|
| 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 |
|
#11
September 11th 03, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Greg's Motivation$$$$$$$
"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message ... Oh, give poor Greg a break. He lost his kids to CPS, or so he says. Greg didn't lose anything. His girlfriend did. Greg is only the couch-sitting, unemployed by choice for three years, boyfriend of the mother of the little girl who was removed by CPS who thinks he's gonna get rich by suing DSS for violating his constitutional rights. It also appears that Greg believes the longer the little girl is kept out of the house by CPS the greater the amount of money he's gonna get. All of his behavior since the little girl's beeen removed has been towards that end. He needs to engage in the attack game. Greg likes to ask questions... he just won't answer any. Too much of the truth might get revealed. He has no answers to your questions. I already asked them (grin). LaVonne Have ya read Greg's Motion, LaVonne? His girlfriend's daughter (who has been in FC for TWO AND A HALF YEARS) will never be reunited with her mother because of a Motion Greg ghost wrote for the mother and submitted into court BEFORE letting anyone here comment on it. For your reading pleasure, -------------------------------------------- From: Greg Hanson ) Subject: Motion for Relief from Inappropriate Services Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2002-04-09 14:27:36 PST IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY JUVENILE DIVISION IN THE INTEREST OF NO. JVJV-12345 CHILD A. LASTNAME DOB: 00-00-99 MOTION TO CLARIFY MINOR CHILD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate and inquisitive services. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service Plan onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan. We have complained about this for MOST of the last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS and ignored by Juvenile Court. Greg showed the quote from the US DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the trunk of the car as a work surface. We have seen no sign that she passed this information to Judas. Deb characterized this in writing as if it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues. Judas has been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign of truly understanding their significance. The Iowa DHS computer blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree. On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment regarding removal of inappropriate services. It clearly seemed to be a "closed issue" with the Judge. Something is wrong with that. This flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the Formation of Service Plan". Federal Case law says "opportunity to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan." This is a Federal regulation and it's in the Iowa caseworker manual too. Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid INPUT. The words "fishing expedition" come to mind. Domestic Violence Victim Counseling Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years that Greg has been with us. Domestic Violence counselor pushed for disclosure of some dark truth that simply doesn't exist. After Judas's telephonic INPUT, the counselor, Linda Vance, badgered me saying "You know that Greg pushed Child's head under water." (Actually it was head under SHOWER SPRAY! twisted by DHS.) It was clear after only a few minutes on the phone that she intended to assume the role of Torquemada (Spanish Inquisition) to elicit information about nonexistant domestic abuse. Psychological Evaluation Greg went to see Doctor DHSISGOODFORME for one hour, for a Psychological Evaluation, knowing what had been INPUT was a laundry list of 4 points. The list was: needs to be the victim domestic violence controlling anger management issues It seemed odd that 10 hours were set aside with the scheduler for anger management before there was even a diagnosis. The list raised some concerns about violations of 5th amendment rights, but it was small enough that Greg went. Then after one hour, Dr.DHSISGOODFORME didn't think he had enough to "go on" and asked for a release to get more documentary background from DHS. This took 2 or three months, and this INPUT was an inch thick stack of documents, including misstatements, perjury and parroted comments like "it is reported" presented as de-facto evidence. We STILL have not gotten the huge number of factual, typographical, non-sequitir and other incorrect statements stricken from the records. The time will come for this. The "laundry list" four points were not all present in the STACK of input, and new, more attitudinal and subjective concerns were added. There are definate problems of EPISTEMOLOGY with this. Greg called up Dr.DHSISGOODFORME and asked about the ethics of using such a large amount of INPUT and the potential for it to TAINT the impartiality of a Psychological Evaluation. Dr. DHSISGOODFORME could not explain how this INPUT would not creep into the subjective parts of the Psychological Evaluation. Greg asked about how the hypotheticals about behavior in a family setting posed in the INPUT could be evaluated outside of the family setting. Not many answers were forthcoming, and Greg clearly felt like he was being "railroaded" by the stacked" Psychological Evaluation. Several large issues in The Bill of Rights jelled at this point. ( 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14) Sex Abuse Exam Done based only on DHS Perjury Child had already undergone a sex abuse physical and a video tape interview at the CPC, despite the fact that NOBODY, not even the hostile accuser had alleged any sexual abuse. The only justification for the sex abuse physical was PERJURY by Judas of DHS about Greg's past. This same PERJURY was used at the top of Judas and Maggie's Affidavit to justify the court removal order after two weeks of extortive "Family Preservation" used purely as witch hunt. My first idiot attorney supposedly filed a motion for a HEARING about the CPC exam, because justification was based on false and even perjurous information. The motion was denied by a Juvenile Court Judge with no explanation. The CPC physical reported the grandmothers concerns, and reported an internal bump that had gone away, IF it ever really existed. The bump was reported as being from a swing set accident. We never owned a swing set, and this injury was apparently concealed from us IF it really ever existed. We have concerns that Child may have been brainwashed into not reporting an accident that took place on the grandparents' swing set. The grandmother was never authorized to intrude into Child's medical care in any way, yet her words are written down there in the physical report, and they are non-sequiturs. This woman has been on Prozac for 8 (EIGHT) years and does not take her Prozac reliably, which is particularly risky. Great and reliable witness eh? A mental case? (Has Wallis vs. Escondido or Spencer written all over it!) The video tape interview was done by Jennifer Torquemada (Now Jennifer Blah) at the CPC, even though she apparently had NO CERTIFICATION for her job as an Evidenciary Interviewer. If she did, she would know more about how suggestable a 7 year old is, and how unreliable their testimony is. This is where "head pushed under water" began rather than "head pushed under shower spray". Jennifer also directed me to cooperate with DHS, and said that I "would have to make some tough choices" implying that I needed to get rid of Greg to satisfy DHS. She reported a lot of information that SHE did not gather. Hyperbole like "It is reported that" (blah blah) is used several times in her report. This is clearly an artifact of her interaction with the other members of the "Child Protection Team", specifically the DHS Child Protective caseworkers. This contaminates the neutrality, and adds a bogus aire of legitimacy to fictitious and factitious garbage. Maggie Wickedwitch even fed Jennifer questions to ask from the other side of the one way glass. I (Suzy Q. Mother) was denied my right to have legal counsel present at questioning that took place there. My first idiot attorney said he would not be allowed, which I know was not true. I went there specifically to hold my 7 year old daughters' hand through the invasive sex abuse physical. Instead I was fending off an "ambush interview" by a hostile group during that time. Employment The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment. There has been no explanation or justification of this. We consider this to be up to us jointly, as a family, and object to being micromanaged by busybodies at DHS who have no RIGHT to direct, order or extort such a thing. Maggie, Judas, et alia seem to have a bias against stay at home men. Mercy Hospital recently taught a class for stay at home Parents, MALE or FEMALE. It is gradually becoming main stream. Greg studied Computer Science and Electronics Technology and worked quite ambitiously before becoming a "Soccer Dad". Greg brought more EARNED SAVINGS into our family when he moved in, than Rob paid in child support in the year 2000. Greg owes no CHILD SUPPORT. Clearly DHS targeted the WRONG MAN. Shouldn't they have ordered the deadbeat bio-dad to WORK?? Do these idiots at DHS ever READ the Bill of Rights? Vocational Rehab Some version of the Services Plan or Case Plan has this as one of the services required of Greg. Greg doesn't qualify for Department of Vocational Rehab. Not disabled. Great one DHS! Parenting Classes The Service Plan directs Greg to attend Parenting Classes. Greg has had NO HEARING about his guilt or innocence and the courts seem to afford him NO RIGHTS, while imposing OBLIGATIONS extorted through threat of TPR. Greg was the oldest of four children and had about 20 cousins visit, so served as apprentice parent at a young age. Greg trained his cat Nosey to do "dog tricks" on command. Cats do not respond well to negative reinforcement. You can't force a cat to do anything. Are these parenting classes for purposes of teaching practicality or to teach anti-spanking propaganda and fulfill the "rescue fantasy" of the fanatical UNLICENSED caseworkers? Greg would be glad to TEACH a community ed parenting class, if you would accept this. Even childless caseworkers could learn something. DHS has ordered that the mother(Suzy Q. Mother) and future stepfather(Greg) participate in a parenting program, as directed by the Department of Human Services (DHS). The parents have looked for a parenting program that does not push the non-spanking political agenda. Iowa law DOES allow spanking, yet caseworkers attempt to push for absolutely NO spanking whatsoever. This seems to violate our beliefs as protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, among several others. The contracted Visit Supervisor (licensed) Social Worker, Deb Heitland said that Suzy Q. Mother did NOT need Parent Education classes based on many supervised visits. Later she used Parent Education as retaliation for a complaint about a rash and hygienic neglect of Child in kinship care. A doctor confirmed for Deb that the rash was from urea not washed off Child's skin. The sick way that Parent Education was used as retaliation for a LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT still needs to be addressed. I never got any paperwork regarding any investigation of this NEGLECT, even though medical treatment was involved. Isn't Deb a mandatory reporter? All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. Yet DHS regularly contracts with "Lutheran Social Services" and the DHS regularly steamrollers over any "rights of concience" that parents have. The Department of Human Services (DHS) has not removed their Parent Education requirement for Suzy Q. Mother, despite their own paid contractor writing that Suzy Q. Mother DOES NOT need such classes. Furthermore, DHS has failed to obtain the parent's and the child's active involvement with the FORMATION of the services plan as required by US DHHS and Federal regulations and (therefore) Iowa regulations. It is the understanding of the parents that DHS is attempting to make the parents compromise their beliefs pertaining to the upbringing of children or risk losing parental rights to the child. The parents vehemently object to this invasive and illegal requirement they are being burdened with. PLEASE CLARIFY 1A. Do you order imposed parent education? 1B. Is it legally acceptable to order parents into parent education classes that preach NO SPANKING rather than teaching how to use spanking effectively and within IOWA LAW? 1C. Must the large number of parents who do believe in judicious spanking surrender their beliefs and submit to an anti-spanking political agenda? 1D. For these parents, wouldn't it be better to to teach parents how to spank properly and within IOWA LAW? 1E. Do you know of any parent education that is pro-spanking? 1F. Will the court find that the unavailability of said parenting classes cannot be held against the parents without violating their protected right to raise a child according to their consciences and will, therefore, not be used to support any action to withhold custody of the child from the parents? 