Re: Anything in FH make u afraid? Cw mandated to ask

[Kane]

On 11 Jul 2004 16:45:13 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/807286.shtml
>
>These and similar type questions are mandated by the Feds to be asked
of the
>children in foster care at least every 90 days.
>
>"Does anything in this home make you feel afraid"?

Yep, that's almost right.

>Is anything BAD happening
>to you, is the way I would phrase it.

Then YOU would be doing what you accuse CPS abuse investigators
of....leading the child. Children see many things they think are "bad"
like nasty old dead Plants rotting in the garden, or a Douggie
throwing up on the rug.

Asking if they are "afraid" is far more likely to produce a valid
answer, at least for an opener. If the answer is "yes" then it is easy
to ask the open question, "what is it that makes you feel afraid?"

If you use "bad" it is an open invitation to embellishment the child
may think you want. Just describing what makes them afraid has less
chance of doing that.

>
>Does it take place?

Of course. And what if the child says "NO" as the perp has trained him
or her to say? Is CPS then to descern the lie by psychic intervention?

One of the biggest lies in the world is that one can tell when another
is lying, and especially a child.

Abused children are usually already, long before going into foster
care, accomplished liars....its' called, "survival" from mommy
druggest and daddy drunkest. As a foster parent.

Yer so desparate for your phony reform and pumping up your flaccid ego
that you'll say and claim anything without conscience or
thought...especially stupid about the issue of being caught, as you
ARE so often here.

Grow up, you old Birch, and get a conscience before it's too late.

You hold back true reform better than anyone on this ng. Eventually
people sicken of the continual stream of filth that poors from your
keyboard.

Which parent are you going to admire and support and defend for
killing their child or beating it, today?

Kane

>
>DESCRIPTORS; MAINE, DHS, CHILD PROTECTIVE, CHILD ABUSE, CPS, DHR,
FIA, DPSS,
>DYFS, DFYS, DFACS, DFCS, CYFD,DCFS, TDPRS, DSS, DCF, CYS, CYF, DHR,
FSSA,
>CSB,DFPS, PRS, DFS, ACS, DCS, DCYF, SRS,SCF, ACF,ILDCFS, DFACS, DCFS,
DFCS,
>DES, FOSTER CARE, KINSHIP CARE, CHILD ABUSE, ASFA, CAPTA, DPSS

[Sherman]

"Fern5827" > wrote in message
...
> http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/807286.shtml
>
> These and similar type questions are mandated by the Feds to be asked of
the
> children in foster care at least every 90 days.
>
> "Does anything in this home make you feel afraid"? Is anything BAD
happening
> to you, is the way I would phrase it.

Wrong again. Where do you get this tripe? Nevermind. Senescence is like
that...

Sherman.

[Fern5827]

Vocabulary age appropriate to the child.

Conversely, you could ask about the good things happening.

[Sherman]

"Fern5827" > wrote in message
...
> Vocabulary age appropriate to the child.
>
> Conversely, you could ask about the good things happening.

Even a child could figure out the phrase. You are wrong. This is NOT a
mandated question. Your statement is tripe - humus. Simple enough?

Conversely, you could DO something to make a difference, if you could
qualify.

Visitation with children by a caseworker consists of conversations about
what is GOOD happening in their lives. This might include appropriate age
appropriate questions regarding their safety and security. Not a single
properly trained social worker would ask leading questions such as what you
assert as a "good thing". Mostly, they observe the child in their
environment and the interaction between their caregivers, home and other
indicators. A really good caseworker uses this visitation time to inquire
of the caregivers what help they may need or what else the child may need.

Your verbiage regarding your own mental approach indicates a mindset of
hatred towards foster parents. Hatred is NOT a good thing. Neither is
bias.

A good thing would be to DO something for a child. Have you applied to
become a foster parent yet?

It's about the children.

Sherman.

[carmon c]

Fern,
Kane and Sherman are absolutely right here. You can not ask a
leading question. Our caseworkers visit on a monthly basis. The
children are usually asked if there is anything they would like to talk
about. Also it has been phrased as "Tell me what you like about living
here, and what you don't like." In any investigation, even ones where
they are removing children from bio parents, , a leading question is
often not admissible in court. There is a reason why trained
professionals handle this. As a foster parent it is my job to make sure
I am listening to the child and not putting any cohersed thoughts in
their head about things they share with me. Gee, you would think you
would know this Fern, being an "expert" and all.

[Fern5827]

Guess NONE of you are familiar with the constant

GOOD TOUCH, BAD TOUCH

Scenarios which are endlessly paraded in front of Preschools and Elementary
schools throughout the US.

And the reason?

Fed funding for such programs.

So, kids are eminently FAMILIAR WITH bad TOUCHES.

The foster in Maine apparently had many BAD TOUCHES. DHS did NOT catch it for
years.

The families will SUE pants off of DHS and the errant man.

As well they should. 5 Year olds in this home.

When these plays and presentations are taken to young children, the children
ARE ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED TO report any Instances of BAD TOUCHING.

So you see young children *ages 2-3 onward are familiar with BAD TOUCHES.
HAVING HEARD THE PRESENTATION ENDLESSLY IN THEIR SCHOOLS.

Reason: One of few areas where GVT funds are expended---to root out those
exploiters of children.

Sorry your lame words show you are not familiar with the totality of childhood
experiences.

[Fern5827]

Tell me, Carmon, what are cohersed thoughts?

Is that your malapropism for coercive hearsay?


Carmon LISTENS IN:



>From: (carmon c)
>Date: 7/13/2004 2:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Fern,
> Kane and Sherman are absolutely right here. You can not ask a
>leading question. Our caseworkers visit on a monthly basis. The
>children are usually asked if there is anything they would like to talk
>about. Also it has been phrased as "Tell me what you like about living
>here, and what you don't like." In any investigation, even ones where
>they are removing children from bio parents, , a leading question is
>often not admissible in court. There is a reason why trained
>professionals handle this. As a foster parent it is my job to make sure
>I am listening to the child and not putting any cohersed thoughts in
>their head about things they share with me. Gee, you would think you
>would know this Fern, being an "expert" and all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Fern5827]

Read the article captioned from the Maine, Newspaper, She man.

>Not a single
>properly trained social worker would ask leading questions such as what you
>assert as a "good thing". Mostly, they

But you see they are NOT social workers.

Understand?

In some states, the workers do not even hold college degrees.

>A really good caseworker uses this visitation time to inquire
>of the caregivers what help they may need or what else the child may need.

