NV Shortage of Fosters a LIE

[Greegor]

http://www.klastv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5021816&nav=168Y
http://www.klastv.com/global/story.asp?s=5021816&ClientType=Printable

Denise Saunders, Anchor
Foster Parents Speak Out About Broken System

June 12, 2006, 11:10 PM

Overcrowded conditions at Child Haven have county officials stepping up
recruitment efforts for more foster families. But that plea has some
current foster parents angry because they've been waiting more than a
year for a child to be placed in their home.

Eyewitness News has protected their identity -- for fear of retribution
for speaking out -- so they could share their views on the foster care
crisis.

Foster parent: "Everything that we are reading in the paper and seeing
in the media is not black and white. We are a broken system."

These foster parents feel betrayed by a system that is supposed to
bring families together. They all have licenses to foster children, so
they don't understand why they haven't been contacted by the county
about possible placement considering child haven is overflowing.

Foster parent: "They are full of crap. They are full of crap. There are
so many people. I could find probably find a dozen homes for children
in the snap of my finger already licensed."

Their experience has taught them it's all a game of caseworkers and
supervisors playing favorites.

Foster parent: "You're punished constantly. If you speak up to the
wrong worker, they'll just by word of mouth. You won't get kids."

Foster parent: "There are a selected few that they are picking and they
are not picking the one's that can really help and really want to
help."

These foster parents, or potential foster parents, say their calls to
the county constantly go unanswered. Their concerns and questions are
buried in a system that seems riddled with red tape.

Foster parent: "Clean house. Get rid of the slack. Get rid of the
duplication of efforts. I've filled out the same paperwork probably 17
times."

Despite their frustrations, these foster parents say they won't give up
because they believe someone needs to fight for the rights of these
young children.

Foster parent: "I could love another one and there are kids out there
that are looking for love. Sometimes social services doesn't look at
the love that a child needs. And that's what keeps I think most of us
in here. Because we do care and we do want it to happen."

The foster parents Eyewitness News spoke with say another problem with
the process is that there are too many licensing categories, which
often limits where children can be placed temporarily or permanently.

[wexwimpy]

I was wondering why you did not put title of article in( Foster
Parents Speak Out About Broken} in subject line.
On 15 Jun 2006 00:35:00 -0700, "Greegor" > wrote:

>http://www.klastv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5021816&nav=168Y
>http://www.klastv.com/global/story.asp?s=5021816&ClientType=Printable
>
>Denise Saunders, Anchor
>Foster Parents Speak Out About Broken System
>
>June 12, 2006, 11:10 PM
>
>Overcrowded conditions at Child Haven have county officials stepping up
>recruitment efforts for more foster families. But that plea has some
>current foster parents angry because they've been waiting more than a
>year for a child to be placed in their home.
>
>Eyewitness News has protected their identity -- for fear of retribution
>for speaking out -- so they could share their views on the foster care
>crisis.
>
>Foster parent: "Everything that we are reading in the paper and seeing
>in the media is not black and white. We are a broken system."
>
>These foster parents feel betrayed by a system that is supposed to
>bring families together. They all have licenses to foster children, so
>they don't understand why they haven't been contacted by the county
>about possible placement considering child haven is overflowing.
>
>Foster parent: "They are full of crap. They are full of crap. There are
>so many people. I could find probably find a dozen homes for children
>in the snap of my finger already licensed."
>
>Their experience has taught them it's all a game of caseworkers and
>supervisors playing favorites.
>
>Foster parent: "You're punished constantly. If you speak up to the
>wrong worker, they'll just by word of mouth. You won't get kids."
>
>Foster parent: "There are a selected few that they are picking and they
>are not picking the one's that can really help and really want to
>help."
>
>These foster parents, or potential foster parents, say their calls to
>the county constantly go unanswered. Their concerns and questions are
>buried in a system that seems riddled with red tape.
>
>Foster parent: "Clean house. Get rid of the slack. Get rid of the
>duplication of efforts. I've filled out the same paperwork probably 17
>times."
>
>Despite their frustrations, these foster parents say they won't give up
>because they believe someone needs to fight for the rights of these
>young children.
>
>Foster parent: "I could love another one and there are kids out there
>that are looking for love. Sometimes social services doesn't look at
>the love that a child needs. And that's what keeps I think most of us
>in here. Because we do care and we do want it to happen."
>
>The foster parents Eyewitness News spoke with say another problem with
>the process is that there are too many licensing categories, which
>often limits where children can be placed temporarily or permanently.
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.
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> http://www.klastv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5021816&nav=168Y
> http://www.klastv.com/global/story.asp?s=5021816&ClientType=Printable
>
> Denise Saunders, Anchor
> Foster Parents Speak Out About Broken System
>
> June 12, 2006, 11:10 PM
>
> Overcrowded conditions at Child Haven have county officials stepping up
> recruitment efforts for more foster families. But that plea has some
> current foster parents angry because they've been waiting more than a
> year for a child to be placed in their home.
>
> Eyewitness News has protected their identity -- for fear of retribution
> for speaking out -- so they could share their views on the foster care
> crisis.
>
> Foster parent: "Everything that we are reading in the paper and seeing
> in the media is not black and white. We are a broken system."
>
> These foster parents feel betrayed by a system that is supposed to
> bring families together. They all have licenses to foster children, so
> they don't understand why they haven't been contacted by the county
> about possible placement considering child haven is overflowing.
>
> Foster parent: "They are full of crap. They are full of crap. There are
> so many people. I could find probably find a dozen homes for children
> in the snap of my finger already licensed."
>
> Their experience has taught them it's all a game of caseworkers and
> supervisors playing favorites.
>
> Foster parent: "You're punished constantly. If you speak up to the
> wrong worker, they'll just by word of mouth. You won't get kids."
>
> Foster parent: "There are a selected few that they are picking and they
> are not picking the one's that can really help and really want to
> help."
>
> These foster parents, or potential foster parents, say their calls to
> the county constantly go unanswered. Their concerns and questions are
> buried in a system that seems riddled with red tape.
>
> Foster parent: "Clean house. Get rid of the slack. Get rid of the
> duplication of efforts. I've filled out the same paperwork probably 17
> times."
>
> Despite their frustrations, these foster parents say they won't give up
> because they believe someone needs to fight for the rights of these
> young children.
>
> Foster parent: "I could love another one and there are kids out there
> that are looking for love. Sometimes social services doesn't look at
> the love that a child needs. And that's what keeps I think most of us
> in here. Because we do care and we do want it to happen."
>
> The foster parents Eyewitness News spoke with say another problem with
> the process is that there are too many licensing categories, which
> often limits where children can be placed temporarily or permanently.