2A. Do you order imposed Psychological Evaluations? 2B. Do you consider such an examination to be appropriate for parents who know their families constitutional rights are being trampled and are thus rightiously indignant? 2C. Would you consider that every constitutionalist needs a Psychological Evaluation? 2D. Would the members of the Boston Tea Party not have seemed surly and indignant? 2E. Do you think that a one inch thick stack of input INTO a psychological evaluation would not bias the results? 2F. Don't you think that this INPUT should be carefully scrutinized by the intended victim and any objections brought to the court? 2G. How would a legal non-party do that? 2H. Can Suzy Q. Mother forfeit Greg's constitutional rights? 2I. Is DHS bound by US Constitution amendments 4,5,6,9 and 14? 2J. Does anything in this case rise to a level to justify violating those Constitutional amendments? 2K. What legitimate reason exists to support DHS's claim that that amount of INPUT is necessary to the successful completion of this provision of the service plan? 3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family access to any materials used against them in court? 3B. Does the alleged privacy right alleged in regard to Social History reports, Video Tape interviews with the child (where no sex abuse found), and Caseworker Narratives, outweigh the LIBERTY INTEREST presented by a Child Protection case? 3C. Does this court consider the US Constitution to be something that caseworkers should know and fully understand? Or a mere technicality, to be worked around? 3D. Does this court consider the Federally mandated right to ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN to be an insignifigance? 3E. Is Iowa DHS under any Federal or State consent decree regarding ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN? 4A. Does this court intend to allow DHS to repeatedly hint that they wish to drive Greg and Suzy Q. Mother apart? 4B. Will the court continue to allow DHS to play legalistic games using Greg's non-party status, at the expense of our family bond? 4C. Is the letter of the law more important than the spirit of the law? The parents have attempted to cooperate with the caseworker in facilitating the success of a services plan, even though we have known since very early on that we were deprived of our right to ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the FORMATION of the services plan. The caseworkers have not been helpful. There is no history of domestic violence between Greg and I over three years, but DHS chooses to believe a mislead comment from a 7 year old. Even worse, DHS has chosen to MINIMIZE the only actual family violence, a violent attempted kidnapping by the obsessive grandparents. No injuries to the child were alleged. Child did not require any medical treatment; nothing, not so much as an analgesic to relieve any alleged pain. Not a scratch. The same cannot be said for this last year in DHS kinship care. The child had a medical office visit as a result of DHS and kinship caretaker neglect. In fact, it was a kind of neglect we had protested about in one or more of our unanswered letters or e-mails to Judas of DHS, many months prior to the problem. The child has expressed a sincere desire to return to her parents. The first, best interests of the child is to be with her family and is supported by US DHHS policy: 6-001.01. "Family preservation will be the first consideration." The parents are not a danger to this child, and the child desires to return home. DHS cannot demonstrate that the parents are a danger to this child, nor can they demonstrate that we ever were enough of a danger to this child that would require her removal from the home. The parents have attempted to comply with the treatment plan despite the deliberate and obstructionist actions of the caseworkers. Reasonable efforts were not made to reunify the family as required by the law in the absence of any evidence that the child was in danger from the parents. Funds that WERE AVAILABLE through the Family Preservation program for help with a storage locker were not disbursed. The parents request the court to begin immediate reunification efforts. The parents have prepared a reunification plan for the court's consideration. Because we did not get required ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN, and because of the odious contamination of services, please RELIEVE us from the old contaminated services plan, and please ORDER acceptance of this REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN, without any contamination, obstructionism or delay. REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN 1. DHS will pay for three months of storage locker rental, at a cost of roughly $80 per month. $240 can be sent to A-1 Rental of Hiawatha. These funds were available under the "Family Preservation" service that we participated in within the first few weeks, but this assistance was withheld. How many TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars has DHS wasted on this case overall? 2. DHS will present written LEGAL standards for inspection of our home. These standards will have NO subjective "attitude" and will conform to US DHHS standards regarding "respect for individuality". We have asked for standards on "clutter" from the beginning. Our requests have been repeatedly ignored. If there are NO LEGAL STANDARDS, then we ask for this requirement to be voided. 3. Suzy Q. Mother and Greg will find a third party NOT connected in any way to DHS to inspect our home to those standards only. 4. DHS will accept that inspection at face value. 5. Counseling for Suzy Q. Mother, Greg, Child, Ralph and Shirley will be arranged to address -Attempted kidnapping by grandparents involving assault on Greg -Undermining of parental authority by grandparents that has taken place. -Effects of incipient Alzheimers and Vascular Dementia on delusional second guessing -Violence upon Greg, a father figure, in front of Child -Ongoing fears of another attempted kidnapping by emotionally ill grandmother 6. DHS will help this family retrieve the $9,000.00+ owed Suzy Q. Mother in back child Support, which would pay for a storage locker and more. 7. Greg will volunteer to TEACH a Pro-Spanking parenting class in the community. 8. Shirley Obsessor will get evaluated for Vascular Dementia and Alzheimers by a Cardio Vascular Specialist and a Psychiatrist, with an eye toward medication upgrade and monitoring. 9.DHS will put an END to the grandmothers intrusion into the child's school affairs. The grandparents will cease unauthorized intrusions and will return ALL school papers that have been intercepted and commandeered, as well as all of the school photographs, similarly commandeered in violation of the mothers guardianship rights even in this Kinship Caretaker situation. Grandparents will stop signing school permission slips and medical or medicaid paperwork. The grandmother apparently sees Parent-Teacher conferences as some sort of pageant, rather than a responsibility related to working on the child's education. 10. Supervised visitation with Greg to begin immediately, with an eye toward unsupervised visits and reunification. 11.All services are to be paid for by Judas Swartzendruber of DHS, personally. Judas went out of his way to direct that Greg would pay for his services earlier. Thus, this would be appropriate and just.. 254; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229; Lister v. Boker, 6 Blackf. 439. COUNSELMAN v. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547 This court has ordered the parents to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and participate in counseling - and to provide the department with all information obtained during those evaluations and sessions by ordering them to sign all releases. The court, has, in effect, compelled the parents to disclose personal thoughts and feelings to a therapist, possibly not of their choosing, to be evaluated subjectively, which evaluation has no guarantee of accuracy since psychology is an art, not a science, and to have all of these subjective, personal and private disclosures presented as evidence against her in the upcoming adjudication hearing violating not only their right against self-incrimination, but their right to privacy, and their right to the confidentiality of the patient-therapist relationship. The state cannot at this time demonstrate an overriding interest that would permit their and their children's rights to be so trampled in order to facilitate the state's fishing expedition against them as a parent. The Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of "physical or moral compulsion" exerted on the person asserting the privilege, Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918); Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913); Couch v. United States, supra, at 328, 336. See also Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 252-253 (1910); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765 (1966); Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 476 (1921); California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 55 (1974). In Miranda v. Arizona, ante, at 460, the Court said of the interests protected by the privilege: "All these policies point to one overriding thought: the constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government - state or federal - must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. To maintain a `fair state-individual balance,' to require the government `to shoulder the entire load' . . . to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth." . . Moreover, since it enables the State to rely on evidence forced from the accused, the compulsion violates at least one meaning of the requirement that the State procure the evidence against an accused "by its own independent labors." If such compulsion is used to obtain their cooperation with the therapist, then any evidence discovered during those evaluations and therapeutic sessions must be excluded for the purposes of adjudication, or for any other aspect of this case. "It is extortion of information from the accused himself that offends our sense of justice." Couch v. United States, supra, at 328. We adhere to the view that the Fifth Amendment protects against "compelled self-incrimination, not [the disclosure of] private information." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 233 n. 7 (1975). Expressions are legion in opinions of this Court that the protection of personal privacy is a central purpose of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. "It is the invasion of [a person's] indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property" "that constitutes the essence of the offence" that violates the privilege. Boyd v. United States, supra, at 630. The privilege reflects "our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave where he may lead a private life.'" Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 55 (1964). "It respects a private inner sanctum of individual feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract self-condemnation." Couch v. United States, supra, at 327. See also Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 416 (1966); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460, (1966). "The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). See also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 n. 5 (1967). The law also recognizes that some relationships are the opposite of adversarial, instead constituting relationships of trust. These relationships depend for their very existence and efficacy on the assurance that information so communicated will NEVER be used against either of the parties to the communication. Foremost among these privileges is that between attorney and client. Similar recognition is given to the relationship of priest-penitent, husband-wife (in Utah), doctor-patient, and therapist-patient. Privileged interpersonal communications are an essential aspect of the privilege against self-incrimination. Without the existence of these privileges, marriage, medicine, counseling, and indeed, the legal profession itself would be crippled virtually out of existence. No meaningful communication could be given out of fear that something, anything, one says might be used against him or her in a court of law. One cannot simultaneously hold a position of trust and privilege with an accused and at the same time be a prosecution witness. The right against self-incrimination, including the protection of privileged communications, is a right personal to all accused persons. In contrast, the state does not possess rights. It possesses only delegated powers. Thus, whereas the protection of privacy must be assumed for individuals as a matter of right, governmental functions must be assumed to be public as a matter of obligation. Indeed, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 (1966), held: "Some tests seemingly directed to obtain 'physical evidence,' for example, lie detector tests measuring changes in body function during interrogation, may actually be directed to eliciting responses which are essentially testimonial. To compel a person to submit to testing in which an effort will be made to determine his guilt or innocence on the basis of physiological responses, whether willed or not, is to evoke the spirit and history of the Fifth Amendment. Such situations call to mind the principle that the protection of the privilege 'is as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.'