South stands alone...

[Dan Sullivan]

http://nospank.net/al2.htm

South stands alone and more than one of every 10 licks lands in Alabama

Challen Stephens, Times Staff Writer, The Huntsville Times, December 17,
2000

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

It's no longer allowed in basic training. It's outlawed in mental hospitals
and prisons. But if you attend school in Alabama, you'd better watch your
backside.

That's because Alabama is one of 23 states that still allows school
principals to use corporal punishment. Throughout all U.S. public schools,
more than one of every 10 licks lands in Alabama.

During the 1998-99 school year, if you compare the number of paddlings to
the number of students, Alabama whacked 6.3 percent of the student body.
That's a batting average topped only by Mississippi and Arkansas.

But around here, you probably need not worry unless you're a boy and you
attend Madison County Schools or one of a handful of holdover schools in
Huntsville. Madison City Schools banned corporal punishment two years ago,
40 years after the British navy did.

During that same 1998-99 school year, Huntsville paddled 265 kids. Of those,
73 percent were black in a system that's only 41 percent black.

"I'm dumbfounded by the numbers we have," said interim Superintendent Mary
Ruth Yates, "but that's nothing compared to the county."

That same school year, Madison County schools swatted 1,177 students. Out of
those, 283 were in special education classes. The vast majority were boys.

"The parents know right up front that's a possibility," said county
Superintendent Ray Swaim. "It should be used as a last resort. But it works
when appropriately done."

Still, many principals refuse to risk it anymore, having seen bruised
buttocks wind up on the nightly news or fueling lawsuits.

Across the country, corporal punishment is fading, losing ground over both
legal and moral concerns. State school board member Mary Jane Caylor is now
pushing to ban it throughout Alabama.

Alabama is one of only 23 states that still allows paddling of students
Paddling Some cheer. They argue that in order to raise peaceful children,
society should ban all forms of hitting. Others believe that spanking is a
quick, effective form of discipline when dealt carefully and with love.

Check the statistics here: Parents and principals agree with the second
argument, especially in the more rural areas around Huntsville.

"Sometimes," said Swaim, "we call parents at home and they tell us, 'Try
that paddle.' "

South stands alone

In the 1980s, states began to ban paddling. In 1986 five had banned it. Now,
27 have outlawed it. Another dozen seldom use it, although corporal
punishment remains on the books.

But that change has yet to come south. Most of the 23 states that still
allow corporal punishment span from Texas to Florida.

Alabama law permits it. The State Department of Education allows local
school boards to make the call.

For Dr. Henry Clark, it was a no-brainer. Clark's the superintendent in
Madison, where kids at Bob Jones High used to choose between three licks or
after-school detention. Boys often would take the licks.

But Clark said paddling isn't an effective deterrent, and that it opens the
door for lawsuits. "I understand that there are some people that say you
should never spank your child. But to say that anytime you spank your child
is abuse, that is ludicrous." Shawn Fargerson, school board member What if a
student gets paddled, goes home, gets paddled some more and shows up
bruised? Who's to say how that rear end got black and blue?

In Huntsville, paddling without a witness just cost one principal, Ollie
Jones, her job.

"At one time it was used very often at virtually all the school systems in
the state," said Clark.

At one time, the coaches at the old Joe Bradley High School in Huntsville
painted two palm-down prints on the coaches' desk. They'd call boys in
whenever they were caught cutting up in the hall. Match palm to palm and
lean and wait.

It all goes back to the Bible.

The Bible says . . .

Spare the rod, spoil the child. That's not the real Biblical verse.

"People often misquote that," said Shawn Fargerson, a member of the county
school board. "But the emphasis there is not on abuse and beating the child,
but on loving the child and training the child."

Read King Solomon's actual advice from Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth his
rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Fargerson is not only a board member, but a father and associate pastor at
Sherwood Baptist Church. He reads that line to say that corporal punishment
can be effective at home, delivered with due explanations, without anger,
with a hug afterward.

It should be used rarely in schools, he said. In fact, all the local
Catholic schools have completely banned the practice. Other traditional
Christian, private schools, such as Westminster Christian Academy and
Madison Academy, still wield the paddle.

In the book of Proverbs, King Solomon goes on to refer to corporal
punishment several more times, including: "The rod and reproof give wisdom;
but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

The problem is that Solomon's own son, Rehoboam, grew into a widely hated
ruler after Solomon's death. And the growing opponents of corporal
punishment sometimes like to argue that Rehoboam's cruel streak was the
result of all that unspared "rod."

"I understand that there are some people that say you should never spank
your child," said Fargerson, "but to say that anytime you spank your child
is abuse, that is ludicrous.

"I think God has given us some instructions in the Bible about how we ought
to live our lives, and when we try to live our lives apart from those
instructions we get into trouble."

Three licks

Here's how it works these days: The first-grader wouldn't sit still. Even at
that age, he could sense the slipping control of the student teacher. He
ran. He screamed. He poked and laughed. Time-out failed to slow him. Loss of
recess didn't work either.

"He just wanted to entertain everyone," said principal Eleanor Smithers.
"When you've tried everything else you can think of and it hasn't worked . .
.."

Three licks. A wooden paddle, usually one made in woodshop. Every principal
in Madison County Schools has one. At Lynn Fanning Elementary, Smithers
rarely uses hers.

"When I'm at wit's end," she said. "I might paddle five children every two
years."

At other schools, like Riverton Middle, the principal might paddle more than
100 kids each year.

These days there are a few basic requirements and little consistency between
any two public schools.

Kids get paddled for anything from tardiness to talking back to fighting on
the playground. Administrators wield the paddles. The target area is limited
to the buttocks. There must be a certified teacher as a witness.
Administrators usually, but not always, call the parents before or after the
discipline.

When it comes to high school and middle school, students usually get to
choose: take three licks or attend after-school detention, take three licks
or finish a written assignment, etc. According to principals, boys will
choose the licks.

Male administrators paddle older boys and women paddle older girls.

"It's a small, flat wooden board. It's about the size of a Ping Pong
paddle," said principal Dan Evans at New Market School. "We use a bigger
board for bigger children."

The smaller paddles startle elementary children with a crack of air. The
heavier paddles don't bounce back like the lighter ones.

"The thing about corporal punishment," said Evans, "it's not done to inflict
pain. It scares them more than anything."

Nail-biting and bed-wetting

That's still barbaric and that's still abuse, argues Dr. Robert Fathman.

"It's immediate and loud, but it's teaching the wrong lesson to children,"
he said. "It says if I disagree with your behavior, I have the right to be
violent."

Fathman, of Dublin, Ohio, heads the National Coalition to Abolish Corporal
Punishment in Schools. A tough paddling can emotionally injure a child.

Fathman is a psychologist. He says that even without inflicting pain,
paddling can create enough fear to cause bed-wetting, nail-biting and
nightmares.

Plus, a paddling can always physically bruise a child.

"If those were kids being injured by an amusement park ride, the state would
shut down that amusement park ride," he said.

The American Psychiatric Association agrees.

The National Education Association, the National Committee to Prevent Child
Abuse and the American Medical Association are just three more of the 40
national groups lined up to outlaw corporal punishment. Most of Europe has
banned it in schools. So have Japan, China, South Africa and Russia.

A principal's office and the boxing ring are the only two public places in
America where it's legally sanctioned to strike another person.

Bring in the parents

At Lakewood Elementary in Huntsville, Principal Norton Webb hung up his
paddle 10 years ago. Last year, he decide to pull it back out.

But now when he reaches wit's end, he reaches for the phone.

"Hello, Mrs. Jones, you wouldn't believe the language your son just used. He
repeated something Slim Shady says . . . " If such behavior happens and
won't stop, he invites the parent to come to Lakewood and do the paddling
themselves. Two accepted his invitation this year.