These then would be the same "foster parents" that you and others wish
to claim kill and injury their foster children at a rate higher than the
general population?

Greg, about 90% of the crap above is exactly that.

Foster parents, like anyone, hate having to go through the exercise of
certification.

Not all are qualified to handle the most difficult children with high
needs. (Which, by the way, bring in the most foster subsidy...0:->)

I have heard the litany for ages from those foster parents NOT allowed
to take the more high needs children in larger numbers.

THOSE are the foster parents that in fact ARE what you and other
assholes claim they are...the greedy.

Of course they are no one's "favorites."

They also blather about "loving the child," when in fact those are the
one's showing the least amount of real love and concern for the child
and his FAMILY.

Real foster parents don't come on like the above, Greg.

And anyone with a brain knows that people don't all come with the same
skills and capacities.

The reason children aren't placed with some of them is they cannot
handle the child as they are with the needs they have...though they
could do a fair job with other children with different or lessor needs.

Problem these days, Greg, is the that PARENTS THAT ABUSE that you like
to excuse and help, are doing so much damage to their children that more
and more of the population in foster care IS high needs.

One of the reasons for NOT using a foster family is their own children.
They may NOT be safe around some foster children. No worker with a brain
is going to place a sexually predatory child (and there are plenty) in a
home with younger children..not even children close to their own age.

No one is going to place a child that's a fire setter in a home where
the foster parent is not trained, and they house is not rigged and setup
to deal with a firesetter (no accelerators, no incindiary devices..etc.
That means no matches, no lighters, and not even nail polish in the
house..these families can't even have a wood stove or fireplace.). And
the bedrooms must all be alarmed, with the alarms sealed so they cannot
be tampered with. Imagine the cost.

Should these children be in an institution? CPS thinks they need a
family life if they are to recover. I TREATED CHILDREN LIKE THIS.

You have been suckered YET AGAIN.

Lots of "nice folks" try to become foster parents. Nowadays they will
SUE if you tell them they cannot be. No matter how unfit they are. So
you have to train them and certify them, but one thing...you do NOT have
to use them.

Thank goodness CPS is being so careful.

Overcrowding is not as bad as having children abuse -- and you can be
sure a foster parent would sue the hell out of the state if a foster
child abused one of their own.

AND, even MORE likely, the foster child involve the bio child of the
foster parents in activities that makes the THEM a child abuser.

That DOES happen. So CPS won't place any but appropriate children with
the appropriate foster family.

Remember, CPS doesn't put an add in the paper with "salary" and
qualifications and have droves of people applying.

Most parents out there could NOT handle being a foster parent. It is way
too demanding, as this story does have THAT bit of truth buried in there.

And no one fills out the same forms 17 times...dummy. Except on children
in their home to the number of 17. In other words, they are required to
keep the same records on all children that they foster over time.

It's a lot more than 17 for some families.

This is a piece of crap article, as usual.

0:->




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Foster families fill urgent need
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:27:29 GMT
From: wexwimpy >
Newsgroups: alt.support.foster-parents


Foster families fill urgent need
06/13/2006
By Kym Soper , Journal Inquirer

"Just being removed from your home is traumatic enough, never mind
possibly losing your brother or sister too," DCF social worker
Kevin Howell-Levine says during a recent visit to the boys.

Like many brothers, Nicholaus and Alexander, whose last names are
being withheld at DCF's request, can be as different as night
and day.

Tawny-haired with hazel eyes, the older boy is a baseball fan and a
budding Picasso who draws colorfully crayoned pictures of
dinosaurs and fish.

Blond and blue-eyed, the younger of the two says basketball is his
sport and he loves writing long sentences, snapping off complex
prose far beyond the ability of most first-graders.

They do share some similarities, however - both have freckles, love
recess and gym, NASCAR racing, and heavy metal music,
saying KISS, Bon Jovi, and Ozzy Osborne are their favorite groups.

After school, homework, and a quick snack, adventure beckons in their
wooded 3-acre back yard. And they show off, with pride, their
battle scars: skinned knees and elbows from occasional falls off
bicycles and trees.

They have their spats and like to wrestle about, as most young
siblings do, but if one were to be threatened by a bully, the other
would rally to the rescue.

"If anybody even tried to punch my brother - hello, goodbye!"
Nicholaus says, making an exaggerated punch in the air with his fist.

Both boys say they are happy with their foster home. Their foster
mother, Katherine Keyes-Noto, is really nice and she has six of her
own children there to play with, they say.
But both admit they miss being with their mom and dad.

"It's hard," says Alexander, casting his eyes down to watch his
sneaker-clad toe worry a patch of loose grass.

But if he had also been separated from his brother, "it would be a lot
harder," he adds, flashing bright eyes upward.

No easy task

According to the latest figures from DCF, 4,519 children in
Connecticut were living in the foster care system as of June 7, either
in a
licensed foster home like Nicholaus and Alexander or with relatives
other than their mothers or fathers.

More than half, or 2,621, have a sister or brother who is also in DCF
care, but only 1,049 of those children have been placed in the
same home as their siblings.

The others have been separated for a variety of reasons, officials
say.

"Some of the kids are not together for clinical reasons, or it could
be that one child has victimized his siblings," DCF spokeswoman
Lisa Flower-Murphy says.

A child sometimes may need intensive mental health services or have a
chronic medical condition that requires high-level nursing
care, and there are a limited number of foster homes licensed to deal
with those problems, officials say.

DCF spokesman Gary Kleeblatt adds, "It depends on a lot of different
factors: how many siblings there are, what their individual
issues and needs are, and what the foster family is licensed for. It
has to be on a case-by-case basis, and I think foster families are
very flexible and do a lot for the best interest of the kids in their
home."

Keyes-Noto knows plenty about being flexible.

In order to keep Nicholaus and Alexander together, she and her husband
gave up their master bedroom and now sleep in a much
smaller space plastered with green-and-yellow John Deere tractor
wallpaper.