..." "And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S., at 631-632. It is an ancient principle of the law of evidence that a witness shall not be compelled, in any proceeding, to make disclosures or to give testimony which will tend to criminate him or [142 U.S. 547, 564] subject him to fines, penalties, or forfeitures. Rex v. Slaney, 5 Car. & P. 213; Cates v. Hardacre, 3 Taunt. 424: Maloney v. Bartley, 3 Camp. 210; 1 Starkie, Ev. 71, 191; Case of Sir John Friend, 13 How. St. Tr. 16; Case of Earl of Macclesfield, 16 How. St. Tr. 767; 1 Greenl. Ev. 451; 1 Burr's Tr. 244; Whart. Crim. Ev. (9th Ed.) 463; Southard v. Rexford, 6 Cow. ________________________ Suzy Q. Mother 1234 Our Home Road Hiawatha, IA 52233 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served upon all parties to the above cause, to each of the attorneys of record herein, at their respective addresses disclosed on the pleadings on April 9th, 2002. By: _X_ U.S. Mail Signatu_________________________________ Copy to: DHSISGOOD FORME, Bio Dad's PD 222 SE 222 Avenue Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 Jamie Trpkosh, Caseworker Iowa Department of Inhumane Services 411 3rd St SE Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 What Child, GAL PO Box 12345 Cedar Rapids, IA 52407 Prosecute On Gossip Assistant County Attorney, Juvenile Division Basement of Linn County Courthouse Third Avenue Bridge Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 -------------------------------------- 
|
|
#12
September 12th 03, 05:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg's Motivation$$$$$$$
Dear Iowa DHS Stakeholder: Thursday 10 PM July 24th,
2003 1. Why was no DHS Town Hall Meeting held in Cedar Rapids in June? Why was the address for the CR Town Hall listed as Washington Iowa? Why was no Cedar Rapids Town Hall listed in any local newspaper? Or the DHS press release? 2. I was looking over the DHS "Stakeholder Panel" and of the 66 listings on the revised list I did not see any representatives of any of the groups out to stop abuses of families by overzealous investigations and caseworkers. 3. The list of "stakeholders" appears to be stacked with mostly people and agencies with a huge FINANCIAL stake in what happens to DHS and their contracts. Noteably a lot of DHS employees and the AFSCME labor union (?) Stating the obvious, I do believe that FAMILIES have a much larger STAKE in badly needed changes to be made at DHS, yet only 2 out of 66 listings look like they might be pro-family and against DHS abuse of families. From what I can tell though, even those two seem to have NO INTEREST in really righting the wrongs of ABUSE BY DHS. I hope that a few of the Panel Members are MUCH MORE CRITICAL OF DHS than the vast majority of the DHS beneficiaries would obviously be. Please forgive me if you are the unusual insider who is perhaps even more critical of DHS than I am. There are caseworkers, former caseworkers, and fosters who are more critical of DHS than I am, but they are rare. Do you really think that DHS is not aware of the presence of groups like CPSWATCH, VOCAL or HSLDA that have been in Iowa for some time? If DHS can have empty blanks(chairs) for AFSCME, ODCP, JLAJC, CINCF and ICADV, with no names, addresses or e-mail addresses available, then why couldn't CPSWATCH, VOCAL and HSLDA be brought in? This list of "stakeholders" should make it clear to all of you exactly why and how DHS and it's own Juvenile Court have become a bloated overbearing technocracy. The list of "stakeholders" itself should be an embarassment to each of you, and an example of the culture of corruption at DHS. Excluding families under siege from DHS abuses certainly seems dysfunctional for a panel intended to right the wrongs of DHS. The concept of "stakeholders" was never intended to be stacked entirely with people with a FINANCIAL stake in what DHS does. Certainly NOT at the exclusion of all families and pro-family activists. The Social Work expert who wrote the ASFA law, Gelles, is disgusted with the abuses of families by State Child Protection agencies done to obtain the Federal money. Other Social Work experts have said for a LONG TIME that because of the culture within Child Protection agencies, that they are extremely resistant to repair from within, and the only way to repair them is to destroy them completely and start over from scratch, avoiding any and every trace of the old Child Protection agency. I wonder if Gelles isn't coming to the same sort of conclusion? I bet Gelles would indeed be sickened with the way this "stakeholders panel" has been turned into a cheerleading section for the FINANCIAL interests of DHS and their beneficiaries. 4. The very term "Stakeholder" originated with the US DHHS. After a state Child Protection agency fails a federal audit they interview "stakeholders". It is the ONLY chance that a family harmed by DHS gets to address anybody from the US DHHS, so DHS likes to "control" who talks to DHHS for obvious reasons. The only thing more important to DHS than Public Relations spin and the false public perceptions about them is the FEDERAL MONEY. 5. Some of you might be aware of the bill that was signed into Federal Law by the President on June 25th, 2003. In addition to reading the "Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003" (S.342) law itself, I would strongly recommend reading the reports of both the House and Senate committees that created the bills. Pro-family activists will no longer be shrugged off as "disgruntled child abusers" after you read what BOTH HOUSES OF THE U.S. CONGRESS SAID ABOUT OVERZEALOUS CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES ABUSING FAMILIES. Caseworkers must now get additional training on the constitutional rights of US Citizens. This is of course a REDUNDANCY, since they should ALREADY have been aware of and guided by these principles. One of my families abusive DHS caseworkers had a Bachelors in Criminology, so I THINK she must have had some education on the US Constitution. Are they going to educate Juvenile Court Associate Judge Jane Spande who said that the 14th Amendment was "for another court"? Things I HAVE SEEN FIRST HAND as the biggest, most tragic failings in the current Iowa system: 6. Federal CAPTA requires Citizens Review Boards over the Child Protection agency, yet there are none. Jerry Foxhoven of the Iowa Citizens Foster Care Review Board (on this panel!) can confirm that my family does not have access to CRB process! 7. Federal regulation, State law and DHS policy say that families are supposed to get "Family Active Participation in Formation of the Service Plan" but when we ASKED for this active participation in the formation of the DHS Services Plans (3), we were refused. (Juv Court also ignored that it is a hard prerequisite before Termination of Parental Rights.) 8. Contract Providers use a mini Service Plan called a Treatment Plan, and it is supposed to involve the family in "Collaboration" on it. (Lutheran Social Services unlicensed person and licensed SW supervisor committed FRAUD when they signed off on ours, asserting that we had the collaboration when we clearly had not.) 9. Juvenile Court is idealogically "owned" by DHS, rubber stamp court for DHS. 10. Most Caseworkers and Contract Social Workers are not licensed professional Social Workers. (Iowa does not license SW's at Bachelors or below, according to board of Social Work.) 11. The "Stipulation Scam" - Public Defenders push for "stipulation" (winning through surrender) (Plead guilty and we'll work it out quicker!) (Pushed by Judges associations!) (All of the efficiency of Roland Friesler! Or Franz Kafka's "The Trial".) 12. "Public Defenders" often do not. Commonly known as "public pretenders" for good reason. (Seems to be a conflict of interest problem for people paid by the state to fight the state.) (Some report that they "defend" the system and not the family.) (We had one violate lawyer-client priviledge without good reason or client consent.) 13. Caseworker immunity, even when they KNOWINGLY lie in court! (Immune from perjury.) (End this immunity and make the state consent to being sued for what the state does wrong.) 14. Contract Social Worker rolled hours for "family therapy" into visit supervision time and effectively "double billed" for the same hours. 15. Contract Social Worker acted as a complete STOOGE for the caseworkers bad intent, even doing things that would VIOLATE Social Worker ethics IF she had a license. 16. Contract Social Worker admitted on the witness stand that for "family therapy" he pretended to share our dismay about DHS as a deception, to gain our trust because we were supposedly paranoid. (Think about this one. Nobody diagnosed us as paranoid, and If we HAD been paranoid, wouldn't this duplicity be an extremely BAD idea??) Clearly the intent was to use every form of "therapy" as more witch hunt to dig for dirt. 17. None of the licenced or unlicensed Social Workers lobbied with DHS or Juvenile Court to get the caseworker fiction ""Sex Abuse History"" corrected, even when I told them that this giant DHS LIE was a serious barrier for me. (Social Workers have professional obligations to DEMAND that proven falsehoods be corrected!) (Any human being has MORAL obligations to DEMAND that proven falsehoods be corrected.) 18. Caseworkers REMOVE CHILDREN based on personal bias, prejudice, style differences,etc. (For example they push anti-spanking political agenda, even though spanking is legal in all 50 states.) (Using Household Clutter for Child Removal makes us wonder how much is CLASS DISTINCTION.) 19. Caseworkers remove kids for "clutter" despite having NO STANDARDS. (I suspect the standards on paper would be a source of mockery.) 20. A. Unlicensed, amateurish caseworkers pass large amounts of documentation into psychological evaluations to tell the psychologist the diagnosis they seek. (In my case, a caseworker fiction ""Sex Abuse History"" was passed to the Psychologist even months after it was proven to the caseworker that it was false, with old DHS documents!) (Yes, this was an attempt to RIG a Psychological Evaluation.) (So WHO's paranoid??) Unlicensed, amateurish caseworkers (and lots of ER staffers at some hospitals) still apply several MYTHS that are common in the Child Protection industry. B. The myths about SPIRAL FRACTURES indicating child abuse. Over 90% of pediatric broken bones are proven to be due to bone diseases, and the 10% in the abuse/unknown category would not logically be all child abuse. Yet there is a huge problem with caseworkers and ER staff operating on the old myths, oblivious to the 1997 debunking of the myth by a British MD. The most horrible part of the research stats is that 22 kids out of a sample of 128 were permanently adopted out who later proved to actually have bone diseases. Some portion of 11 others might have been abused. Wrong was done twice as much as possibly right! ( .PDF Refs Avail.) C. In Social Work there is a MYTH that is printed in many textbooks because it is so firmly entrenched. The myth of "The Cycle of Abuse". The US General Accounting Office invalidated this myth in a September 1996 report. ( .PDF document Refs Avail.) D. Caseworkers and ER staff vastly over accuse people of Munchhausens By Proxy. Mothers having children with genuine and in many cases, well documented bonafide illnesses have been wrongly accused of this in vast numbers. Psychologists came close to eliminating it from the DSM-IV diagnosis manual because the vast majority of times they got referrals to look for it were BOGUS. It is almost as embarassing as the bogus "recovered memory" fiasco that blew up in their faces a few years ago. A corollary version of Munchhausens was actually proposed whereby caseworkers, social workers and attorneys HURT children with removal, push them to believe they were abused, so they can fulfill an emotional need to "save the child" from imagined abuse. 21. We had an unlicensed contract SW who thinks that large amounts of LOBBYING on behalf of DHS for complete submission by the family to all DHS abuses is BILLABLE "family therapy" and so we have heightened concerns about what propaganda was pushed on the child in "therapy". 22. Federal Privacy Act violation - refusal by DHS caseworkers to correct KNOWN FALSEHOODS that they wrote into DHS case file and on an affidavit in Juvenile Court case file. 23.What's up with prosecutor (Assistant County Attorney) refusal to CORRECT a fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" she had filed in court? She refused when it was proven false. She refused when she was asked. Motions for correction spanning 2.5 years were ignored by both the Assistanc County Attorney and Juvenile Court. DHS has similarly refused to correct what they KNOW to be false information, all the way up the DHS chain of command to Governor Vilsack. 