TX cw's can visit fosters in school, courts, professional appointments

[Fern5827]

This is for the folks who had denied the facts that cw's visit children in
schools to assess their well-being.


FW:

Subject: TX cw's allowed to visit fosters in schools, court, therapists offices
From: (Fern5827)
Date: 7/5/2004 6:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: >

However, a face to face meeting with the child is required at least once every
3 months.

This, standard, however is frequently NOT met.
************************************************** ************************

DPRS policy states that foster care caseworkers must visit each child in their
charge at least once a month. These visits can occur in a variety of places,
including court, school, a therapist’s place of business or the foster home.
If for some reason a caseworker cannot visit each child each month, his or her
supervisor must approve a reduced visitation schedule and note it in the
child’s case file.

Without exception, regardless of the frequency and location of other
face-to-face contacts, DPRS stipulates that caseworkers must visit their
charges in person at their residences once every three months.1 These
standards, however, are not always met.


TX Comptroller's report on foster care in TX. April 2004

descriptors; TEXAS, DFPS, TDPRS, DPRS, CHILD PROTECTIVE, CPS, FOSTER CARE, KIN
CARE, VISITATION, ASFA, CAPTA

[Kane]

On 06 Jul 2004 18:42:35 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>This is for the folks who had denied the facts that cw's visit
children in
>schools to assess their well-being.

I missed that. Who denied Texas had in-school CW visits in what post
to this ng please?

I'd like to see if that is what they did, and if so, I'll personally
ask them to acknowledge their mistake, (like I'd even have to with the
honest people on my side of this argument.)

I note that Yew have never ever acknowledged a single mistake in
debate as yet. Even WHEN YOU LIE out your ass.

Just recently an expert Yew cited to claim there was a reduction in
child sexual abuse HIMSELF POINTED OUT HOW THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE AT
ALL, BUT SIMPLY A CHANGE IN REPORTING FROM FIVE OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES
THAN AN ACTUAL REDUCTION, reduction that would NOT be related the the
good job CPS has done in uncovering child sexual abuse in the past two
decades.

Then from Yew...nothing but a jump to another country. This is NOT
Australia and there is no magic wand that had decreased the urgency
paedophiles feel to express their sexual interest in
children...EXCEPT, by virtue of both the US and AU having active child
protection agencies.

Want to bet it hasn't gone down in Pakistan, or Africa, or SE
Asi.........oh wait, it HAS gone down there because the government has
become extremely active in pursuing paedophiles.

Yer a useless twit.

Kane

>
>
>FW:
>
>Subject: TX cw's allowed to visit fosters in schools, court,
therapists offices
>From: (Fern5827)
>Date: 7/5/2004 6:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>However, a face to face meeting with the child is required at least
once every
>3 months.
>
>This, standard, however is frequently NOT met.
>************************************************** ************************
>
>DPRS policy states that foster care caseworkers must visit each child
in their
>charge at least once a month. These visits can occur in a variety of
places,
>including court, school, a therapist’s place of business or the
foster home.
>If for some reason a caseworker cannot visit each child each month,
his or her
>supervisor must approve a reduced visitation schedule and note it in
the
>child’s case file.
>
>Without exception, regardless of the frequency and location of other
>face-to-face contacts, DPRS stipulates that caseworkers must visit
their
>charges in person at their residences once every three months.1 These
>standards, however, are not always met.
>
>
>TX Comptroller's report on foster care in TX. April 2004
>
>descriptors; TEXAS, DFPS, TDPRS, DPRS, CHILD PROTECTIVE, CPS, FOSTER
CARE, KIN
>CARE, VISITATION, ASFA, CAPTA
>
>
>
>
>

[Sherman]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On 06 Jul 2004 18:42:35 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>
> >This is for the folks who had denied the facts that cw's visit
> children in
> >schools to assess their well-being.
>
> I missed that. Who denied Texas had in-school CW visits in what post
> to this ng please?
>

It can't produce any information because this never happened.
What has happened in this ng is that it advocates for cw's visiting with
children in the schools and interregating them without their parent's
knowledge or permission.
Sherman.