The smaller room had belonged to her three boys, and with two bunk
beds taking up most of the space, only one more boy could
snugly fit. Now, the bunk beds and a twin for all five boys have taken
over her master bedroom retreat, and she and her husband are
dreaming about farmland.

A foster parent since 2001, Keyes-Noto grew up in such an environment
and thinks nothing of the sacrifice.

"My parents did this, had a lot of foster and adopted kids when I was
growing up," Keyes-Noto says. It can be chaotic at times, and
quite the balancing act trying to provide structure to lives ripped
apart, she admits.

But the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, she says, noting that her
mother now has 21 grandchildren to boast of.

"We do it for the kids," she says. "To this day I still can't imagine
not opening your home to a child you don't know who's in need."

Right now the most pressing needs in foster care are homes for
teenagers and adolescents, children of color, and children with
medically complex conditions, Flower-Murphy says.

"Because those kids possess special kinds of challenges, they're more
difficult to place," she says.

According to DCF figures, the average age of a child in the foster
care system is 11 years, with an average length of stay of 22
months.

Foster parents must be at least 21, and complete training and criminal
background checks before becoming licensed.

For more information about foster care or becoming a foster parent,
contact the DCF information line at 1-888-KIDHERO.


http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16781361&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6


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.
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Wex:

Broken CPS is not news,
see recent GA debacle.

But Fosters pointing out that the ""shortage""
of fosters is a lie, that is more precious.

[[email protected]]

the Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Massachusetts is being
investigated for injuries caused to autistic
children...............disruptive children have reportedly been
subjected to "aversive therapy" consisting of electric shocks that
produce pain similar to a bee sting..............

[0:->]

wrote:
> the Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Massachusetts is being
> investigated for injuries caused to autistic
> children...............disruptive children have reportedly been
> subjected to "aversive therapy" consisting of electric shocks that
> produce pain similar to a bee sting..............

Possibly you and Greg should discuss aversive cold showers. He seems to
think it will stop his own incontinence as he claimed it stopped a
little girl from peeing herself.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

But doesn't this fit right in with your theories
about TASERING children, Kane?


0:-> wrote:
> wrote:
> > the Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Massachusetts is being
> > investigated for injuries caused to autistic
> > children...............disruptive children have reportedly been
> > subjected to "aversive therapy" consisting of electric shocks that
> > produce pain similar to a bee sting..............
>
> Possibly you and Greg should discuss aversive cold showers. He seems to
> think it will stop his own incontinence as he claimed it stopped a
> little girl from peeing herself.
>
> 0:->
>
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> But doesn't this fit right in with your theories
> about TASERING children, Kane?

What would these theories of mine be, Greg?

If you read the ONLY instances I've ever discussed this issue you would
find two of the three were life saving, and the third an instance where
an aggressive teen attacked duly authorized school personnel and they
were protecting themselves.

So again, Greg, you are lying.

I've never approved of Tasering children.

I do have a theory that supports the use of the Taser to save a child's
life, or to protect others from being injured.

It's called the "Don't Be a Stupid Greg," (...and do things to hurt
yourself and others).

0:->


>
>
> 0:-> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> the Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Massachusetts is being
>>> investigated for injuries caused to autistic
>>> children...............disruptive children have reportedly been
>>> subjected to "aversive therapy" consisting of electric shocks that
>>> produce pain similar to a bee sting..............
>> Possibly you and Greg should discuss aversive cold showers. He seems to
>> think it will stop his own incontinence as he claimed it stopped a
>> little girl from peeing herself.
>>
>> 0:->
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
>> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
>> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Shortage of Foster Care contractors is a lie say licensed Fosters!
Nevada

http://www.klastv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5021816&nav=168Y

http://www.klastv.com/global/story.asp?s=5021816&ClientType=Printable

>
> Denise Saunders, Anchor
> Foster Parents Speak Out About Broken System
>
> June 12, 2006, 11:10 PM
>
> Overcrowded conditions at Child Haven have county officials stepping up
> recruitment efforts for more foster families. But that plea has some
> current foster parents angry because they've been waiting more than a
> year for a child to be placed in their home.
>
> Eyewitness News has protected their identity -- for fear of retribution
> for speaking out -- so they could share their views on the foster care
> crisis.
>
> Foster parent: "Everything that we are reading in the paper and seeing
> in the media is not black and white. We are a broken system."
>
> These foster parents feel betrayed by a system that is supposed to
> bring families together. They all have licenses to foster children, so
> they don't understand why they haven't been contacted by the county
> about possible placement considering child haven is overflowing.
>
> Foster parent: "They are full of crap. They are full of crap. There are
> so many people. I could find probably find a dozen homes for children
> in the snap of my finger already licensed."
>
> Their experience has taught them it's all a game of caseworkers and
> supervisors playing favorites.
>
> Foster parent: "You're punished constantly. If you speak up to the
> wrong worker, they'll just by word of mouth. You won't get kids."
>
> Foster parent: "There are a selected few that they are picking and they
> are not picking the one's that can really help and really want to
> help."
>
> These foster parents, or potential foster parents, say their calls to
> the county constantly go unanswered. Their concerns and questions are
> buried in a system that seems riddled with red tape.
>
> Foster parent: "Clean house. Get rid of the slack. Get rid of the
> duplication of efforts. I've filled out the same paperwork probably 17
> times."
>
> Despite their frustrations, these foster parents say they won't give up
> because they believe someone needs to fight for the rights of these
> young children.
>
> Foster parent: "I could love another one and there are kids out there
> that are looking for love. Sometimes social services doesn't look at
> the love that a child needs. And that's what keeps I think most of us
> in here. Because we do care and we do want it to happen."
>
> The foster parents Eyewitness News spoke with say another problem with
> the process is that there are too many licensing categories, which
> often limits where children can be placed temporarily or permanently.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Shortage of Foster Care contractors is a lie say licensed Fosters!

Yes we know. That's why I explained some of the truth about grousing
from foster parents. Good foster parents know what it takes to be used
for placement. The one's ****ing and moaning are the ones MOST OFTEN IN
IT FOR THE MONEY, and damned mad they aren't getting the highend
(special needs kids).

Often the workers are so disgusted with them they will NOT use them
because they KNOW they short the kids.

Your accusations about this have always been right, dummy.