24. The phrase ""At Risk Of"" can be misused, abused and cover a multitude of sins! Harm done by removal itself should not be justified by thin "possible harm" or "at risk". Preventive removals should not be so thinly based that THEY are the only REAL abuse! Preventive removals do not meet Constitutional requirements connected with big Liberty Interest. Preventive removals carry too great of a likelihood of agency abuse of families over trivia. Preventive removals are the ones where the big civil rights law suits HAVE and WILL be won, because they violate the Constitutional rights of families. (See Wallis v. Escondido, and Dupuy decision by Judge Pallmeyer in Illinois. There are so many I lost count.) 25. One of our caseworkers fathered a child in Adultery and another is about to marry her fiance' who seriously beat her up, arms, legs, torso, head but she ran to a judge to lift the no-contact order! The caseworkers fiance has a BAD rap sheet and she's the one with a BA in Criminology! THESE people sat in moral judgement of MY family? They wrote up imagined domestic abuse BY ME, but never reported the assault UPON ME by an accuser grandparent who now provides kinship care. 26. The DHS chain of command has failed to discipline Kevin Ray Swartzendruber for the fictional ""Sexual Abuse History"" he asserted in an affidavit to Juvenile Court. I am forced to conclude after this amount of time that Kevin W. Concannon and his predecessor Jessie Rasmussen actually CONDONE such LIES from caseworkers. (Governor Vilsack & LaVerne Armstrong have failed as supervisors to correct this LIE also.) Who IS watching the watchers?? Do these people pretend that THE CHILDS BEST INTEREST is served by telling such rotten LIES as a fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" in attempts to break up a family?? 27. Juvenile Court Judge Susan Flaherty at one point RECUSED (removed) herself from the case for bias. (We had known she was biased all along!) But she actually thought she was going to ""un-recuse"" herself and sit on the case some more. There is no such thing as un-recusal. It's legally an impossibility like un-breaking an egg, yet it took place. She signed scheduling orders, and ALMOST sat on the TPR hearing, making everybody appear before her at the bench and apparently realizing only then that she might get in trouble for it. 28. Contractors make decisions based on future contract money, at the expense of the integrity of families. They can write text on a page saying everything is fine and no more work is needed, but the supervisor (who was licensed) says to X the Yes box to continue the work. (and their own contract!) Jim Ernst (on this panel) recently said in a TV interview: ..."We spend a lot of our time having to document things that don't necessarily relate to families, don't necessarily relate to the needs of the kids but relate to what the funding stream requires." He pulled for more flexibility and pulled for outcomes vs. process. This seems odd for me since Jim never lifted a finger when we asked him to demand that DHS correct the fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" which is harmful to the family and the child. Two of Jim Ernst's employees, one an unlicensed Social Worker, the other a Masters of Social Work have similarly refused to demand that the fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" be corrected. Hey Jim! Where's the flexibility or outcomes vs. process you were advocating? Seems you help the process drag on. Why not? You get money when it drags on. 29. Dr. Opdebeek of the Saint Lukes Child Protection Center in Cedar Rapids Iowa, when asked on the witness stand, seems to think that sex abuse exams should be done on kids even when there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to suspect that sex abuse has taken place. Thinking like that has lead to cases where 30 girls were lined up for gynos in public schools on the whim of an unqualified Child Protection caseworker (PA and TX) and some serious law suits. 30. DHS and their court seem to forget that Child Removal itself causes very real HARM to the child, yet court hands out removal orders for trivia like clutter or "at risk" delusions. Things that MIGHT be abuse, prompt removal which does DEFINATE and KNOWN harm to the child. This is where "Preventive Removals" become evil, abuses themselves. 31. When will caseworkers be subject to thorough psychological evaluations, to look for evidence of a corrolary version of Munchhausens, (caseworkers hurting kids to save them), rescue fantasies", overly righteous attitudes, paranoia and phobia? When you give amateurs such god like power over families, it makes sense to scrutinize their psychology and mental health. Teachers can now lose their jobs over off the job problems. Shouldn't caseworkers also? 32. Will they also have to pass some kind of IQ test? ( Caseworker complained to court about mother having child spell exoskeleton saying it was too hard. Child had been given the word a year earlier by her TEACHER, as child is an advanced reader at a level 4 years ahead of her school grade. Duh?) 33. Also at the Saint Lukes Child Protection Center in Cedar Rapids, even after the needless gyno proves that there was no sexual abuse, an unlicensed uncertified evidenciary interviewer asks questions for the 25th time on video tape. An older caseworker from DHS tells the interviewer what to ask, from behind the glass. Studies show that after asking kids questions about a known fiction only 6 times it is reported by the child as ""truth"". Goebbels "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." is especially true with kids and evidenciary interviews of kids. Suggestive questions are not the only problem. Kids even figure out what you are "dancing around" with questions. (Childs head pushed under shower spray was written up as "pushed head under water") The same older caseworker later interviewed me at a Police Station and she LIED about what was revealed, pretending that some fondling had been revealed, like a trick on a bad Cop Show. I asked the nervous caseworker if she ever had kids. She said that was irrelevant. I said "I thought not." 34. DHS and their Juvenile Court have refused to investigate the accuser/caretaker grandmother for Vascular Dementia Alzheimers despite four big indicators. Prozac for 10 years, Cardiovascular trouble, Diabetes and a Family History of Vascular Dementia Alzheimers . 35. DHS has also refused to get grandmother accuser caretaker into any psychological or psychiatric evaluation even though she's been UNreliably taking Prozac for over 10 years through her General Practitioner, but never saw a psychiatrist. (We would ask that they investigate for obsession with the child also!) Kevin Swartzendruber spent HOURS talking to the grandma about rules and limitations in the situation as caretakers, came away saying "I don't think she gets it." but never WROTE THIS ON ANY REPORT. DHS has expended much effort to AVOID investigating VERY REAL mental illness and reveal well known feebleness of the grandmother, while digging so HARD to find some dirt on us that they have turned all services into out and out witch hunters. The legal term for it is FISHING EXPEDITION. Even a Judge who seems to be a complete suckup to DHS complained about this FISHING EXPEDITION aspect, because caseworkers kept putting the 9 year old girl on the spot by asking her where she wants to go. Even though this is not legally even an issue in Iowa until the child is 14, DHS kept putting her on the spot this way and then reporting that she was conflicted or torn, and DHS blames the falsely accused family for not surrendering a child. Would you give up YOUR child? Based on DHS LIES?? 36. Prozac through a General Practitioner as a short term fix might be fine for a few months, but for the General Practitioner to keep the grandma on Prozac for over TEN YEARS and never send her to a psychologist/psychiatrist does not seem right. Plus taking it UNRELIABLY can cause homicidal behavior. We are certain that she doesn't tell the doctor that she sneaks cigarettes and liquor also. 37. Judge only needed ONE, but could not do a TPR under any of four legal codes, but decided to do what my family calls a TPR without a TPR, a ten year plan serving the senile grandparents selfish desire to have the child. The disservice to the child is obvious, and the Judge should have noticed that the grandparents did not even attend for fear the Judge would see how decrepit they really are. (Judge never mentioned PREREQUISITE Family Active Participation in Formation of the Services Plan.) 38. Federal US DHHS requirements of Iowa DHS (for the big funding) say that my family should have access to a hearing process to 45 CFR 205.10 standards regarding problems with SERVICES. US DHHS said in 1983! in a clarification (PIQ) directive to Kevin W. Concannon and his counterparts in each state "THERE MUST BE A SYSTEM THROUGH WHICH RECIPIENTS MAY PRESENT GRIEVANCES ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE SERVICE PROGRAM". Informed of this, Kevin W. Concannon played stupid and asserted that we can ONLY access this process if we were denied services. This is absolutely NOT the case. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...?citID=178#686 Why would Concannon WANT to block the required grievance process on services problems? Concannons denial of this process to us will only end badly, perhaps in several ways. The conflict of interest for DHS to simply "wave away" or deny grievances like this seems to display some sort of Marie Antoinette "Let them eat cake." attitude, naive and stupid. I'm sure Ken Lay of Enron fame wishes he could just "wave away" the problems. Aside from the GRIEVANCE process on services problems being spelled out in PIQ directives, it would be utterly nonsensical to allow no complaints about too many services, bad services or RIGGED services. Even more frustrating is that extreme RIGGING of services DO represent DENIAL OF SERVICES, and several services we requested in writing were denied or ignored. 39. The REAL reason the "Stakeholder Panel" exists is not because of some thoughtful move by the Governor. It is because Iowa FAILED a Federal audit by US DHHS. Oh! Didn't they TELL YOU? If Iowa DHS Child Protection does NOT clean up it's act, they will lose a large sum of Federal Money. But the newspapers write it up as a bold command from our decisive governor eh? (Rediculous) Forget the media "spin", It's about many MILLIONS of dollars that may be withheld from next years Federal Grant to DHS if they do not bring the agency into compliance. 40. Some of the things I've described have been required of DHS for a long time and are still not fulfilled. Some things are subversions of the way things are supposed to work, according to DHHS literature, and some of the other things are just plain wrong and should be repaired regardless of Federal Requirements because anybody with a concience can see they are BAD situations. My struggle for two years to get the fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" corrected has proven to me how BROKEN many of the safeguards in our system really are. (I've learned how many people act ""powerless"" to excuse their inaction.) 41. I do not (yet) know what the new Federal KCAFSA2003 law would require that wasn't already required, but I sure hope Iowa will not drag our feet on these requirements the way that this state has on Citizens Review Boards over Child Protection, and the 45 CFR 205.10 process for GRIEVANCES on services problems. I suspect that if those two already required processes were made functional, that we would have fewer problems with Juvenile Court Judges being complete stooges when ignorant caseworkers LIE or otherwise deliberately violate families. 42. If DHS can waste the estimated $200K they have on my family over two years, removing 1 child for household clutter, vilifying me with LIES, tearing up my family using a raving obsessive Prozac grandma, rigging services for negative outcome, refusing to get the grandma in for her first psychiatrist visit ever, etc.... It becomes obvious that they are not as able to stop the next Shelby Duis because they are wasting all of these resources. Our real crime by the way was thumbing our nose at DHS and realizing that the caseworkers are idiots. One caseworker even REPORTED our negative attitude toward DHS to the Judge as if that was a crime. (Proving yet again what idiots they really can be!) Heck, if having a negative attitude toward DHS were a crime they'd even have to lock up a percentage of DHS staff! 