> I'd like to see if that is what they did, and if so, I'll personally
> ask them to acknowledge their mistake, (like I'd even have to with the
> honest people on my side of this argument.)
>
> I note that Yew have never ever acknowledged a single mistake in
> debate as yet. Even WHEN YOU LIE out your ass.
>
> Just recently an expert Yew cited to claim there was a reduction in
> child sexual abuse HIMSELF POINTED OUT HOW THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE AT
> ALL, BUT SIMPLY A CHANGE IN REPORTING FROM FIVE OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES
> THAN AN ACTUAL REDUCTION, reduction that would NOT be related the the
> good job CPS has done in uncovering child sexual abuse in the past two
> decades.
>
> Then from Yew...nothing but a jump to another country. This is NOT
> Australia and there is no magic wand that had decreased the urgency
> paedophiles feel to express their sexual interest in
> children...EXCEPT, by virtue of both the US and AU having active child
> protection agencies.
>
> Want to bet it hasn't gone down in Pakistan, or Africa, or SE
> Asi.........oh wait, it HAS gone down there because the government has
> become extremely active in pursuing paedophiles.
>
> Yer a useless twit.
>
> Kane
>
> >
> >
> >FW:
> >
> >Subject: TX cw's allowed to visit fosters in schools, court,
> therapists offices
> >From: (Fern5827)
> >Date: 7/5/2004 6:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >However, a face to face meeting with the child is required at least
> once every
> >3 months.
> >
> >This, standard, however is frequently NOT met.
>
>************************************************** ************************
> >
> >DPRS policy states that foster care caseworkers must visit each child
> in their
> >charge at least once a month. These visits can occur in a variety of
> places,
> >including court, school, a therapist's place of business or the
> foster home.
> >If for some reason a caseworker cannot visit each child each month,
> his or her
> >supervisor must approve a reduced visitation schedule and note it in
> the
> >child's case file.
> >
> >Without exception, regardless of the frequency and location of other
> >face-to-face contacts, DPRS stipulates that caseworkers must visit
> their
> >charges in person at their residences once every three months.1 These
> >standards, however, are not always met.
> >
> >
> >TX Comptroller's report on foster care in TX. April 2004
> >
> >descriptors; TEXAS, DFPS, TDPRS, DPRS, CHILD PROTECTIVE, CPS, FOSTER
> CARE, KIN
> >CARE, VISITATION, ASFA, CAPTA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Fern5827]

NO, NO...this is for assessment purposes only.

THEIR MANDATED MONTLY VISITS TO DETERMINE JUST HOW WELL OR POORLY THE CHILD IS
FARING.

After being in foster care. Not before.

Several folks were quite vehement about cw's never visiting children in school.

I proposed it years ago, to allow for more efficient visitation on the part of
cw's. After all, a county might have only ONE MIDDLE SCHOOL.

A cw could complete visits with children there in less than an hour.

Let's say there were 10 children in Middle School in fosterincarceration.
Visit could be completed and it would free up approximately 20 hours of a
caseworker's valuable time.

Folks were screaming PRIVACY, etc.

It appears that TExas has been allowing for this efficiency all the time.

Sherry penned:

