Re: Prosecutor whipped in *felony spanking* in FL

[Kane]

"Doug" > wrote in message et>...

>Kane writes:
>
>> The usual blah blah, Roz. Of course they aren't. They are taken to
do
>> an investigation instead of leaving them to the possible tender
>> mercies of abusers. 60% or more of the families come up unfounded
with
>> a return of the child.
>
>Hi, Kane!
>
>Are you saying that 60% of the families who have their children
removed are
>later unfounded and have those children returned?

Are you saying you've stopped publically masturbating?

On average 60% of the children are returned to the parents after a
finding of no abuse or neglect sufficient to keep them in state
physical custody. Some, probably many, are given services with the
children still in home but the child in the legal TC of the state.

>> You need to stop relying on the slimy data being supplied to you by
a
>> slimy character.
>
>> >But, CPS than abuses them by separating them from loved ones.
>>
>> Absolutely. In those cases where it turns out the parents were
>> innocent it IS abusive....and no thoughtful case worker would every
>> claim otherwise.
>
>> The lowest figure from states where children are placed in kinship
>> care come in at 30% with relatives. Still want to make the claim
you
>> just did?
>
>Incorrect. Only 24% of foster children nationwide are placed with
>relatives. http://tinyurl.com/hoei In some states, the rate is
lower.

And some higher. Try to get with the program. Many that are placed
with relatives are not listed as being placed by the state, because
they are not receiving benefits. Try to keep up. .

>> When you learn to be a supporter you'll make a difference. Until
then
>> you are little more than a common thug of a knee buster.
>
>The only way one can escape being a thug and a knee buster is to be
>supportive of current CPS practices?

The only way can escape being a lying little ****, as you are, is to
not manipulate the meaning of another's post with cutsy little
twittering responses.

Reread the sentence and tell me where I made that the only criteria.
And I did not nor have I ever suggested that all the practices of CPS
are acceptable. In fact I started out to reform CPS when you were
still having nocturnal emmissions.

>> I hope you spend some months in the courtroom watching what comes
>> down, and seeing the bloody evidence.
>
>States have been opening up family courtrooms across the nation for
years
>now.

Are you saying that more than one has done it for more than one year
now?

(thought you'd appreciate my prose).

Look at what the media is focusing on most. Not what you want, the
failures of CPS, but the parents horrible abuses of their children.
The only thing that holds them back at all is the advertisers not
wanting to have their products shown alongside the stories.

>It is, indeed, a good idea to for citizens to spend some time
>observing these hearings. Family advocates have lobbied long and
hard for
>this reform and it will do a lot to accelerate more reform.

What reform is that, Doug? I thought you wanted to dismantle CPS and
rebuild it, not reform it? Or are you as sloppy in your thinking as
you are in your writing?

>> You are headed the wrong direction, using the wrong information,
>> tilting the wrong windmill.

Bears repeating.

"Reformers" like you and Roz will end up with more of the same. Tear
this one down, fail to finance the next one, create it in police state
form, allow the feds to define what "parenting" is, and I'll enjoy
seeing you strung up by the people that catch on to your part in it:

The parents you claim to help.

I'll be sure to keep you at the forefront of their attention. You
deserve the recognition.

Kane

[Doug]

"Kane" writes:

> >Are you saying that 60% of the families who have their children
> removed are
> >later unfounded and have those children returned?
>
> Are you saying you've stopped publically masturbating?
>
> On average 60% of the children are returned to the parents after a
> finding of no abuse or neglect sufficient to keep them in state
> physical custody. Some, probably many, are given services with the
> children still in home but the child in the legal TC of the state.

Hi, Kane!

A CPS finding of unsubstantiated or "alternative response non-victim" is a
determination made at the conclusion of an assessment or investigation that
risk of or actual maltreatment did not occur. The findings are not in any
way linked to a theshold of "sufficient to keep them in physical custody."
81% of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect do not involve removal
of the child at any stage.