43. The next Shelby Duis or Logan Marr or Rilya may be overlooked because caseworkers were too busy proving to parents who dislike DHS just how powerful they can be. Ego and Meglalomania are more important to caseworkers than TRULY protecting kids. That explains the coverup of the grandma's psychiatric state in our case. When a kid reports that a Foster caregiver is hurting them, it must NOT be covered up because of the political view that the foster caregivers are FRIENDS or ALLIES of DHS Child Protection. Foster caregivers as supposed experts should not have more lax standards than those required of real parents, despite their DHS political "loyalty factor". Kevin Concannon found out about this in Maine. The woman who killed Logan Marr was shielded by her "buddy factor" as a former caseworker. On an observed visit, after Logan complained out loud about the Foster provider hurting her, the Maine DHS observer stopped the mother from asking Logan more questions about the ABUSE IN STATE CARE. This interaction is on a Maine DHS Video Tape. 44. Could somebody please explain to me why Kevin Concannon did not even apologize to the mother of Logan Marr? It was under his supervision in Maine that Logan Marr died, at the hands of a former Child Protection caseworker (who preached never spanking kids!). Logan had been removed using LOUSY excuses. She ended up dead in the basement of the former caseworkers house, suffocated with duct tape. 45. Governor Vilsack lauded hiring Concannon because of his expertise at bringing in Federal Dollars, but I have seen reports that Maine had to PAY BACK huge amounts improperly collected, not to mention the law suit liability that Concannon represents after his malfeasance on the Logan Marr case. Concannon made comments in the press about "doing better", but his letter to my family denying us the REQUIRED grievance process does not impress me that he is doing any better. He seems to be unwilling to make sure that caseworkers under him do not VIOLATE families with lies and other abuses. 46. I am forced to ask Vilsack (who has also stonewalled us) why bringing in Federal Dollars was his stated priority in hiring Kevin Concannon. (See Vilsack press releases about hiring Concannon.) I submit that Vilsack is ignorant of the true nature of the ""financial wizardry"" Concannon used in Maine, and the facts regarding Concannon's "failure to supervise" resulting in death of a child. 47. When caseworkers, contractors, fosters and anybody profiting in this "industry" falsify information, ignore proof that an assertion is false, LIE on paper or on the witness stand, or refuse to correct known false information, they should NOT be immune. DHS, rather than defending them in this circumstance, should be the first to PROSECUTE THEM. After all, this would be "In the best interests of the child", wouldn't it? But we've seen the opposite, DHS knowing that there is terrible and false information in both the DHS case file and the Juv Court case file and refusing to correct it. This makes it no accident, and culpable. Perhaps it is an adult version of the no spanking theories?? No disciplinary action?? None? Looks like a complete lack of discipline, ethical responsibility, supervision and accountability. This is part of a recipe for disaster. 48. Politically, Child Protection agencies are strange in that their FAILURES often work to their financial advantage. Shelby Duis died 3 years ago and the Ombudsman's office wrote a report with recommendations to centralize reporting and make some other improvements. DHS chose to ignore these suggestions, but Shelby Duis keeps getting "preyed upon" by DHS to lobby for more money. The solution to every problem seems to be to throw more money at it, rather than take corrective action. I read the Ombudsmans report on the Duis case, and DHS failed miserably. Nothing implied "more money". 49. In DHS defense, and I hate having to do this, I'd like to point out that even if DHS were lean, highly expert, and endlessly funded, it would NEVER be omnicient. Even if it were the most perfect agency, it is not godlike and all powerful enough to prevent absolutely all cases of child abuse and child mortality. In fact, as my family can attest, DHS is so badly tuned at what it does NOW, that the last thing Iowans or Americans would want is more of the same kind of ham handed amateurish power-wielding that takes place now. Even if Iowa got rid of all of the welfare to work caseworkers who are playing God, and put MSW's into every single caseworker position, there would still be problems with ego, megalomania and run amok God complexes among them. My biggest objection there is people who IMAGINE problems based on some voodoo, whether it fits perfectly in a Social Work textbook or not. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." -Freud (Would you qualify as a caffeine addict under psychologists DSM-IV?) While I respect "expertise" I would be very quick to point out that it can be abused and misused. Doctors make LOTS of mistakes. My Dad, as a Mortician, buried quite a few doctors mistakes. I own a sterilized hemostat removed from one. 50. If DHS Child Protection stopped "makework" cases, they would be like the Maytag Repair Man (Jesse White version) waiting for the phone to ring. The AFCARS statistics, cooked as they are by DHS itself, still reveal some interesting oddities like the % of cases where kids that are removed from their families when NO REASON at all is known. Even the cases marked as real Child Abuse Neglect must be broken down from the CAN "lump" to reveal how NEGLECT pads the ABUSE numbers for the CAN figure. Iowa is noteable for withholding these stats from the Federal Government a couple of years back, after reporting that over HALF of all child abuse tips came from CASEWORKERS THEMSELVES one year. (Images of caseworkers riding around in cars looking for kids? Hey, Iowa's stats CREATED that image!) 51. This is not a complete and total depiction of my families case. I hope that communication to this board might be an avenue of redress to fix some other avenues of redress that are broken or do not exist as required. I am confident that if the two TEN YEAR OVERDUE FEDERALLY REQUIRED PROCESSES, A.) Citizens Review Board, and B.) 45 CFR 205.10 Grievance Process on Services problems - would rectify most of my families problems caused by DHS Agency abuse of my family. Why would this Panel to Repair a broken DHS and Juvenile Court, not START with things that are Federally required, as of TEN YEARS AGO yet still not in place or broken so as to be out of Federal Compliance?? That's pretty BASIC. 52. If I would be welcome, I would be glad to be an active part of the Stakeholder Panel. If I can carpool with another panel member from Cedar Rapids, that would help. I will be glad to contact CPSWATCH, VOCAL and HSLDA to ask for some other representatives of parents abused by Child Protection as well. How does one get on this Iowa DHS Stakeholders Panel? 53. Could I please have a copy of the "report on the Listening Phase"? The May 28th DHS Press Release Quoted Concannon saying "we're doing as much as possible in the open for all to see". I would ask that this letter be added to the "report on the Listening Phase". Is this something that PSG is doing? Does anybody have an e-mail or web site for PSG? 54. I ask that another DHS Town Hall meeting be scheduled and publicized in downtown Cedar Rapids Iowa due to the apparent mistake on the publicized schedule. I would gladly publicize the scheduled date as soon as it is arranged. 55. One of the "Defining Project Success" parameters is "Balance flexibility with accountability". I question the premise. Why should accountability EVER be sacrificed for the sake of flexibility? DHS Director Concannon's hope to have flexibility must NEVER be at the expense of accountability. As it is, Concannon has given Kevin Ray Swartzendruber the ""flexibility"" to fabricate complete and utter LIES about a ""Sex Abuse History"" and I have seen NO EVIDENCE of any sort of accountability! (Supervisory or otherwise!) Could somebody please explain to me how flexibility got connected in ANY way to accountability? I do not see the logic in flexibility prevented by accountability or accountability prevented by flexibility. Was this some whiney attempt to weasel out of fulfilling the TEN YEAR OVERDUE requirements that DHS has not yet implemented? Or was this "flexibility" about the stupid way that caseworkers expect that caring for kids can be a 9 to 5 job and they'll never be called at home?? (We ran into that when the caretakers went AWOL with the child and a Police officer called caseworker at home. Holding the "upper hand", caseworker whined about getting called at home, while ignoring the AWOL child circumstance completely!) When caseworkers step into a childs life and a families life in this intrusive way, and a kid goes missing, they'd better not whine and demand 9-5 contact only. Another caseworker seemed to think that she had a right to tell a client not to e-mail her at her government @DHS.state.ia.us e-mail address as if it was her personal property, which of course it isn't. How "flexible" is that? 56. Is the Federal Audit that Iowa DHS failed, publicly available? 57. On the Panel Charter circa May 27, 2003: "Boundaries: What is the authority of the Stakeholder Panel? - Is not a decision making group for the project." conflicts with "Defining Project Success" ...."redesigned system will be fully implemented by 7/1/04" and..(On Charter again) "DHS will support the work of the panel, it's functioning, and the fulfillment of its responsibilities." If this Panel turns out really good recommendations for serious IMPROVEMENT, DHS can ignore it. DHS ignored recommendations made by the Ombudsman's report on the Shelby Duis death case. Ombudsman's report strongly urged Centralized telephone tracking of abuse report calls which might have enhanced accountability and responsiveness. I suspect DHS was dissappointed that the "repair" suggested would not have justified MILLIONS of dollars more for the agency. Don't let DHS fool you though, any good results of this Stakeholders Panel will very likely be watched by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and the US DHHS, and could easily effect MANY MILLIONS IN FUNDING for IOWA DHS. Since Child Protection Agencies nationwide have failed miserably, results will be watched closely by PSG, because if the results can fix this mess, there are 49 other states urgently looking for solutions to fixing their failed Child Protection systems. Just like Iowa, they face the loss of MANY MILLIONS of Federal Money if they don't fix their broken Child Protection systems. That includes as a HIGH priority, respecting the Constitutional Rights of families, something my family spoke out about from the beginning, but up until recently, caseworkers just laughed at our Constitutional claims and Juvenile Court panned them too. Parts of the new June 25, 2003 Federal Law, and the Congressional Committee Reports behind it support us however. 58. The 15/22 month rule to go for TPR is an abuse, considering that the delays are often due to court or DHS intractibility about correcting service problems (See 6,7,8,9 11,12, 17 and more above) both in and out of court. It seems to be a Sword and shield approach, refusal to fix anything that is BOTCHED BADLY, while demanding and threatening the parent with TPR. DHS actually uses the 15/22 month rule as a SOLE BASIS for TPR in some cases, and often Courts do it. But in several other states it has been STRUCK DOWN as stupid considering how slothful courts and bureaucracy are. It is only a matter of time before this evil and stupid practice is struck down in Iowa as well. ( "In the Childs Best Interest"? Indeed! ) A Father in Ottumwa is facing a TPR in the coming month based on this travesty. Summary of my biggest requests from you: A. Where is the Federally Required Citizens Review Board to oversee Child Protective Investigations and removal? 51, 6, 41 (Why is this existing ten year old requirement still unfulfilled?) B. Why is Kevin Concannon denying Grievance Process on services, violating US DHHS PIQ directives? 38, 41, 51 (Concannon directly contradicted what a US DHHS PIQ directive dictates, failure can cost millions in Federal dollars) C. Will you make the "Report on the Listening Phase" sheduled for June 26th, public? 53 (The chart I saw did NOT reflect the input from people who went to those Town Halls. Not at all.) D. What legal expert will break down all of the new requirements in the KCFSA Federal Law? 5 (The Panel needs to implement the protections spelled out in the new law! Respecting the Constitutional Rights of Families and curbing Child Protection Abuse of families is "In the Best Interests of the Child"! But you KNEW that, right?) E. How do I and other pro-family anti-CPS AGENCY ABUSE people get appointed to the Stakeholders Panel? 52, 2,3,4 (Why are parents under DHS seige not seen as crucial stakeholders?) F. Will you please schedule a Town Hall meeting for Cedar Rapids? 54 It was mentioned in one document, but not in the Press Release and not on the Matrix displayed on the DHS web site. (Name, address, zip, e-mail address)
|
|
#13
September 12th 03, 10:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Greg's Motivation$$$$$$$
|
|
#15
September 12th 03, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Plant's Motivation?
