A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Foster Parents
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Who Does 'Child Protective Services' Protect?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 18th 05, 06:37 PM
xXBlondieGyrlXx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Who Does 'Child Protective Services' Protect?

that would all depend on the situation I am in one right now where my
children where taken away from me on UNFOUNDED calls (3) made their
abusive father, who does it protect? not my children

  #2  
Old March 19th 05, 02:01 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Ron wrote:
"Kane" wrote in message
om...
"Ron" wrote in message

. ..
"Susan" wrote in message
...


Doug wrote:

many snips ahead
Yes, children are removed for reasons
other than substantiated or
unsubstantiated allegations of child
abuse or neglect. HOWEVER, these
children are not included in the table or
in the narrative it appends.

What makes you think that Doug?


And that, dear friends, is the $64,000 question, adjusted for
inflation, about $40 today. But Doug makes us speculate on his real
motives and what he really does for a living.

It ain't child welfare casework, that's for sure.

Does it say that somewhere, does it say
that they are not included?


Of course it does: somewhere in the far reaches of his addled, fog
filled brain. It says what he wants it to say, the truth be damned.

Not that I have been able to find, and that IS
my point. You are reading into that data sheet what you want to,

completely
without any regard for what it DOES say.


I wonder how many times this same sentiment about Dougs wanderings
from the truth has been posted here?

Some of those children are *non victims* as is says at the top

of the
table and yes, some of them had *unsubstantiated* dispositions

as it
says under the table.

Children removed for other reasons
would NOT be among the 103,144

And it says that where Doug?


Somewhere in his fantasies. Don't disillusion the duplicitious one.

children we have been talking about - all
of those children were subjects of child
abuse/neglect
investigations/assessments and were
unsubstantiated as victims of risk of or
actual maltreatment. They are
non-victims. The source I cited and you
examined deals only with child abuse
and neglect issues.

Why does the table of topic refer to only abuse and neglect,

because
you
say so? It' doesn't say that all of the children were removed

because
of abuse/neglect.

The paragraph at the bottom of the table demonstrates that you

are
wrong, it says that nonvictims, victims, _and_ unsubstantiated
disposition are used to come up with the figures on this table.

There
is

Ouch! I heard that slap of Doug's pet theory all the way out

here in
the
midwest. Geez, that must have hurt Doug!


He just can't handle the posters of the data actually setting the
criteria for the methodology...they must be doing it his way and

what
they say themselves must be discounted for his world to stay
together...the world he inhabits with the other Destroy CPS

ninnies.

Ron


Sometimes I get bored with him, but never with the folks that

refute
him. Reading these posts is what I do over my morning

coffee....when I
don't blow it out my nose from yet another outrageous claim from

the
Duplicitious One.

Gratis, Finis.

Kane


Now he will quietly go away for a day or two while this thread dies

out,
never providing a viable response.

Do I have his pattern down or what!!!

Ron


Well, no, not this time Ron. He's going to come back, probably because
you caught him, and run another raft of BS.

In fact I've replied to him, and request, since I think google tricked
us again, and I overlooked that it's [reply] function is only to the
poster, that he forward my post in this ng if he indeed got it
privately.

And my apologies, of course, for the oversight and private post when I
meant it to be public in this ng.

Kane

  #3  
Old March 20th 05, 02:25 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

....
In fact I've replied to him, and request, since I think google tricked
us again, and I overlooked that it's [reply] function is only to the
poster, that he forward my post in this ng if he indeed got it
privately.

And my apologies, of course, for the oversight and private post when I
meant it to be public in this ng.

Kane

Happens to the best of 'em; been there, done that.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court Wizardlaw Child Support 12 June 4th 04 02:19 AM
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children Dusty Child Support 0 May 13th 04 12:46 AM
Warnings of abuse, yet the system fails a child Protection: The beating death of 2-month-old David Carr is the latest in a string of cases that highlight serious flaws in city and state agencies charged with protecting children, advocates say. wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 February 4th 04 06:28 PM
Sample Supreme Court Petition Wizardlaw Child Support 0 January 16th 04 04:47 AM
So much for the claims about Sweden Kane Foster Parents 10 November 5th 03 07:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.