>Subject: Re: TX cw's can visit fosters in school, courts, professional
>appointments
>From: "Sherman"
>Date: 7/7/2004 7:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> On 06 Jul 2004 18:42:35 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>>
>> >This is for the folks who had denied the facts that cw's visit
>> children in
>> >schools to assess their well-being.
>>
>> I missed that. Who denied Texas had in-school CW visits in what post
>> to this ng please?
>>
>
>It can't produce any information because this never happened.
>What has happened in this ng is that it advocates for cw's visiting with
>children in the schools and interregating them without their parent's
>knowledge or permission.
>Sherman.
>
>
>> I'd like to see if that is what they did, and if so, I'll personally
>> ask them to acknowledge their mistake, (like I'd even have to with the
>> honest people on my side of this argument.)
>>
>> I note that Yew have never ever acknowledged a single mistake in
>> debate as yet. Even WHEN YOU LIE out your ass.
>>
>> Just recently an expert Yew cited to claim there was a reduction in
>> child sexual abuse HIMSELF POINTED OUT HOW THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE AT
>> ALL, BUT SIMPLY A CHANGE IN REPORTING FROM FIVE OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES
>> THAN AN ACTUAL REDUCTION, reduction that would NOT be related the the
>> good job CPS has done in uncovering child sexual abuse in the past two
>> decades.
>>
>> Then from Yew...nothing but a jump to another country. This is NOT
>> Australia and there is no magic wand that had decreased the urgency
>> paedophiles feel to express their sexual interest in
>> children...EXCEPT, by virtue of both the US and AU having active child
>> protection agencies.
>>
>> Want to bet it hasn't gone down in Pakistan, or Africa, or SE
>> Asi.........oh wait, it HAS gone down there because the government has
>> become extremely active in pursuing paedophiles.
>>
>> Yer a useless twit.
>>
>> Kane
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >FW:
>> >
>> >Subject: TX cw's allowed to visit fosters in schools, court,
>> therapists offices
>> >From: (Fern5827)
>> >Date: 7/5/2004 6:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >However, a face to face meeting with the child is required at least
>> once every
>> >3 months.
>> >
>> >This, standard, however is frequently NOT met.
>>
>>************************************************** ************************
>> >
>> >DPRS policy states that foster care caseworkers must visit each child
>> in their
>> >charge at least once a month. These visits can occur in a variety of
>> places,
>> >including court, school, a therapist's place of business or the
>> foster home.
>> >If for some reason a caseworker cannot visit each child each month,
>> his or her
>> >supervisor must approve a reduced visitation schedule and note it in
>> the
>> >child's case file.
>> >
>> >Without exception, regardless of the frequency and location of other
>> >face-to-face contacts, DPRS stipulates that caseworkers must visit
>> their
>> >charges in person at their residences once every three months.1 These
>> >standards, however, are not always met.
>> >
>> >
>> >TX Comptroller's report on foster care in TX. April 2004
>> >
>> >descriptors; TEXAS, DFPS, TDPRS, DPRS, CHILD PROTECTIVE, CPS, FOSTER
>> CARE, KIN
>> >CARE, VISITATION, ASFA, CAPTA
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Kane]

On 07 Jul 2004 13:08:19 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>NO, NO...this is for assessment purposes only.

Which is completely beside the point of my question in response to
your claim people in this ng as follows:

"This is for the folks who had denied the facts that cw's visit
children in schools to assess their well-being."

>THEIR MANDATED MONTLY VISITS TO DETERMINE JUST HOW WELL OR POORLY THE
CHILD IS
>FARING.
>
>After being in foster care. Not before.
>
>Several folks were quite vehement about cw's never visiting children
in school.

Which "several folks" would that BE, Begonia? I am responding to your
claim that they that cw's visit children in schools.

>I proposed it years ago, to allow for more efficient visitation on
the part of
>cw's. After all, a county might have only ONE MIDDLE SCHOOL.

And yet YOU and some of YOUR cohort have complained about children
being interrogated WHILE IN FOSTER CARE without the presence or
permission of their parents.

So which is it, Hazelnut. WHAT DO YOU ASSHOLES WANT?

You claim CPS is over zealous in their work, then you claim they are
insufficiently energetic.

This is ALL BABBLING propaganda because all human beings can be so
charged by observers. Sometimes I chivvy you lying assholes WAAAAAY
too much (r r r r) and waaaaay to often NOT ****IN' ENOUGH.

>A cw could complete visits with children there in less than an hour.

And go very MUCH against claims and complaints of YOU and others in
this ng.

As I recall a certain couch growing mold claims that a child HE had
some interactions with was, in out of home care...relative foster
placement, being regularly "interrogated" to see if she would change
her story about HIM.