LC: Where has Kane sworn and whitewashed?
GH: He swore a blue streek for over a year in ascps. See archive. GH: But you would like Kane's foul questions answered? LC: Yes, I would like Kane's questions answered. I saw nothing foul GH: Of course not. How convenient for you. GH: Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the LC: would be a huge determinant in post content. LC: I have no idea what you are talking about. LC: Obviously LC: I know nothing about your family's case. LC: I am not commenting on individual cases. GH: Where are you employed, LaVonne? GH: What AGENCY do you work for? GH: To children and families it's NOT academic or abstract thought. LC: I do have a life and a full time job. GH: I see. You are just too busy to investigate the truth. GH: Good for you, bad for the kids and families. GH: Is being fully competent optional? LC: the burden of proof is on you. GH: So, you think it's unusual that of seven Social Workers, GH: in our faces, not one sees fit to ask CPS to correct GH: proven falsehood? GH: Not to mention the chain of command at DHS.. GH: What stats do you choose to accept regarding GH: incompetent social workers? GH: Does a Board of Social Work license removal do it? GH: How many do you need to see? LC: And it is a claim you cannot prove, GH: Sure, if you let me use the "preponderance standard"! GH: Do you know why that is relevant here? GH: 41 Billion $ industry, thousands of kids GH: removed, no proven effectiveness. GH: But I have to prove that social work contractors are prostitute GH: to CPS money and will not demand that they correct glaring GH: errors used to harm a family? That their ethical obligation GH: to truth, the kids and families is less important than their GH: "life and a full time job" ? Do I have to prove that GH: bureaucrats act bureaucratically? GH: Next you'll be telling me they vote conservative. GH: And demanding that I prove otherwise. LC: because you cannot possibly know the record LC: of every individual involved with CPS. GH: Why should I? The people at CPS calling the shots don't. GH: The Juvenile Court Judges don't. GH: Heck, attorneys can't even know all laws! So what? GH: Perhaps you're being a bit too academic again. GH: Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum GH: that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is GH: certainly worthy of question. GH: However, I would like examples of my uncivilized behavior, GH: since you view my response to Kane as only temporary civilized. GH: Do you think the old good cop bad cop tactic is apropo here? GH: Kane swears for over a year, does almost NOTHING GH: but personal attack, and you come along feigning GH: ignorance about the "environment" you act as if your GH: pretense of reasonableness has emerged out of a vacuum?? GH: You are indeed a blessed peacemaker! GH: Do you walk into the middle of bar fights and engage GH: them in your academic abstracts? LC: I don't post to alt.support.child-protective-services. LC: I'm posting to alt.parenting.spanking, and yours LC: is a cross-post. Who are the "in here" people? GH: You answered your own question. LC: Some of the bunch may be involved in a legitimate CPS mistake. GH: Well, they number enough that the US Congress is steamed! GH: Others may be objecting for other reasons. GH: I've met individuals who are defending themselves from GH: what they consider unwarranted attacks from CPS who GH: have disciplined their children in ways that resulted in GH: hospitalization over burns and broken bones. GH: I haven't seen one like that yet in person or in CPSWATCH. GH: But I could give you a long list where CPS badly did wrong and GH: removed children without proper cause. Logan Marr, Dupuy family, GH: Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer, and many of them LOST IN COURT! GH: (So much for the court doing the right thing!) LC: The parent I knew who disciplined her child by forcing her LC: hands in boiling water for touching the stove was under attack. Did you witness this? Was it a foster parent? Were there burns? Who told you this? Was it boiling water, hot or tepid? Do you know what epistomology is? CPS and child removals have a lot of trouble with the use of gossip IN COURT. (abuse of preponderance) A patient in a locked psych ward called in assertions that a child was to be ritually sacrificed. Caseworker Spencer in Escondido California was involved in removing kids from this family. Read the JUDGES words. Look up Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer. Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ruled that Illinois' Child Protection System was wholly unconstitutional, in the Dupuy case and demanded things be fixed. No result. Just whining from the CPS agency. Statistically, burns and blood and major bruises account for a very SMALL percent of child removals. -US GOVT GH: Fern has repeatedly asserted that I am connected with GH: CPS, which is a total lie. GH: If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, don't be offended. LC: I have no idea if Kane is connected to CPS GH: It took him almost a year to explain his connection. GH: It was obvious. He walked like a duck, and talked like a duck. LC: and this is really irrelevant. GH: No, it is NOT irrelevant! Are you really that naive? GH: If a politician gets MILLIONS from some special interest GH: you think that has NOTHING to do with their political position? GH: And CPS people who lobby for their own paychecks? GH: And contractors who lobby for their own contracts? GH: You and your fiancé are obviously very angry because GH: CPS became involved in your lives. I understand that. GH: I don't know why you lost your children. GH: If we were mentally diminished we might not be aware GH: that our constitutional rights have been raped. GH: Caseworkers telling terrible huge LIES, refusing to GH: correct the falsehood when proven so, etc.. GH: You should know that CPS is violating the US Constitutional GH: protections. The imagined ends do NOT justify the means. GH: Ethics and laws are flounted by CPS constantly. GH: The crusade is crushing people, based on stuff that is GH: NOT boiled flesh, burning as discipline, etc. GH: You have frequented the anti-spanking newsgroup. You should know that while you and yours might not approve of spanking, it is LEGAL, and therefore NOT an acceptable grounds for child removal. Even though you don't like the spanking, you should be OBJECTING to child removal that is not LEGAL. If for no other reason than that removal is proven to harm kids, not debateable as spanking is. GH: It's a bit like that old expression that I don't like what somebody says, but I will defend to my death their right to say it. GH: You should know also that this illegal underpinning for child removal might actually hurt your cause in the long run. GH: (Much like some women working to stop domestic abuse have realized that the extreme bias in presumption that women are never the perpetrators will hurt their cause.) GH: You might not like that some parents spank, but don't be too cheerful about anti-spank caseworkers (often childless) pushing their agenda illegally (sneaky) by sticking OTHER labels on parents to make cases because of this agenda. LC: I'm here to say that children need protection and LC: CPS is needed, in spite of errors CPS has made. GH: CPS has no LEGAL right to enforce your personal agenda. GH: You should not prop them up when they do that. GH: That you call spanking child abuse is an opinion, nothing more. GH: Until you get some laws passed. GH: Since CPS own stats show that for every case of bruises GH: blood, broken bones or sexual abuse, there are about GH: 80 kids removed for stuff they should not be removed for. GH: Difference of opinion regarding parenting is NOT an GH: ethical or acceptable reason for removal. LC: need for laws in this country to change. GH: I agree that laws need to change, but probably opposite direction. GH: Privacy must never be sacrificed to a ""good cause"". GH: And I see the ""good cause"" of child protection as having GH: been preyed upon by leeches and bloodsuckers to the tune GH: of 41 Billion dollars per year overall! GH: Gelles, Congress, many others and I think so. GH: CPS acencies have not just had a few little oopsies. GH: Even Dan and Kane found out that CPS often operated on KNOWN false information when they presumed that a child with spiral fractures was abused. Search back to where Dan posted the link to a British doctors report from the 80's. Yet kids have been removed on this automatic assumption over the last decade! And nobody is trying to clear parents of charges or return kids wrongly taken for good. GH: LaVonne, you really should study up some more about the abuses that CPS causes directly or indirectly. GH: Out of the frying pan and into the fire is no solution. Out of an IMAGINED risk, and into KNOWN risk? And removal itself is an abuse. But they don't factor that in and they should. GH: Caseworkers ARE paranoid. You displayed some of why that is when you described some horror stories. But that is not valid logic to REMOVE KIDS. GH: Causing harm to 80 kids by removing on a whim does not save the 1 who is being burned, scalded or sexually abused. In fact it seems to put that one in even more danger. And harming the 80 is no less harm. GH: Our biggest crime is we cooperated until we realized what crooks the caseworkers are, called them *******s and told them we will SUE them. They made the mistake of thinking that beating us down more would make us not sue. Just the opposite. GH: I hope you know that puts limits on what I can say. GH: You're "not commenting on individual cases" ?? Really?  GH: That's what the US DHHS says when contacted about terrible abuses of families by state proxy agencies CPS operating with DHHS moneys. GH: People who lived in town near Dachau and Auschwitz claimed they didn't know. Guards said they were "just following orders". GH: US DHHS uses a quote like yours. GH: What is your field of study and what kind of work do you do? Quit pretending it is not relevant.
|
|
#16
September 12th 03, 09:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Plant's Motivation?
