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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
....
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 | |
|
|
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 05:28 PM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 03:47 AM |
So much for the claims about Sweden | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | November 5th 03 06:31 AM |