You had written, "The usual blah blah, Roz. Of course they aren't. They are
taken to do an investigation instead of leaving them to the possible tender
mercies of abusers. 60% or more of the families come up unfounded with
a return of the child."

I read that to mean that, of the families who have their children removed
during an investigation and prior to a finding, 60% or more come up
unfounded and their children returned.

Are you now saying that after the investigation is closed with an
unsubstantiated finding, these families must pass another threshold before
return of their children? Or are you saying that in cases where
investigations end with a substantiated finding, a further determination is
made whether the substantiated abuse rises to the level where physical
custody is required? Are you saying that children removed during an
investigation that ends with a finding of unsubstantiated are still held in
the legal custody of the state and returned to the family's "physical
custody."

What happens to the children taken into state custody during an
investigation after it is found that no risk of or actual abuse occurred
(unsubstantiated)?

> >> You need to stop relying on the slimy data being supplied to you by
> a
> >> slimy character.
> >
> >> >But, CPS than abuses them by separating them from loved ones.
> >>
> >> Absolutely. In those cases where it turns out the parents were
> >> innocent it IS abusive....and no thoughtful case worker would every
> >> claim otherwise.

Then the state was the abuser in the cases of 103,144 unsubstantiated
children taken into custody in 2001?

> >
> >> The lowest figure from states where children are placed in kinship
> >> care come in at 30% with relatives. Still want to make the claim
> you
> >> just did?
> >
> >Incorrect. Only 24% of foster children nationwide are placed with
> >relatives. http://tinyurl.com/hoei In some states, the rate is
> lower.
>
> And some higher. Try to get with the program. Many that are placed
> with relatives are not listed as being placed by the state, because
> they are not receiving benefits. Try to keep up. .

Sorry. You cannot end up with an average of 24% if the LOWEST state comes
in with 30%.

The majority of children placed by the state with kin do not receive
benefits. In other cases, relatives receive less benefits than stranger
foster caregivers. So this would not be a factor.

> Reread the sentence and tell me where I made that the only criteria.
> And I did not nor have I ever suggested that all the practices of CPS
> are acceptable. In fact I started out to reform CPS when you were
> still having nocturnal emmissions.

What leads you to believe that you are older than I or that you were
involved with CPS reform earlier than I?

> Are you saying that more than one has done it for more than one year
> now?

Yes.

> Look at what the media is focusing on most. Not what you want, the
> failures of CPS, but the parents horrible abuses of their children.
> The only thing that holds them back at all is the advertisers not
> wanting to have their products shown alongside the stories.

Actually, there has been relatively little media attention at all. A number
of studies were done of the states who initiated the reform many years
ago -- some as limited pilot projects. The conclusions were, among other
things, that coverage of CPS activity did not increase.

There have been some excellent newsstories filed, however.

> >It is, indeed, a good idea to for citizens to spend some time
> >observing these hearings. Family advocates have lobbied long and
> hard for
> >this reform and it will do a lot to accelerate more reform.
>
> What reform is that, Doug? I thought you wanted to dismantle CPS and
> rebuild it, not reform it? Or are you as sloppy in your thinking as
> you are in your writing?

Opening up family courts was a reform effort spearheaded by family advocates
over the last decade. Parents sought to have these hearings opened and,
increasingly across the country, state legislatures are listening. The
studies that followed the pathmakers were done primarily by think-tank
researchers commissioned by policy makers considering the reform for their
states.

You have a habit of making a lot of false assumptions about my stand on
these issues. You will reach more accurate conclusions by basing your
conclusions on what I have written.

> "Reformers" like you and Roz will end up with more of the same. Tear
> this one down, fail to finance the next one, create it in police state
> form, allow the feds to define what "parenting" is, and I'll enjoy
> seeing you strung up by the people that catch on to your part in it:

Current problems in CPS practice are rooted in federal mandates upon the
states and federal funding guidelines. I have stated repeatedly that reform
must include repeal of CAPTA and ASFA. The current administration is moving
to repeal some of the funding restrictions in Title IV-E of Social Security
Entitlements, which are currently restricted to funding the removal of
children from poor families. 90% of federal child welfare funding is
currently linked to how many children are taken from their parents and
placed into state custody.