"Greg Hanson" wrote in message om... LC: Where has Kane sworn and whitewashed? GH: He swore a blue streek for over a year in ascps. Only to the people he thought deserved it. See archive. Who cares? GH: But you would like Kane's foul questions answered? LC: Yes, I would like Kane's questions answered. I saw nothing foul GH: Of course not. How convenient for you. GH: Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the LC: would be a huge determinant in post content. LC: I have no idea what you are talking about. LC: Obviously LC: I know nothing about your family's case. LC: I am not commenting on individual cases. GH: Where are you employed, LaVonne? GH: What AGENCY do you work for? GH: To children and families it's NOT academic or abstract thought. LC: I do have a life and a full time job. Oh ****!!! I read that fast and thought Greg posted it... Silly me! GH: I see. You are just too busy to investigate the truth. GH: Good for you, bad for the kids and families. GH: Is being fully competent optional? LC: the burden of proof is on you. GH: So, you think it's unusual that of seven Social Workers, GH: in our faces, not one sees fit to ask CPS to correct GH: proven falsehood? GH: Not to mention the chain of command at DHS.. If these SWs don't work for CPS you might as well ask the milkman. GH: What stats do you choose to accept regarding GH: incompetent social workers? GH: Does a Board of Social Work license removal do it? GH: How many do you need to see? LC: And it is a claim you cannot prove, GH: Sure, if you let me use the "preponderance standard"! GH: Do you know why that is relevant here? GH: 41 Billion $ industry, thousands of kids GH: removed, no proven effectiveness. GH: But I have to prove that social work contractors are prostitute GH: to CPS money and will not demand that they correct glaring GH: errors used to harm a family? That their ethical obligation GH: to truth, the kids and families is less important than their GH: "life and a full time job" ? Do I have to prove that GH: bureaucrats act bureaucratically? GH: Next you'll be telling me they vote conservative. GH: And demanding that I prove otherwise. LC: because you cannot possibly know the record LC: of every individual involved with CPS. GH: Why should I? The people at CPS calling the shots don't. GH: The Juvenile Court Judges don't. GH: Heck, attorneys can't even know all laws! So what? GH: Perhaps you're being a bit too academic again. GH: Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum GH: that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is GH: certainly worthy of question. GH: However, I would like examples of my uncivilized behavior, GH: since you view my response to Kane as only temporary civilized. GH: Do you think the old good cop bad cop tactic is apropo here? GH: Kane swears for over a year, does almost NOTHING GH: but personal attack, FYI Kane helped everyone on this NG who got their kids back, Greg. and you come along feigning GH: ignorance about the "environment" you act as if your GH: pretense of reasonableness has emerged out of a vacuum?? GH: You are indeed a blessed peacemaker! GH: Do you walk into the middle of bar fights and engage GH: them in your academic abstracts? LC: I don't post to alt.support.child-protective-services. LC: I'm posting to alt.parenting.spanking, and yours LC: is a cross-post. Who are the "in here" people? GH: You answered your own question. LC: Some of the bunch may be involved in a legitimate CPS mistake. GH: Well, they number enough that the US Congress is steamed! GH: Others may be objecting for other reasons. GH: I've met individuals who are defending themselves from GH: what they consider unwarranted attacks from CPS who GH: have disciplined their children in ways that resulted in GH: hospitalization over burns and broken bones. GH: I haven't seen one like that yet in person or in CPSWATCH. GH: But I could give you a long list where CPS badly did wrong and GH: removed children without proper cause. Logan Marr, Dupuy family, GH: Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer, and many of them LOST IN COURT! GH: (So much for the court doing the right thing!) LC: The parent I knew who disciplined her child by forcing her LC: hands in boiling water for touching the stove was under attack. Did you witness this? Was it a foster parent? Were there burns? Who told you this? Was it boiling water, hot or tepid? Do you know what epistomology is? CPS and child removals have a lot of trouble with the use of gossip IN COURT. (abuse of preponderance) A patient in a locked psych ward called in assertions that a child was to be ritually sacrificed. Caseworker Spencer in Escondido California was involved in removing kids from this family. Read the JUDGES words. Look up Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer. Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ruled that Illinois' Child Protection System was wholly unconstitutional, in the Dupuy case and demanded things be fixed. No result. Just whining from the CPS agency. Statistically, burns and blood and major bruises account for a very SMALL percent of child removals. -US GOVT GH: Fern has repeatedly asserted that I am connected with GH: CPS, which is a total lie. GH: If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, don't be offended. LC: I have no idea if Kane is connected to CPS GH: It took him almost a year to explain his connection. GH: It was obvious. He walked like a duck, and talked like a duck. LC: and this is really irrelevant. GH: No, it is NOT irrelevant! Are you really that naive? GH: If a politician gets MILLIONS from some special interest GH: you think that has NOTHING to do with their political position? GH: And CPS people who lobby for their own paychecks? GH: And contractors who lobby for their own contracts? GH: You and your fiancé are obviously very angry because GH: CPS became involved in your lives. I understand that. GH: I don't know why you lost your children. GH: If we were mentally diminished we might not be aware GH: that our constitutional rights have been raped. GH: Caseworkers telling terrible huge LIES, refusing to GH: correct the falsehood when proven so, etc.. GH: You should know that CPS is violating the US Constitutional GH: protections. The imagined ends do NOT justify the means. GH: Ethics and laws are flounted by CPS constantly. GH: The crusade is crushing people, based on stuff that is GH: NOT boiled flesh, burning as discipline, etc. GH: You have frequented the anti-spanking newsgroup. You should know that while you and yours might not approve of spanking, it is LEGAL, and therefore NOT an acceptable grounds for child removal. Even though you don't like the spanking, you should be OBJECTING to child removal that is not LEGAL. If for no other reason than that removal is proven to harm kids, not debateable as spanking is. GH: It's a bit like that old expression that I don't like what somebody says, but I will defend to my death their right to say it. GH: You should know also that this illegal underpinning for child removal might actually hurt your cause in the long run. GH: (Much like some women working to stop domestic abuse have realized that the extreme bias in presumption that women are never the perpetrators will hurt their cause.) GH: You might not like that some parents spank, but don't be too cheerful about anti-spank caseworkers (often childless) pushing their agenda illegally (sneaky) by sticking OTHER labels on parents to make cases because of this agenda. LC: I'm here to say that children need protection and LC: CPS is needed, in spite of errors CPS has made. GH: CPS has no LEGAL right to enforce your personal agenda. GH: You should not prop them up when they do that. GH: That you call spanking child abuse is an opinion, nothing more. GH: Until you get some laws passed. GH: Since CPS own stats show that for every case of bruises GH: blood, broken bones or sexual abuse, there are about GH: 80 kids removed for stuff they should not be removed for. GH: Difference of opinion regarding parenting is NOT an GH: ethical or acceptable reason for removal. LC: need for laws in this country to change. GH: I agree that laws need to change, but probably opposite direction. GH: Privacy must never be sacrificed to a ""good cause"". GH: And I see the ""good cause"" of child protection as having GH: been preyed upon by leeches and bloodsuckers to the tune GH: of 41 Billion dollars per year overall! GH: Gelles, Congress, many others and I think so. GH: CPS acencies have not just had a few little oopsies. GH: Even Dan and Kane found out that CPS often operated on KNOWN false information when they presumed that a child with spiral fractures was abused. Search back to where Dan posted the link to a British doctors report from the 80's. Yet kids have been removed on this automatic assumption over the last decade! And nobody is trying to clear parents of charges or return kids wrongly taken for good. GH: LaVonne, you really should study up some more about the abuses that CPS causes directly or indirectly. GH: Out of the frying pan and into the fire is no solution. Out of an IMAGINED risk, and into KNOWN risk? And removal itself is an abuse. But they don't factor that in and they should. GH: Caseworkers ARE paranoid. You displayed some of why that is when you described some horror stories. But that is not valid logic to REMOVE KIDS. GH: Causing harm to 80 kids by removing on a whim does not save the 1 who is being burned, scalded or sexually abused. In fact it seems to put that one in even more danger. And harming the 80 is no less harm. GH: Our biggest crime is we cooperated until we realized what crooks the caseworkers are, called them *******s and told them we will SUE them. They made the mistake of thinking that beating us down more would make us not sue. Just the opposite. GH: I hope you know that puts limits on what I can say. GH: You're "not commenting on individual cases" ?? Really? GH: That's what the US DHHS says when contacted about terrible abuses of families by state proxy agencies CPS operating with DHHS moneys. GH: People who lived in town near Dachau and Auschwitz claimed they didn't know. Guards said they were "just following orders". GH: US DHHS uses a quote like yours. GH: What is your field of study and what kind of work do you do? Quit pretending it is not relevant.
|
|
#17
September 15th 03, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Plant's Motivation?