"I could do that," said Carolyn Hammonds, president of the Madison County
Council of PTAs. "I know there are children that really act up. And I grew
up in the old school. If someone acted up, it was OK.

"But that's a tough call. I think (paddling) might be better left home."

Elsewhere, some creative principals make the student call his or her parents
to explain why he or she is about to be paddled. Many choose not to use it
at all.

"We believe that discipline is taught," said Principal Helen Taylor at
University Place Elementary. "We teach children to behave and get along in a
peaceful way."

But many principals simply swat away, and send a note that may or may not
make it home afterwards.

"However, we have to be very, very careful as far as the licks and making
sure you're not too forceful," said principal Ann Savage at Ed White Middle.
"That one kid can bruise easily so that the parent gets upset and files a
lawsuit."

Ed White is one of 10 schools in Huntsville that still use corporal
punishment. The Huntsville list includes McDonnell Elementary, Rolling Hills
Elementary, Stone Middle, Chapman Middle and Lincoln Elementary. Butler is
the only city high school where students can still choose corporal
punishment over detention.

"I think corporal punishment has outlived its usefulness," said Yates, the
interim superintendent.

David Blair, a city school board member, said Huntsville needs to consider
banning the practice.

In Madison County Schools, the school board says it works.

Sexism? Racism?

Harvest School paddled 226 times during the 1998-99 school year. Back then
it was a K-8 school. It had 580 kids. That meant as many as 39 percent of
the students met Phillip Cunningham's paddle. And only four of those times
did he paddle a girl.

"Probably 10 times as many boys needed it," said Rich McAdams, a county
school board member. "We're wired different."

Cunningham has retired. But the new principal, Stephanie Burton, still
paddles, although she said the need had faded without the middle school
kids.

But gender differences remain at Harvest and every other county school. It's
the same across the nation.

Compliance report

According to the 1998-99 compliance report of the U.S. Office for Civil
Rights, boys accounted for 80 percent of paddlings.

Black children are also over-represented. Throughout the nation, black
students are more than twice as likely to be spanked as white students.

In Huntsville, African-American boys took 66 percent of the paddlings. But
those boys comprise only 20 percent of the total student body.

In Madison County Schools, whose student body is 13.4 percent
African-American, black children accounted for 17.4 percent of the
paddlings.

Look across the country. African-American students account for 17 percent of
U.S. students, but 37 percent of U.S. paddlings. And that disparity grew
wider in the 1990s.

African-American students are expelled and suspended at a more equitable
rate than they are spanked.

"I think we've just got to come to our senses and stop this physical abuse,"
said Caylor, the state school board member who represents this area. "Are we
so archaic in our thinking? Are we so barbaric that we can not understand
the severity of this?

"I'm going to take this forward to the state board, even if I get accused of
being on some kind of crusade."

At this point, if a parent objects to paddling, he or she can write a note
to the school. Public school principals say they will honor requests to not
paddle specific children.

And likewise, when they receive the request to "try the paddle," they often
honor that, too.

"God says no discipline is pleasant when you receive it. But it's given in
love to see change," said Robert Illman, the principal at Westminster
Christian Academy. Paddling "is an appropriate and effective means in some
cases. You don't want to carry an incomplete toolbag."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Return to Alabama Index
Return to Table of Contents

[Robert T McQuaid]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message >...

> It's no longer allowed in basic training. It's outlawed
> in mental hospitals and prisons. But if you attend
> school in Alabama, you'd better watch your backside.
>
> That's because Alabama is one of 23 states that still
> allows school principals to use corporal punishment.
> Throughout all U.S. public schools, more than one of
> every 10 licks lands in Alabama.
>
> During the 1998-99 school year, if you compare the
> number of paddlings to the number of students, Alabama
> whacked 6.3 percent of the student body. That's a
> batting average topped only by Mississippi and Arkansas.
>
> (snip)

Writing from memory, not research, I believe Alabama is
a place where corporal punishment is legal for teachers,
but illegal for parents. This is the opposite of what
is needed. Corporal punishment by parents is tempered
by the parent's love for the child, and consequently is
rarely abusive. Corporal punishment by strangers is
untempered, and can be severely abusive. In any case,
it is better than turning the kids into zombies with
drugs.

Robert T McQuaid
Orangeville Ontario Canada
Love does not come out of the barrel of a gun

[Kane]

On 5 Oct 2003 11:44:55 -0700, (Robert T McQuaid) wrote:

>"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message >...
>
> > It's no longer allowed in basic training. It's outlawed
> > in mental hospitals and prisons. But if you attend
> > school in Alabama, you'd better watch your backside.
> >
> > That's because Alabama is one of 23 states that still
> > allows school principals to use corporal punishment.
> > Throughout all U.S. public schools, more than one of
> > every 10 licks lands in Alabama.
> >
> > During the 1998-99 school year, if you compare the
> > number of paddlings to the number of students, Alabama
> > whacked 6.3 percent of the student body. That's a
> > batting average topped only by Mississippi and Arkansas.
> >
> > (snip)
>
> Writing from memory, not research, I believe Alabama is
> a place where corporal punishment is legal for teachers,
> but illegal for parents.

I suggest you stick with research.

> This is the opposite of what
> is needed.

Unsubstantiated claim.

> Corporal punishment by parents is tempered
> by the parent's love for the child, and consequently is
> rarely abusive.

Illogical assumption.

Parents can punish in secret and there is no proof that a parent
"loves" a child they are punishing.

One would first have to establish clear guidelines to determine what
"love" is and is not. My own casual observation, if you will indulge
me, is that something other than love is taking place when a parent
spanks or punishes.

I love my wife. I do neither to her. Should I, to "teach" her
something I don't think either she, or you, or any other sane
observer, would mistake my actions for expressions of my love for her.

> Corporal punishment by strangers is
> untempered, and can be severely abusive.

Red Herrring Misdirection alert.

No such instance was being examined in the article in question. It was
school personnel, and they are KNOWN to the child, and the parents,
and the community. Their behavior in the matter of spanking is hardly
"untempered." as they have too many observers to deal with.

In fact I thought someone just posted at length on this Alabama issue
and it was mentioned in the citation quoted that a principal lost her
job for spanking without a witness.

I'm afraid, Robert, as you so often do, have things twisted a bit in
the direction of your biases and away from simple facts.

> In any case,
> it is better than turning the kids into zombies with
> drugs.

No one would disagree with that, however that isn't the premise being
examined. Drugs are not the alternative being offered in the article,
and in most instances where parents or principals chose corporal
punishment.

The correct comparison would be between cp and non punitive methods of
guiding and teaching a child. And that is a fact, Jack.

I suggest you take a peek at some brain scan research results on
leanring. Not only does it enlighten on how we learn something but one
how we fail to learn.

Trust me on this....the use of cp and punishment, pain and
humiliation, is a perfect way to stop a child from learning what we
wish to teach them, and instead replace it with survival learning
(lie, be more sneaky, plot revenge, etc.) rather than why one should
be kinder and gentler with our little sister.

> Robert T McQuaid
> Orangeville Ontario Canada
> Love does not come out of the barrel of a gun

Nor wisdom from the sayings coming out of a self proclaimed reformer.

Kane

[LaVonne Carlson]

Robert T McQuaid wrote:

> Writing from memory, not research, I believe Alabama is
> a place where corporal punishment is legal for teachers,
> but illegal for parents.

You are mistaken. Nowhere in the US is corporal punishment by parents illegal. Every parent in the US may legally
corporally punish their children. How severely they may corporally punish is determined by the individual state. In
approximately 23 states, corporal punishment is legal in schools.

> Corporal punishment by parents is tempered
> by the parent's love for the child, and consequently is
> rarely abusive.