And as an aside, I see know problem with this as time passes and the
child begins to feel safer and more secure and less likely to be
placed in a situation where she could be revictimized by the perp, and
finally tells the truth about what happened to her at his hands.

>Let's say there were 10 children in Middle School in
fosterincarceration.
>Visit could be completed and it would free up approximately 20 hours
of a
>caseworker's valuable time.

Yep. But NOT to the point of you claiming folks were in denial that
cw's can do visits in school.

>
>Folks were screaming PRIVACY, etc.

Well, I GUESS. It's pretty much a constant here.

Or maybe you are becoming a CPS advocate now?

>It appears that TExas has been allowing for this efficiency all the
time.

Sherman didn't deny this. Why would you, in response to my request to
show how the TX article would be for people in denial and who they
were?

You STILL haven't told me who those people were? Frankly, in a search
I am unable to locate any.

>
> Sherry penned:

I know. And there is NO denial on Sherman's part that this happens,
only that some in these ngs have NOT LIKED IT.

Kane

>>Subject: Re: TX cw's can visit fosters in school, courts,
professional
>>appointments
>>From: "Sherman"
>>Date: 7/7/2004 7:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>>> On 06 Jul 2004 18:42:35 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>>>
>>> >This is for the folks who had denied the facts that cw's visit
>>> children in
>>> >schools to assess their well-being.
>>>
>>> I missed that. Who denied Texas had in-school CW visits in what
post
>>> to this ng please?
>>>
>>
>>It can't produce any information because this never happened.
>>What has happened in this ng is that it advocates for cw's visiting
with
>>children in the schools and interregating them without their
parent's
>>knowledge or permission.
>>Sherman.
>>
>>
>>> I'd like to see if that is what they did, and if so, I'll
personally
>>> ask them to acknowledge their mistake, (like I'd even have to with
the
>>> honest people on my side of this argument.)
>>>
>>> I note that Yew have never ever acknowledged a single mistake in
>>> debate as yet. Even WHEN YOU LIE out your ass.
>>>
>>> Just recently an expert Yew cited to claim there was a reduction
in
>>> child sexual abuse HIMSELF POINTED OUT HOW THIS MAY NOT BE THE
CASE AT
>>> ALL, BUT SIMPLY A CHANGE IN REPORTING FROM FIVE OTHER POSSIBLE
CAUSES
>>> THAN AN ACTUAL REDUCTION, reduction that would NOT be related the
the
>>> good job CPS has done in uncovering child sexual abuse in the past
two
>>> decades.
>>>
>>> Then from Yew...nothing but a jump to another country. This is NOT
>>> Australia and there is no magic wand that had decreased the
urgency
>>> paedophiles feel to express their sexual interest in
>>> children...EXCEPT, by virtue of both the US and AU having active
child
>>> protection agencies.
>>>
>>> Want to bet it hasn't gone down in Pakistan, or Africa, or SE
>>> Asi.........oh wait, it HAS gone down there because the government
has
>>> become extremely active in pursuing paedophiles.
>>>
>>> Yer a useless twit.
>>>
>>> Kane
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >FW:
>>> >
>>> >Subject: TX cw's allowed to visit fosters in schools, court,
>>> therapists offices
>>> >From: (Fern5827)
>>> >Date: 7/5/2004 6:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>> >Message-id: >
>>> >
>>> >However, a face to face meeting with the child is required at
least
>>> once every
>>> >3 months.
>>> >
>>> >This, standard, however is frequently NOT met.
>>>
>>>************************************************** ************************
>>> >
>>> >DPRS policy states that foster care caseworkers must visit each
child
>>> in their
>>> >charge at least once a month. These visits can occur in a variety
of
>>> places,
>>> >including court, school, a therapist's place of business or the
>>> foster home.
>>> >If for some reason a caseworker cannot visit each child each
month,
>>> his or her
>>> >supervisor must approve a reduced visitation schedule and note it
in
>>> the
>>> >child's case file.
>>> >
>>> >Without exception, regardless of the frequency and location of
other
>>> >face-to-face contacts, DPRS stipulates that caseworkers must
visit
>>> their
>>> >charges in person at their residences once every three months.1
These
>>> >standards, however, are not always met.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >TX Comptroller's report on foster care in TX. April 2004
>>> >
>>> >descriptors; TEXAS, DFPS, TDPRS, DPRS, CHILD PROTECTIVE, CPS,
FOSTER
>>> CARE, KIN
>>> >CARE, VISITATION, ASFA, CAPTA
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Kane]

