Kane
October 19th 03, 08:47 PM
On 19 Oct 2003 17:28:23 GMT, (Woody Dole) wrote:
>
>"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
. net...
>>
>> "Woody Dole" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>
>> <<<snip>>>
>
>Dan,
>
>What is a FC court petition?
So good to see you back Dennis. You have so much to contribute....to
Dan's credibility....r r r r
It's the petition to place a child in out of home care (foster) with
state custody and a plan for services...if possible. Different names
different states. Even different time lines that recently are becoming
standardized.
>> > > In response to some of the false accusations we didn't write
much more
>> than,
>> > > "This is not true," because we knew CPS had no proof that it
was true.
>> > >
>> > > For ex CPS claimed that the parents left the baby in a smoke
filled room
>> all
>> > > day when the only evidence they documented was the smell of
cigarette
>> smoke
>> > > IN A GUEST HOUSE that was on the parent's property. Needless to
say the
>> > > child lived with her parents in the main house! The CW didn't
claim that
>> the
>> > > child lived in the guesthouse nor did she claim that she
smelled
>> cigarette
>> > > smoke in the main house where the child lived.
>> > >
>> > > It's monumental CPS errors like this that I look at as a gift
from God.
>> >
>> > Gift from God?? Nearly every case is littered with 'monumental
errors' [i]
>> > lies]
>>
>> And that makes prevailing over CPS easier.
>>
>> CPS loses credibility.[/color]
>CPS lies through their teeth on every case.
Nope. Enough though to keep things interesting and give folks like
Dan, and parents you and your cronies haven't managed to subvert, a
lot of material to work with to stop CPS or get parent's children
back.
>CPS has no credibility.
Odd, the legislatures of so many states, representatives of the
people, seem to think so, as do the people. You are a small, bitter,
and sad group of pimps of agitprop nonsense.
And nothing erks you more than to have among you someone that actually
does help families successfully. Your envy and jealousy preceed you.
>They have
>power.
So do the cops. That power is mediated by the judicial and legislative
branches, and this country has more than adequate means to ride herd
on CPS. In another country folks like Dan that go up against
government would be hunted down and probably shot out of hand.
Nice country we have. I like it. Media and all.
>That's why Juvenile Court judges across the country accept CPS lies
as
>truth.
Well, if you are too stupid to work the system, or too stupid to
engage someone that knows how, the judge doesn't have a whole lot of
info to go on to refute CPS, now does she?
>When in doubt, yank em out - the judge plays that game too.
Like I said, agitprop.
>You invented a letter excerpt, where mom admits to problem, denies
false
>allegations and the court returns her baby. The majority of parents
follow this
>same strategy. They agree to address problems, and they deny false
allegations.
Tsk. Imagine calling Dan a liar. I'm sure for you to be so incensed
and sure of yourself you must have some proof or at least a credible
argument or something else you can pull out of your hat.
We'll wait and CPSWatch.
>You seem to labor under the impression that only parents who refuse
to
>cooperate lose their children.
Oh gosh. I'm not willing to do a google in Dan and look at all his
posts but if memory serves I've never seen anything to suggest that
assertion is true, even in part.
I know he is aware, as I am, of parents that refuse to cooperate,
unless they are guilty as hell, and have lowered their odds of getting
their children back.
I have to ask myself why would they do such a thing? Who has convinced
them that all is hopeless (unless they are guilty), and siphoned off
their energy into the FIGHT CPS camp, when what they should be
focusing on is good tactical planning and getting their children back
above all else.
>Most parents cooperate.
About 60% of chilren do return to their natural families nationwide. I
wonder if there could be a connection?
We've even seen the self revealing guilty (though remorseful) get
their children back...related to us right on this NG...by both
cooperating and by using good tactical maneuvers that Dan suggested.
You and your cronies would have them all fighting CPS for the glory
and bloodshed you'd get to march through waving your sickly flag.
Silly twits.
>What this mother did is
>what 100's of thousands before her have done.
Really? Do drugs on her babies? Well, you are probably right. In the
past 30 years that's probably a sensible total. Few were getting their
babies back though without screwing up.
>But in your tale, mom expresses
>her shame and remorse, winning the judges heart and trust and
everybody lives
>happily ever after.
"Winning the judges heart and trust" is true enough...though it
usually takes place by CPS being shown to be wrong. No magic involved.
Just simple facts.
Can't say about the "lives happily ever after" thingy. I think she's
got a minimum of 6 months to go under the close watch of the court and
CPS as the court's agent. And considering the charges I'd say it's
probably a good idea.