Children have been hospitalized, been severely maimed, and even died in the name of parental love. Furthermore, why
is physically assaulting a child not abusive, yet subjecting the same behavior on an adult always (in the US)
considered physical assault and punishable by law? Hitting is abusive and hitting in the name of love is even worse.

> Corporal punishment by strangers is
> untempered, and can be severely abusive. In any case,
> it is better than turning the kids into zombies with
> drugs.

Children who were corporally punished are significantly more likely to experience problems of substance abuse,
depression, suicide, and are significanly more likely to abuse their own children than are children who were parenting
without corporal punishment.

> Robert T McQuaid
> Orangeville Ontario Canada
> Love does not come out of the barrel of a gun

Nor, Robert, does love come out of a hand hitting and hurting a child.

[Robert T McQuaid]

(Kane) wrote in message >...

> > Corporal punishment by parents is tempered by the
> > parent's love for the child, and consequently is
> > rarely abusive.
>
> Illogical assumption.
>
> Parents can punish in secret and there is no proof that
> a parent "loves" a child they are punishing.
>
> One would first have to establish clear guidelines to
> determine what "love" is and is not. My own casual
> observation, if you will indulge me, is that something
> other than love is taking place when a parent spanks or
> punishes.

Kane:

The love of parents for their children requires no
proof. It is a simple biological fact applying to all
people, and even many animals.

One day when I went out a cat scared by my approach ran
under my car. Since I wanted to drive away, I got down
where I could see the cat and acted as mean as possible
until the cat was even more scared and ran away. Then I
could safely start my car without danger of killing the
cat. Was I really hostile to the cat, or protective?

I have had many parents report similar use of punishment
on their own children. A child runs out into a
dangerous street to play, and time-outs and removal of
privileges will do nothing to stop the behavior. A
spanking does. Personally, I live far enough from a
road that I don't have to resort to such methods, but I
can hardly condemn parents who do.

Robert T McQuaid
Orangeville Ontario Canada
Anti-social worker

[Greg Hanson]

LaVonne admits
> Nowhere in the US is corporal punishment by parents illegal.

Thanks, LaVonne, you are the first Anti-spank zealot to publicly admit that.

But I don't see you speaking against anti-spank zealot caseworkers
REMOVING kids because of spanking, whether CLOAKED as other things or not.

> Children have been hospitalized, been severely maimed,
> and even died in the name of parental love.

But not by spanking. Changing the subject?

> Furthermore, why is physically assaulting a child not
> abusive, yet subjecting the same behavior on an adult
> always (in the US) considered physical assault and
> punishable by law?

ALWAYS? (That absolutism gives you away!)
You forgot about A. spanking fetishists and
B. Officer descretion regarding prosecution
Many assaults with no scratch or injury are dead
ended at officers descretion.
C. Football players or Jocks whacking butts on field
D. Rough Play among kids or between kids and parents
("rough housing")

> Hitting is abusive and hitting in the name of love is even worse.
Come on, LaVonne, the ultraleft NEW AGE Berkleyesque latent hippy
stuff gets old after awhile doesn't it?
Do you go out and protest High School football also?
The more I read from you on this the more I'm convinced you
ARE one of the people who won't be satisfied until we all
live in a world covered by NERF foam, "for our own good".

again..
> Hitting is abusive and hitting in the name of love is even worse.

But CHILD REMOVAL is harmless?? So they REMOVE KIDS??
Isn't this where the expert on early childhood development
speaks up about the causes of reactive attachment disorder?

> > Corporal punishment by strangers is
> > untempered, and can be severely abusive. In any case,
> > it is better than turning the kids into zombies with drugs.

> Children who were corporally punished are significantly more
> likely to experience problems of substance abuse,

Are you counting Ritalen directed by a CPS agency?
Tell us more about Minnesota's recent laws prohibiting CPS
and schools ordering kids onto Ritalen, LaVonne!
While you're at it, please explain how ALL THOSE doctors
used to prescribe it whenever such orders come down.
Ritalen and similar are endemic in Foster Care.
When you write a course syllabus, do you omit this issue?

> depression, suicide, and are significanly more likely
> to abuse their own children than are children who were
> [parented]without corporal punishment.

The US GAO study disproved the old "cycle of abuse" axiom
which is still printed in just about every Social Work
textbook. It's false. But it SOUNDS so good!

> Nor, Robert, does love come out of a hand hitting and hurting a child.

Hitting AND hurting?
They are only the same thing when you politicize.

Patty Cake, Patty Cake, Bakers.. <all hitting is abuse?>

[madeupagin]

"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...

>
> You are mistaken. Nowhere in the US is corporal punishment by parents
illegal. Every parent in the US may legally
> corporally punish their children. How severely they may corporally punish
is determined by the individual state. In
> approximately 23 states, corporal punishment is legal in schools.
>

Actually, LaVonne, YOU are mistaken. Here is Florida's statute on child
abuse:

827.03. Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties


(1) "Child abuse" means:

(a) Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;

(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in
physical or mental injury to a child; or

(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or
could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a
child.

A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great
bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child
commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082,
s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

As I sit here, facing a third degree felony charge for "causing fear" in my
child (no injuries whatsoever -- no spanking, no hitting -- just FEAR, per
the CPT doctor) I am here to tell you: Florida prosecutes these matters
strongly. Lawyers laugh -- but I'm facing five years in prison for what
ultimately is: I wouldn't let her go skating one night and put her in her
bedroom physically to prevent her from leaving the house.

I didn't hit her. I didn't spank her, I put the fear of Mom into her, and by
God, Willie Meggs is determined to put me in prison.

Tere

[Kane]

On 6 Oct 2003 01:00:30 -0700, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

>LaVonne admits
>> Nowhere in the US is corporal punishment by parents illegal.
>
>Thanks, LaVonne, you are the first Anti-spank zealot to publicly
admit that.

Baloney. Chris, the ng founder, has pointed that out repeatedly, as
have others.

>But I don't see you speaking against anti-spank zealot caseworkers
>REMOVING kids because of spanking, whether CLOAKED as other things or
not.

Because spanking alone is not the reason children are removed.

>> Children have been hospitalized, been severely maimed,
>> and even died in the name of parental love.
>
>But not by spanking. Changing the subject?

Spankers escalate, still claiming they are spanking when it has become
brutal torture.

>> Furthermore, why is physically assaulting a child not
>> abusive, yet subjecting the same behavior on an adult
>> always (in the US) considered physical assault and
>> punishable by law?
>
>ALWAYS? (That absolutism gives you away!)

Yes, always, if the victim wishes to press charges.

>You forgot about A. spanking fetishists

Now why would you bring that up? And there is a very decided
difference. It's called consent. Children don't give, normally,
consent to being spanked, unless there is coersion. Fetishists do give
consent.

>and
>B. Officer descretion regarding prosecution

Sorry, the officer does not even have to be involved in any way. A
complaint can be filed without an LEO involved.

>Many assaults with no scratch or injury are dead
>ended at officers descretion.

Sorry. You are wrong. The officer may convince the complaintent to
withdraw but that does not make it legal to hit and adult.

Nice avoidence maneuver though. Kind of like you minimize your
treatment of the little girl you displaced.

The discussion wasn't about whether or not laws are enforced, but
whether they exisit. Please point out where there are laws making
hitting an adult legal.

>C. Football players or Jocks whacking butts on field

Goes to consent and intent.

>D. Rough Play among kids or between kids and parents
>("rough housing")

Goes to consent and intent.

Neither activity is intended to hurt or harm.

>> Hitting is abusive and hitting in the name of love is even worse.

>Come on, LaVonne, the ultraleft NEW AGE Berkleyesque latent hippy
>stuff gets old after awhile doesn't it?

Has not a thing to do with New Age anything. People have been against
the hitting of children since I was a child and that was long before
the NEW AGE thing came up.

>Do you go out and protest High School football also?

