Court won't hear gay adoption suit

[wexwimpy]

Court won't hear gay adoption suit

The U. S. Supreme Court declines to consider an ACLU lawsuit filed in
hopes of overturning the state's ban.

By CURTIS KRUEGER, Times Staff Writer Published January 11, 2005

The U. S. Supreme Court has decided not to overturn a law that
prevents gay Floridians from adopting children.

The ACLU had filed the lawsuit on behalf of four gay men whom Florida
ACLU director Howard Simon said "are about as close to being saints as
anybody I've ever seen in my life" because of their care for disabled
children.

At least two of the plaintiffs have been foster parents, which points
to one of the ironies in Florida law. The state does allow gay men and
women to raise children, by licensing them as foster parents, even
though the law does not allow adoptions.

Simon said the Supreme Court's decision not to take up the case, which
it made without comment Monday, was "really kind of infuriating; we've
never had our day in court on this."

Gay advocates have said gay and lesbian couples could provide stable
and loving homes for thousands of children waiting to be adopted out
of Florida's foster care system.

Florida Christian Coalition executive director Bill Stephens welcomed
the Supreme Court's decision, saying, "We're just pleased that
children are going to get protected, that courts are doing what's in
the best interest of children and keeping them in heterosexual homes."

He and other supporters of the ban said the court's ruling promotes
the most stable and helpful family arrangement for children.

"Marriage is the union of one man and one woman because it's best for
our children and best for our society," said Mathew Staver, president
and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, a Christian law organization
in Orlando, which filed a brief in the case.

Florida's gay adoption ban was passed by the Legislature in 1977, just
after Anita Bryant, the popular singer and Florida orange juice
promoter, had campaigned against a gay rights ordinance in Miami.
Florida is the only state with a blanket ban on gay adoption.

Although the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal, Stephens
called Monday's decision "the beginning of the battle, I certainly
don't think it's over."

Neither does Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida,
which strongly supports overturning the ban.

"What this does is finally place the responsibility for fixing this
law squarely on the Legislature," Smith said. She said her group has
approached several lawmakers and hopes to know soon whether any will
introduce a bill this year to change the law.

Gov. Jeb Bush said he was pleased with the court's stance.

"It's the law of the state, and I think it's the appropriate law,"
Bush said.

The Florida Department of Children and Families, which oversees the
foster care and adoption system, has declined to comment extensively
on the lawsuit that the state's lawyers have been fighting for years.
DCF spokesman Tim Bottcher said only, "Florida law is clear on this
issue, and the Department of Children and Families will continue to
act accordingly."

In 2001, a federal judge ruled against the four gay men without a
trial. The judge described one plaintiff as having demonstrated "a
deeply loving and interdependent relationship" with the children he
was caring for. But even so, that didn't mean Florida's law violated
the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution, as the lawsuit
had claimed.

A three-judge panel on the 11th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Atlanta rejected the plaintiff's appeal last year, and the full court
decided on a 6-6 vote not to reconsider.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/11/State/Court_won_t_hear_gay_.shtml


--Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.
Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action.

[Greegor]