>
> The parents you claim to help.
>
> I'll be sure to keep you at the forefront of their attention. You
> deserve the recognition.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Have a great day, Kane!

[R. Steve Walz]

Doug wrote:
>
> "Kane" writes:
>
> > >Are you saying that 60% of the families who have their children
> > removed are
> > >later unfounded and have those children returned?
> >
> > Are you saying you've stopped publically masturbating?
> >
> > On average 60% of the children are returned to the parents after a
> > finding of no abuse or neglect sufficient to keep them in state
> > physical custody. Some, probably many, are given services with the
> > children still in home but the child in the legal TC of the state.
>
> Hi, Kane!
>
> A CPS finding of unsubstantiated or "alternative response non-victim" is a
> determination made at the conclusion of an assessment or investigation that
> risk of or actual maltreatment did not occur.
-------------------
Or is sub-actionable, but that doesn't mean the removal was not totally
right and appropriate. This is NOT a prosecution, this is a protective
custody, and that is NOT covered by rules of false arrest or detainer.


> 81% of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect do not involve removal
> of the child at any stage.
------------
Ir-****ing-relevant.


"The usual blah blah, Roz.
-----------
That's you being a twittering simpering piece of ****, shut the **** up.


> You had written, Of course they aren't.
> They are
> taken to do an investigation instead of leaving them to the possible tender
> mercies of abusers. 60% or more of the families come up unfounded with
> a return of the child."
>
> I read that to mean that, of the families who have their children removed
> during an investigation and prior to a finding, 60% or more come up
> unfounded and their children returned.
-------------------
Sure, so what? That's meaningless. It doesn't by ANY means we should
ignore good cause to protect a child when it fits presentation and may
be true. In fact we have a DUTY to remove the child EVEN *IN* error,
just to protect the minority of children who are actually BEING abused
whose parents might threaten, harm, or kill them to dissuade them from
witnessing against them if we had left them there with their perp!

We err on the side of caution when dealing with the safety of a
helpless child, because they have no means of escape if they actually
are a victim. We'd be leaving them with their rapist or abuser. It
would be like taking a woman on whom we just did a rape kit and sent
it off to the lab, and sent her home in handcuffs with her rapist!!!

We remove ANY child ON THE OFF CHANCE that THEY MIGHT remove THEMSELVES
if they were a competent adult cognizant of the dangers!


> Are you now saying that after the investigation is closed with an
> unsubstantiated finding, these families must pass another threshold before
> return of their children? Or are you saying that in cases where
> investigations end with a substantiated finding, a further determination is
> made whether the substantiated abuse rises to the level where physical
> custody is required? Are you saying that children removed during an
> investigation that ends with a finding of unsubstantiated are still held in
> the legal custody of the state and returned to the family's "physical
> custody."
-----------------------------------------
Parents who do not cooperate are suspect, period, especially when the
finding is iffy.


> What happens to the children taken into state custody during an
> investigation after it is found that no risk of or actual abuse occurred
> (unsubstantiated)?
---------------------------------
Their safety is paramount, and not their decision.


> Then the state was the abuser in the cases of 103,144 unsubstantiated
> children taken into custody in 2001?
---------------------------
Nope, they were the rescuer, it was simply found later that no rescue
was needed. Rescue doesn't hurt anyone more than being left there.


> There have been some excellent newsstories filed, however.
-------------------------
Pop distortion and exaggeration to sell viewership.