And it's been admitted by myself and others here before, dummy.

A few can make a very big noise when given a voice like a "blood
thirsty" media source. No big deal.

There is a shortage of good foster homes. And that is true story, boy.

Emphasis on good.

Their are lots of people that think with their pocketbook out there,
Greg, just as you do, isn't that right?

It's nearly impossible, unless they have a criminal background to refuse
to accept their application and send them through training and certify
them. On what grounds would YOU turn them down before they had a child
in their home for you to see how they treated them?

Or before they made their motives clear?

So there they are, a ****ant crowd of whiners that create their own
problem.

Good foster parents figure out how, for instance, to make it more
possible to communicate with very busy workers. The organize the child's
needs and issues, leave proper messages about specific things, and they
get worker attention for the child.

One of the things I used to tell foster relatives over and over again,
when they complained of not getting worker attention was to NOT call
with a lot of ****ing and moaning about THEIR PROBLEM, but to frame it
in terms of the CHILD'S NEEDS.

Oddly, when they heard me and acted as I suggested, suddenly they got
all kinds of attention, and they could piggyback their issues with the
agency onto those issues.

Usually were naturally attached anyway.

Lots of people only know how to be Gregholes...'scuse, STUPID ASSHOLES,
Greg. I taught them to be assertive and smart.

This is little more than a pack of self concerned ****ants, Greg.

You see anything in here that resonates for you? LIKE THE "FOSTER
PARENTS" NOT MENTIONING THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD?

"These foster parents feel betrayed..." is their entire theme, stupid.
And you, because of your own social dysfunctions, cannot see that.

You identify with them strongly, don't you Greg?

Yet they are obviously of the class YOU AND OTHERS HERE HAVE ACCUSED ALL
FOSTER PARENTS OF BEING.

Man you are stupid.

0:->


> Nevada
>
> http://www.klastv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5021816&nav=168Y
>
> http://www.klastv.com/global/story.asp?s=5021816&ClientType=Printable
>
>> Denise Saunders, Anchor
>> Foster Parents Speak Out About Broken System
>>
>> June 12, 2006, 11:10 PM
>>
>> Overcrowded conditions at Child Haven have county officials stepping up
>> recruitment efforts for more foster families. But that plea has some
>> current foster parents angry because they've been waiting more than a
>> year for a child to be placed in their home.
>>
>> Eyewitness News has protected their identity -- for fear of retribution
>> for speaking out -- so they could share their views on the foster care
>> crisis.
>>
>> Foster parent: "Everything that we are reading in the paper and seeing
>> in the media is not black and white. We are a broken system."
>>
>> These foster parents feel betrayed by a system that is supposed to
>> bring families together. They all have licenses to foster children, so
>> they don't understand why they haven't been contacted by the county
>> about possible placement considering child haven is overflowing.
>>
>> Foster parent: "They are full of crap. They are full of crap. There are
>> so many people. I could find probably find a dozen homes for children
>> in the snap of my finger already licensed."
>>
>> Their experience has taught them it's all a game of caseworkers and
>> supervisors playing favorites.
>>
>> Foster parent: "You're punished constantly. If you speak up to the
>> wrong worker, they'll just by word of mouth. You won't get kids."
>>
>> Foster parent: "There are a selected few that they are picking and they
>> are not picking the one's that can really help and really want to
>> help."
>>
>> These foster parents, or potential foster parents, say their calls to
>> the county constantly go unanswered. Their concerns and questions are
>> buried in a system that seems riddled with red tape.
>>
>> Foster parent: "Clean house. Get rid of the slack. Get rid of the
>> duplication of efforts. I've filled out the same paperwork probably 17
>> times."
>>
>> Despite their frustrations, these foster parents say they won't give up
>> because they believe someone needs to fight for the rights of these
>> young children.
>>
>> Foster parent: "I could love another one and there are kids out there
>> that are looking for love. Sometimes social services doesn't look at
>> the love that a child needs. And that's what keeps I think most of us
>> in here. Because we do care and we do want it to happen."
>>
>> The foster parents Eyewitness News spoke with say another problem with
>> the process is that there are too many licensing categories, which
>> often limits where children can be placed temporarily or permanently.
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
agency butt than any actual problems.
Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
LICENSED but passed over.

If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
why were they LICENSED?

Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?

WHY license them and then pass them over?

Your accusations that these "complainers" would
short change the kids have what proof exactly?
ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!

Isn't your motivation for smearing these
complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?

Is that a smart PR move Kane?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
> agency butt than any actual problems.

Yep. It's rather common for those that have problems with authority to
make such claims.

"They wanted me to bring the child in for visitation with their parents,
HAH!" and similar bitches.

> Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
> LICENSED but passed over.

Yep. And I pointed out why that happens. It's basically impossible if
someone has no background or issues that would patently disqualify them
from applying to be foster parents to turn them down. Hence they get the
full treatment, including training, BG checks (crim, financial, health,
mental health, home) but because they are ****ants that want to do it
THEIR WAY, which often consists of hostility toward BIO PARENTS, you
stupid ****ant, the agency prefers NOT to use them.

They want to testify in court, they want to **** up the system as best
they can, and it would not surprise me if not a few of them were YOUR
cronies, Greg.

> If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
> why were they LICENSED?

Because they cannot be refused for other than already stated statutory
limits on who can and cannot be a foster parent. If they are clean, they
will be certified.

> Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?

No, and that IS the problem. It works exactly as its supposed to. Which
brings in assholes like you. Though I doubt YOU could pass the first
checks, given your DV conviction. Most states will not allow that in an
applicant's past. Though you might talk your way through if you could
convince them of your relative "innocence" that you've claimed here.

> WHY license them and then pass them over?

Because they are a hazard to children, you stupid git.

They lack the proper attitude to keep children safe. They will not
commit to NOT using physical punishment, for instance. ON a child that's
already been physically abused? Typical ****heads.

They will not commit to NOT taking the child to the foster parent's
church. They will not commit to making the child available for
visitation with parents.

They have expressed to workers and trainers their distain for bio parents.

They do not have adequate resources to do the job. Personal resources.
Like patience, tolerance for various aspects of the child and his or her
heritage.

One of my pet hates for years was relatives...who I REFUSED TO
HELP...who, when asked by CPS to foster a group of sibs would agree to
foster THE WHITE ONES (Like themselves) but not the brothers and sisters
of color. Such mixed sib groups tend to be common in CPS client families.