wexwimpy wrote:
> Court won't hear gay adoption suit
>
> The U. S. Supreme Court declines to consider an ACLU lawsuit filed in
> hopes of overturning the state's ban.
>
> By CURTIS KRUEGER, Times Staff Writer Published January 11, 2005
>
> The U. S. Supreme Court has decided not to overturn a law that
> prevents gay Floridians from adopting children.
>
> The ACLU had filed the lawsuit on behalf of four gay men whom Florida
> ACLU director Howard Simon said "are about as close to being saints
as
> anybody I've ever seen in my life" because of their care for disabled
> children.
>
> At least two of the plaintiffs have been foster parents, which points
> to one of the ironies in Florida law. The state does allow gay men
and
> women to raise children, by licensing them as foster parents, even
> though the law does not allow adoptions.
>
> Simon said the Supreme Court's decision not to take up the case,
which
> it made without comment Monday, was "really kind of infuriating;
we've
> never had our day in court on this."
>
> Gay advocates have said gay and lesbian couples could provide stable
> and loving homes for thousands of children waiting to be adopted out
> of Florida's foster care system.
>
> Florida Christian Coalition executive director Bill Stephens welcomed
> the Supreme Court's decision, saying, "We're just pleased that
> children are going to get protected, that courts are doing what's in
> the best interest of children and keeping them in heterosexual
homes."
>
> He and other supporters of the ban said the court's ruling promotes
> the most stable and helpful family arrangement for children.
>
> "Marriage is the union of one man and one woman because it's best for
> our children and best for our society," said Mathew Staver, president
> and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, a Christian law organization
> in Orlando, which filed a brief in the case.
>
> Florida's gay adoption ban was passed by the Legislature in 1977,
just
> after Anita Bryant, the popular singer and Florida orange juice
> promoter, had campaigned against a gay rights ordinance in Miami.
> Florida is the only state with a blanket ban on gay adoption.
>
> Although the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal, Stephens
> called Monday's decision "the beginning of the battle, I certainly
> don't think it's over."
>
> Neither does Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida,
> which strongly supports overturning the ban.
>
> "What this does is finally place the responsibility for fixing this
> law squarely on the Legislature," Smith said. She said her group has
> approached several lawmakers and hopes to know soon whether any will
> introduce a bill this year to change the law.
>
> Gov. Jeb Bush said he was pleased with the court's stance.
>
> "It's the law of the state, and I think it's the appropriate law,"
> Bush said.
>
> The Florida Department of Children and Families, which oversees the
> foster care and adoption system, has declined to comment extensively
> on the lawsuit that the state's lawyers have been fighting for years.
> DCF spokesman Tim Bottcher said only, "Florida law is clear on this
> issue, and the Department of Children and Families will continue to
> act accordingly."
>
> In 2001, a federal judge ruled against the four gay men without a
> trial. The judge described one plaintiff as having demonstrated "a
> deeply loving and interdependent relationship" with the children he
> was caring for. But even so, that didn't mean Florida's law violated
> the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution, as the lawsuit
> had claimed.
>
> A three-judge panel on the 11th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
> Atlanta rejected the plaintiff's appeal last year, and the full court
> decided on a 6-6 vote not to reconsider.
>
> http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/11/State/Court_won_t_hear_gay_.shtml
>
>
> --Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.
> Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org,
become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at
http://www.aclu.org/action.

[bobb]

"Greegor" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> wexwimpy wrote:
>> Court won't hear gay adoption suit
>>
>> The U. S. Supreme Court declines to consider an ACLU lawsuit filed in
>> hopes of overturning the state's ban.
>>
>> By CURTIS KRUEGER, Times Staff Writer Published January 11, 2005
>>
>> The U. S. Supreme Court has decided not to overturn a law that
>> prevents gay Floridians from adopting children.
>>
>> The ACLU had filed the lawsuit on behalf of four gay men whom Florida
>> ACLU director Howard Simon said "are about as close to being saints
> as
>> anybody I've ever seen in my life" because of their care for disabled
>> children.

Hahahaha.. I would question if these four men are 'saints' but no matter,
they want the law to assume every other gay parent is a saint, too.

>>
>> At least two of the plaintiffs have been foster parents, which points
>> to one of the ironies in Florida law. The state does allow gay men
> and
>> women to raise children, by licensing them as foster parents, even
>> though the law does not allow adoptions.

I would suggest it's possible there may be a need for a gay foster parent,
most likely in those situations where the child has proclaimed his
own sexual identity. The choice to live with a gay foster parent must
be at the child's choosing.. not the state. Further, I would suggest
the foster child should be at least 13 before being allowed placement
with a gay person.


>>
>> Simon said the Supreme Court's decision not to take up the case,
> which
>> it made without comment Monday, was "really kind of infuriating;
> we've
>> never had our day in court on this."
>>
>> Gay advocates have said gay and lesbian couples could provide stable
>> and loving homes for thousands of children waiting to be adopted out
>> of Florida's foster care system.

So could a lot of felons who have no history of harming children.

If, as a gay person, they have an interest in raising children... their
sexuality
need not be exposed. I support the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

bobb

>>
>> Florida Christian Coalition executive director Bill Stephens welcomed
>> the Supreme Court's decision, saying, "We're just pleased that
>> children are going to get protected, that courts are doing what's in
>> the best interest of children and keeping them in heterosexual
> homes."