> Opening up family courts was a reform effort spearheaded by family advocates
> over the last decade. Parents sought to have these hearings opened and,
> increasingly across the country, state legislatures are listening.
---------------------------
Your delusion.
Steve

[Dan Sullivan]

"R. Steve Walz" > wrote in message
...
> Doug wrote:
> >
> > "Kane" writes:
> >
> > > >Are you saying that 60% of the families who have their children
> > > removed are
> > > >later unfounded and have those children returned?
> > >
> > > Are you saying you've stopped publically masturbating?
> > >
> > > On average 60% of the children are returned to the parents after a
> > > finding of no abuse or neglect sufficient to keep them in state
> > > physical custody. Some, probably many, are given services with the
> > > children still in home but the child in the legal TC of the state.
> >
> > Hi, Kane!
> >
> > A CPS finding of unsubstantiated or "alternative response non-victim" is
a
> > determination made at the conclusion of an assessment or investigation
that
> > risk of or actual maltreatment did not occur.
> -------------------
> Or is sub-actionable, but that doesn't mean the removal was not totally
> right and appropriate.

Please explain how the removal of a child could have been right and
appropriate when at the conclusion of the investigation CPS determined the
report to be unsubstantiated because of a lack of any credible evidence that
there was a risk of or actual maltreatment of that child or their siblings.

> This is NOT a prosecution, this is a protective
> custody, and that is NOT covered by rules of false arrest or detainer.

What does that have to do with it?

> > 81% of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect do not involve
removal
> > of the child at any stage.
> ------------
> Ir-****ing-relevant.
>
>
> "The usual blah blah, Roz.
> -----------
> That's you being a twittering simpering piece of ****, shut the **** up.
>
>
> > You had written, Of course they aren't.
> > They are
> > taken to do an investigation instead of leaving them to the possible
tender
> > mercies of abusers. 60% or more of the families come up unfounded with
> > a return of the child."
> >
> > I read that to mean that, of the families who have their children
removed
> > during an investigation and prior to a finding, 60% or more come up
> > unfounded and their children returned.
> -------------------
> Sure, so what? That's meaningless. It doesn't by ANY means we should
> ignore good cause to protect a child when it fits presentation and may
> be true. In fact we have a DUTY to remove the child EVEN *IN* error,
> just to protect the minority of children who are actually BEING abused
> whose parents might threaten, harm, or kill them to dissuade them from
> witnessing against them if we had left them there with their perp!

So we should remove children based on an unsubstantiated allegation from an
anonymous call to a CPS hotline?

And if six kids out of ten are removed in error then that's the price THEY
and their family have to pay?

And the time that they're kept in FC is in six month intervals (six month
chunks of state and federal $$$).

If the CPS attny can drag things out then the six month minimum could go to
a year or even a year and a half!

THEN the eighteen month TPR/free for adoption rule could come into play.

I'm working with a family whose trial was ordered by the Fam Ct Judge to be
over on May 31 with the county attny having their final (rebuttal) witness
ready to testify on that date.

Since then the county attny has searched far and wide for a doctor to rebutt
the expert MDs testimony. The county attny won't put any of these
prospective witnesses on the stand because their testimony would support the
expert MD's testimony!

So the FINAL court date of 8-18 won't be the end and guess what?????

The eighteen months is up!!!

So the county could still win, not by the evidence, but by THEIR dragging on
of this case.

This is a NY case.

I've got a similar one in Alabama.

> We err on the side of caution when dealing with the safety of a
> helpless child, because they have no means of escape if they actually
> are a victim.

And if their NOT a victim of actual maltreatment?

You just want to make them a victim of the system.

> We'd be leaving them with their rapist or abuser. It
> would be like taking a woman on whom we just did a rape kit and sent
> it off to the lab, and sent her home in handcuffs with her rapist!!!
>
> We remove ANY child ON THE OFF CHANCE that THEY MIGHT remove THEMSELVES
> if they were a competent adult cognizant of the dangers!

And what of the children who're happy at home?

The majority of the children (non-abused) after the investigation.

It's just their tough luck?