Back in the bad ol' days lots of druggie and otherwise child
neglectful folks would express huge pails of remorseful tears in
court, get their kids back, and failing enough oversight and clearly
defined penalties, lost their kids yet again. Up front services plus
second and third, and fifteenth chances were being misused by folks
that partied their children's early years away.
Druggies do slip. As do neglectful parents and abusers.
>Certainly possible, but would require a lot of paperwork,
What would you not be willing to do to get your child back if the
state had him?
>a lot of letters,
What would you not be willing to do to get your child back if the
state had him?
> a
>lot of managing the service plan and dealing with PD's and CPS
lawyers,
>caseworkers, and supervisors - scores of hours by those trained to
tackle such
>tasks.
What would you not be willing to do to get your child back if the
state had him?
>That's the meat sully, that's the advice we crave. Share your work
>product, not your self-serving poppycock fantacies.
Well I think I see what the matter is here, Dennis. You think he has
some repertoire of magic tricks up his sleeve. A lot of hocus pocus
and complexity. On the contrary. What makes Dan's strategy and tactics
work is the very simplicity.
I can see why you folks with all your own hangups would assume others
are complex. It's called "projection."
It starts with clarity about what the goal is. And as anyone who has
ever learned good problem solving knows, having a single goal gives
one enormous leverage.
CPS has to, by federal law, and supporting state laws, engage at least
two contrary goals...return home, and out of home permancy. And they
must, buy that state law, pursue both simulteaneously - Concurrent
Planning the feds call it.
It cripples the system nicely. It give one more point of leverage for
the aware supporter of parents.
They also have other mandates to rehab the parent, and to engage
services for the child...tons of them, badly needed.
All the parent has to do is one simple thing to start with...keep
their eye on the ball.
The next step and it too is quit simple: Don't get your drawers in a
twist over CPS mistakes and end up sitting on an old swayback mare,
lance in hand, and a windmill beckoning from over the horizon.
>DD
Gosh, Woody Dole, you posting under Leakin' Dennis Deakin's initials
now?
Or was that just a little slip, a typo?
After all the [D] key is only one row down and two right on a QWERTY
keyboard....
You need to check in with Bob for better sock puppetry skills. And
while you are at it try among the folks in your chapter of CPSWatch.
R R R R R
Stoneman
>
>"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
. net...
>>
>> "Woody Dole" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>
>> <<<snip>>>
>
>Dan,
>
>What is a FC court petition?
So good to see you back Dennis. You have so much to contribute....to
Dan's credibility....r r r r
It's the petition to place a child in out of home care (foster) with
state custody and a plan for services...if possible. Different names
different states. Even different time lines that recently are becoming
standardized.
>> > > In response to some of the false accusations we didn't write
much more
>> than,
>> > > "This is not true," because we knew CPS had no proof that it
was true.
>> > >
>> > > For ex CPS claimed that the parents left the baby in a smoke
filled room
>> all
>> > > day when the only evidence they documented was the smell of
cigarette
>> smoke
>> > > IN A GUEST HOUSE that was on the parent's property. Needless to
say the
>> > > child lived with her parents in the main house! The CW didn't
claim that
>> the
>> > > child lived in the guesthouse nor did she claim that she
smelled
>> cigarette
>> > > smoke in the main house where the child lived.
>> > >
>> > > It's monumental CPS errors like this that I look at as a gift
from God.
>> >
>> > Gift from God?? Nearly every case is littered with 'monumental
errors' [i]
>> > lies]
>>
>> And that makes prevailing over CPS easier.
>>
>> CPS loses credibility.[/color]
>CPS lies through their teeth on every case.
Nope. Enough though to keep things interesting and give folks like
Dan, and parents you and your cronies haven't managed to subvert, a
lot of material to work with to stop CPS or get parent's children
back.
>CPS has no credibility.
Odd, the legislatures of so many states, representatives of the
people, seem to think so, as do the people. You are a small, bitter,
and sad group of pimps of agitprop nonsense.
And nothing erks you more than to have among you someone that actually
does help families successfully. Your envy and jealousy preceed you.
>They have
>power.
So do the cops. That power is mediated by the judicial and legislative
branches, and this country has more than adequate means to ride herd
on CPS. In another country folks like Dan that go up against
government would be hunted down and probably shot out of hand.
Nice country we have. I like it. Media and all.
>That's why Juvenile Court judges across the country accept CPS lies
as
>truth.