I'm not so sure that the use of being 'protected' is the correct word. Just
as gays serve in the military... they are not a danger. The focus should be
on the child with an effort to provide a comfortable living environment
absent the stigma (yes, it's still a stigma) of homosexuality. Foster kids
already have a heap of problems to deal with.. why add another?


>>
>> He and other supporters of the ban said the court's ruling promotes
>> the most stable and helpful family arrangement for children.
>>
>> "Marriage is the union of one man and one woman because it's best for
>> our children and best for our society," said Mathew Staver, president
>> and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, a Christian law organization
>> in Orlando, which filed a brief in the case.
>>
>> Florida's gay adoption ban was passed by the Legislature in 1977,
> just
>> after Anita Bryant, the popular singer and Florida orange juice
>> promoter, had campaigned against a gay rights ordinance in Miami.
>> Florida is the only state with a blanket ban on gay adoption.
>>
>> Although the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal, Stephens
>> called Monday's decision "the beginning of the battle, I certainly
>> don't think it's over."
>>
>> Neither does Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida,
>> which strongly supports overturning the ban.
>>
>> "What this does is finally place the responsibility for fixing this
>> law squarely on the Legislature," Smith said. She said her group has
>> approached several lawmakers and hopes to know soon whether any will
>> introduce a bill this year to change the law.
>>
>> Gov. Jeb Bush said he was pleased with the court's stance.
>>
>> "It's the law of the state, and I think it's the appropriate law,"
>> Bush said.
>>
>> The Florida Department of Children and Families, which oversees the
>> foster care and adoption system, has declined to comment extensively
>> on the lawsuit that the state's lawyers have been fighting for years.
>> DCF spokesman Tim Bottcher said only, "Florida law is clear on this
>> issue, and the Department of Children and Families will continue to
>> act accordingly."
>>
>> In 2001, a federal judge ruled against the four gay men without a
>> trial. The judge described one plaintiff as having demonstrated "a
>> deeply loving and interdependent relationship" with the children he
>> was caring for. But even so, that didn't mean Florida's law violated
>> the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution, as the lawsuit
>> had claimed.

The exception that one plaintiff represents all gay men does not make
sense. Whose rights are being interpeted.. the child's or the gay adult
man? Applied to the children... the judge made the right decision.

bobb


>>
>> A three-judge panel on the 11th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
>> Atlanta rejected the plaintiff's appeal last year, and the full court
>> decided on a 6-6 vote not to reconsider.
>>
>> http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/11/State/Court_won_t_hear_gay_.shtml
>>
>>
>> --Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.
>> Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org,
> become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at
> http://www.aclu.org/action.
>

[Kane]

bobb wrote:
> "Greegor" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > wexwimpy wrote:
> >> Court won't hear gay adoption suit
> >>
> >> The U. S. Supreme Court declines to consider an ACLU lawsuit filed
in
> >> hopes of overturning the state's ban.
> >>
> >> By CURTIS KRUEGER, Times Staff Writer Published January 11, 2005
> >>
> >> The U. S. Supreme Court has decided not to overturn a law that
> >> prevents gay Floridians from adopting children.
> >>
> >> The ACLU had filed the lawsuit on behalf of four gay men whom
Florida
> >> ACLU director Howard Simon said "are about as close to being
saints
> > as
> >> anybody I've ever seen in my life" because of their care for
disabled
> >> children.
>
> Hahahaha.. I would question if these four men are 'saints' but no
matter,

Figures of speech, bobber. You know, like you use all the time.

> they want the law to assume every other gay parent is a saint, too.

You are assuming their intent without proof. I'd say that more than
once one or the other of the twitsquadquad has wanted the readers here
to assume the sainthood of a parent accused of CA/N.

> >>
> >> At least two of the plaintiffs have been foster parents, which
points
> >> to one of the ironies in Florida law. The state does allow gay men
> > and
> >> women to raise children, by licensing them as foster parents, even
> >> though the law does not allow adoptions.
>
> I would suggest it's possible there may be a need for a gay foster
parent,
> most likely in those situations where the child has proclaimed his
> own sexual identity.

