrest or detainment, not the civil authority of the
caseworker.

> In lieu of that, they offer the parties involved options to cooperate
> in the best interests of all. If they refuse, it's LEO time.

Are you saying in all cases or just some cases?

> Why do you think CPS investigators so often have the police meet them
> at the site of the investigation? Coffee and donuts?

It is a common procedure done to protect the worker.

> > > On the other hand, CPS is not the only player, as you well know. The
> > > just CAN order the parent and can take action if the parent does not.
> > > The investigator goes to the judge within a set number of hours after
> > > initial contact for that assignment of their enforcement role...by the
> > > judge. And the document produced is the same one presented to the feds
> > > for IV-E funding. You betcha one exists.
> >
> > As I mentioned in my prior post, courts were involved with only an
estimated
> > 17.5% of 517,449 child victims in 2001. http://tinyurl.com/9uhv Most
CPS
> > investigations do not involve the courts and it is rare that a worker
will
> > go to a judge for an order at this stage of the investigation. If she
does,
> > she will need to have gathered enough evidence so far in the
investigation
> > to establish probable cause.
>
> Bull****ting again, Doug. This number varies considerably. But it is
> not true. Virtually all such cases, after the initial visit, are going
> to court. It is required by law in all states I've every dealt with
> and certainly by ASFA.

If the numbers vary considerably, which is not true? All I did was cite the
USDHHS NCANDS data, which reports that 17.5% of child victims had a court
involved in their case. http://tinyurl.com/9uhv

>
> You can cut a fine hair on this one and say, no it isn't, but then you
> have to deal with the fact that the state will be penalized under ASFA
> if they do not in fact take every case where there is a removal of a
> child to a judge in a set number of hours.

The vast majority of children who are substantiated as victims of child
abuse or neglect are NOT removed from their homes at any time before, during
or after the investigation. http://tinyurl.com/9psd

> That's called the penalty portion of a law.
>
> > > > Nor are the parents
> > > > under any obligation to sign the agreement.
> > >
> > > That depends entirely upon the evidence uncovered. But you are correct
> > > that is not obligatory. They can refuse and take the consequences.
> >
> > Yes. And an investigation has to take place to gather evidence. If the
> > safety plan suggests they have done something they haven't done, they
should
> > not sign it. Dan has also suggested, if I understand him, that the
parent
> > should not sign anything without first consulting their attorney.
>
> This is rather far outside the topic of the claim I made. It isn't
> anything I have an argument with. In fact I have made the same
> suggestion myself. Though I've also made the suggestion that some
> attorney's are worth spit in such matters. They may well urge the
> client to agree to things they should not, and have been known to do
> so as reported in this ng.
>
> I believe, if I understand him correctly, that Dan advises not signing
> in just such circumstance, and signing and performing the plan if it
> does no define the signer as being guilty of some shortcomings.
>
> I have suggested before to families in similar circumstances that they
> do what business people do with such things. Simply get up with the
> document in hand, walk out of the meeting with the words, "I will have
> to review this CONTRACT and I will get back to you in three working
> days with my decision."

Yep. Good procedure.

> Unless you are under arrest or being detained by the police (and even
> then you may well get away with it) that puts you back in control
> without appearing in any way uncooperative. In fact you can insist
> that you are cooperating MORE fully by your care and consideration of
> the CONTRACT.

Precisely. I agree.

> You can run it at your leisure by an attorney, or use it to line your
> birdcage, but it important to think about your children who have been
> taken, if they have, and proceed with that in mind.

> It't common in other circumstances like these to treat the contracts
> with care, making and initialing needed changes (representing your
> interests), and with a service plan or safety plan (call it what you
> will in your area) include what the other party will do, and do not
> sign it until they do in your presence and that of a witness you have
> produced.

All safety plans (treatment plans) should specify what CPS will do and the
worker (supervisor) signs as a party. Adding conditions, as you suggest, is
an excellent idea. Parents should not be surprised if the caseworker
refuses to sign, however, because she does not agree with the conditions.

In such an instance, what would you suggest the parent do?

> My first encounter with CPS was very much like that. They caved. No
> service agreement contract was completed and the child was not removed
> from the parent.
>
> I'm not a lawyer and I don't give legal advice but I do point out what
> is sensible and well within any legal constraints or expectations.
> When asked to sign a contract one can refuse and take the
> consequences, or they can agree with stipulations as I've pointed out,
> time and editing priveleges, and refuse to sign a one sided
> contract...as it isn't unless both sides are represented.
>
> An agreement can be one sided, but a contract cannot and should not.
> So the object is to turn the onesided pile of crap into a nice two
> sided bouquet of flowers.

While they are sometimes called "agreements", safety plans/treatment
plans/service plans are contracts requiring the agreement of both parties.

>
> > > > Innocent Parents often
> > > > mistakenly sign this plan under actual or perceived threats.
> > >
> > > You are correct. The innocent mistakenly sign this plan. They should
> > > simply go to the wall and fight CPS from the getgo, having their
> > > children in foster care for up to a year, maybe year and a half, and
> > > very possibly lose them in the end.

Are you saying that children are removed and forcibly kept in custody for a
year and a half just because an innocent parent does not sign a service
plan?

BTW, I never suggested that innocent parents "go to the wall and fight CPS
from the getgo." There are a host of options other than signing the plan as
is or fighting CPS from the getgo. You have shared some of those options.

> > No, they should calmly and with courtesy decline to sign a safety plan
that
> > suggests they have done something wrong if they haven't done anything
wrong
> > (innocent). Or, they should politely ask the caseworker to wait while
they
> > review the document with their attorney and receive her recommendation
> > whether to sign it or not.
>
> And they should feel perfectly free to signal their cooperation to any
> judge waiting down the line somewhere in the process by editing and
> adding a line where the worker or supervisor (latter is prefered) has
> to sign it BEFORE the parent does, with witnesses who come with the
> parent.