Why would she? The hitting there is by consent. You'll notice that
hitting that is deemed unecessary IS penalized.

>The more I read from you on this the more I'm convinced you
>ARE one of the people who won't be satisfied until we all
>live in a world covered by NERF foam, "for our own good".

Then you are misreading her as surely as you misread the little girl,
and we know, once again, it's because you see what you want to see in
others actions and words,

>
>again..
>> Hitting is abusive and hitting in the name of love is even worse.
>
>But CHILD REMOVAL is harmless??

I do not recall her claiming that. Nor did I see her claim that
children SHOULD be removed when parents spank. Parents could be
proscribed from hitting (and calling it the mimizing name "spanking")
with other sanctions and penalties.

Public ridicule works well in some societies. I once say a noisy
busload of Chinese commuters stop dead silent after a collective gasp
at a father slapping his boisterous daughter. They glared at him, in
silence, for miles until he got off. Even new people that got on the
bus were quietly told what happened, and then THEY glared at him.

Sound familiar?

> So they REMOVE KIDS??
>Isn't this where the expert on early childhood development
>speaks up about the causes of reactive attachment disorder?

Actually an early childhood development specialist knows that that has
been an erroneous assumption for some time now. The roots of RAD lie
in the first year to year and a half of human development.

Things the parent can't help at all, like an illness in a family
member that causes withdrawal or absence of motherly caregiver
attention can do it. Of course neglect or harm in that first couple of
years can do it to.

But children that young, who are taken from or lose their mothers, if
they have an immediate dedicated single caregiver come into their
lives don't suffer RAD.

Foster parents were probably the main source of this discovery. If
they got children young enough, no RAD. It shows up in older children
coming into care because of events that happen before they were
removed from their parents.

And, dear dimwit, some children with RAD were NEVER REMOVED FROM THEIR
PARENTS. Call your local RAD support group...many major cities have
them. They'll be happy to clue you in, as long as you don't try to
minimize everything to your own biases.
>
>> > Corporal punishment by strangers is
>> > untempered, and can be severely abusive. In any case,
>> > it is better than turning the kids into zombies with drugs.
>
>> Children who were corporally punished are significantly more
>> likely to experience problems of substance abuse,
>
>Are you counting Ritalen directed by a CPS agency?

Are you counte by Ritalin directed by parents?

>Tell us more about Minnesota's recent laws prohibiting CPS
>and schools ordering kids onto Ritalen, LaVonne!

Why would you bring in this subject other than to divert from your own
failure to defend spanking and LaVonnes obvious success in condemning
it?

>While you're at it, please explain how ALL THOSE doctors
>used to prescribe it whenever such orders come down.
>Ritalen and similar are endemic in Foster Care.
>When you write a course syllabus, do you omit this issue?

While there may well be over reliance on psychotropics and other meds
for children that come into state care, these same children come with
damages.

Your nonsense is about as logical as asking why in the hell military
surgeries insist on treating so many wounds instead of obstetrics
cases.

>> depression, suicide, and are significanly more likely
>> to abuse their own children than are children who were
>> [parented]without corporal punishment.
>
>The US GAO study disproved the old "cycle of abuse" axiom
>which is still printed in just about every Social Work
>textbook. It's false. But it SOUNDS so good!

The problem is that the GAO is wrong. It's errors simply haven't been
uncovered yet. There reason the textbooks are unchanged on this issue
is the day to day reporting of workers in the field. Their clients
report having been themselves the children of clients of CPS,
repeatedly and increasingly.

Something is fishy with the research.

>> Nor, Robert, does love come out of a hand hitting and hurting a
child.
>
>Hitting AND hurting?

Yes. A child is hurt and humiliated when they are "spanked." Do you
think they fell loved and their sense of selt improved?

Tell you what. Sign a release putting aside assault laws in your state
and I'll come pay you a visit and improve your sense of self and help
you feel more loved by me.

Deal?

>They are only the same thing when you politicize.

They are only different things when you minimize and deny the truth.

There is no difference between a hit on the butt with the hand and a
spank on the butt with the hand.

And then there are those that legally, using objects, "spank"
children.

Care to call those "spankings"

>Patty Cake, Patty Cake, Bakers.. <all hitting is abuse?>

Goes to consent and intent.

I can play pattycake with an adult to and it's perfectly legal. If I
haul off in the middle of it and patty cake their face so they end up
with a broken jaw I've just broken the law, either negligence on my
part, not correctly estimating the force and target of my "patty", or
assault if my actions suggest deliberate intent to harm.

Same with children being "spanked."

The mind games and thinking errors your little torturers have go
through to convince yourself spanking and other forms of humiliating
children are alright is to cast them in a form that amounts to things
like "it's a duty," "not correcting the child would be harming her,"
and "hitting is not hitting if I hide my intent from myself."

As for spanking and showering for punishment, frankly I see little
difference. As long as it is meant to cause physical or mental harm to
the child it is cruelty.

Kane

[Kane]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:49:05 -0400, "madeupagin"
> wrote:

>
>"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> You are mistaken. Nowhere in the US is corporal punishment by
parents
>illegal. Every parent in the US may legally
>> corporally punish their children. How severely they may corporally
punish
>is determined by the individual state. In
>> approximately 23 states, corporal punishment is legal in schools.
>>
>
>Actually, LaVonne, YOU are mistaken. Here is Florida's statute on
child
>abuse:

No, Tere, you are mistaken. This law does not say anything at all
about spanking. What it does say is clear.

>
>827.03. Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties
>
>
>(1) "Child abuse" means:
>
>(a) Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;

According to spanking enthusiasts the physical and mental injury they
inflict is excused by it being labeled "spanking."

>(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in
>physical or mental injury to a child; or

Most spanking enthusiasts would loudly scream they meant no injury. Of
course we know they are lying to themselves because they will then
defend the use of pain as a teaching tool, and few would have the
knowledge of body physiology (like a college trained sports specialist
might) to determine how much pain is harmful or injurious.

>(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results
or
>could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury
to a
>child.

Guess that puts The Plant in some jeapordy. It defended the right of
parents to have parishoners hang children up in church and beat them
with objects as a form of discipline.

>A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing
great
>bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the
child
>commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082,
>s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

This covers the mental harm bit. It doesn't excuse or make legal the
act of "spanking" as so disingenuously and torturously redefined from
"hitting" by spankers.

>As I sit here, facing a third degree felony charge for "causing fear"
in my
>child (no injuries whatsoever -- no spanking, no hitting -- just
FEAR, per
>the CPT doctor)

You are minimizing the effect of "FEAR" and your apparently addictive
attachment to it in parenting your child.

The last sentence, "I put the fear of Mom into her," makes that
abundantly clear. A childhood of parenting by fear methods usually
results, as I've argued many times in this ng, often in a teen out of
control. Hell, a preteen with some guts even.

I wouldn't put up with coersion by fear for my safety from my wife to
make me do what she wanted. Nor should she of me.

I think a child that tells a parent to kiss off is in the same
position.

>I am here to tell you: Florida prosecutes these matters
>strongly.

Why does that cheer me up so?

>Lawyers laugh --

Of course they do because they know, sans any other charges or
conditions of the "simple assault" you describe yourself doing, you
aren't in as much trouble as you think.

>but I'm facing five years in prison

Show us the statute your are being prosecuted under. Someone is trying
to intimidate you and feeding you a line of crap and you are
catastrophizing instead of getting down to work and finding out the
truth and working on methods to save your ass.

>for what
>ultimately is:

That is a minimizing and diversionary phrase. Tell us what actually
happened before you run your sob story at us.

>I wouldn't let her go skating one night and put her in her
>bedroom physically to prevent her from leaving the house.

It's that "what ultimate is" that suggests you are leaving out some
juicy details you know you don't want examined in the light of day
here.