Why, in particular, would you think that? And why would adoption differ
from fostering?

Are you saying a straight foster parent isn't fit to parent a gay
child?

> The choice to live with a gay foster parent must
> be at the child's choosing.. not the state.

So, parents (anologous to "the state" in loco parentis) should be
required to allow the child to choose, in a divorce say, which parent
to live with?

At what age would you say this should be implimented, bobber the swift?
13? twelve? 3? eighteen months?

> Further, I would suggest
> the foster child should be at least 13 before being allowed placement
> with a gay person.

Why?

Should it be that a child who is queer must be 13 before being allowed
placement with a straight person?

> >>
> >> Simon said the Supreme Court's decision not to take up the case,
> > which
> >> it made without comment Monday, was "really kind of infuriating;
> > we've
> >> never had our day in court on this."
> >>
> >> Gay advocates have said gay and lesbian couples could provide
stable
> >> and loving homes for thousands of children waiting to be adopted
out
> >> of Florida's foster care system.
>
> So could a lot of felons who have no history of harming children.

Nope. The willingness to commit a crime and the fact of queerness have
no similar characteristics upon which to base your claim...certainly
not in the area of criminality, since being queer isn't a crime.

> If, as a gay person, they have an interest in raising children...
their
> sexuality need not be exposed. I support the 'don't ask, don't tell'
policy.

Why do you support that, bobber? I'd think it would be the other way
around. If a person fosters or adopts without telling the worker their
sexual orientation that would constitute misleading by
omission.....commonly referred to as "lying."

> bobb

Why'd you sign off, bobber? You had more to say below.

> >>
> >> Florida Christian Coalition executive director Bill Stephens
welcomed
> >> the Supreme Court's decision, saying, "We're just pleased that
> >> children are going to get protected, that courts are doing what's
in
> >> the best interest of children and keeping them in heterosexual
> > homes."
>
> I'm not so sure that the use of being 'protected' is the correct
word. Just
> as gays serve in the military... they are not a danger. The focus
should be
> on the child with an effort to provide a comfortable living
environment
> absent the stigma (yes, it's still a stigma) of homosexuality. Foster
kids
> already have a heap of problems to deal with.. why add another?

Why add another by a government agency promoting the institutional
bigotry of anti gay policy?

All gay children then also get the message something is wrong with
them. And nothing is "wrong" with queers, adult or child. It's all in
your sick minds.

> >> He and other supporters of the ban said the court's ruling
promotes
> >> the most stable and helpful family arrangement for children.
> >>
> >> "Marriage is the union of one man and one woman because it's best
for
> >> our children and best for our society," said Mathew Staver,
president
> >> and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, a Christian law
organization
> >> in Orlando, which filed a brief in the case.
> >>
> >> Florida's gay adoption ban was passed by the Legislature in 1977,
> > just
> >> after Anita Bryant, the popular singer and Florida orange juice
> >> promoter, had campaigned against a gay rights ordinance in Miami.
> >> Florida is the only state with a blanket ban on gay adoption.
> >>
> >> Although the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal, Stephens
> >> called Monday's decision "the beginning of the battle, I certainly
> >> don't think it's over."
> >>
> >> Neither does Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida,
> >> which strongly supports overturning the ban.
> >>
> >> "What this does is finally place the responsibility for fixing
this
> >> law squarely on the Legislature," Smith said. She said her group
has
> >> approached several lawmakers and hopes to know soon whether any
will
> >> introduce a bill this year to change the law.
> >>
> >> Gov. Jeb Bush said he was pleased with the court's stance.
> >>
> >> "It's the law of the state, and I think it's the appropriate law,"
> >> Bush said.
> >>
> >> The Florida Department of Children and Families, which oversees
the
> >> foster care and adoption system, has declined to comment
extensively
> >> on the lawsuit that the state's lawyers have been fighting for
years.
> >> DCF spokesman Tim Bottcher said only, "Florida law is clear on
this
> >> issue, and the Department of Children and Families will continue
to
> >> act accordingly."
> >>
> >> In 2001, a federal judge ruled against the four gay men without a
> >> trial. The judge described one plaintiff as having demonstrated "a
> >> deeply loving and interdependent relationship" with the children
he
> >> was caring for. But even so, that didn't mean Florida's law
violated
> >> the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution, as the
lawsuit
> >> had claimed.
>
> The exception that one plaintiff represents all gay men does not
make
> sense.