> > Are you now saying that after the investigation is closed with an
> > unsubstantiated finding, these families must pass another threshold
before
> > return of their children? Or are you saying that in cases where
> > investigations end with a substantiated finding, a further determination
is
> > made whether the substantiated abuse rises to the level where physical
> > custody is required? Are you saying that children removed during an
> > investigation that ends with a finding of unsubstantiated are still held
in
> > the legal custody of the state and returned to the family's "physical
> > custody."
> -----------------------------------------
> Parents who do not cooperate are suspect, period, especially when the
> finding is iffy.

You're a moron, Steve.

There's no such thing as an "iffy" finding.

> > What happens to the children taken into state custody during an
> > investigation after it is found that no risk of or actual abuse occurred
> > (unsubstantiated)?
> ---------------------------------
> Their safety is paramount, and not their decision.

Read it, Steve.

NO RISK of or actual abuse.

NO REASON for removal!!!!!

> > Then the state was the abuser in the cases of 103,144 unsubstantiated
> > children taken into custody in 2001?
> ---------------------------
> Nope, they were the rescuer, it was simply found later that no rescue
> was needed. Rescue doesn't hurt anyone more than being left there.

Please kill yourself ASAP.

> > There have been some excellent newsstories filed, however.
> -------------------------
> Pop distortion and exaggeration to sell viewership.

Do it now even before you finish reading this sentence...

> > Opening up family courts was a reform effort spearheaded by family
advocates
> > over the last decade. Parents sought to have these hearings opened and,
> > increasingly across the country, state legislatures are listening.
> ---------------------------
> Your delusion.

I knew you wouldn't do it.

Too bad.

Dan

[R. Steve Walz]

Dan Sullivan wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote:
>
> > > A CPS finding of unsubstantiated or "alternative response non-victim" is
> a
> > > determination made at the conclusion of an assessment or investigation
> that
> > > risk of or actual maltreatment did not occur.
> > -------------------
> > Or is sub-actionable, but that doesn't mean the removal was not totally
> > right and appropriate.
>
> Please explain how the removal of a child could have been right and
> appropriate when at the conclusion of the investigation CPS determined the
> report to be unsubstantiated because of a lack of any credible evidence that
> there was a risk of or actual maltreatment of that child or their siblings.
-----------------------
A child can be removed on heresay that either is stricken in court
or not reproduced in court. Police Intent is the key, if the intent
was honest and probable cause for protective custody existed, it
would be actionable malfeasance to leave a child with a potential
abuser/murderer. That would be like leaving a rape victim with her
perp in handcuffs.

They've seen waaay too many kids turn up dead awaiting legal action
against their parent, that's WHY we ensconced these protective
measures in our laws.


> > This is NOT a prosecution, this is a protective
> > custody, and that is NOT covered by rules of false arrest or detainer.
>
> What does that have to do with it?
---------------------
They need not show probable cause of a crime, only a possible
danger to a child. Proving crime is hard on the spot, danger
can be a surmise.


> > > 81% of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect do not involve
> removal
> > > of the child at any stage.
> > ------------
> > Ir-****ing-relevant.
> >
> >
> > "The usual blah blah, Roz.
> > -----------
> > That's you being a twittering simpering piece of ****, shut the **** up.
> >
> >
> > > You had written, Of course they aren't.
> > > They are
> > > taken to do an investigation instead of leaving them to the possible
> tender
> > > mercies of abusers. 60% or more of the families come up unfounded with
> > > a return of the child."
> > >
> > > I read that to mean that, of the families who have their children
> removed
> > > during an investigation and prior to a finding, 60% or more come up
> > > unfounded and their children returned.
> > -------------------
> > Sure, so what? That's meaningless. It doesn't by ANY means we should
> > ignore good cause to protect a child when it fits presentation and may
> > be true. In fact we have a DUTY to remove the child EVEN *IN* error,
> > just to protect the minority of children who are actually BEING abused
> > whose parents might threaten, harm, or kill them to dissuade them from
> > witnessing against them if we had left them there with their perp!
>
> So we should remove children based on an unsubstantiated allegation from an
> anonymous call to a CPS hotline?
-----------------
Because we wind up saving a few children that way, that's why, the
same reason we roll an ambulance without full knowledge or triage.