Self-serving foster parent question, from a FOSTER PARENT.

> indicates a mindset of
>hatred towards foster parents. Hatred

Only in your mind. I am fair & balanced?

Your replies mostly consist of mindless ad homs. In fact, I have developed a
matrix which validates this, She man.

>Have you applied to
>become a foster parent yet?

Why would I? I do loads else. Guess you NEED THE MONEY.

That's what the perception of fosters is.

It's about the CONSTITUTION AND legality.

The essence of foster care is income transfers.

[Sherman]

"Fern5827" > wrote in message
...
> Read the article captioned from the Maine, Newspaper, She man.
>
> >Not a single
> >properly trained social worker would ask leading questions such as what
you
> >assert as a "good thing". Mostly, they
>
> But you see they are NOT social workers.
>
> Understand?
>
> In some states, the workers do not even hold college degrees.
>
> >A really good caseworker uses this visitation time to inquire
> >of the caregivers what help they may need or what else the child may
need.
>
> Self-serving foster parent question, from a FOSTER PARENT.
>
> > indicates a mindset of
> >hatred towards foster parents. Hatred
>
> Only in your mind. I am fair & balanced?
>
> Your replies mostly consist of mindless ad homs. In fact, I have
developed a
> matrix which validates this, She man.
>
> >Have you applied to
> >become a foster parent yet?
>
> Why would I? I do loads else. Guess you NEED THE MONEY.
>
> That's what the perception of fosters is.
>
> It's about the CONSTITUTION AND legality.
>
> The essence of foster care is income transfers.

Some caseworkers hold qualified social worker status, some do not. Most in
the States who pay equitably, do. Your statement is false. Wrong again.

What else do you do? Recycle your grey water? What else???

You don't know squat.

Sherman.

[carmon c]

Unable to cut and paste, but to Ferns bs response of "I guess you NEED
THE MONEY". Damn straight I need the money IF I am to continue to due
foster care. I make more as an RN in one day then I do a week of foster
parenting. HOWEVER... I have put my career to the side in order to be a
foster parent and my husband works his 40 hours a week and spends the
rest of his time with our family. I gladly cash the check each month.
This check helps to pay for the four children I currently have in care.
It helps pay for their clothing, food, t-ball , swimming lessons, you
name it. I do not use the money on myself, but on these children. We
can easly make it on our own but the money from the state helps to
provide these children with opportunites they NEVER would have been able
to experience. And when all is said and done, I assure you there is
more money coming out of my pocket then going into it. So you can take
your "I'm better than that" attitude and shove it up your apple. As for
me, I will continue to foster AND to cash that monthly check of a
whopping $14.00 a day, and do with it as I see fit! Good thing I don't
cuss, cause I can think of a five letter word that descibes you
perfectly. Have a nice day:)

[Ron]

"Fern5827" > wrote in message
...
> Guess NONE of you are familiar with the constant
>
> GOOD TOUCH, BAD TOUCH
>
> Scenarios which are endlessly paraded in front of Preschools and
Elementary
> schools throughout the US.

Psycology offices as well, and since it is the individual asking the
question that gives the child the deffinition of what a "Good Touch" or "Bad
Touch" is, the answer can become whatever answer they wish it to be.

> And the reason?
>
> Fed funding for such programs.

Not quite, more like personal gratification or professional advancement.
Little to do with what actually happpened.

In case you missed it the first 30 times I mentioned it, I am not a fan of
psycology.

> So, kids are eminently FAMILIAR WITH bad TOUCHES.

No, actually they are not, since the definition changes with each individual
asking the question.

> The foster in Maine apparently had many BAD TOUCHES. DHS did NOT catch it
for
> years.

So, despite the evidence that the individual worked very hard to cover his
activities, you choose to blame DHS for missing these things that he was
trying hard to hide. Hmmm, yeah that's logical.

> The families will SUE pants off of DHS and the errant man.

Another affect of a litigious society. More ambulance chasers making money
and the actual individuals in need getting little or nothing. Go figure.

> As well they should. 5 Year olds in this home.
>
> When these plays and presentations are taken to young children, the
children
> ARE ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED TO report any Instances of BAD TOUCHING.
>
> So you see young children *ages 2-3 onward are familiar with BAD TOUCHES.
> HAVING HEARD THE PRESENTATION ENDLESSLY IN THEIR SCHOOLS.

Last I heard, 2-3 year olds do not attend school. Is this different where
you are? Or another fantisy created and posted to confuse the readers into
believing the rest of the BS you spew?

> Reason: One of few areas where GVT funds are expended---to root out those
> exploiters of children.
>
> Sorry your lame words show you are not familiar with the totality of
childhood
> experiences.

As do yours fern. I see this "masters degree" does not help you in this
area. Was that degree a mail-order degree by chance?

Ron

[Sherman]

"Ron" > wrote in message
news:M7eJc.3001$%p4.1459@okepread04...
>
> "Fern5827" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Guess NONE of you are familiar with the constant
> >
> > GOOD TOUCH, BAD TOUCH
> >
> > Scenarios which are endlessly paraded in front of Preschools and
> Elementary
> > schools throughout the US.
>
> Psycology offices as well, and since it is the individual asking the
> question that gives the child the deffinition of what a "Good Touch" or
"Bad
> Touch" is, the answer can become whatever answer they wish it to be.
>
> > And the reason?
> >
> > Fed funding for such programs.
>
> Not quite, more like personal gratification or professional advancement.
> Little to do with what actually happpened.
>
> In case you missed it the first 30 times I mentioned it, I am not a fan of
> psycology.
>
> > So, kids are eminently FAMILIAR WITH bad TOUCHES.
>
> No, actually they are not, since the definition changes with each
individual
> asking the question.
>
> > The foster in Maine apparently had many BAD TOUCHES. DHS did NOT catch
it
> for
> > years.
>
> So, despite the evidence that the individual worked very hard to cover his
> activities, you choose to blame DHS for missing these things that he was
> trying hard to hide. Hmmm, yeah that's logical.
>
> > The families will SUE pants off of DHS and the errant man.
>
> Another affect of a litigious society. More ambulance chasers making
money
> and the actual individuals in need getting little or nothing. Go figure.
>
> > As well they should. 5 Year olds in this home.
> >
> > When these plays and presentations are taken to young children, the
> children
> > ARE ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED TO report any Instances of BAD TOUCHING.
> >
> > So you see young children *ages 2-3 onward are familiar with BAD
TOUCHES.
> > HAVING HEARD THE PRESENTATION ENDLESSLY IN THEIR SCHOOLS.
>
> Last I heard, 2-3 year olds do not attend school. Is this different where
> you are? Or another fantisy created and posted to confuse the readers
into
> believing the rest of the BS you spew?
>
> > Reason: One of few areas where GVT funds are expended---to root out
those
> > exploiters of children.
> >
> > Sorry your lame words show you are not familiar with the totality of
> childhood
> > experiences.
>
> As do yours fern. I see this "masters degree" does not help you in this
> area. Was that degree a mail-order degree by chance?
>
> Ron

It doesn't respond to requests to substantiate, cite or prove anything. It
just spouts grey water. Master's, my toenail!