Nonsense. That isn't nor wasn't the intent of the judge. They can only
rule in the case before them, unless they are a state, or our federal
Supreme court. They ruling may or may not have an effect on the larger
population.

What the judge described is the possibility of the relationship.

And is it not so that more than one gay man could be a loving and
supportive parent?

Have you noticed the low numbers of gay and lesbians abusing children?

> Whose rights are being interpeted.. the child's or the gay adult
> man?

This then, is the crux of the stupidity so often displayed in this
newsgroup...the pretense the one is NOT being favored over the other.
Repeated I see people here, Doug being the most frequent offender,
insisting the CPS violates children's rights in keeping them out of the
homes of alledged abusers until an investigation is completed and the
abuser is made to rehabilitate themselves.

This would never fly, for instance, in the case of a adult child caring
for their aged parent who failed to meet safety standards for care. The
elder parents rights would come first. Just as a child's should.

> Applied to the children... the judge made the right decision.

We are glad you have put your stamp of approval on this judgement.

> bobb

Kane


>
>
> >>
> >> A three-judge panel on the 11th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
> >> Atlanta rejected the plaintiff's appeal last year, and the full
court
> >> decided on a 6-6 vote not to reconsider.
> >>
> >>
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/11/State/Court_won_t_hear_gay_.shtml
> >>
> >>
> >> --Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.
> >> Defend your civil liberties! Get information at
http://www.aclu.org,
> > become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at
> > http://www.aclu.org/action.
> >

[Doug]

Kane writes:

> Repeated I see people here, Doug being the most frequent offender,
> insisting the CPS violates children's rights in keeping them out of the
> homes of alledged abusers until an investigation is completed and the
> abuser is made to rehabilitate themselves.

Hi, Kane!

??????

Well, until investigation shows that a child is at risk of or actually
maltreated, the state does not know her mother is an abuser, does it?

And if mom is not an abuser, she does not need to rehabilitate herself.

And the poor child should not be held against her will in state custody
while the state figures out the statements above.

If CPS has not determined that mom has maltreated her child or put her child
at risk, mom does not need to rehabilitate herself and her daughter should
not be forcibly taken into state custody. The state tramples the rights of
any child it forcibly holds against her will while its agents sniff for
false positives or try to prove negatives.

To forcibly take a child into state custody and hold her in a facility
manned by strangers when the state has not determined that she is at risk of
or has actually been abused/neglected by her parents violates that child's
rights. The child, like any citizen, has a right to her freedom and to live
with her family unless the state shows that she is at risk of abuse/neglect
in that family. The best interests of children are presumed to be with
their parents unless the state proves otherwise. That's what investigations
are for, right?

And investigations/assessments are, indeed, completed by CPS. Yet a
whopping 96,000 children were forcibly removed from families CPS itself had
UNSUBSTANTIATED for risk of/actual child neglect or abuse.
http://tinyurl.com/35flt 96,000 children were wrongfully held in state
custody and only a fraction of those children were returned within 2 months.
The average stay in state custody for a child is over two years.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/table6_4.htm

The rights of those 96,000 children were violated.

If a wife makes a complaint against her husband for domestic violence, the
state does not take the wife into state custody and hold her against her
will until they determine whether the husband actually assaulted her and
rehabilitates himself.

But I do appreciate your candor, Kane. Your statement does clarify
precisely what does happen often in child protection and such action does
violate the rights of children. It could never be done to adults.

Your statement, which should be forever preserved, was:

"Repeated [sic] I see people here, Doug being the most frequent offender,
insisting the CPS violates children's rights in keeping them out of the
homes of alledged abusers until an investigation is completed and the
abuser is made to rehabilitate themselves."

Doug

[Kane]

Doug wrote:
> Kane writes:
>
> > Repeated I see people here, Doug being the most frequent offender,
> > insisting the CPS violates children's rights in keeping them out of
the
> > homes of alledged abusers until an investigation is completed and
the
> > abuser is made to rehabilitate themselves.
>
> Hi, Kane!
>
> ??????
>
> Well, until investigation shows that a child is at risk of or
actually
> maltreated, the state does not know her mother is an abuser, does it?