>I didn't hit her. I didn't spank her, I put the fear of Mom into her,
and by
>God, Willie Meggs is determined to put me in prison.

I'm probably half again bigger than you. If I didn't like something
you were doing and I "put the fear of" Kane "into" you, you could have
me arrested and charged and put in jail for some time.

>In Georgia and every other State, domestic violence has been a "hot"
issue. It >has become a very political crime. Years ago, a police
officer would inform >the spouses to "cool it" and deal with their
problems. However, as a society, >we have less tolerance for any form
of battery in the household. Therefore, >the penalties can be severe
and the state will probably press charges even if >one spouse drops
the charges against the other.

Here's a nice definition of what you most likely did...correct me if
I'm wrong.

http://www.criminaldefenseadvice.com/battery.htm

"
Simple Assault - O.C.G.A. 16-5-20
There are two types of simple assault.

Attempted battery (or attempt to commit violent injury) requires the
state to prove that the defendant intended to commit a violent injury.
Additionally, the State must show that the defendant's actions were a
"substantial step" toward the commission of a battery. Whether or not
the act is a substantial step is a question of fact.

The second type of simple assault occurs when one person places
another in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily injury. A mere
threat of harm is not enough to prove assault. The Defendant must be
able to carry out the threat. For example, a midget probably could not
place Mike Tyson in fear of imminent bodily harm. The victim must
reasonably believe that he is in danger of receiving immediate bodily
injury.
The maximum penalty is generally 12 months in jail and $1000 fine."

If all you did was "simple assault" as above then you probably should
beat the rap.

I'll bet there's considerably more to this than you are posting.

And by the way, nowhere in the law you quoted does it say it is
illegal for parents to spank their children.

In fact had you simply swatted her on the butt with your hand you no
likely would not be facing the problems you are.

I wonder what the child told the authorities after the incident in
question. I wonder what you actually did do.

Parenting by threat is on the way out, and none too soon. Parents that
won't give it up voluntarily and put some energy into learning
non-coercive parenting are on notice.

Now jump up and down and scream a little for us.

>Tere

Kane

[LaVonne Carlson]

Greg Hanson wrote:

> LaVonne admits
> > Nowhere in the US is corporal punishment by parents illegal.
>
> Thanks, LaVonne, you are the first Anti-spank zealot to publicly admit that.

You're welcome, Greg. However, I have been on alt.parenting.spanking for 8
years or so, and have yet to see an antispanker on this ng claim that spanking
by parents is illegal anywhere in the US. This has been a major theme over the
years, as country after country bans spanking, yet the US continues to permit
the practice.

> But I don't see you speaking against anti-spank zealot caseworkers
> REMOVING kids because of spanking, whether CLOAKED as other things or not.

I haven't seen or experienced any examples of a case worker removing children
because of spanking, unless the spanking crosses the line each US state defines
as abuse.

> > Children have been hospitalized, been severely maimed,
> > and even died in the name of parental love.
>
> But not by spanking. Changing the subject?

No Greg, I'm not changing the subject. Spanking is not clearly defined in the
minds of many parents, and there are children who have been hospitalized,
severly maimed and even died, not only in the name of parental love, but as a
result of what some parents define as spanking.

> > Furthermore, why is physically assaulting a child not
> > abusive, yet subjecting the same behavior on an adult
> > always (in the US) considered physical assault and
> > punishable by law?
>
> ALWAYS? (That absolutism gives you away!)
> You forgot about A. spanking fetishists and
> B. Officer descretion regarding prosecution
> Many assaults with no scratch or injury are dead
> ended at officers descretion.
> C. Football players or Jocks whacking butts on field
> D. Rough Play among kids or between kids and parents
> ("rough housing")

Any and all physical assault of an adult is punishable by law. All adults may
choose to report the assault. If an adult is consenting, they may choose not
to report. Children do not have this choice. They cannot report and they are
legally assaultable.

> > Hitting is abusive and hitting in the name of love is even worse.
> Come on, LaVonne, the ultraleft NEW AGE Berkleyesque latent hippy
> stuff gets old after awhile doesn't it?

I hardly see this as "new age hippy stuff." It wasn't that long ago that you
could assault your wife and be legally protected. This isn't "new age hippy
stuff" -- this is common sense. If adults are legally protected from physical
assault, powerless children should certainly be protected.

> Do you go out and protest High School football also?

If a high school coach disciplines one of his/her team by hitting the team
member, this may or may not be legal, depending upon the state the child is
living in. I do not need to protest High School football. Corporal punishment
is corporal punishment, Greg.

>
> The more I read from you on this the more I'm convinced you
> ARE one of the people who won't be satisfied until we all
> live in a world covered by NERF foam, "for our own good".

I will not be satisfied until we provide every child the same protection from
physical assault that you and I enjoy.

> > Hitting is abusive and hitting in the name of love is even worse.
>
> But CHILD REMOVAL is harmless?? So they REMOVE KIDS??
> Isn't this where the expert on early childhood development
> speaks up about the causes of reactive attachment disorder?

I never advocated for removal for spanking. I advocate for a law that legally
bans spanking and removes the ambiguity that parents and social workers
experience. Unless the child appears to be in danger, this law would send a
clear message to parents that spanking is illegal. Attached to this law would
be resources to help parents raise their children in more productive ways.

LaVonne

[Doug]

LaVonne Carlson writes:

> Children who were corporally punished are significantly more likely to
experience problems of substance abuse,

Hi, LaVonne!

You are incorrect. The study that draws this conclusion has been challenged
on many fronts, among them the failure to control for other variables.
Researchers have been unable to duplicate the results. If you would cite
your source, we can look at the research and its social science detractors.

> depression, suicide,

I am not sure which study you are relying upon, but citing it would help us
see where you base your claim.

>and are significanly more likely to abuse their own children than are
>children who were parenting
> without corporal punishment.

Given the nature of CPS founded "abuse," which is often discussed in this
newsgroup, it would be helpful to learn how child abuse was established to
have occurred in the study you rely upon here for your claim.

For example, former foster children are claimed to be significantly more
likely to abuse their own children than parents raised in the general
population. Is this because former foster children are more abusive or
because CPS targets former foster children in their risk assessment
instruments as being at risk of abusing their own children. As a
consequence, a higher percentage of former foster children are
substantiated, while parents themselves, for "abuse." Most CPS cases are
substantiated on the basis of risk rather than actual abuse.

Again, citing the authority for your claim will allow us to look at what the
researcher looked at.



>
> > Robert T McQuaid
> > Orangeville Ontario Canada
> > Love does not come out of the barrel of a gun
>
> Nor, Robert, does love come out of a hand hitting and hurting a child.
>
>

[Doan]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Doug wrote:

> LaVonne Carlson writes:
>
> > Children who were corporally punished are significantly more likely to
> experience problems of substance abuse,
>
> Hi, LaVonne!
>
> You are incorrect. The study that draws this conclusion has been challenged
> on many fronts, among them the failure to control for other variables.
> Researchers have been unable to duplicate the results. If you would cite
> your source, we can look at the research and its social science detractors.
>
This is true. The studies also didn't take in the effects of non-cp
alternatives. Common-sense would tell you that parents just don't use
spanking exclusively. Most parents don't like to spank (this hurts me
more than it hurts you) but rely on it because the non-cp alternatives
don't work. Studies that looked at both spanking and non-cp alternatives
found that the correlations between non-cp alternatives and negatives
effects are even stronger than with spanking. Straus & Mouradian (1998)
showed this. Do you think LaVonne would ever admit this? ;-)

> > depression, suicide,
>
> I am not sure which study you are relying upon, but citing it would help us
> see where you base your claim.
>
She wouldn't dare! She knows that these studies just don't stand up to
scientific scrutiny. Look at how she has been dodging me all these
months. She claimed to have a Ph.D. but just can't debate to a kid
like me. :-)

> >and are significanly more likely to abuse their own children than are
> >children who were parenting
> > without corporal punishment.
>
> Given the nature of CPS founded "abuse," which is often discussed in this
> newsgroup, it would be helpful to learn how child abuse was established to
> have occurred in the study you rely upon here for your claim.
>
> For example, former foster children are claimed to be significantly more
> likely to abuse their own children than parents raised in the general
> population. Is this because former foster children are more abusive or
> because CPS targets former foster children in their risk assessment
> instruments as being at risk of abusing their own children. As a
> consequence, a higher percentage of former foster children are
> substantiated, while parents themselves, for "abuse." Most CPS cases are
> substantiated on the basis of risk rather than actual abuse.
>
> Again, citing the authority for your claim will allow us to look at what the
> researcher looked at.
>
And children that went to juvenile halls are more likely to commit crimes
as adult. Correlation is not cause! This is basic. Do you think LaVonne
grasped this???