> And if six kids out of ten are removed in error then that's the price THEY
> and their family have to pay?
-------------------
That's no major price compared to the alternative price that used
to be paid without these measures.


> And the time that they're kept in FC is in six month intervals (six month
> chunks of state and federal $$$).
----------------------------
Not always, in fact seldom.


> If the CPS attny can drag things out then the six month minimum could go to
> a year or even a year and a half!
----------------------
Push for funding to pay for faster juvenile due process.


> THEN the eighteen month TPR/free for adoption rule could come into play.
--------------------------
Not if you organize for oversight laws, but if you don't you don't
deserve ****.


> I'm working with a family whose trial was ordered by the Fam Ct Judge to be
> over on May 31 with the county attny having their final (rebuttal) witness
> ready to testify on that date.
>
> Since then the county attny has searched far and wide for a doctor to rebutt
> the expert MDs testimony. The county attny won't put any of these
> prospective witnesses on the stand because their testimony would support the
> expert MD's testimony!
> So the FINAL court date of 8-18 won't be the end and guess what?????
>
> The eighteen months is up!!!
----------------------------------------
Change the laws.
Things are tough all over.
Piles of dead kids are worse, in any case.
Or would you like them to die for your convenience?


> So the county could still win, not by the evidence, but by THEIR dragging on
> of this case.
>
> This is a NY case.
>
> I've got a similar one in Alabama.
-------------------
My, you do get around, dontcha?
Just one?
How many millions of people do you have to go through to find one?


> > We err on the side of caution when dealing with the safety of a
> > helpless child, because they have no means of escape if they actually
> > are a victim.
>
> And if their NOT a victim of actual maltreatment?
----------------------
Oh well. More often we simply can't prove it, but we got their
attention.


> You just want to make them a victim of the system.
----------------------
Now why would I want to do that?? Don't posture like a ****!!!


> > We'd be leaving them with their rapist or abuser. It
> > would be like taking a woman on whom we just did a rape kit and sent
> > it off to the lab, and sent her home in handcuffs with her rapist!!!
> >
> > We remove ANY child ON THE OFF CHANCE that THEY MIGHT remove THEMSELVES
> > if they were a competent adult cognizant of the dangers!
>
> And what of the children who're happy at home?
-----------------------
You DO know what cognitive dissonance and the Stockholm Syndrome
is, dontcha, Mr. Psychology?? Beaten women say they deserved the
beating their husband gave them, so does that mean we should take
their word for it, or rescue them before they're beaten to death?
Kids are even MORE vulnerable to this!


> The majority of the children (non-abused) after the investigation.
-----------------------
After they have been in a foster home for a while and the bruises heal.


> It's just their tough luck?
-------------------------
No, that's only what an abused child might say.
They WANT their father to beat them AGAIN!


> > > Are you now saying that after the investigation is closed with an
> > > unsubstantiated finding, these families must pass another threshold
> before
> > > return of their children? Or are you saying that in cases where
> > > investigations end with a substantiated finding, a further determination
> is
> > > made whether the substantiated abuse rises to the level where physical
> > > custody is required? Are you saying that children removed during an
> > > investigation that ends with a finding of unsubstantiated are still held
> in
> > > the legal custody of the state and returned to the family's "physical
> > > custody."
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Parents who do not cooperate are suspect, period, especially when the
> > finding is iffy.
>
> You're a moron, Steve.
>
> There's no such thing as an "iffy" finding.
-------------------------
Bull****. This is reality, give us a break!