On 07 Jul 2004 15:44:32 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Uh uh uh...no no no....no skating on changing your stupid claim and
challenge, the someone or someone's in this ng denied that CW visit
children in school.


Are you going to post a REAL retraction and corrections, or just pull
a Duplicitious number on us, like you best Bud's?


On 07 Jul 2004 15:44:32 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>Subject: Re: TX cw's can visit fosters in school, courts,
professional
>appointments
>From: (Fern5827)
>Date: 7/7/2004 9:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>NO, NO...this is for assessment purposes only.

Oh, I see. In other words your phony baloney subject lines and opening
statements tripped you up because you didn't disclose enough
information for someone to understand what you were babbling about in
the first post and and to tease it out of you. How quaint, and
Douggie-like.

>THEIR MANDATED MONTLY VISITS TO DETERMINE JUST HOW WELL OR POORLY THE
CHILD IS
>FARING.

YOu said some here denied there WERE any such visits.

>After being in foster care. Not before.

You have three bad posting habits. One is your phony subject lines,
the second your blathering statements and claims that appear to come
out of thin air and be seriously off-topic, even for your subject
line....no, ESPECIALLY for your subject. Third, of course, it that you
have your Blossom up your Rootball so much of the time and don't know
wnat you are talking about, and or are inconsistent in your
message....like demanding CPS do what it is NOT mandated by law to do,
then screaming when the DO what they are mandated to do AND IT
WORKS.....AS IN THE LOWERED INCIDENCE OF SEX ABUSE, IF IT IS TRUE AND
NOT JUST A COUNT METHOD ERROR, AS ONE STATE SEEMS TO BE FINDING.

>Several folks were quite vehement about cw's never visiting children
in school.

YOU SAID THEY DENIED THAT THERE WERE VISITS AND YOU POSTED THE EXTRACT
TO PROVE THEM WRONG........................WHO, I ASK AGAIN, DENIED
such visits take place, or admit you ****ed up your claims again by
either stupidity or a lie.

And I asked you to name them, and you snipped and posted a reply TODAY
from Sherman, as a reply to my question - RIGHT YOU SILLY ASSWIPE?

Sherman appears NOT to be one of those claiming TX doesn't have
in-school CW visits with children.

On the other hand Sherman IS DEAD ON WITH THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A
LOT OF SCREAMING ABOUT PRIVACY ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PRACTICE.

And NO, it is NOT confined to pre-placement. It is a complaint even
AFTER THE CHILD IS IN CARE.....you can check this out with your best
Bud,


THE COUCH MOLD WHORE.

>I proposed it years ago, to allow for more efficient visitation on
the part of
>cw's. After all, a county might have only ONE MIDDLE SCHOOL.

R R R R ....how many counties are you figuring. I live in a place with
an extremely limited population in the county. they still have a
number of elementaries (or is there some rule about younger children
you haven't told us?) two highshools and two middle schools.

And in case you have forgetten, staffing of CPS branch offices tends
to be considerably less in rural areas than in the cities. Hence, you
accomplish little to nothing with your suggestion. If they save time
THEY ARE VERY LIKELY, WHEN THEY CAN DEVOTE MORE TIME TO SOMETHING
ELSE, TO HAVE A PERSONNEL CUTBACK.

>A cw could complete visits with children there in less than an hour.

I just love this. You know NOTHING about it. For one thing the
children are NOT going to be released from class for two hours, as you
suggest below, on the CW's schedule but on the TEACHER's, you bundle
of dead Wood.