Doan

[Albert Einstein]

Not that Doug needs much help, but a connected idea about
foster kids having a higher incident of removal:
Doug suggests that they are ""watched"" more and I agree.
I have seen indications and attitudes that go even further.
CPS caseworkers PRESUME matter of fact that anybody who
was a foster kid will abuse their own kids. It's not so,
but it's one of those INDICATORS on the rotten lists
of INDICATORS that unlicensed untrained caseworkers use
when they practice their voodoo to "get the child abusers."

LaVonne:
You'd like to see spanking banned to create fear in parents.
What do you think that will breed?

And you seem to think that making it illegal will NOT
mean that kids will be removed. You are really "full of it"
in that regard because they remove right now for things that
are not illegal now. Look at Tere's case of "emotional abuse".
You must have your nose in too many textbooks to realize
what horrors such a law can unleash that make spanking
look like a complete farce. That's a good example of the
"Ivory Tower" complex I mentioned before. Out of touch.

You operate on THEORY, which is BS out here in the REAL world.

WHY do you suppose that Walter Mondale HIMSELF has said that
he wishes he never would have created the CAPTA monster and
this wretched Child Abuse Industry?

I know you will choose NOT to believe this, but my family's
case actually started based on CLUTTER in a mobile home.
Not filth, not buckets of feces, no biohazard.
More like what many college professor's offices look like.
And several attorney offices we have been in.
And even Child Protection offices.
And my favorite is a local school has a large storage
facility full of clutter, behind large windows, on display!

Don't get me wrong, I could see clutter as a complaint
if the child were 7 months old, and being in the human
vacuum cleaner stage clutter could easily be dangerous.
But this child was 7 YEARS old and a very bright child.

In other words, LaVonne, if they can use CLUTTER
to remove a child from their home, they have
really gone INSANE in their application of
"imminent danger".

That other stuff that Dan and Kane like to harp on, that
came up after much more WITCH HUNT, done because these
caseworkers KNEW THEY DID SOMETHING STUPID, and were
climbing the walls trying to justify their stupid act.
Why, these people were ORDERING this and that when
they had absolutely NO legal rights to do so, and
they did not even file for a removal order for 21 days.

Does it make sense to you that it took them 21 days
to find something to call "imminent danger"?

How about dictating without LEGAL AUTHORITY?
One caseworker actually SAID I should take some
materials to the child at school one morning, and
then wrote it up as if I had violated some no
contact order! This is WEEKS before the caseworker
even had a removal order.

Yet another way they "stepped in it" and had to
find something, anything, to make themselves look
less stupid in court.

Part of this is what Kane calle Hero complex.
My family has termed it "rescue fantasy".

Somewhere I heard a rumor that somebody actually
proposed a version of Munchhausens syndrome for
lawyers and caseworkers in Juvenile Court cases.

REMOVAL to feed the crusaders "rescue fantasy" sure fits!

Perverts and Voyeurs also like being caseworkers.
When they caught one here, they kept it out of news
media completely, and the pervert caseworker went down
to Colorado and got a job as a caseworker there until
he got caught sexually molesting little kids again!

A can't stress it enough, LaVonne, theory is fine,
but if you don't know how the laws get misused or
abused in the REAL world, your good intentions
can become something truly evil.

Did you ever look up Judge Roland Friesler?
He was a very reasonable man, very sharp legal mind.
Extremely professional. Do you know what he did?

> I never advocated for removal for spanking. I advocate
> for a law that legally bans spanking and removes the

KIDS!

> ambiguity that parents and social workers experience.
> Unless the child appears to be in danger, this law
> would send a clear message to parents that spanking is
> illegal.

Therefore they will REMOVE the child, it's what they DO.

> Attached to this law would be resources to help parents
> raise their children in more productive ways.

Family Preservation! They got lots of grant money,
and the misused and twisted it to be more WITCH HUNT.
How much HELP is a witch hunt going to be?
A classic perversion of a well intentioned program.
This is what happens in the REAL world, when caseworker
wish to wield that absolute power that currupts so.
Here's how the scam worked in our case.
Kid not in home, though legally should have been.
DHS controlling kid, without legal right to.
DHS says they need a 21 day evaluation period.
Family Pres policy says it can't continue if the child
is not in the home in two weeks. DHS says kid can't
participate before their 21 day evaluation period ends.
The two bureaucratic policies collide, taking
a huge dump on our family. Social Worker recommends
DHS do two things, DHS refuses.

"Reasonable Efforts" is now a complete FARCE.
No "helping relationship" whatsoever.

Don't you get it, LaVonne, that if something is
written into LAW, you might first look at how
the existing laws are already abused, misused, skirted,
selectively enforced, and sometimes used AS INTENDED?

Family Preservation was a good idea, well intentioned.
But who is to stop evil caseworkers from perverting
it and using it as nothing more than and alternate
way to FUND an EXTENDED Witch Hunt to dig for dirt?

Remember, these caseworkers are NOT licensed Social Workers.
One particularly nasty one we suffered with is very bad
at not taking the same advice in her own life that she
ORDERS and DIRECTS people like us to do, under THREAT of TPR.
Her OWN domestic abuse and children situation is
FAR WORSE than anything in our case.
Her guy with a rap sheet for Burglary and more beat
her black and blue and purple, up and down.
I looked at the case file. Pictures were sealed, but
paperwork was pretty graphic. Injuries on legs, torso
arms and head.

She ran immediately to the court to file to have the
no-contact order lifted.

What do you think a caseworker would say to a parent
about such behavior? Or to the COURT?

This is the real world, LaVonne.
This was one of our caseworkers.
Telling us how to live our life.
What do you think of the expert?

[Greg Hanson]

Oops. Wrong login. Sorry, that's me.
I feel more like Ralph Wiggum than Albert, but we are all
a bit of each. Even Einstein was an idiot in some ways.