Sherman.

[Kane]

On 14 Jul 2004 11:39:57 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>Guess NONE of you are familiar with the constant
>
>GOOD TOUCH, BAD TOUCH

Beginning with a falsehood isn't much of a start. Who could not know
about the program.

>Scenarios which are endlessly paraded in front of Preschools and
Elementary
>schools throughout the US.

What is it about equiping children to know the difference between
loving touch and sexual touch that bothers you, Yew?

>And the reason?
>
>Fed funding for such programs.

Gee. Another makework program? Or a program that could very well be
one of the factors in lowering the count of sexual abuse of children
you spend so much time yammering about.

It's good to see you admitting so clearly your hatred of
children...this pretty much clinches it.

>So, kids are eminently FAMILIAR WITH bad TOUCHES.

Yep, but above you seem to be saying it's more about federal monies
than protecting children.

I have hunch even Yew will be surprised at your own hidden hatred of
children when someone reads your post to you out loud. Don't let it
happen or your dreams of being a crusader will be revealed to you as a
falsehood.

>The foster in Maine apparently had many BAD TOUCHES. DHS did NOT
catch it for
>years.

How might they have caught them? Sexual molesters don't allow children
they are using to report it.

Through threats, confusing the child about the relationship, and the
natural shyness and even shame of children the molesters can, as
anyone that has ever studied the subject can tell you, keep them from
speaking, even under questioning.

One of the molesters favorites is to threaten smaller siblings with
sexual molestation, or worse, murder. Little children are not only
unable to discriiminate the threat from reality (though no doubt some
molesters HAVE killed) but they do not know how to say what has
happened intelligibly.

>The families will SUE pants off of DHS and the errant man.

Sounds good to me, but I think you might be wishful thinking. DHS will
likely settle, as they are a moral bunch, and also protective of the
public treasury. They know children have been injured. No one will try
to skate.

But one thing you can be certain of, it is unlikely, unless an
investigation can turn up evidence so far NOT mentioned in the media
that CPS KNEW and left the childern in the care of sexual molesters,
there was nothing CPS could do to read people's minds.

Doug lies about this. Any time a child is left in the home of a
molester it is because CPS didn't know until later they were
molesters.

And the wording in the data is very clear......they are left in the
home where they were abused, but it doesn't say the abuser is still
present.

That's why the little girl is NOT back in the home where the couch
fungus is living....THE STUPID MOTHER WOULDN'T KICK HIM OUT, as so
many others have done to the molester so they could keep their
children.

You people are something else....the biggest pack of self deluded,
lying, and stupid people I've ever run across. Even the mentally ill
juveniles I've worked with had more honor and honesty than you people.

>
>As well they should. 5 Year olds in this home.

What does "5 year old in this home" mean, Muskmelon?

>When these plays and presentations are taken to young children, the
children
>ARE ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED TO report any Instances of BAD TOUCHING.

Yes, the certainly are so encouraged. Why did you call it a government
funding exercise above?

Encouraging a child is NOT a guarantee they will disclose. On the
other hand, how do you think so many molesters have been caught,
dummy? You think they just confessed?
>
>So you see young children *ages 2-3 onward are familiar with BAD
TOUCHES.
>HAVING HEARD THE PRESENTATION ENDLESSLY IN THEIR SCHOOLS.

2 and 3 year olds can distinguish bad touch from good? R R R R R R

Potato, you have really lost it. But you are doing Douggie proud, I'm
sure. Any piece of drivel to mislead.

>Reason: One of few areas where GVT funds are expended---to root out
those
>exploiters of children.

So tell us, do you think CPS should slack off on their efforts to seek
and investigate allegations of or incidences of sexual abuse?

>Sorry your lame words show you are not familiar with the totality of
childhood
>experiences.

My lame words.

Say your sentence out loud. You and I both have a "totality" <YUK YUK
YUK> of childhood experiences, and STILL it makes NO difference in
this instance.

How would YEW have caught this molester earlier in his molesting
history? No amount of background checking would have uncovered him,
and no one, so far as I know, has ever proven psychic mind reading
powers to be real.

Real molesters are endlessly patient and careful to conceal their
crime. Just like other criminals work as hard as possible not to be
caught. Hell, one of your criminal buddies used to prove that
endlessly in this ng.

You need to study this subject molesters a good deal more.

This Australian website has a very good description of the problems of
treating sex offenders because of the elaborate world of denial, and
the mind altering that goes on in the offender as he or she acts out
elaborate groooming rituals:

"Whatever treatment is offered, those working with child sex offenders
must recognise the cleverness and complexity of sexually offending
behaviour, which is achieved through the elaborate grooming of
victims, selected for their vulnerability, and the maintenance of that
behaviour through the dynamics of secrecy, misuse of power and
authority and community denial.

Bronwen Myers is the co-ordinator of the Richmond Sexual Assault
Service and Grainne O'Brien is a social worker at the SAS. The
referenced article can be found on www.MedicineAu.net.au "

You might read a bit more than the above to get the picture.

Adn when you start claiming there is a real, as opposed to counting
differences currently, reduction in child molestation in this country,
consider what the FBI has to say about it:

http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/burkegab/page17.html

Read the below, you stupid ignorant child hating old Birch:

"Understanding and Protecting Your Children From Child Molesters and
Predators

By Cory Jewell Jensen, M.S. and Steve Jensen, M.A.


The FBI estimates that there is a sex offender living in every square
mile of the United States. One in ten men has molested children. Most
child molesters are able to molest dozens of children before they are
caught and have a three percent (3%) chance of being apprehended for
their crimes. Boys and girls are at nearly equal risk to be abused and
almost a quarter will be molested sometime before their 18th birthday.
Fewer than five percent (5%) will tell anyone. The overwhelming
majority of child victims are abused by someone they know and trust,
someone most parents would never suspect. No one can protect your
children but you. Educate yourself and your family about child sexual
abuse. Don't let a child molester do it for you!