You continually demonstrate you know NOTHING ABOUT CASEWORK, CPS, OR
WHERE YOUR BLOOSOM IS HIDDEN.

>Let's say there were 10 children in Middle School in
fosterincarceration.
>Visit could be completed and it would free up approximately 20 hours
of a
>caseworker's valuable time.

Yet more nonsense. And **** you for calling protective custody
"fosterincarceration." That's a flat out bald face lie.

If they were encarcerated they'd hardly be going to school, playing in
the playground, going shopping with the FP, on vacations with them,
and being tucked in at night. You know any cons so confined?

Ask Ron if he keeps them in locked cells, gives them one hour or so a
week in the exercise yard, and stops them from calling their parents,
OR monitors their calls.

As for the 20 hours of CW time. Well, very very few caseworkers have
only 10 cases. In fact I defy you to find ONE that does, that isn't
loaded up with OTHER duties. In the rural areas they do double,
triple, and quadruple duty and MORE of the tasks they are required to
do.

They do intake, even PS investigations, take shifts on the abuse
HOTLINE for their branch...yes, many states do NOT have a central
system that covers the entire state, and even if they do SOMEONE IN
THE AREA OF THE CALL AND THE ALLEDGED ABUSE HAS TO RESPOND...who do
you think that might be, Bracken?

In addition many also do ALL THE FOSTER FAMILY CERTIFICATION,
TRAINING, AND SUPERVISION OF THE FAMILIES THE CHILDREN ARE THEIR
CASELOAD ARE PLACED IN.

>Folks were screaming PRIVACY, etc.

Yeah. YOU FOLKS. And those you pimp and shill for.

>It appears that TExas has been allowing for this efficiency all the
time.

So the **** what, given your claim and MY question you STILL haven't
answered. Give us some names of these miscreants that claimed CW
DOESN'T VISIT children in school.

>
> Sherry penned:

And it is, apparently, a pretty accurate statement, all things being
logical and thoughtful, especially compared to YOUR blathering posts?

Now WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT IN RECYCLING THIS OLD information?
Just need something to occupy your time until you get Harvested? Or is
that old Blossom up the Rootball thing again?