Well, if you are too stupid to work the system, or too stupid to
engage someone that knows how, the judge doesn't have a whole lot of
info to go on to refute CPS, now does she?
>When in doubt, yank em out - the judge plays that game too.
Like I said, agitprop.
>You invented a letter excerpt, where mom admits to problem, denies
false
>allegations and the court returns her baby. The majority of parents
follow this
>same strategy. They agree to address problems, and they deny false
allegations.
Tsk. Imagine calling Dan a liar. I'm sure for you to be so incensed
and sure of yourself you must have some proof or at least a credible
argument or something else you can pull out of your hat.
We'll wait and CPSWatch.
>You seem to labor under the impression that only parents who refuse
to
>cooperate lose their children.
Oh gosh. I'm not willing to do a google in Dan and look at all his
posts but if memory serves I've never seen anything to suggest that
assertion is true, even in part.
I know he is aware, as I am, of parents that refuse to cooperate,
unless they are guilty as hell, and have lowered their odds of getting
their children back.
I have to ask myself why would they do such a thing? Who has convinced
them that all is hopeless (unless they are guilty), and siphoned off
their energy into the FIGHT CPS camp, when what they should be
focusing on is good tactical planning and getting their children back
above all else.
>Most parents cooperate.
About 60% of chilren do return to their natural families nationwide. I
wonder if there could be a connection?
We've even seen the self revealing guilty (though remorseful) get
their children back...related to us right on this NG...by both
cooperating and by using good tactical maneuvers that Dan suggested.
You and your cronies would have them all fighting CPS for the glory
and bloodshed you'd get to march through waving your sickly flag.
Silly twits.
>What this mother did is
>what 100's of thousands before her have done.
Really? Do drugs on her babies? Well, you are probably right. In the
past 30 years that's probably a sensible total. Few were getting their
babies back though without screwing up.
>But in your tale, mom expresses
>her shame and remorse, winning the judges heart and trust and
everybody lives
>happily ever after.
"Winning the judges heart and trust" is true enough...though it
usually takes place by CPS being shown to be wrong. No magic involved.
Just simple facts.
Can't say about the "lives happily ever after" thingy. I think she's
got a minimum of 6 months to go under the close watch of the court and
CPS as the court's agent. And considering the charges I'd say it's
probably a good idea.
Back in the bad ol' days lots of druggie and otherwise child
neglectful folks would express huge pails of remorseful tears in
court, get their kids back, and failing enough oversight and clearly
defined penalties, lost their kids yet again. Up front services plus
second and third, and fifteenth chances were being misused by folks
that partied their children's early years away.
Druggies do slip. As do neglectful parents and abusers.
>Certainly possible, but would require a lot of paperwork,
What would you not be willing to do to get your child back if the
state had him?
>a lot of letters,
What would you not be willing to do to get your child back if the
state had him?
> a
>lot of managing the service plan and dealing with PD's and CPS
lawyers,
>caseworkers, and supervisors - scores of hours by those trained to
tackle such
>tasks.
What would you not be willing to do to get your child back if the
state had him?
>That's the meat sully, that's the advice we crave. Share your work
>product, not your self-serving poppycock fantacies.
Well I think I see what the matter is here, Dennis. You think he has
some repertoire of magic tricks up his sleeve. A lot of hocus pocus
and complexity. On the contrary. What makes Dan's strategy and tactics
work is the very simplicity.
I can see why you folks with all your own hangups would assume others
are complex. It's called "projection."
It starts with clarity about what the goal is. And as anyone who has
ever learned good problem solving knows, having a single goal gives
one enormous leverage.
CPS has to, by federal law, and supporting state laws, engage at least
two contrary goals...return home, and out of home permancy. And they
must, buy that state law, pursue both simulteaneously - Concurrent
Planning the feds call it.
It cripples the system nicely. It give one more point of leverage for
the aware supporter of parents.
They also have other mandates to rehab the parent, and to engage
services for the child...tons of them, badly needed.
All the parent has to do is one simple thing to start with...keep
their eye on the ball.
The next step and it too is quit simple: Don't get your drawers in a
twist over CPS mistakes and end up sitting on an old swayback mare,
lance in hand, and a windmill beckoning from over the horizon.
>DD
Gosh, Woody Dole, you posting under Leakin' Dennis Deakin's initials
now?
Or was that just a little slip, a typo?
After all the [D] key is only one row down and two right on a QWERTY
keyboard....
You need to check in with Bob for better sock puppetry skills. And
while you are at it try among the folks in your chapter of CPSWatch.
R R R R R
Stoneman