Dear Parents, Caretakers and Community Members,

During the past several years, many of us have begun to realize how
many child molesters are living in our communities and how incredibly
skillful they are when it comes to molesting children and getting away
with it. Facing this information has forced many of us to take a hard
look at our current child abuse prevention programs. The majority of
programs try to teach children to protect themselves and to tell an
adult if someone abuses them. Unfortunately, these programs have not
been successful in reducing child sexual abuse and most children still
Don't tell anyone when they are being abused. One study suggested that
the average child victim must tell nine different people about their
abuse before someone actually calls the police."

Tell your equally stupid vicious child hating buddy Douggie to read
and think about it too.

And celebrate with me the courage of a little girl in in the midwest
that fought off one of them and reported to the authorities BEFORE the
molester could groom her successfully to the point of shutting her up,
and using her body for his pleasure......WE HOPE.

I've read it suggested that some child molesters did not even get it
that they were groooming for sexual exploitation until late in the
gamem the first time.

They just thought they were friends of the kid, and really really
looooooooved them.

Probably rare though....we can hope.

Face it, Fuchia, you people are sick, sick, sick, and you appear to be
pushing policies that will result in far MORE child abuse and neglect
of all kinds.

Sexual predators really love you for trying to through MORE **** in
the way of CPS and other agencies stopping them.

And here you are patting yourself on the back, self-congratulating and
proud. Tsk.


Kane

[Doug]

Kane writes:

> Doug lies about this. Any time a child is left in the home of a
> molester it is because CPS didn't know until later they were
> molesters.

Hi, Kane!

What you or I have to say is not the issue.

It is what CPS agencies themselves are reporting to the National Child Abuse
and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) that tells us about how many children they
substantiate as victims of sexual abuse are left in the home.

"Sexual abuse victims were 36 percent less likely to be placed in foster
care than physical abuse victims," the USDHHS reports from data submitted by
state child protective agencies for 2002. These child sexual abuse victims
were left in their homes both during the CPS investigation and after the
investigation substantiated the children as sexually abused.
http://tinyurl.com/yrajg

Removal of children due to findings of child neglect/abuse investigations
and assessments is relatively rare and are based on variables other than the
type or severity of the abuse. 4.5 million children were reported as
subjects of child abuse or neglect in 2002. http://tinyurl.com/3ygl6
3,193,000 children were subject to an investigation or assessment
http://tinyurl.com/4zsht, of which 265,000 were removed from their homes
http://tinyurl.com/yrajg.

Since only 8% of children subject to child abuse and neglect investigations
are removed from their homes during or after an investigation, placement in
foster care is a highly selective action taken by CPS based upon variables
that are not always clear. This is especially confusing given that 35% of
the children who are placed in foster care are removed from homes CPS had
*unsubstantiated* for any risk of any type of child maltreatment.

What is obvious is that CPS does not automatically remove children for their
safety pending findings of an investigation, regardless of the severity of
the allegations. If they did so, they would have removed between 896,000
(children substantiated as victims of maltreatment) to 3,193,000 children in
2002.

About 18.6% of substantiated children were victims of physical abuse. Close
to 10% of substantiated children were victims of sexual abuse.
http://tinyurl.com/4zsht CPS ended up removing some of the approximately
167,000 children it substantiated as victims of physical abuse and some of
the 89,400 children it substantiated as victims of sexual abuse. Percentages
of removal/non removal were calculated by NCANDS for each type of abuse.

The sexual abuse victims were 36% less likely to be removed during or after
the investigation than physical abuse victims.

Furthermore, victims of sexual abuse were less likely to receive ANY
services at all.

"When compared to physical abuse victims, victims of multiple types of
maltreatment were 81 percent more likely to receive services and sexual
abuse victims were 21 percent less likely to receive services" (USDHHS,
2004). http://tinyurl.com/yrajg

One of those "services" could be conditional removal of the caregiver from
the home and enforcement of that agreement with the remaining caregiver.
Enforcement of such a split-up is enormously difficult, of course, if not
impossible. (Ever try to keep your teenager from seeing the boyfriend you
think was a bad selection?). Unfortunately, NCANDS is silent about how
often, if at all, this service is provided.

So, the proposition that CPS leaves children suspected of being sexually
abused or children substantiated as actual victims of sexual abuse in the
home only when the perp has been removed lacks foundation or logical base.
Such a outlandish claim would have to be documented by counting the
incidents when such a service is provided and when it is not. But CPS
provides no such count to NCANDS and Kane fails to provide research or a
cited source of information in support of his claim.

But we do know that CPS is 21% less likely to provide ANY services at all to
families of children it has substantiated as victims of sexual abuse that it
is to families substantiated for physical abuse.

So, this backbone to this issue is not a question of lies...or who is lying.
It is not a question of what Kane has to say or what I have to say. It is a
question of what possiblities the NCANDS data supports and what it does not.

The known data and published research contradicts Kane's claim that children
substantiated as being sexually abused are left in their homes only when the
parent who committed the crime is removed from the home.

Doug

[Doug]

Kane writes:

> And the wording in the data is very clear......they are left in the
> home where they were abused, but it doesn't say the abuser is still
> present.

Precisely.

Doug

[Doug]

Kane writes:

> Doug lies about this. Any time a child is left in the home of a
> molester it is because CPS didn't know until later they were
> molesters.

Hi, Kane!

The data proves directly and decidedly that your claim above is false.
Sexually abused children are left in the home after CPS determines they were
sexually abused.

"Sexual abuse victims were 36 percent less likely to be placed in foster
care than physical abuse victims," the USDHHS reports from data submitted by
state child protective agencies for 2002. These child sexual abuse victims
were left in their homes both during the CPS investigation and after the
investigation substantiated the children as sexually abused.
http://tinyurl.com/yrajg

> And the wording in the data is very clear......they are left in the
> home where they were abused, but it doesn't say the abuser is still
> present.

So, by your own admission, there is no support for your outlandish
contention that sexually abused children are not left in the home when the
abuser is still present.

Your claim that, "any time a child is left in the home of a
molester it is because CPS didn't know until later they were
molesters," is proven prima facae to be false by the data itself, which
clearly shows children are left in the home after a substantiated finding.

Your claim that children substantiated as victims of sexual abuse are left
in the home only when the parent responsible is not contradicts your first
claim and lacks support from the data, as you yourself point out.