Kane

>
>>Subject: Re: TX cw's can visit fosters in school, courts,
professional
>>appointments
>>From: "Sherman"
>>Date: 7/7/2004 7:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>>> On 06 Jul 2004 18:42:35 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>>>
>>> >This is for the folks who had denied the facts that cw's visit
>>> children in
>>> >schools to assess their well-being.
>>>
>>> I missed that. Who denied Texas had in-school CW visits in what
post
>>> to this ng please?
>>>
>>
>>It can't produce any information because this never happened.
>>What has happened in this ng is that it advocates for cw's visiting
with
>>children in the schools and interregating them without their
parent's
>>knowledge or permission.
>>Sherman.
>>
>>
>>> I'd like to see if that is what they did, and if so, I'll
personally
>>> ask them to acknowledge their mistake, (like I'd even have to with
the
>>> honest people on my side of this argument.)
>>>
>>> I note that Yew have never ever acknowledged a single mistake in
>>> debate as yet. Even WHEN YOU LIE out your ass.
>>>
>>> Just recently an expert Yew cited to claim there was a reduction
in
>>> child sexual abuse HIMSELF POINTED OUT HOW THIS MAY NOT BE THE
CASE AT
>>> ALL, BUT SIMPLY A CHANGE IN REPORTING FROM FIVE OTHER POSSIBLE
CAUSES
>>> THAN AN ACTUAL REDUCTION, reduction that would NOT be related the
the
>>> good job CPS has done in uncovering child sexual abuse in the past
two
>>> decades.
>>>
>>> Then from Yew...nothing but a jump to another country. This is NOT
>>> Australia and there is no magic wand that had decreased the
urgency
>>> paedophiles feel to express their sexual interest in
>>> children...EXCEPT, by virtue of both the US and AU having active
child
>>> protection agencies.
>>>
>>> Want to bet it hasn't gone down in Pakistan, or Africa, or SE
>>> Asi.........oh wait, it HAS gone down there because the government
has
>>> become extremely active in pursuing paedophiles.
>>>
>>> Yer a useless twit.
>>>
>>> Kane
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >FW:
>>> >
>>> >Subject: TX cw's allowed to visit fosters in schools, court,
>>> therapists offices
>>> >From: (Fern5827)
>>> >Date: 7/5/2004 6:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>> >Message-id: >
>>> >
>>> >However, a face to face meeting with the child is required at
least
>>> once every
>>> >3 months.
>>> >
>>> >This, standard, however is frequently NOT met.
>>>
>>>************************************************** ************************
>>> >
>>> >DPRS policy states that foster care caseworkers must visit each
child
>>> in their
>>> >charge at least once a month. These visits can occur in a variety
of
>>> places,
>>> >including court, school, a therapist's place of business or the
>>> foster home.
>>> >If for some reason a caseworker cannot visit each child each
month,
>>> his or her
>>> >supervisor must approve a reduced visitation schedule and note it
in
>>> the
>>> >child's case file.
>>> >
>>> >Without exception, regardless of the frequency and location of
other
>>> >face-to-face contacts, DPRS stipulates that caseworkers must
visit
>>> their
>>> >charges in person at their residences once every three months.1
These
>>> >standards, however, are not always met.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >TX Comptroller's report on foster care in TX. April 2004
>>> >
>>> >descriptors; TEXAS, DFPS, TDPRS, DPRS, CHILD PROTECTIVE, CPS,
FOSTER
>>> CARE, KIN
>>> >CARE, VISITATION, ASFA, CAPTA
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Sherman]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On 07 Jul 2004 15:44:32 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>
> Uh uh uh...no no no....no skating on changing your stupid claim and
> challenge, the someone or someone's in this ng denied that CW visit
> children in school.
>
>
> Are you going to post a REAL retraction and corrections, or just pull
> a Duplicitious number on us, like you best Bud's?
>
>
> On 07 Jul 2004 15:44:32 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: TX cw's can visit fosters in school, courts,
> professional
> >appointments
> >From: (Fern5827)
> >Date: 7/7/2004 9:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >NO, NO...this is for assessment purposes only.
>
> Oh, I see. In other words your phony baloney subject lines and opening
> statements tripped you up because you didn't disclose enough
> information for someone to understand what you were babbling about in
> the first post and and to tease it out of you. How quaint, and
> Douggie-like.
>
> >THEIR MANDATED MONTLY VISITS TO DETERMINE JUST HOW WELL OR POORLY THE
> CHILD IS
> >FARING.
>
> YOu said some here denied there WERE any such visits.
>
> >After being in foster care. Not before.
>
> You have three bad posting habits. One is your phony subject lines,
> the second your blathering statements and claims that appear to come
> out of thin air and be seriously off-topic, even for your subject
> line....no, ESPECIALLY for your subject. Third, of course, it that you
> have your Blossom up your Rootball so much of the time and don't know
> wnat you are talking about, and or are inconsistent in your
> message....like demanding CPS do what it is NOT mandated by law to do,
> then screaming when the DO what they are mandated to do AND IT
> WORKS.....AS IN THE LOWERED INCIDENCE OF SEX ABUSE, IF IT IS TRUE AND
> NOT JUST A COUNT METHOD ERROR, AS ONE STATE SEEMS TO BE FINDING.
>
> >Several folks were quite vehement about cw's never visiting children
> in school.
>
> YOU SAID THEY DENIED THAT THERE WERE VISITS AND YOU POSTED THE EXTRACT
> TO PROVE THEM WRONG........................WHO, I ASK AGAIN, DENIED
> such visits take place, or admit you ****ed up your claims again by
> either stupidity or a lie.
>
> And I asked you to name them, and you snipped and posted a reply TODAY
> from Sherman, as a reply to my question - RIGHT YOU SILLY ASSWIPE?
>
> Sherman appears NOT to be one of those claiming TX doesn't have
> in-school CW visits with children.
>
> On the other hand Sherman IS DEAD ON WITH THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A
> LOT OF SCREAMING ABOUT PRIVACY ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PRACTICE.
>
(snipped)


The response to the pseudopodium's post was offered because the information
it posted was misleading. It took the actual verbiage offered and fed
itself it's own nonsense. Again.