> > > What happens to the children taken into state custody during an
> > > investigation after it is found that no risk of or actual abuse occurred
> > > (unsubstantiated)?
> > ---------------------------------
> > Their safety is paramount, and not their decision.
>
> Read it, Steve.
>
> NO RISK of or actual abuse.
>
> NO REASON for removal!!!!!
------------------
That can be determined in retrospect by a court process.
But clearly someone saw smoke.
Now that might be antipathy, but they do check that out,
I've watched them.


> > > Then the state was the abuser in the cases of 103,144 unsubstantiated
> > > children taken into custody in 2001?
> > ---------------------------
> > Nope, they were the rescuer, it was simply found later that no rescue
> > was needed. Rescue doesn't hurt anyone more than being left there.
>
> Please kill yourself ASAP.
-------------------------
You have become a true-believer ****. You believe whining perps.

Steve

[R. Steve Walz]

Dan Sullivan wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" > wrote:
>
> > A child can be removed on heresay that either is stricken in court
> > or not reproduced in court. Police Intent is the key, if the intent
> > was honest and probable cause for protective custody existed, it
> > would be actionable malfeasance to leave a child with a potential
> > abuser/murderer. That would be like leaving a rape victim with her
> > perp in handcuffs.
>
> How can the intent be determined if the report was made anonymously?
-----------------
The intent of police officials is the only important intent here.


> And CPS removes the children NOT the Police.
-------------------
I guess you don't realize that they have badges and rank just because
they are plain-clothes.


> > > > This is NOT a prosecution, this is a protective
> > > > custody, and that is NOT covered by rules of false arrest or detainer.
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with it?
> > ---------------------
> > They need not show probable cause of a crime, only a possible
> > danger to a child. Proving crime is hard on the spot, danger
> > can be a surmise.
>
> CPS frequently determines that a parent is a danger to their children based
> simply on the fact that an (anonymous) allegation was made..
------------------------------
Yep, this is necessary.


> > > So we should remove children based on an unsubstantiated allegation from
> an
> > > anonymous call to a CPS hotline?
> > -----------------
> > Because we wind up saving a few children that way, that's why, the
> > same reason we roll an ambulance without full knowledge or triage.
>
> But the patient isn't kept in he hospital for months on end if nothing is
> found to be wrong.
----------------------
Your metaphor is faulty.


> > > And if six kids out of ten are removed in error then that's the price
> THEY
> > > and their family have to pay?
> > -------------------
> > That's no major price compared to the alternative price that used
> > to be paid without these measures.
>
> As long as YOU or your children or grandchildren don't have to pay that
> price?
> Or are you willing to have your family pay that price if there's nothing
> wrong in your family?
---------------------------
If you were arrested and held for a year or more or more without bail
to be tried for a crime you didn't commit, you'd be just as peeved,
but you'd fathom the reasons. It's no different. It's also rare.


> > Not always, in fact seldom.
>
> "In fact seldom?"
--------------------------
Yup.


> > > If the CPS attny can drag things out then the six month minimum could go
> to
> > > a year or even a year and a half!
> > ----------------------
> > Push for funding to pay for faster juvenile due process.
>
> What makes you think a faster process would cost MORE?
----------------------------
Gee, faster service always costs more.


> > > THEN the eighteen month TPR/free for adoption rule could come into play.
> > --------------------------
> > Not if you organize for oversight laws, but if you don't you don't
> > deserve ****.
>
> "Organize for oversight laws?"
>
> Please explain.
-----------------
People who have complaints seek redress, look it uo.


> > > The eighteen months is up!!!
> > ----------------------------------------
> > Change the laws.
> > Things are tough all over.
> > Piles of dead kids are worse, in any case.
> > Or would you like them to die for your convenience?
>
> I don't want any children to die or be maltreated.
--------------------
This system prevents some of it.


> Not while they're in the custody of their parents OR in the custody of the
> government.
---------------------
The latter trumps the former.


> > How many millions of people do you have to go through to find one?
>
> How many people in a million have their children removed because of a false
> allegation of maltreatment?
--------------
Not many.