Doug

[Kane]

"Doug" > wrote in message >...
> Kane writes:
>
> > And the wording in the data is very clear......they are left in the
> > home where they were abused, but it doesn't say the abuser is still
> > present.
>
> Precisely.

Ooooo......that would have been a homer if you hadn't made that
desperation fingertip catch there, Douggie, my boy.

But it still has **** all over it from your attempt to claim CPS is
remiss in leaving in, or returning children to, homes where they were
victims of substantiated sexual abuse with the insinuation the perp
was still in the home.

You ignore that the perp is removed, or that the actual substantiation
may have occurred later, and the allegation was made, as it so often
is, by the worker later in a the case NOT originally opened as a sex
abuse case...sure they were living with the perp....but no one but
they and the perp knew it. More indictment of CPS for not being
psychic. I just love your logic and honesty.

You are one sick puppy, Boy. Now clean up that mess you left on the
floor before I rub your nose in it AGAIN!

Admit you deliberately attempted to mislead.

Or, and here's you bolthole, weasel, you simply made a mistake?

>
> Doug

Hope your day is as good as mine, Sir!

Sun's out. Leek transplants are taking hold. Tomatos are ripening
nicely. And the Trumpet Vine and Moonflower vines have hit the teepee
poles I train them up. It's going to be a glorious year here.

And I just enjoyed a salad made with mint, onions, nasturtium leaves,
lettuce and greenbeans from my own beds and vines. Well, and a little
mayo and cold turkey breast from the store. <grin>

How's that crow taste? Yummy?

Kane

[Kane]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:11:23 -0400, "Doug" > wrote:

>Kane writes:
>
>> Doug lies about this. Any time a child is left in the home of a
>> molester it is because CPS didn't know until later they were
>> molesters.
>
>Hi, Kane!
>
>The data proves directly and decidedly that your claim above is
false.

Nope. That is is not the case at all. They are NOT routinely or even
rarely returned to the home WITH the perp in it.

>Sexually abused children are left in the home after CPS determines
they were
>sexually abused.

Where would you like them to be if the perp isn't in the home anymore?
Foster "incarceration?"

And it says the perp is still in the home...where again?

Sometimes it's even a sib that has been removed that is the perp, and
all children are returned to the home but HIM or HER.

As an aside: CPS doesn't, nor does it have to, count sexual abuses of
a child by OTHERS from outside the home. So there's a rather large
population that doesn't even figure into MY claim that there is a
serious miscount in the numbers of ACTUAL sexual abuses taking place.

All that is left out. Teens that are victimized as prostitutes are not
counted. Throwaway kid that are sexually exploited, molested, raped,
are not counted. Yet, CPS DEALS with these very children all the time.
Every state I've contacted claims so. They have teen specialized units
and workers, and they do NOT report the out of home sex abuse data on
those children if the perp is not a regular family member.

The public, I venture, is completely unaware of this fact. It played
heavily in the case out in Oregon where a neighbor raped and killed
two girls from the neighborhood. CPS dropped the ball, or so the
police claimed, by failing to report TO THE POLICE...since they do NOT
investigate NOR tabulate such offenses themselves.

Your claims are crap, Douggie, as usual.

>"Sexual abuse victims were 36 percent less likely to be placed in
foster
>care than physical abuse victims,"

And we don't know if DHHS is counting inhome perps or not, now do we?
Though some argue that figure of out of home perps isn't counted.

>the USDHHS reports from data submitted by
>state child protective agencies for 2002. These child sexual abuse
victims
>were left in their homes both during the CPS investigation and after
the
>investigation substantiated the children as sexually abused.
>http://tinyurl.com/yrajg

So are you complaining or celebrating?

I've seen your cronies here complain when they aren't returned or left
during the investigation that LATER determined a substantiated abuse.

You are relying on a very weak pivotal point here, Douggie, and it
would be more accurately called a "petard."

Returning, after a substantiation, children to a home is not specific
enough to say they were returned to the venue of a perp.

>> And the wording in the data is very clear......they are left in the
>> home where they were abused, but it doesn't say the abuser is still
>> present.
>
>So, by your own admission, there is no support for your outlandish
>contention that sexually abused children are not left in the home
when the
>abuser is still present.

Nope. I'm saying the state did not know before the substantiation.

Can I take it then that you were so careful to word your claim that
you'd leave yourself this escape hatch, that you didn't say the perp
was there?

Or didn't you mean to claim malfeasance by CPS?

>Your claim that, "any time a child is left in the home of a
>molester it is because CPS didn't know until later they were
>molesters," is proven prima facae to be false by the data itself,
which
>clearly shows children are left in the home after a substantiated
finding.

Nah, nothing like that at all.

>Your claim that children substantiated as victims of sexual abuse are
left
>in the home only when the parent responsible is not contradicts your
first
>claim and lacks support from the data, as you yourself point out.

You need to point to the place I say that, and explain yourself.
Neither I nor the data said any such thing.

Go ahead, post the citation again. Quote the part you think supports
that the perp is still in the home.

R R R R....you are without a doubt the most delusion intelligent
person I've ever met outside mental health settings.

THERE IS NO PROOF THE PERP IS IN THE HOME. No data, nothing.

And the onus is on YOU who made the original claim to prove CPS was
remiss in returning the child to the venue of the perp.

Or isn't that what you meant?

And if you didn't mean that, what harm is there in returning the child
to the home? You want the poor things to remain "incarcerated" even
when the perp is gone?

And right in this ng there has been considerable complaint about that
wholesale removal of the alledged perp, so someone is in error
here...and it ain't me, ol' boy. .

>Doug

Doug, you are a-****in'mazin'. Tell The Plant I said so. I'm not sure
it can still read given the increasingly bizzare disconnects in It's
posts.

And your postings are becoming more like It's every day.

Kane

[Doug]

Kane writes:

> >The data proves directly and decidedly that your claim above is
> false.
>
> Nope. That is is not the case at all. They are NOT routinely or even
> rarely returned to the home WITH the perp in it.

Hi, Kane!

The children were never "returned" to the home because they were never
removed from the home in the first place. Herein is your error. Your
preassumption that children alleged to have been sexually abused are
automatically removed from their homes is so strong it overwhelmed your
ability to read a simple statement.

"Sexual abuse victims were 36 percent less likely to be placed in foster
care than physical abuse victims," the USDHHS reports from data submitted by
state child protective agencies for 2002. These child sexual abuse victims
were left in their homes both during the CPS investigation and after the
investigation substantiated the children as sexually abused.
http://tinyurl.com/yrajg

....They were never removed.