I as much as told them to kiss my butt when they asked for my help.

> Your accusations that these "complainers" would
> short change the kids have what proof exactly?

Lots of familiarity with CPS, and a few years working FOR A FOSTER
PARENT ASSOCIATION doing contract work. I know of which I speak.

> ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!

How many were there? Did you notice any number mentioned? Do you know
anything about the media? Any number over two can be, for the desired
effect, 'a group of...'

Man you are stupid.

> Isn't your motivation for smearing these
> complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?

Well, I sat and looked at that for awhile, and I couldn't find a
motivation of my own beyond my desire for children to NOT be in the
hands of such cretins that I knew with exactly the same kind of hogwash
barely disguised self interested complaints.

Did you see a single instance of them being concerned for the children?

I asked you before. Did you snip it? Of course you did.

Now what would be my "motivation" for my comments about complaining FPs
like this bunch?

Could it be I can smell a rat?

Let me explain. When Ron, or someone of his superior ethics complains
about CPS, I listen. And such people invariably complain about the
shortcomings that WORK AGAINST THE CHILDS best interest from the FPs
point of view.

Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but I respect their
view.

This was a pack of whining ****ants reminiscent of you, Greg.
>
> Is that a smart PR move Kane?
>
When you ****ed the little girl did her mother help?

0;->





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
> > agency butt than any actual problems.
>
> Yep. It's rather common for those that have problems with authority to
> make such claims.
>
> "They wanted me to bring the child in for visitation with their parents,
> HAH!" and similar bitches.
>
> > Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
> > LICENSED but passed over.
>
> Yep. And I pointed out why that happens. It's basically impossible if
> someone has no background or issues that would patently disqualify them
> from applying to be foster parents to turn them down. Hence they get the
> full treatment, including training, BG checks (crim, financial, health,
> mental health, home) but because they are ****ants that want to do it
> THEIR WAY, which often consists of hostility toward BIO PARENTS, you
> stupid ****ant, the agency prefers NOT to use them.
>
> They want to testify in court, they want to **** up the system as best
> they can, and it would not surprise me if not a few of them were YOUR
> cronies, Greg.
>
> > If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
> > why were they LICENSED?
>
> Because they cannot be refused for other than already stated statutory
> limits on who can and cannot be a foster parent. If they are clean, they
> will be certified.
>
> > Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?
>
> No, and that IS the problem. It works exactly as its supposed to. Which
> brings in assholes like you. Though I doubt YOU could pass the first
> checks, given your DV conviction. Most states will not allow that in an
> applicant's past. Though you might talk your way through if you could
> convince them of your relative "innocence" that you've claimed here.
>
> > WHY license them and then pass them over?
>
> Because they are a hazard to children, you stupid git.
>
> They lack the proper attitude to keep children safe. They will not
> commit to NOT using physical punishment, for instance. ON a child that's
> already been physically abused? Typical ****heads.
>
> They will not commit to NOT taking the child to the foster parent's
> church. They will not commit to making the child available for
> visitation with parents.
>
> They have expressed to workers and trainers their distain for bio parents.
>
> They do not have adequate resources to do the job. Personal resources.
> Like patience, tolerance for various aspects of the child and his or her
> heritage.
>
> One of my pet hates for years was relatives...who I REFUSED TO
> HELP...who, when asked by CPS to foster a group of sibs would agree to
> foster THE WHITE ONES (Like themselves) but not the brothers and sisters
> of color. Such mixed sib groups tend to be common in CPS client families.
>
> I as much as told them to kiss my butt when they asked for my help.
>
> > Your accusations that these "complainers" would
> > short change the kids have what proof exactly?
>
> Lots of familiarity with CPS, and a few years working FOR A FOSTER
> PARENT ASSOCIATION doing contract work. I know of which I speak.
>
> > ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!
>
> How many were there? Did you notice any number mentioned? Do you know
> anything about the media? Any number over two can be, for the desired
> effect, 'a group of...'
>
> Man you are stupid.
>
> > Isn't your motivation for smearing these
> > complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?
>
> Well, I sat and looked at that for awhile, and I couldn't find a
> motivation of my own beyond my desire for children to NOT be in the
> hands of such cretins that I knew with exactly the same kind of hogwash
> barely disguised self interested complaints.
>
> Did you see a single instance of them being concerned for the children?
>
> I asked you before. Did you snip it? Of course you did.
>
> Now what would be my "motivation" for my comments about complaining FPs
> like this bunch?
>
> Could it be I can smell a rat?
>
> Let me explain. When Ron, or someone of his superior ethics complains
> about CPS, I listen. And such people invariably complain about the
> shortcomings that WORK AGAINST THE CHILDS best interest from the FPs
> point of view.
>
> Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but I respect their
> view.
>
> This was a pack of whining ****ants reminiscent of you, Greg.
> >
> > Is that a smart PR move Kane?
> >
> When you ****ed the little girl did her mother help?

Being a PR flack is viewed as so LOW that you
respond with a false accusation of sexual abuse?