(Albert Einstein) wrote in message >...
> Not that Doug needs much help, but a connected idea about
> foster kids having a higher incident of removal:
> Doug suggests that they are ""watched"" more and I agree.
> I have seen indications and attitudes that go even further.
> CPS caseworkers PRESUME matter of fact that anybody who
> was a foster kid will abuse their own kids. It's not so,
> but it's one of those INDICATORS on the rotten lists
> of INDICATORS that unlicensed untrained caseworkers use
> when they practice their voodoo to "get the child abusers."
>
> LaVonne:
> You'd like to see spanking banned to create fear in parents.
> What do you think that will breed?
>
> And you seem to think that making it illegal will NOT
> mean that kids will be removed. You are really "full of it"
> in that regard because they remove right now for things that
> are not illegal now. Look at Tere's case of "emotional abuse".
> You must have your nose in too many textbooks to realize
> what horrors such a law can unleash that make spanking
> look like a complete farce. That's a good example of the
> "Ivory Tower" complex I mentioned before. Out of touch.
>
> You operate on THEORY, which is BS out here in the REAL world.
>
> WHY do you suppose that Walter Mondale HIMSELF has said that
> he wishes he never would have created the CAPTA monster and
> this wretched Child Abuse Industry?
>
> I know you will choose NOT to believe this, but my family's
> case actually started based on CLUTTER in a mobile home.
> Not filth, not buckets of feces, no biohazard.
> More like what many college professor's offices look like.
> And several attorney offices we have been in.
> And even Child Protection offices.
> And my favorite is a local school has a large storage
> facility full of clutter, behind large windows, on display!
>
> Don't get me wrong, I could see clutter as a complaint
> if the child were 7 months old, and being in the human
> vacuum cleaner stage clutter could easily be dangerous.
> But this child was 7 YEARS old and a very bright child.
>
> In other words, LaVonne, if they can use CLUTTER
> to remove a child from their home, they have
> really gone INSANE in their application of
> "imminent danger".
>
> That other stuff that Dan and Kane like to harp on, that
> came up after much more WITCH HUNT, done because these
> caseworkers KNEW THEY DID SOMETHING STUPID, and were
> climbing the walls trying to justify their stupid act.
> Why, these people were ORDERING this and that when
> they had absolutely NO legal rights to do so, and
> they did not even file for a removal order for 21 days.
>
> Does it make sense to you that it took them 21 days
> to find something to call "imminent danger"?
>
> How about dictating without LEGAL AUTHORITY?
> One caseworker actually SAID I should take some
> materials to the child at school one morning, and
> then wrote it up as if I had violated some no
> contact order! This is WEEKS before the caseworker
> even had a removal order.
>
> Yet another way they "stepped in it" and had to
> find something, anything, to make themselves look
> less stupid in court.
>
> Part of this is what Kane calle Hero complex.
> My family has termed it "rescue fantasy".
>
> Somewhere I heard a rumor that somebody actually
> proposed a version of Munchhausens syndrome for
> lawyers and caseworkers in Juvenile Court cases.
>
> REMOVAL to feed the crusaders "rescue fantasy" sure fits!
>
> Perverts and Voyeurs also like being caseworkers.
> When they caught one here, they kept it out of news
> media completely, and the pervert caseworker went down
> to Colorado and got a job as a caseworker there until
> he got caught sexually molesting little kids again!
>
> A can't stress it enough, LaVonne, theory is fine,
> but if you don't know how the laws get misused or
> abused in the REAL world, your good intentions
> can become something truly evil.
>
> Did you ever look up Judge Roland Friesler?
> He was a very reasonable man, very sharp legal mind.
> Extremely professional. Do you know what he did?
>
> > I never advocated for removal for spanking. I advocate
> > for a law that legally bans spanking and removes the
>
> KIDS!
>
> > ambiguity that parents and social workers experience.
> > Unless the child appears to be in danger, this law
> > would send a clear message to parents that spanking is
> > illegal.
>
> Therefore they will REMOVE the child, it's what they DO.
>
> > Attached to this law would be resources to help parents
> > raise their children in more productive ways.
>
> Family Preservation! They got lots of grant money,
> and the misused and twisted it to be more WITCH HUNT.
> How much HELP is a witch hunt going to be?
> A classic perversion of a well intentioned program.
> This is what happens in the REAL world, when caseworker
> wish to wield that absolute power that currupts so.
> Here's how the scam worked in our case.
> Kid not in home, though legally should have been.
> DHS controlling kid, without legal right to.
> DHS says they need a 21 day evaluation period.
> Family Pres policy says it can't continue if the child
> is not in the home in two weeks. DHS says kid can't
> participate before their 21 day evaluation period ends.
> The two bureaucratic policies collide, taking
> a huge dump on our family. Social Worker recommends
> DHS do two things, DHS refuses.
>
> "Reasonable Efforts" is now a complete FARCE.
> No "helping relationship" whatsoever.
>
> Don't you get it, LaVonne, that if something is
> written into LAW, you might first look at how
> the existing laws are already abused, misused, skirted,
> selectively enforced, and sometimes used AS INTENDED?
>
> Family Preservation was a good idea, well intentioned.
> But who is to stop evil caseworkers from perverting
> it and using it as nothing more than and alternate
> way to FUND an EXTENDED Witch Hunt to dig for dirt?
>
> Remember, these caseworkers are NOT licensed Social Workers.
> One particularly nasty one we suffered with is very bad
> at not taking the same advice in her own life that she
> ORDERS and DIRECTS people like us to do, under THREAT of TPR.
> Her OWN domestic abuse and children situation is
> FAR WORSE than anything in our case.
> Her guy with a rap sheet for Burglary and more beat
> her black and blue and purple, up and down.
> I looked at the case file. Pictures were sealed, but
> paperwork was pretty graphic. Injuries on legs, torso
> arms and head.
>
> She ran immediately to the court to file to have the
> no-contact order lifted.
>
> What do you think a caseworker would say to a parent
> about such behavior? Or to the COURT?
>
> This is the real world, LaVonne.
> This was one of our caseworkers.
> Telling us how to live our life.
> What do you think of the expert?

[Dan Sullivan]