> >Sexually abused children are left in the home after CPS determines
> they were
> >sexually abused.
>
> Where would you like them to be if the perp isn't in the home anymore?
> Foster "incarceration?"

Reading problem? There is nothing in the statement that says the perp is
not in the home anymore. Where do you get that??

> And it says the perp is still in the home...where again?

....And it says the perp is not in the home...where again?

> Sometimes it's even a sib that has been removed that is the perp, and
> all children are returned to the home but HIM or HER.

These children were never removed before, during or after the investigation,
so they were never "returned."

> As an aside: CPS doesn't, nor does it have to, count sexual abuses of
> a child by OTHERS from outside the home. So there's a rather large
> population that doesn't even figure into MY claim that there is a
> serious miscount in the numbers of ACTUAL sexual abuses taking place.

I understand your aside, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact
that
children who CPS substantiates as victims of sexual abuse were 36 percent
less likely to be placed in foster care than physical abuse victims during
2002. These child sexual abuse victims were left in their homes both during
the CPS investigation and after the investigation substantiated the
children as sexually abused. http://tinyurl.com/yrajg

> >"Sexual abuse victims were 36 percent less likely to be placed in
> foster
> >care than physical abuse victims,"
>
> And we don't know if DHHS is counting inhome perps or not, now do we?
> Though some argue that figure of out of home perps isn't counted.

We do know that USDHHS is counting inhome perps.

> >the USDHHS reports from data submitted by
> >state child protective agencies for 2002. These child sexual abuse
> victims
> >were left in their homes both during the CPS investigation and after
> the
> >investigation substantiated the children as sexually abused.
> >http://tinyurl.com/yrajg
>
> So are you complaining or celebrating?

The statement comes in response to and to challenge your previous claim
that:

"Any time a child is left in the home of a molester it is because CPS didn't
know until later they were molesters." (Your post of July 14, this thread).

> I've seen your cronies here complain when they aren't returned or left
> during the investigation that LATER determined a substantiated abuse.

The NCANDS data we are discussing does not address sexual abuse victims that
are returned to their families but those who were never removed.

> You are relying on a very weak pivotal point here, Douggie, and it
> would be more accurately called a "petard."
>
> Returning, after a substantiation, children to a home is not specific
> enough to say they were returned to the venue of a perp.

These substantiated sexual abuse victims were never removed from their homes
to begin with, either before, during or after the CPS investigation. Why do
you persist with the inaccurate mindset that these children were removed
from their homes?

> >> And the wording in the data is very clear......they are left in the
> >> home where they were abused, but it doesn't say the abuser is still
> >> present.
> >
> >So, by your own admission, there is no support for your outlandish
> >contention that sexually abused children are not left in the home
> when the
> >abuser is still present.
>
> Nope. I'm saying the state did not know before the substantiation.

Incorrect. CPS knew of the allegations and the alledged perp before the
substantiation and did not remove the child subject during the
investigation. Furthermore, after CPS determined that the child had been
sexually abused and substantiated it in the findings of the investigation,
the child still was not removed.

> Can I take it then that you were so careful to word your claim that
> you'd leave yourself this escape hatch, that you didn't say the perp
> was there?

I quoted the NCANDS data directly. There is no escape hatch. You came up
with an escape for your argument by stating that NCANDS said nothing about
the perp being in the home. NCANDS does not say the perp was removed from
the home or not in the home, either.

> Or didn't you mean to claim malfeasance by CPS?

I quoted the NCANDS data to challenge your misrepresentation that CPS does
not leave sexually abused children in the home.

> >Your claim that, "any time a child is left in the home of a
> >molester it is because CPS didn't know until later they were
> >molesters," is proven prima facae to be false by the data itself,
> which
> >clearly shows children are left in the home after a substantiated
> finding.
>
> Nah, nothing like that at all.
>
> >Your claim that children substantiated as victims of sexual abuse are
> left
> >in the home only when the parent responsible is not contradicts your
> first
> >claim and lacks support from the data, as you yourself point out.
>
> You need to point to the place I say that, and explain yourself.
> Neither I nor the data said any such thing.

"Any time a child is left in the home of a molester it is because CPS didn't
know until later they were molesters." (Your post of July 14, this thread).

My challenge is: 1) Yes, they do leave sexually abused children in the home
and, 2) once they substantiate, they still leave sexually abused children in
the home much more often they they leave physically abused children in the
home.

> THERE IS NO PROOF THE PERP IS IN THE HOME. No data, nothing.
>

There is no proof that the perp in not in the home. No data, nothing.

> And the onus is on YOU who made the original claim to prove CPS was
> remiss in returning the child to the venue of the perp.

I made NO such claim.

First, I said nothing about sexually abused children being returned to their
homes. I quoted the USDHHS statement that many sexually abused children are
not removed from their homes to begin with, either before, during or after
the investigation substantiates them as victims of sexual abuse.

Second, I did not make the claim that CPS was remiss in returning the child
to the home. What I did say was that:

"Sexual abuse victims were 36 percent less likely to be placed in foster
care than physical abuse victims," the USDHHS reports from data submitted by
state child protective agencies for 2002. These child sexual abuse victims
were left in their homes both during the CPS investigation and after the
investigation substantiated the children as sexually abused.
http://tinyurl.com/yrajg

> Or isn't that what you meant?

I meant what I said. No more. No less.

> And if you didn't mean that, what harm is there in returning the child
> to the home? You want the poor things to remain "incarcerated" even
> when the perp is gone?

There is nothing in my statement about "returning" the child, since the
statement speaks of child sexual abuse victims who were never removed from
the home to begin with. Secondly, NCANDS data supporting my statement does
not say the perp was not in the home or gone from the home. The children I
am talking about were never incarcerated in foster care. In fact, sexually
abused children were 36% less likely to be put into foster care than
physically abused children.

> And right in this ng there has been considerable complaint about that
> wholesale removal of the alledged perp, so someone is in error
> here...and it ain't me, ol' boy. .

I have never said anything about wholesale removal of alledged perps and I
cannot recall anybody else ever posting such a claim. So, I am not in error.

I wonder who is?

Doug

[Doug]

Kane writes:

> > > And the wording in the data is very clear......they are left in the
> > > home where they were abused, but it doesn't say the abuser is still
> > > present.
> >
> > Precisely.
>
> Ooooo......that would have been a homer if you hadn't made that
> desperation fingertip catch there, Douggie, my boy.