Man, you must hate YOURSELF a lot, Kane!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
>>> agency butt than any actual problems.
>> Yep. It's rather common for those that have problems with authority to
>> make such claims.
>>
>> "They wanted me to bring the child in for visitation with their parents,
>> HAH!" and similar bitches.
>>
>>> Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
>>> LICENSED but passed over.
>> Yep. And I pointed out why that happens. It's basically impossible if
>> someone has no background or issues that would patently disqualify them
>> from applying to be foster parents to turn them down. Hence they get the
>> full treatment, including training, BG checks (crim, financial, health,
>> mental health, home) but because they are ****ants that want to do it
>> THEIR WAY, which often consists of hostility toward BIO PARENTS, you
>> stupid ****ant, the agency prefers NOT to use them.
>>
>> They want to testify in court, they want to **** up the system as best
>> they can, and it would not surprise me if not a few of them were YOUR
>> cronies, Greg.
>>
>>> If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
>>> why were they LICENSED?
>> Because they cannot be refused for other than already stated statutory
>> limits on who can and cannot be a foster parent. If they are clean, they
>> will be certified.
>>
>>> Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?
>> No, and that IS the problem. It works exactly as its supposed to. Which
>> brings in assholes like you. Though I doubt YOU could pass the first
>> checks, given your DV conviction. Most states will not allow that in an
>> applicant's past. Though you might talk your way through if you could
>> convince them of your relative "innocence" that you've claimed here.
>>
>>> WHY license them and then pass them over?
>> Because they are a hazard to children, you stupid git.
>>
>> They lack the proper attitude to keep children safe. They will not
>> commit to NOT using physical punishment, for instance. ON a child that's
>> already been physically abused? Typical ****heads.
>>
>> They will not commit to NOT taking the child to the foster parent's
>> church. They will not commit to making the child available for
>> visitation with parents.
>>
>> They have expressed to workers and trainers their distain for bio parents.
>>
>> They do not have adequate resources to do the job. Personal resources.
>> Like patience, tolerance for various aspects of the child and his or her
>> heritage.
>>
>> One of my pet hates for years was relatives...who I REFUSED TO
>> HELP...who, when asked by CPS to foster a group of sibs would agree to
>> foster THE WHITE ONES (Like themselves) but not the brothers and sisters
>> of color. Such mixed sib groups tend to be common in CPS client families.
>>
>> I as much as told them to kiss my butt when they asked for my help.
>>
>>> Your accusations that these "complainers" would
>>> short change the kids have what proof exactly?
>> Lots of familiarity with CPS, and a few years working FOR A FOSTER
>> PARENT ASSOCIATION doing contract work. I know of which I speak.
>>
>>> ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!
>> How many were there? Did you notice any number mentioned? Do you know
>> anything about the media? Any number over two can be, for the desired
>> effect, 'a group of...'
>>
>> Man you are stupid.
>>
>>> Isn't your motivation for smearing these
>>> complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?
>> Well, I sat and looked at that for awhile, and I couldn't find a
>> motivation of my own beyond my desire for children to NOT be in the
>> hands of such cretins that I knew with exactly the same kind of hogwash
>> barely disguised self interested complaints.
>>
>> Did you see a single instance of them being concerned for the children?
>>
>> I asked you before. Did you snip it? Of course you did.
>>
>> Now what would be my "motivation" for my comments about complaining FPs
>> like this bunch?
>>
>> Could it be I can smell a rat?
>>
>> Let me explain. When Ron, or someone of his superior ethics complains
>> about CPS, I listen. And such people invariably complain about the
>> shortcomings that WORK AGAINST THE CHILDS best interest from the FPs
>> point of view.
>>
>> Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but I respect their
>> view.
>>
>> This was a pack of whining ****ants reminiscent of you, Greg.
>>> Is that a smart PR move Kane?
>>>
>> When you ****ed the little girl did her mother help?
>
> Being a PR flack is viewed as so LOW that you
> respond with a false accusation of sexual abuse?
>
> Man, you must hate YOURSELF a lot, Kane!

Still can't answer the question, I see.

Odd, too. Since I had no trouble in answering yours. Yet you repeat your
question and now state as fact something that is not true, and you do
not offer any proof.

A nice exposure of what you are.

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
> agency butt than any actual problems.

Kane wrote
> Yep. It's rather common for those that have problems
> with authority to make such claims.
>
> "They wanted me to bring the child in for visitation with their parents,
> HAH!" and similar bitches.

Greg wrote
> Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
> LICENSED but passed over.

Kane wrote
> Yep. And I pointed out why that happens. It's basically impossible if
> someone has no background or issues that would patently disqualify them
> from applying to be foster parents to turn them down. Hence they get the
> full treatment, including training, BG checks (crim, financial, health,
> mental health, home) but because they are ****ants that want to do it
> THEIR WAY, which often consists of hostility toward BIO PARENTS, you
> stupid ****ant, the agency prefers NOT to use them.
> They want to testify in court, they want to **** up the system as best
> they can, and it would not surprise me if not a few of them were YOUR
> cronies, Greg.
>
Greg wrote
> If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
> why were they LICENSED?

Kane wrote
> Because they cannot be refused for other than already stated statutory
> limits on who can and cannot be a foster parent. If they are clean, they
> will be certified.

Major conflicts arise. You're saying they can't be refused except
for statutory requirements, yet you are confirming that they
are being refused nonetheless for things that ARE
outside of statutory requirements. This would seem to
be a violation of law and grounds for a civil rights law suit
under US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1985
violation of civil rights and conspiracy to violate same.

Greg wrote
> Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?

Kane wrote
> No, and that IS the problem. It works exactly as its supposed to. Which
> brings in assholes like you. Though I doubt YOU could pass the first
> checks, given your DV conviction. Most states will not allow that in an
> applicant's past. Though you might talk your way through if you could
> convince them of your relative "innocence" that you've claimed here.

You're saying that to conform to the license they must meet
statutory requirement, but then you describe how the
agencies OVERRIDE those statutory requirements to
turn people down AFTER THEY'RE LICENSED
based on personality or personal judgements.

WHO exactly gets to "play God" in this way?

Kane wrote <snip!>
> They lack the proper attitude to keep children safe. They will not
> commit to NOT using physical punishment, for instance. ON a child that's
> already been physically abused? Typical ****heads.

Isn't that an ABSOLUTE requirement for foster contractors?


Kane wrote
> They will not commit to NOT taking the child to the foster parent's
> church. They will not commit to making the child available for
> visitation with parents.
> They have expressed to workers and trainers their distain for bio parents.
> They do not have adequate resources to do the job. Personal resources.
> Like patience, tolerance for various aspects of the child and his or her
> heritage.
> One of my pet hates for years was relatives...who I REFUSED TO
> HELP...who, when asked by CPS to foster a group of sibs would agree to
> foster THE WHITE ONES (Like themselves) but not the brothers and sisters
> of color. Such mixed sib groups tend to be common in CPS client families.
> I as much as told them to kiss my butt when they asked for my help.

Greg wrote
> Your accusations that these "complainers" would
> short change the kids have what proof exactly?

Kane wrote
> Lots of familiarity with CPS, and a few years working FOR A FOSTER
> PARENT ASSOCIATION doing contract work. I know of which I speak.

In other words you don't know diddly squat.

Greg wrote
> ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!

Kane wrote
> How many were there? Did you notice any number mentioned? Do you know
> anything about the media? Any number over two can be, for the desired
> effect, 'a group of...' Man you are stupid.