"Albert Einstein" > wrote in message
om...
> Not that Doug needs much help, but a connected idea about
> foster kids having a higher incident of removal:
> Doug suggests that they are ""watched"" more and I agree.
> I have seen indications and attitudes that go even further.
> CPS caseworkers PRESUME matter of fact that anybody who
> was a foster kid will abuse their own kids. It's not so,
> but it's one of those INDICATORS on the rotten lists
> of INDICATORS that unlicensed untrained caseworkers use
> when they practice their voodoo to "get the child abusers."
>
> LaVonne:
> You'd like to see spanking banned to create fear in parents.
> What do you think that will breed?
>
> And you seem to think that making it illegal will NOT
> mean that kids will be removed. You are really "full of it"
> in that regard because they remove right now for things that
> are not illegal now. Look at Tere's case of "emotional abuse".
> You must have your nose in too many textbooks to realize
> what horrors such a law can unleash that make spanking
> look like a complete farce. That's a good example of the
> "Ivory Tower" complex I mentioned before. Out of touch.
>
> You operate on THEORY, which is BS out here in the REAL world.
>
> WHY do you suppose that Walter Mondale HIMSELF has said that
> he wishes he never would have created the CAPTA monster and
> this wretched Child Abuse Industry?
>
> I know you will choose NOT to believe this, but my family's
> case actually started based on CLUTTER in a mobile home.
> Not filth, not buckets of feces, no biohazard.
> More like what many college professor's offices look like.
> And several attorney offices we have been in.
> And even Child Protection offices.
> And my favorite is a local school has a large storage
> facility full of clutter, behind large windows, on display!
>
> Don't get me wrong, I could see clutter as a complaint
> if the child were 7 months old, and being in the human
> vacuum cleaner stage clutter could easily be dangerous.
> But this child was 7 YEARS old and a very bright child.
>
> In other words, LaVonne, if they can use CLUTTER
> to remove a child from their home, they have
> really gone INSANE in their application of
> "imminent danger".
>
> That other stuff that Dan and Kane like to harp on, that
> came up after much more WITCH HUNT, done because these
> caseworkers KNEW THEY DID SOMETHING STUPID, and were
> climbing the walls trying to justify their stupid act.
> Why, these people were ORDERING this and that when
> they had absolutely NO legal rights to do so, and
> they did not even file for a removal order for 21 days.
>
> Does it make sense to you that it took them 21 days
> to find something to call "imminent danger"?
>
> How about dictating without LEGAL AUTHORITY?
> One caseworker actually SAID I should take some
> materials to the child at school one morning, and
> then wrote it up as if I had violated some no
> contact order! This is WEEKS before the caseworker
> even had a removal order.
>
> Yet another way they "stepped in it" and had to
> find something, anything, to make themselves look
> less stupid in court.
>
> Part of this is what Kane calle Hero complex.
> My family has termed it "rescue fantasy".
>
> Somewhere I heard a rumor that somebody actually
> proposed a version of Munchhausens syndrome for
> lawyers and caseworkers in Juvenile Court cases.
>
> REMOVAL to feed the crusaders "rescue fantasy" sure fits!
>
> Perverts and Voyeurs also like being caseworkers.
> When they caught one here, they kept it out of news
> media completely, and the pervert caseworker went down
> to Colorado and got a job as a caseworker there until
> he got caught sexually molesting little kids again!
>
> A can't stress it enough, LaVonne, theory is fine,
> but if you don't know how the laws get misused or
> abused in the REAL world, your good intentions
> can become something truly evil.
>
> Did you ever look up Judge Roland Friesler?
> He was a very reasonable man, very sharp legal mind.
> Extremely professional. Do you know what he did?
>
> > I never advocated for removal for spanking. I advocate
> > for a law that legally bans spanking and removes the
>
> KIDS!
>
> > ambiguity that parents and social workers experience.
> > Unless the child appears to be in danger, this law
> > would send a clear message to parents that spanking is
> > illegal.
>
> Therefore they will REMOVE the child, it's what they DO.
>
> > Attached to this law would be resources to help parents
> > raise their children in more productive ways.
>
> Family Preservation! They got lots of grant money,
> and the misused and twisted it to be more WITCH HUNT.
> How much HELP is a witch hunt going to be?
> A classic perversion of a well intentioned program.
> This is what happens in the REAL world, when caseworker
> wish to wield that absolute power that currupts so.
> Here's how the scam worked in our case.
> Kid not in home, though legally should have been.
> DHS controlling kid, without legal right to.
> DHS says they need a 21 day evaluation period.
> Family Pres policy says it can't continue if the child
> is not in the home in two weeks. DHS says kid can't
> participate before their 21 day evaluation period ends.
> The two bureaucratic policies collide, taking
> a huge dump on our family. Social Worker recommends
> DHS do two things, DHS refuses.
>
> "Reasonable Efforts" is now a complete FARCE.
> No "helping relationship" whatsoever.
>
> Don't you get it, LaVonne, that if something is
> written into LAW, you might first look at how
> the existing laws are already abused, misused, skirted,
> selectively enforced, and sometimes used AS INTENDED?
>
> Family Preservation was a good idea, well intentioned.
> But who is to stop evil caseworkers from perverting
> it and using it as nothing more than and alternate
> way to FUND an EXTENDED Witch Hunt to dig for dirt?
>
> Remember, these caseworkers are NOT licensed Social Workers.
> One particularly nasty one we suffered with is very bad
> at not taking the same advice in her own life that she
> ORDERS and DIRECTS people like us to do, under THREAT of TPR.
> Her OWN domestic abuse and children situation is
> FAR WORSE than anything in our case.
> Her guy with a rap sheet for Burglary and more beat
> her black and blue and purple, up and down.
> I looked at the case file. Pictures were sealed, but
> paperwork was pretty graphic. Injuries on legs, torso
> arms and head.
>
> She ran immediately to the court to file to have the
> no-contact order lifted.
>
> What do you think a caseworker would say to a parent
> about such behavior? Or to the COURT?
>
> This is the real world, LaVonne.
> This was one of our caseworkers.
> Telling us how to live our life.
> What do you think of the expert?

[Doug]

Albert Einstein writes:

> Not that Doug needs much help, but a connected idea about
> foster kids having a higher incident of removal:
> Doug suggests that they are ""watched"" more and I agree.
> I have seen indications and attitudes that go even further.
> CPS caseworkers PRESUME matter of fact that anybody who
> was a foster kid will abuse their own kids. It's not so,
> but it's one of those INDICATORS on the rotten lists
> of INDICATORS that unlicensed untrained caseworkers use
> when they practice their voodoo to "get the child abusers."

Hi, Albert!

Just so.

Most children are forcibly removed from their homes based upon perceived
"risk" rather than actual abuse and neglect. Many cases are substantiated
on the basis of "risk assessments" (the instruments to which you refer) and
other children are removed from homes CPS itself unsubstantiated for even
risk of maltreatment.

Risk assessment tools used by CPS workers are scoresheets that attempt to
relatively measure so-called "indicators" in a number of domains that could,
maybe, sometime in the future contribute to neglect or abuse. The
instruments are not research-based and have been universally attacked by
social scientists since their inception. Among other flaws, the instruments
have failed to pass any test of internal reliability and they have never
been generalized to the findings of outcome studies.

The "indicators" are far too general to have any causal link to child
maltreatment. Simply put, ANY household will "score" on some of the
indicators. Whether CPS will sanction the family with more intrusive
"services," the most common of which is foster care, depends on the total
score, which depends on the relative weight given each of the indicators.
Some are scored much higher than others. If a parent is a former foster
child, the family meets the criteria for one of the highest scored
indicators. As a consequence, many children are removed from former foster
children.

CPS considers parents who were former foster children at very high risk of
abusing or neglecting their own children. The agency keeps track of state
wards even after they age out of state custody (foster care). In many
jurisdictions, the CPS intake worker will get a red flag from the system
that one of the reported parents is a former foster child when the report
comes into the local office. The intake worker will so alert the CPS worker
assigned to investigate or assess the report, so the CPS worker knows before
they leave the office that the family they are out to investigate is headed
by a former foster child.

In my opinion, it is just one of many ways foster children are descriminated
against by the system. Schools in many states are automatically notified of
students subject to child abuse/neglect reports and mention is made in these
automatic reports that the parent is a former foster child. Unfortunately,
schools are usually NOT notified of the disposition of the report
(substantiated or unsubstantiated), leaving it to the imagination of school
administrators whether the child was actually abused. Since the majority of
children subject to the reports are unsubstantiated as even being "at risk"
of maltreatment, a lot of children are treated like "poor little victims" by
staff at school.

Parents who were raised in foster care are much more likely to have their
children forcibly removed by CPS.

It makes one wonder why the system mistrusts its own child-rearing
techniques so much.

[LaVonne Carlson]

Albert Einstein wrote:

> LaVonne:
> You'd like to see spanking banned to create fear in parents.
> What do you think that will breed?

I would not like to see spanking legally banned for the purpose of
creating fear in parents. I would like to see spanking legally banned
for several reasons: One, all adult members of US society are legally
protected from physical assault. Only our most vulnerable members, our
children, remain legally assaultable. Two, legally banning spanking
would change societal norms. Currently, the majority of individuals in
US society believe that children are legally assaultable. Legally
banning spanking would send a clear message that this is no longer
considered acceptable disciplinary practice. Three, legally banning
spanking could lead to parents receiving additional help with parenting
and discipline, providing them with reasons why they should not hit
their children, and outlining alternatives to the practice of spanking

> And you seem to think that making it illegal will NOT
> mean that kids will be removed. You are really "full of it"
> in that regard because they remove right now for things that
> are not illegal now. Look at Tere's case of "emotional abuse".
> You must have your nose in too many textbooks to realize
> what horrors such a law can unleash that make spanking
> look like a complete farce. That's a good example of the
> "Ivory Tower" complex I mentioned before. Out of touch.

I never said anything about legally banning spanking leading to fewer
removals of children. I said that legally banning spanking would remove
some of the ambuiguity parents currently experience, which each state
having different definitions for abuse, and each social worker having a
different understanding of those laws. I have never advocated for
removal of children for spanking.

> You operate on THEORY, which is BS out here in the REAL world.

I operate in reality. Reality bans assault for all individuals of US
society over the age of 18, including hardened criminals. Reality would
protect children, our most vulnerable and innocent members of society,
at at least the same level that violent criminals enjoy.

LaVonne