More nonsense. You would have us believe that a rape victim should be
left, sans PROOF, with the alledged rapist.

> And if mom is not an abuser, she does not need to rehabilitate
herself.

And you will determine she is how again? And while you are doing that
you will leave the child, and likely the best witness with the alledged
abuser.

Your logic is why I call you a child hating family hating twit.

> And the poor child should not be held against her will in state
custody
> while the state figures out the statements above.

Sure, leave the child with the alledged abusers. That'll work.

Tell that to the next victim of a rape....that she is stuck with her
alledged rapist until there is adequate proof.

> If CPS has not determined that mom has maltreated her child or put
her child
> at risk, mom does not need to rehabilitate herself and her daughter
should
> not be forcibly taken into state custody.

Yep.

> The state tramples the rights of
> any child it forcibly holds against her will while its agents sniff
for
> false positives or try to prove negatives.

Liar. Child hater.

> To forcibly take a child into state custody and hold her in a
facility
> manned by strangers when the state has not determined that she is at
risk of
> or has actually been abused/neglected by her parents violates that
child's
> rights.

Liar. Child hater.

> The child, like any citizen, has a right to her freedom and to live
> with her family unless the state shows that she is at risk of
abuse/neglect
> in that family.

Yep, and while the state is determining, where would you have the
alledged victim stay? Why with his or her alleged abusers.

Very typical of you, and your immorality.

> The best interests of children are presumed to be with
> their parents unless the state proves otherwise. That's what
investigations
> are for, right?

Yep, and you'd leave the child where witness tampering can proceed
untrammeled. Nice thinking. But typical of you.

> And investigations/assessments are, indeed, completed by CPS. Yet a
> whopping 96,000 children were forcibly removed from families CPS
itself had
> UNSUBSTANTIATED for risk of/actual child neglect or abuse.

Bull****. I've posted time and again, showing proof by citations, that
"unsubstantiated" does NOT mean nothing happened or that there is NO
risk.

YOu are a lying everytime you post this crappola..LIAR LIAR LIAR.

> http://tinyurl.com/35flt 96,000 children were wrongfully held in
state
> custody and only a fraction of those children were returned within 2
months.
> The average stay in state custody for a child is over two years.
> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/table6_4.htm

Since you cannot prove that unsubstantiated means free of risk and free
of harm then you are a LIAR.

> The rights of those 96,000 children were violated.

See my prior posts where states and others have said flat out that
"unsubstantiated" does NOT mean no harm or risk was found.

> If a wife makes a complaint against her husband for domestic
violence, the
> state does not take the wife into state custody and hold her against
her
> will until they determine whether the husband actually assaulted her
and
> rehabilitates himself.

No, they let her make that decision because she is an adult. At what
age would you allow the child, unassisted, to make such a decision, you
filthy piece of scum****?

> But I do appreciate your candor, Kane. Your statement does clarify
> precisely what does happen often in child protection and such action
does
> violate the rights of children.

It does no such thing, liar. You'd leave the victim with the perp.
But we've seen all along what your ethics and morals are.

> It could never be done to adults.

Because "adult" carries with it the capacity to make their own
decisions. On the other hand, were an adult to have the mental capacity
of a 5 year old would society be willing to leave them, assuming they
were victimized, with the alledged perp? Of course not..and they would
be taken into protective custody regardless of their wishes.

> Your statement, which should be forever preserved, was:
>
> "Repeated [sic] I see people here, Doug being the most frequent
offender,

That is because he is.

> insisting the CPS violates children's rights in keeping them out of
the
> homes of alledged abusers until an investigation is completed and the
> abuser is made to rehabilitate themselves."

And I stand by that statement.

A child is a child. They cannot make independent decisions legally, or
ethically. The state acts for them. As the family should have before
the state had to.

> Doug

You are a sick ****.

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Liar. Child hater.
....
> Liar. Child hater.

Sure looks like a cathartic temper tantrum.
Seems a bit adolescent, to boot.
Or is it just runamok DEMAGOGUERY?

Certainly a desperate ploy.