(Greg Hanson) wrote in message . com...
The case is based on the "unprecedented theory that
DSHS social workers ... owe a duty to protect members
of the general public from criminal conduct by foster
children," wrote Jeff Freimund, an assistant attorney
general representing DSHS.

If the STATE wants the kid to be a PARENT,

I think you have enriched the bong water a bit too much, but then I'm
becoming so accustomed to the rambling of you and The Plant I have
learned a bit of mind reading.

Below is the key statement...and note, unlike you I have cut NOTHING
from the post and left you fully attributable. That tends to show MY
credibility and YOUR ... well, we know you are selfish lying little
****, now don't we.

why shouldn't
the state take on the legal liability that all parents risk?

Mmmm....maybe because the state doesn't want to...and who, pray tell,
IS the "state" Greegor the Whore?

I know you are deficient in civil responsibility matters, but I'm here
to reform you and this is just one of your lessons...Political Science
001, kindergarten level.

Now who is "the state" again?

If a parent lets kids like these harm others, they
would be held liable.

They would? Where?

I happen to have researched this one long ago and KNOW of the rare
instances and I can tell you those are not STATE statutes at all...so
you are blowin' smoke yet AGAIN. But down the pipe and washup. It's
dinner time.

Why did the caseworkers fail to move the kids when asked?

Like everyone is lined up to take troublesome teens into their
home...oh yeah.

I see states begging for foster families that will take teens. One of
the reasons I maintain a very high level of respect for Ron is that HE
is one of those. That cuts a lot of ice with me.

It was a population I worked with when they WERE adjudicated into
treatment.

They are dangerous. They are highly destructive (thanks all you
spanking parent apologists and officianados)

You couldn't do it...and most couldn't. And unless they have actually
committed and been convicted of a crime you cannot lock them up.
Catch-22 is the name of the game in dealing with non-adjudicated
youth.

You know the difference between most teens in state care that are
adjudicated and are not? Very ****ing little.

Some are caught and some are not.

Why isn't that child neglect?

Because it isn't. You were talking about the state being liable. That
has nothing whatsoever to do with "neglect."

But your desperate thrashing about is duly noted.

Sadly, we can still remember what you did to that little girl and how
her own mother failed her by keeping you instead of her.

`S pity

Kane