Hi, Kane!

....And it doesn't say the family member who abused is not there, either. In
fact, the data does not address the question at all. YOU presented it out
of the blue and were caught at it.

> But it still has **** all over it from your attempt to claim CPS is
> remiss in leaving in, or returning children to, homes where they were
> victims of substantiated sexual abuse with the insinuation the perp
> was still in the home.

1) I never claimed that CPS was remiss;
2) I never claimed anything about "returning" children to homes where they
were sexually abused. I said that they were never removed from homes where
they were sexually abused, exclusively.
3) YOU insinuated that, somehow, the perp was not in the home, but that
outlandish supposition is not supported in any way by the data.

This is what I DID say:

"Sexual abuse victims were 36 percent less likely to be placed in foster
care than physical abuse victims," the USDHHS reports from data submitted by
state child protective agencies for 2002. These child sexual abuse victims
were left in their homes both during the CPS investigation and after the
investigation substantiated the children as sexually abused.
http://tinyurl.com/yrajg

> You ignore that the perp is removed, or that the actual substantiation
> may have occurred later, and the allegation was made, as it so often
> is, by the worker later in a the case NOT originally opened as a sex
> abuse case...sure they were living with the perp....but no one but
> they and the perp knew it. More indictment of CPS for not being
> psychic. I just love your logic and honesty.

No, I do not ignore that the perp is removed because nothing in the data
supports the outlandish proposition that the perp was removed. 2)
Regardless of whether sexual abuse is in the initial report or the
allegation is made later by the caseworker later (which is VERY COMMON) and
substantiated by the caseworker, the child would be catagorized as a victim
of substantiated sexual abuse. Sexual abuse victims were 36 percent less
likely to be placed in foster care than physical abuse victims.

> You are one sick puppy, Boy. Now clean up that mess you left on the
> floor before I rub your nose in it AGAIN!

Oh, my, that sickness of responding to unknown buttons pushed by "them",
right?

> Admit you deliberately attempted to mislead.

Nothing misleading about the word by word quote from USDHHS. It is quite
clear, despite your efforts to cloud it up or even delusionally grasp to
your preassumption they were removed in the first place, despite the simple
wording in the statement.

> Or, and here's you bolthole, weasel, you simply made a mistake?

No mistake at all. Here is the statement once again:

"Sexual abuse victims were 36 percent less likely to be placed in foster
care than physical abuse victims," the USDHHS reports from data submitted by
state child protective agencies for 2002. These child sexual abuse victims
were left in their homes both during the CPS investigation and after the
investigation substantiated the children as sexually abused.
http://tinyurl.com/yrajg

You have said nothing that challenges the NCANDS data or clouds it.

> Hope your day is as good as mine, Sir!
>
> Sun's out. Leek transplants are taking hold. Tomatos are ripening
> nicely. And the Trumpet Vine and Moonflower vines have hit the teepee
> poles I train them up. It's going to be a glorious year here.

Wonderful!

> And I just enjoyed a salad made with mint, onions, nasturtium leaves,
> lettuce and greenbeans from my own beds and vines. Well, and a little
> mayo and cold turkey breast from the store. <grin>

> How's that crow taste? Yummy?

It is not I who was served crow. Nor does this thread offer me the
opportunity to taste my foot.

You, on the other hand, seem to have served yourself a full course to go
along with the salad.

Enjoy!

Doug

[Doug]

Kane had written:

>That is is not the case at all. They are NOT routinely or
> even
> >> rarely returned to the home WITH the perp in it.

To which, I had replied:

> >The children were never "returned" to the home because they were
> never
> >removed from the home in the first place. Herein is your error.
> Your
> >preassumption that children alleged to have been sexually abused are
> >automatically removed from their homes is so strong it overwhelmed
> your
> >ability to read a simple statement.

Kane now writes:

> What silly nonsense, and an all too obvioius lie about my claim. I am
> not saying any such thing. I am saying YOU are trying to make people
> believe that teh PERP is in the home with the child after
> substantiation. No such thing is true except in extremely rare
> instances, or the perp comes back against court order, or CPS advice
> to the non offending parent who has said they would keep them out and
> fails to.

Hi, Kane!

Now that we have clarified it is not a question of returning children to
their home but never removing them, lets move on.

USDHHS data discussed in this thread that shows sexual abuse victims were 36
percent less likely to be placed in foster care than physical abuse victims
does not say anything about the location of the alledged perp.
http://tinyurl.com/yrajg

It does not support your contention that the family member alledged to be
the perp has been removed or is anywhere else but in the home where the
child was never removed from.

Nor do you have any data that leaving the substantiated family intact is an
"extremely rare" occurance (in fact, it is much more common than not). Nor
does the data we've discussed addressed whether courts are involved at all
in the substantiated sexual abuse cases counted. A "substantiated" finding
of sexual abuse is made by the CPS worker and his/her supervisor
unilaterally. A court does not in any way participate in substantiating a
case.

Nor do you have data to support your claim that these cases of non-removal
involved parents who were removed by court order, "advice" to the
"non-offending parent" not to have the family member, whom is not documented
to have been asked to leave in the first place, return.

You have interjected a ficticious, non-existant variable -- the presence or
non presence of the family member CPS alledges as the abuser -- and relied
upon that fallacy to make a false claim...to misinform.

> More than one stupid person has lost their child for either failing to
> follow through, or deliberately deceiving the court and CPS in the
> matter.

Yes, some people have lost their child for failing to follow through with
conditions ordered in service plan or deliberately deceiving the court.
But, then, we are not talking about deceiving courts or failing to follow
through on services ordered by CPS. The data does not address the
involvement of courts in any way. And the same data later shows that
sexually abused children are less likely to receive ANY services than
physically abused children.

You are spinning fiction into the otherwise objective data to paint a
picture of a non-existant situations that are neither described or
envisioned by the data.

> > "Sexual abuse victims were 36 percent less likely to be placed in foster
> >care than physical abuse victims," the USDHHS reports from data
> submitted by
> >state child protective agencies for 2002. These child sexual abuse
> victims
> >were left in their homes both during the CPS investigation and after
> the
> >investigation substantiated the children as sexually abused.
> >http://tinyurl.com/yrajg
> >
> >...They were never removed.
>
> But where the alledged perps? It doesn't say the perps were still
> there, does it now?

It does not say the alledged perps were removed, does it now?