Luahine ka 'ino...
E menemene ana au i ka'u mea e menemene aku ai.

Kelemana

[Ron]

Of course you cant Sherm, its never happened. What has happened, again, is
fern trying to make something out of nothing.

The facts here are pretty clear fern, the CW, being the defacto childs legal
guardian, has every right to visit the child whenever and whereever they
like. Without restriction. No one here has ever stated differently that I
know of, but then of course that lay's the burden of proof of supporting
your statement right in your lap. You rarely try to support your
statements, usually leaving that up to another member of the "mob", so I
expect nothing to come from this either.

Ron

"Sherman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> > On 06 Jul 2004 18:42:35 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
> >
> > >This is for the folks who had denied the facts that cw's visit
> > children in
> > >schools to assess their well-being.
> >
> > I missed that. Who denied Texas had in-school CW visits in what post
> > to this ng please?
> >
>
> It can't produce any information because this never happened.
> What has happened in this ng is that it advocates for cw's visiting with
> children in the schools and interregating them without their parent's
> knowledge or permission.
> Sherman.
>
>
> > I'd like to see if that is what they did, and if so, I'll personally
> > ask them to acknowledge their mistake, (like I'd even have to with the
> > honest people on my side of this argument.)
> >
> > I note that Yew have never ever acknowledged a single mistake in
> > debate as yet. Even WHEN YOU LIE out your ass.
> >
> > Just recently an expert Yew cited to claim there was a reduction in
> > child sexual abuse HIMSELF POINTED OUT HOW THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE AT
> > ALL, BUT SIMPLY A CHANGE IN REPORTING FROM FIVE OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES
> > THAN AN ACTUAL REDUCTION, reduction that would NOT be related the the
> > good job CPS has done in uncovering child sexual abuse in the past two
> > decades.
> >
> > Then from Yew...nothing but a jump to another country. This is NOT
> > Australia and there is no magic wand that had decreased the urgency
> > paedophiles feel to express their sexual interest in
> > children...EXCEPT, by virtue of both the US and AU having active child
> > protection agencies.
> >
> > Want to bet it hasn't gone down in Pakistan, or Africa, or SE
> > Asi.........oh wait, it HAS gone down there because the government has
> > become extremely active in pursuing paedophiles.
> >
> > Yer a useless twit.
> >
> > Kane
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >FW:
> > >
> > >Subject: TX cw's allowed to visit fosters in schools, court,
> > therapists offices
> > >From: (Fern5827)
> > >Date: 7/5/2004 6:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >However, a face to face meeting with the child is required at least
> > once every
> > >3 months.
> > >
> > >This, standard, however is frequently NOT met.
> >
>
>************************************************** ************************
> > >
> > >DPRS policy states that foster care caseworkers must visit each child
> > in their
> > >charge at least once a month. These visits can occur in a variety of
> > places,
> > >including court, school, a therapist's place of business or the
> > foster home.
> > >If for some reason a caseworker cannot visit each child each month,
> > his or her
> > >supervisor must approve a reduced visitation schedule and note it in
> > the
> > >child's case file.
> > >
> > >Without exception, regardless of the frequency and location of other
> > >face-to-face contacts, DPRS stipulates that caseworkers must visit
> > their
> > >charges in person at their residences once every three months.1 These
> > >standards, however, are not always met.
> > >
> > >
> > >TX Comptroller's report on foster care in TX. April 2004
> > >
> > >descriptors; TEXAS, DFPS, TDPRS, DPRS, CHILD PROTECTIVE, CPS, FOSTER
> > CARE, KIN
> > >CARE, VISITATION, ASFA, CAPTA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>