The safety plan already has a space for the worker and supervisor to sign.
Both parties receive a copy, so I am not sure why the order of who signs
first is important.

> Balking on the part of CPS at this point while retaining the
> child(ren) puts them in an untenable position in court. THEY didn't
> cooperate with perfectly reasonable requests of the parents. That's
> why the witnesses are important.
>
> Many a time CPS caves unless they have a solid case with ample
> evidence.

Excellent advice. One does wonder, however, about what happens to those
parents who do not have the savvy to proceed as you reccomend. In these
cases, CPS proceeds to remove the children without ample evidence and a
solid case.

The whole transaction takes on the tone of trickery and deceit. It is an
uneven playing field with the more powerful party willing to exploit the
weaker unless the parents are privvy to outside information. It doesn't
sound much like "child protection," does it?

This is one of the reasons why the systemic reform is called for. At the
minimum all parents have to be informed of how to negotiate the conditions
of a safety plan.

> So the advice I suggest in no way will help the guilty get their child
> back. Those instances should run the course to insure there WILL be
> compliance, but they can still and should, insist on both parties
> signing and outcomes spelled out clearly in the contract: "when steps
> one, two, three are completed the child will be returned within 48
> hours" or words to that effect.

In my jurisdiction a worker would not sign a safety agreement with such a
stipulation because he or she could not commit to when a child would be
returned. That decision is made later by what will then be a "team" of
salaried experts who consider as one element the fact that the parent has
completed "steps one, two and three." The stipulation more likely to be
agreed to is that reunification will be considered when steps one, two and
three have been completed.

> > ...Only if the parent's attorney has read the safety plan and advises
the
> > parent to sign it. One must be very careful not to stipulate to
anything
> > that may be determined to put the child at risk or suggest guilt,
thereby
> > negating their case at the adjucication hearing. This is the only
> > opportunity the parent has to challenge CPS allegations and CPS has the
> > burden of proof.
>
> That is exactly why the document should be returned with editing
> initialed by the parent but no signiture of the parent on it until CPS
> puts pen to paper.
>
> It's The Whore solution made sane and reasonable. But then his is not
> to get the child back but to sue later. That's an entirely different
> ballgame. Me, I want the child back. Don't call me when it's time to
> sue. I'm not well versed in that aspect.


> > Agreeing to take a psychological evaluation from one of the therapists
in
> > CPS's stable is a crucial error.
>
> Bull**** again.
>
> You simply walk into the evaluation session with a copy of the
> evaluation of YOUR psychologist in hand and ask the current shrink,
> smiling of course, their opinion of this evaluation.

Psychological evaluations for CPS are rarely -- if ever -- done by shrinks.
Therapists (social workers, LPC's or sometimes psychologists) perform the
evaluations, complete with assigning a DSM-IV diagnosis. Once you have the
evaluation done by a therapist you have retained, there really is no reason
to get the CPS therapist's opinion.

> Damn, don't you people know ANYTHING tactically? What actually works
> is so damn simple when you don't spend your time ranting hysterically
> to "kill CPS" when you are in no position to do so.

Who has said that parents should kill CPS?

> They can STILL show the court their willingness to take the CPS pscyh
> eval. That is a very powerful statement.
>
> Of course if they ARE nuts this will bite them in the butt, but I have
> not a qualm about that. I prefer they face the truth. 1
>
> Don't you?

Psych evaluations have little to do with determining if someone is "nuts."
Psych evals always result in a determination that criteria for one or more
DSM-IV diagnoses have been met. Some of the labels are relatively mild,
while others are major. All are negative.

One of the major problems in the publics misperception of psychological
evaluations.

> > That
> > evaluation report will be provided to the client (the parent).
Evaluators
> > in CPS stable make a good deal of their income (if not all) from CPS and
> > they provide the parent's evaluation report to their client (CPS). If a
> > stable therapist doesn't have a history of saying what CPS wants to hear
> > they are taken out of the stable.
>
> You are as usual either lying or badly misinformed. A few months back
> I spent a profitable afternoon, three billable hours, consulting with
> a worker that was finding a counselor evaluating (obviously to route a
> family back to MORE therapy) with bias...in fact three involved
> therapists.

Nothing you have said above or below disputes what I have said. And it will
always be up to the CPS worker to act on or ignore the psych eval. Taxpayer
money need not be spent on consultants to so advise their caseworkers.
Caseworkers routinely ignore the findings of a psych eval if it doesn't fit
in with their plan.

> The resolution? With my facilitation of the worker examining the
> circumstances and what SHE knew the family needed: reuniting without
> further services divided up between the three shrinks, just a few
> wind-up sessions for the family together, that little bull**** number
> by the shrinks ended.

There is a lot of bull**** numbers pulled up by CPS stable therapists. Is a
family's chances restricted to hoping the caseworker hires a consultant?

> I heard the howl from 50 miles away, but this is not an unusual action
> by a worker. I had to remind her that she was the case manager, not
> the shrinks. And they hadn't a decent argument to support their
> evaluation.

Right. It is not an unusual action by a worker. Something a caseworker does
all the time without a consultant. Who was howling?

Greg Hanson
September 26th 03, 09:14 AM
LaVonne: WHY did you repost that out of alt.parenting.spanking?

How narrow is the focus in that newsgroup?
Is it becoming a bit intellectually inbred?

You discuss no legal issues about Juvenile court there?

Or in there do you just discuss the legal issues you like to see?

While I have been bashed a lot in an abuse of the
fact that ascps is NOT MODERATED, I am beginning to
see some dark tinges in the idea of somebody moderating
a newsgroup and making it a bit too cultic.