Greg wrote
> Isn't your motivation for smearing these
> complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?

Kane wrote
> Well, I sat and looked at that for awhile, and I couldn't find a
> motivation of my own beyond my desire for children to NOT be in the
> hands of such cretins that I knew with exactly the same kind of hogwash
> barely disguised self interested complaints.
> Did you see a single instance of them being concerned for the children?
<snip!>
> Now what would be my "motivation" for my comments about complaining FPs
> like this bunch?
> Could it be I can smell a rat?
> Let me explain. When Ron, or someone of his superior ethics complains
> about CPS, I listen. And such people invariably complain about the
> shortcomings that WORK AGAINST THE CHILDS best interest from the FPs
> point of view. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but I respect their
> view. This was a pack of whining ****ants reminiscent of you, Greg.

Greg wrote
> > Is that a smart PR move Kane?

Kane wrote
> When you [e.d.]ed the little girl did her mother help?
<snip!>

You filibuster, grandstand and lobby, yet
when somebody calls you a PR guy you
are so offended you make false accusations
of child molestation?

Being a PR guy is THAT onerous??

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> Kane, The complaints were more about willingness to kiss
>> agency butt than any actual problems.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Yep. It's rather common for those that have problems
>> with authority to make such claims.
>>
>> "They wanted me to bring the child in for visitation with their parents,
>> HAH!" and similar bitches.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Let's not forget these are LICENSED Foster Parents.
>> LICENSED but passed over.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Yep. And I pointed out why that happens. It's basically impossible if
>> someone has no background or issues that would patently disqualify them
>> from applying to be foster parents to turn them down. Hence they get the
>> full treatment, including training, BG checks (crim, financial, health,
>> mental health, home) but because they are ****ants that want to do it
>> THEIR WAY, which often consists of hostility toward BIO PARENTS, you
>> stupid ****ant, the agency prefers NOT to use them.
>> They want to testify in court, they want to **** up the system as best
>> they can, and it would not surprise me if not a few of them were YOUR
>> cronies, Greg.
>>
> Greg wrote
>> If you've got gripes about these fosters, then
>> why were they LICENSED?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Because they cannot be refused for other than already stated statutory
>> limits on who can and cannot be a foster parent. If they are clean, they
>> will be certified.
>
> Major conflicts arise.

Because you are simple minded.

> You're saying they can't be refused except
> for statutory requirements,

Roughly, yes. You have got it.

> yet you are confirming that they
> are being refused nonetheless for things that ARE
> outside of statutory requirements.

No. The state is given the right to use or not use someone's services.
They cannot refuse someone REQUESTING TO BE CONSIDERED.

And that is ALL I've said. You are trying to add more.

> This would seem to
> be a violation of law and grounds for a civil rights law suit
> under US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1985
> violation of civil rights and conspiracy to violate same.

Nope.

If you apply for a driver's license, unless you cannot pass the tests
and requirements you cannot be refused.

A police officer can remove your right to drive pretty easily, and it's
legal.

You can apply for foster certification, and if you pass all the tests
and requirements, you will be certified.

If the state does not want to USE your services, they are within the law
to refuse to place children with you. And they actually do NOT have to
even state a reason. In fact, to avoid suit, they usually will NOT.

> Greg wrote
>> Is there a PROBLEM with the licensure process?
>
> Kane wrote
>> No, and that IS the problem. It works exactly as its supposed to. Which
>> brings in assholes like you. Though I doubt YOU could pass the first
>> checks, given your DV conviction. Most states will not allow that in an
>> applicant's past. Though you might talk your way through if you could
>> convince them of your relative "innocence" that you've claimed here.
>
> You're saying that to conform to the license they must meet
> statutory requirement,

Yes. Just as you do to get a driver's license. That does not mean a
dealer has to sell you a car, if he does not wish to.

> but then you describe how the
> agencies OVERRIDE those statutory requirements to
> turn people down AFTER THEY'RE LICENSED
> based on personality or personal judgements.

No, they are not overriding anything. The certification says one MAY
foster, not that one CAN foster. The choice is entirely the state's.

Society awards you a license to cut hair. You meet all the requirements.
You have opened shop.

No one from society is required to come to you for a haircut NO MATTER
HOW QUALIFIED YOU THINK YOU ARE.
>
> WHO exactly gets to "play God" in this way?

The people that have to live with the decision. Sort of like the rest of
us.
>
> Kane wrote <snip!>
>> They lack the proper attitude to keep children safe. They will not
>> commit to NOT using physical punishment, for instance. ON a child that's
>> already been physically abused? Typical ****heads.
>
> Isn't that an ABSOLUTE requirement for foster contractors?

Yes, they must commit to not using physical discipline. So?

You still don't get it?

> Kane wrote
>> They will not commit to NOT taking the child to the foster parent's
>> church. They will not commit to making the child available for
>> visitation with parents.
>> They have expressed to workers and trainers their distain for bio parents.
>> They do not have adequate resources to do the job. Personal resources.
>> Like patience, tolerance for various aspects of the child and his or her
>> heritage.
>> One of my pet hates for years was relatives...who I REFUSED TO
>> HELP...who, when asked by CPS to foster a group of sibs would agree to
>> foster THE WHITE ONES (Like themselves) but not the brothers and sisters
>> of color. Such mixed sib groups tend to be common in CPS client families.
>> I as much as told them to kiss my butt when they asked for my help.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Your accusations that these "complainers" would
>> short change the kids have what proof exactly?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Lots of familiarity with CPS, and a few years working FOR A FOSTER
>> PARENT ASSOCIATION doing contract work. I know of which I speak.
>
> In other words you don't know diddly squat.

On the contrary. You don't understand "diddly squat."