> >Reading problem? There is nothing in the statement that says the
> perp is
> >not in the home anymore. Where do you get that??
>
> Oh come now, Douggie. thats the oldest trick in the book. You haven't
> built a case at all...you've just gotten out the smoke and mirrors and
> spread your work over a couple of posts to conceal your deception.

Deception? Who attempts to deceive in this thread? My question to you was
where did you get the idea that there is anything in the statement that says
the perp is not in the home??

Are you going to answer that question? Where is your source of information
for your claim that the perp is not in the home?


> If the perp was still in the home you can be damn sure the data would
> have made that point. They certainly do in other instances where they
> identify the actual substantiated perps.

What a horrendous supposition and leap of logic. What on earth leads you to
assume that if all of these family members alledged by CPS to be perps were
in the home the data would have "made that point." Why? Because this seems
to be YOUR sore spot? That many of these alledged perps are still in the
home and some not in the home is not a pressing issue with USDHHS in
displaying this data. It was concerned about publishing data that measures
CPS practice. No underlying theory or methodology remotely suggests that
the researchers would have an obligation to categorize how many of the
accused family members still reside in the home and how many do not.

To show such data, USDHHS would have had to:

1) Collect the breakdown information from state CPS agencies -- how many
family member's alledged as perps were in the home at the time of the
report, how many were asked to leave, how many did leave, how many were not
in the home at the time of the report, how many did not leave, etc. (The
agencies did not report such data...nor were they asked to do so.)

2) Display a breakdown of how many accused family members were in the home
at the time of investigation, after substantiation, and how many were not.

As it is, the data did not address ANY of these variables. So the data we
are discussing neither supports or challenges any claims any one would make
about these variables.

> Who kills chidlren for instance? Who abuses children for instance?

> If they wanted to say the child was left with the perp they would say
> so. They don't use your lying little tricks of language.

That is your supposition and empty claim that has no logical or
methodological basis. Who is trying to use tricks of language here?

I quoted the USDHHS statement about the data. That data seems to have
troubled you, so you add all sorts of unexistant variables and then base a
false premise upon them. Then, later, you say that if USDHHS did not agree
with you and chose not to publish information it did not have, IT would be
guilty of using lying tricks of language.

> I notice you accused me of calling NCANDS data lies. That in itself is
> a lie.

No, I did not so accuse you.

To the contrary, I have presented the USDHHS data as being accurate. It was
me that posted it, remember?

> I have pointed to authorities, some of which your cronies have used
> here to try and support their claims, as questioning the data validity
> in the real world for real world decision making.

Where are they? Do you have any authority for your claim that children
substantiated as victims of sexual abuse are not removed from their homes
only when the family member alledged as the perp is not in the home or has
been removed from the home?

> Much of the child abuse of older kids BY PERPS NOT LIVING IN THE HOME,
> is discovered by CPS, and reported to the police, and of course NOT
> reported in the child sexual abuse numbers to NCANDS. Check it out.

Precisely. That is why those incidents where the perps are not in the home
are not included in the data we are discussing. That advances my point.
Thank you.

> CPS IS NOT MANDATED TO investigate and instigate actions in the case
> of abuse of ANY KIND by strangers. Nor would the count them...it would
> skew the data and policy making rather badly. They are honest. YOU are
> not.

Precisely. Since CPS is not mandated to investigate or record instances of
sexual abuse by strangers of ANY KIND, these incidences are not counted and
not part of the data we are talking about in this thread. Thank you.

> >> And it says the perp is still in the home...where again?
> >
> >...And it says the perp is not in the home...where again?
>
> It doesn't need to. If it doesn't so state then they either know the
> perp is not, or they do NOT know, but there is NO count of the perp
> being in the home or we would see that data description as we see perp
> identities in other abuse instances counted.

Your second possibility is the correct one. They do NOT know. Since USDHHS
does not know, it did not report the presence and non-presence of the perp
in the home. However, since it did not report what it did not know, you
cannot claim with any authority that the perp was NOT in the home. Which is
precisely what you are attempting to do.

And we are not buying. This tactic is unsuccessful in clouding the data.

Your hyperbole is unsupported with fact.

> >> Sometimes it's even a sib that has been removed that is the perp,
> and
> >> all children are returned to the home but HIM or HER.
> >
> >These children were never removed before, during or after the
> investigation,
> >so they were never "returned."
>
> That's fine. Include returned and never removed in the same
> category...it's still true. And I'm not all too sure given the slop
> you are uncovering for us in NCANDS charts that we know that for
> certain even with the claim. Children who are removed temporarily, and
> the court sees fit to NOT take TC of the child, and orders the return
> immediately to the bio parents home may NOT be counted as "removed."

Good. Glad we cleared that up.

To hasten to clear the air before more fog is raised, children who are
removed during and investigation and returned shortly thereafter are counted
as "removed". We have talked about this often when discussing that around
100,000 unsubstantiated children are counted as being removed from their
homes each year. Your claim has always been that they are returned when the
investigation shows unsubstantiated. Obviously, these removed children were
counted as removed. While I do not agree with your contention that these
100,000 children were removed prior to a finding and other USDHHS data
directly disproves they are returned within the time frame of a completed
investigation, you have accepted that they were counted as removed in making
your erronous claim.

> >These child sexual abuse victims were left in their homes both during
> >the CPS investigation and after the investigation substantiated the
> >children as sexually abused. http://tinyurl.com/yrajg
>
> It does not say the perp is there. In fact even if it did, it does not
> indicate that AFTER THE FINDING the perp wasn't ordered out.

No, it does not say the perp is NOT there. No does it say that after the
finding the perp was allowed to stay, or asked to leave. It just doesn't
say.

But you are attempting to claim that, since USDHHS doesn't say one way or
another, it must be your way. LOL!

> Civil rights and all, yah know. Do you not agree that the parent,
> accused, has the right to stay in the home during the investigation?

Absolutely.

> In fact, what if the perp turns out to be a previously unsuspected
> sibling?

Then that sibling would be listed as the perp in the
investigation/assessment report and substantiated.

> This is all nonsense on your part, Doug. You see the data, you think
> it proves some malfeasance or failure on the part of CPS and you post
> it without even thinking it through...or you feel compelled to.

For the third time now, I will repeat that I did not say at any time the
data proves malfeasuance or failure on the part of CPS. YOU falsely claimed
that was what I was saying and now comment upon your own claim as if it were
mine.

Again, you are so wrapped up in imaginary motives you fail to glean any
knowledge from the data. The data is not making any charges against
anyone...it is measuring what has happened.

Doug