> > > > We err on the side of caution when dealing with the safety of a
> > > > helpless child, because they have no means of escape if they actually
> > > > are a victim.
> > >
> > > And if their NOT a victim of actual maltreatment?
> > ----------------------
> > Oh well. More often we simply can't prove it, but we got their
> > attention.
>
> Why would you need their attention if they never maltreated their children?
--------------------------
You don't know they didn't just because we didn't catch them THIS time!
Keep 'em honest in case they did.


> > > You just want to make them a victim of the system.
> > ----------------------
> > Now why would I want to do that?? Don't posture like a ****!!!
>
> To save the minority... that's what you said.
--------------------------
Necessary. And they aren't a "victim" of a RESCUE.


> "In fact we have a DUTY to remove the child EVEN *IN* error, just to protect
> the minority of children who are actually BEING abused.."
------------------------------
Yup.


> > > > We'd be leaving them with their rapist or abuser. It
> > > > would be like taking a woman on whom we just did a rape kit and sent
> > > > it off to the lab, and sent her home in handcuffs with her rapist!!!
> > > >
> > > > We remove ANY child ON THE OFF CHANCE that THEY MIGHT remove
> THEMSELVES
> > > > if they were a competent adult cognizant of the dangers!
> > >
> > > And what of the children who're happy at home?
> > -----------------------
> > You DO know what cognitive dissonance and the Stockholm Syndrome
> > is, dontcha, Mr. Psychology?? Beaten women say they deserved the
> > beating their husband gave them, so does that mean we should take
> > their word for it, or rescue them before they're beaten to death?
> > Kids are even MORE vulnerable to this!
>
> According to the gov's own stats the majority of the children who were
> removed weren't maltreated.
----------------
You misstated. They simply couldn't prove they were mistreated, that's
NOT the same as asserting that they weren't!


> > > The majority of the children (non-abused) after the investigation.
> > -----------------------
> > After they have been in a foster home for a while and the bruises heal.
>
> If they weren't maltreated there were no bruises caused by their parents.
----------------------------
Maltreatment doesn't always cause bruises, dummy,


> > > It's just their tough luck?
> > -------------------------
> > No, that's only what an abused child might say.
> > They WANT their father to beat them AGAIN!
>
> I'm speaking of the children who were determined after an investigation NOT
> to have been maltreated.
-------------------------
NO such determination is possible.


> > > There's no such thing as an "iffy" finding.
> > -------------------------
> > Bull****. This is reality, give us a break!
>
> Explain an "iffy" finding.
-----------------------------
Think it, but can't prove it.


> > That can be determined in retrospect by a court process.
> > But clearly someone saw smoke.
>
> "Clearly?"
>
> No one has ever made a false allegation of abuse?
---------------
Clearly refers to the officer whom someone misled. Firemen also
accept reports of smoke and act on them with full equipment.


> 40% of the calls made to a child abuse hotline are screened OUT because they
> don't even rise to the level required for an investigation.
------------------
They involve things not provable or impressions that are unspecific
as to acts.


> Is that what you would consider "clear?"
>
> 18%
---------------------
Sure.


> > > Please kill yourself ASAP.
> > -------------------------
> > You have become a true-believer ****. You believe whining perps.
>
> I have been founded by CPS five times for multiple offenses of maltreatment.
------------------------
Why were you that stupid that many times?


> And each and every time I challenged CPS to produce the "some credible
> evidence" that they used to make all those determinations against me.
>
> And each and every time they produced NO credible evidence.
>
> Which means there was no maltreatment EVER!!!!
------------------
No, it means they couldn't prove it.
Why were you reported that many times, smoke=fire.


> And all their "founded" determinations were reversed.
>
> Clearly they know what they're doing is against their own rules,
> regulations, policies and procedures.
--------------------------
No, it means they couldn't prove it. Not that they didn't think it.


> Is that acceptable to you, Steve?
>
> Dan Sullivan
----------------------
For them to be wrong more often than right and still empowered?
Hell yes.
Steve