> Greg wrote
>> ALL of them? It's not an isolated complaint!
>
> Kane wrote
>> How many were there? Did you notice any number mentioned? Do you know
>> anything about the media? Any number over two can be, for the desired
>> effect, 'a group of...' Man you are stupid.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Isn't your motivation for smearing these
>> complainers just a little bit obvious Kane?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Well, I sat and looked at that for awhile, and I couldn't find a
>> motivation of my own beyond my desire for children to NOT be in the
>> hands of such cretins that I knew with exactly the same kind of hogwash
>> barely disguised self interested complaints.
>> Did you see a single instance of them being concerned for the children?
> <snip!>
>> Now what would be my "motivation" for my comments about complaining FPs
>> like this bunch?
>> Could it be I can smell a rat?
>> Let me explain. When Ron, or someone of his superior ethics complains
>> about CPS, I listen. And such people invariably complain about the
>> shortcomings that WORK AGAINST THE CHILDS best interest from the FPs
>> point of view. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but I respect their
>> view. This was a pack of whining ****ants reminiscent of you, Greg.
>
> Greg wrote
>>> Is that a smart PR move Kane?
>
> Kane wrote
>> When you [e.d.]ed the little girl did her mother help?
> <snip!>
>
> You filibuster,

How can I filibuster in writing?

> grandstand and lobby,

Here?

> yet
> when somebody calls you a PR guy you
> are so offended

I'm not offended. Should I be?

You simply asked a question.

I answered in the negative a couple times already but you ignore that to
keep your hapless argument going.

> you make false accusations
> of child molestation?

I didn't claim that you made false accusations by asking a question. Why
are you claiming I am doing so by asking a question?
>
> Being a PR guy is THAT onerous??
>
I don't think so, but I would not know for sure, not being one.

But thanks for asking.

When you ****ed the little girl did her mother help?

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

> > You're saying they can't be refused except
> > for statutory requirements,
>
> Roughly, yes. You have got it.
>
> > yet you are confirming that they
> > are being refused nonetheless for things that ARE
> > outside of statutory requirements.
>
> No. The state is given the right to use or not use someone's services.
> They cannot refuse someone REQUESTING TO BE CONSIDERED.
>
> And that is ALL I've said. You are trying to add more.
>
> > This would seem to
> > be a violation of law and grounds for a civil rights law suit
> > under US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1985
> > violation of civil rights and conspiracy to violate same.
>
> Nope.

Yup, Agency short circuiting of a statutory process
is blatantly a due process violation.

>From what you've described, attitude and personal bias
is a pretty big part of whether they get used.
(Agency butt kissing in other words.)
(Do you think agency sicofants don't get priority?)

They'll be sued and have to pay out.
In the meantime they are sure helping their
PR image!

The "shortage of fosters" stuff is exposed!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
>>> You're saying they can't be refused except
>>> for statutory requirements,
>> Roughly, yes. You have got it.
>>
>> > yet you are confirming that they
>>> are being refused nonetheless for things that ARE
>>> outside of statutory requirements.
>> No. The state is given the right to use or not use someone's services.
>> They cannot refuse someone REQUESTING TO BE CONSIDERED.
>>
>> And that is ALL I've said. You are trying to add more.
>>
>> > This would seem to
>>> be a violation of law and grounds for a civil rights law suit
>>> under US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1985
>>> violation of civil rights and conspiracy to violate same.
>> Nope.
>
> Yup,

Nope. There is no statutory process for requiring the state to place a
child with any particular person that comes to be certified as a foster
parent. It is solely at the discretion of the state.

> Agency short circuiting of a statutory process
> is blatantly a due process violation.

Nope. The best you could do in such an argument is to go after the state
if they refused to accept an application, and then refused to give a
certification if the person met the standard prerequisites.

The next step, the choice of whether or not to place a child with a
particular person is NOT IN STATUTE.

If you think it is, and you claim it is, then you must produce something
that supports your claim.

You screams and rants are old news, Greg. You've done this for years.

You've claimed the US Constitution says things it doesn't. You've tried
to expand case law to a broader application than the findings provided.

You are either delusional, a liar, or more dedicated to ignorance and
stupidity than even I thought you were if you think you can make this
current lying rant fly.

But, prove me wrong. Provide us with a statute that says a certified
foster parent MUST BE GIVEN A FOSTER CHILD.

And that to not do so is a violation of statute and "due process."

What "due process" is violated by the state deciding not to place a
child with someone?

> From what you've described, attitude and personal bias
> is a pretty big part of whether they get used.

Or good professional judgment based precisely on what information I
provided and you carefully have left OUT of this post so no one can see
how you are lying and how empty your argument.

> (Agency butt kissing in other words.)

In other words, you think that foster parents that fight the agency is
better for the child?

> (Do you think agency sicofants don't get priority?)

It's 'sycophants,' Greg. For **** sake get a editor with a spell
checker, at least. They are cheap to free. If you wish I'll point you to
one. And you keep misspelling this same word again and again. What is
effecting your memory?

As to your question, Yes, they get priority, but not for being suck ups.
They get it for doing good work and keeping the child safe.

In fact there are many foster parents that spend a good deal of time
criticizing their agencies' workers, other staff, admin, etc.

Yet they get a long line of children coming to them because they are
good at what they do.

Have you no memory of Ron's comments about CPS? He is not in love with
them. He simply accepts reality about them. And continues to do a good
job fostering.
>
> They'll be sued and have to pay out.

It's been tried. Did not work. No law, no statute exists to my knowledge
that supports your claim that not placing a child is a violation of due
process or the foster parent's rights.

> In the meantime they are sure helping their
> PR image!

Tells you how much they actually care when it comes to the concern they
have for the best placements possible for children.

>
> The "shortage of fosters" stuff is exposed!
>

The shortage of foster homes that are acceptable safe places for
children is the issue.

The city, for instance, if filled with plumbers. Are YOU required to
work your way through them all as your plumbing needs repairs over the
years, or are you allowed to, without violating their 'rights," pick and
chose as you think best?

A lot of the FP complainers have had children in their homes, and
presented the very kinds of behaviors YOU and your cronies have
complained about.

They present as being more interested in THEIR issues than the child's
and the child's families.

One of the commonest things I've seen for NOT using a foster parent is
that when they did have foster children they were NOT reliable about
having the child available for visitations with their parents. That will
kill a worker's interest in placement with that foster home very quickly.

The whiners you wish to use to unethically attack CPS for DOING A GOOD
JOB IN PLACEMENT, are if I don't miss my guess, in it for the money.

That suggests they would short the kids.

You have proof otherwise, do you?

Let's see that proof and statutes you refer to, and a clear legal
description of just what due process is owed a volunteer worker with CPS
(which is what the foster contract is, a 'volunteer' contract...UNLESS
THEY ARE RUNNING A GROUP HOME).

Anti up, ****ant.

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)