LaVonne?
Do you work directly for the state of MN or as a contractor? Why did you act like Fern was a liar about your connection to CPS? Are you an heir to a large family estate?
|
|
#18
September 18th 03, 04:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Plant's Motivation?
Lost your child, huh?
Greg Hanson wrote: LC: Where has Kane sworn and whitewashed? GH: He swore a blue streek for over a year in ascps. See archive. GH: But you would like Kane's foul questions answered? LC: Yes, I would like Kane's questions answered. I saw nothing foul GH: Of course not. How convenient for you. GH: Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the LC: would be a huge determinant in post content. LC: I have no idea what you are talking about. LC: Obviously LC: I know nothing about your family's case. LC: I am not commenting on individual cases. GH: Where are you employed, LaVonne? GH: What AGENCY do you work for? GH: To children and families it's NOT academic or abstract thought. LC: I do have a life and a full time job. GH: I see. You are just too busy to investigate the truth. GH: Good for you, bad for the kids and families. GH: Is being fully competent optional? LC: the burden of proof is on you. GH: So, you think it's unusual that of seven Social Workers, GH: in our faces, not one sees fit to ask CPS to correct GH: proven falsehood? GH: Not to mention the chain of command at DHS.. GH: What stats do you choose to accept regarding GH: incompetent social workers? GH: Does a Board of Social Work license removal do it? GH: How many do you need to see? LC: And it is a claim you cannot prove, GH: Sure, if you let me use the "preponderance standard"! GH: Do you know why that is relevant here? GH: 41 Billion $ industry, thousands of kids GH: removed, no proven effectiveness. GH: But I have to prove that social work contractors are prostitute GH: to CPS money and will not demand that they correct glaring GH: errors used to harm a family? That their ethical obligation GH: to truth, the kids and families is less important than their GH: "life and a full time job" ? Do I have to prove that GH: bureaucrats act bureaucratically? GH: Next you'll be telling me they vote conservative. GH: And demanding that I prove otherwise. LC: because you cannot possibly know the record LC: of every individual involved with CPS. GH: Why should I? The people at CPS calling the shots don't. GH: The Juvenile Court Judges don't. GH: Heck, attorneys can't even know all laws! So what? GH: Perhaps you're being a bit too academic again. GH: Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum GH: that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is GH: certainly worthy of question. GH: However, I would like examples of my uncivilized behavior, GH: since you view my response to Kane as only temporary civilized. GH: Do you think the old good cop bad cop tactic is apropo here? GH: Kane swears for over a year, does almost NOTHING GH: but personal attack, and you come along feigning GH: ignorance about the "environment" you act as if your GH: pretense of reasonableness has emerged out of a vacuum?? GH: You are indeed a blessed peacemaker! GH: Do you walk into the middle of bar fights and engage GH: them in your academic abstracts? LC: I don't post to alt.support.child-protective-services. LC: I'm posting to alt.parenting.spanking, and yours LC: is a cross-post. Who are the "in here" people? GH: You answered your own question. LC: Some of the bunch may be involved in a legitimate CPS mistake. GH: Well, they number enough that the US Congress is steamed! GH: Others may be objecting for other reasons. GH: I've met individuals who are defending themselves from GH: what they consider unwarranted attacks from CPS who GH: have disciplined their children in ways that resulted in GH: hospitalization over burns and broken bones. GH: I haven't seen one like that yet in person or in CPSWATCH. GH: But I could give you a long list where CPS badly did wrong and GH: removed children without proper cause. Logan Marr, Dupuy family, GH: Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer, and many of them LOST IN COURT! GH: (So much for the court doing the right thing!) LC: The parent I knew who disciplined her child by forcing her LC: hands in boiling water for touching the stove was under attack. Did you witness this? Was it a foster parent? Were there burns? Who told you this? Was it boiling water, hot or tepid? Do you know what epistomology is? CPS and child removals have a lot of trouble with the use of gossip IN COURT. (abuse of preponderance) A patient in a locked psych ward called in assertions that a child was to be ritually sacrificed. Caseworker Spencer in Escondido California was involved in removing kids from this family. Read the JUDGES words. Look up Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer. Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ruled that Illinois' Child Protection System was wholly unconstitutional, in the Dupuy case and demanded things be fixed. No result. Just whining from the CPS agency. Statistically, burns and blood and major bruises account for a very SMALL percent of child removals. -US GOVT GH: Fern has repeatedly asserted that I am connected with GH: CPS, which is a total lie. GH: If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, don't be offended. LC: I have no idea if Kane is connected to CPS GH: It took him almost a year to explain his connection. GH: It was obvious. He walked like a duck, and talked like a duck. LC: and this is really irrelevant. GH: No, it is NOT irrelevant! Are you really that naive? GH: If a politician gets MILLIONS from some special interest GH: you think that has NOTHING to do with their political position? GH: And CPS people who lobby for their own paychecks? GH: And contractors who lobby for their own contracts? GH: You and your fiancé are obviously very angry because GH: CPS became involved in your lives. I understand that. GH: I don't know why you lost your children. GH: If we were mentally diminished we might not be aware GH: that our constitutional rights have been raped. GH: Caseworkers telling terrible huge LIES, refusing to GH: correct the falsehood when proven so, etc.. GH: You should know that CPS is violating the US Constitutional GH: protections. The imagined ends do NOT justify the means. GH: Ethics and laws are flounted by CPS constantly. GH: The crusade is crushing people, based on stuff that is GH: NOT boiled flesh, burning as discipline, etc. GH: You have frequented the anti-spanking newsgroup. You should know that while you and yours might not approve of spanking, it is LEGAL, and therefore NOT an acceptable grounds for child removal. Even though you don't like the spanking, you should be OBJECTING to child removal that is not LEGAL. If for no other reason than that removal is proven to harm kids, not debateable as spanking is. GH: It's a bit like that old expression that I don't like what somebody says, but I will defend to my death their right to say it. GH: You should know also that this illegal underpinning for child removal might actually hurt your cause in the long run. GH: (Much like some women working to stop domestic abuse have realized that the extreme bias in presumption that women are never the perpetrators will hurt their cause.) GH: You might not like that some parents spank, but don't be too cheerful about anti-spank caseworkers (often childless) pushing their agenda illegally (sneaky) by sticking OTHER labels on parents to make cases because of this agenda. LC: I'm here to say that children need protection and LC: CPS is needed, in spite of errors CPS has made. GH: CPS has no LEGAL right to enforce your personal agenda. GH: You should not prop them up when they do that. GH: That you call spanking child abuse is an opinion, nothing more. GH: Until you get some laws passed. GH: Since CPS own stats show that for every case of bruises GH: blood, broken bones or sexual abuse, there are about GH: 80 kids removed for stuff they should not be removed for. GH: Difference of opinion regarding parenting is NOT an GH: ethical or acceptable reason for removal. LC: need for laws in this country to change. GH: I agree that laws need to change, but probably opposite direction. GH: Privacy must never be sacrificed to a ""good cause"". GH: And I see the ""good cause"" of child protection as having GH: been preyed upon by leeches and bloodsuckers to the tune GH: of 41 Billion dollars per year overall! GH: Gelles, Congress, many others and I think so. GH: CPS acencies have not just had a few little oopsies. GH: Even Dan and Kane found out that CPS often operated on KNOWN false information when they presumed that a child with spiral fractures was abused. Search back to where Dan posted the link to a British doctors report from the 80's. Yet kids have been removed on this automatic assumption over the last decade! And nobody is trying to clear parents of charges or return kids wrongly taken for good. GH: LaVonne, you really should study up some more about the abuses that CPS causes directly or indirectly. GH: Out of the frying pan and into the fire is no solution. Out of an IMAGINED risk, and into KNOWN risk? And removal itself is an abuse. But they don't factor that in and they should. GH: Caseworkers ARE paranoid. You displayed some of why that is when you described some horror stories. But that is not valid logic to REMOVE KIDS. GH: Causing harm to 80 kids by removing on a whim does not save the 1 who is being burned, scalded or sexually abused. In fact it seems to put that one in even more danger. And harming the 80 is no less harm. GH: Our biggest crime is we cooperated until we realized what crooks the caseworkers are, called them *******s and told them we will SUE them. They made the mistake of thinking that beating us down more would make us not sue. Just the opposite. GH: I hope you know that puts limits on what I can say. GH: You're "not commenting on individual cases" ?? Really? GH: That's what the US DHHS says when contacted about terrible abuses of families by state proxy agencies CPS operating with DHHS moneys. GH: People who lived in town near Dachau and Auschwitz claimed they didn't know. Guards said they were "just following orders". GH: US DHHS uses a quote like yours. GH: What is your field of study and what kind of work do you do? Quit pretending it is not relevant.
|
|
#19
September 18th 03, 04:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Plant's Motivation?
Greg,
I do not work for the state of MN, as an employee or as a contractor. I have never worked for the state of MN as either an employee or as a contractor. I have a teaching license in Early Childhood Education and Early Childhood Special Education. I taught both disciplines for many years. I have an undergraduate degee in Child Development, a Master's Degree in Earch Childhood Special Education, and a Ph.D. in Early Childhood Educatiohn/Early Childhood Special Education. I worked for many years in child care. I worked in special education. I now teach graduate courses at the University of Minnesota for students who are enrolled in the ECE/ECSE licensure program. This is why I acted like Fern was a liar about my connection to CPS. She was a liar, Greg. LaVonne Greg Hanson wrote: LaVonne? Do you work directly for the state of MN or as a contractor? Why did you act like Fern was a liar about your connection to CPS? Are you an heir to a large family estate?
|
|
#20
September 18th 03, 05:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Plant's Motivation?
advice Too much information LaVonne. Be careful............there's
some pretty weird vindictive folks out there. kev "LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message ... Greg, I do not work for the state of MN, as an employee or as a contractor. I have never worked for the state of MN as either an employee or as a contractor. I have a teaching license in Early Childhood Education and Early Childhood Special Education. I taught both disciplines for many years. I have an undergraduate degee in Child Development, a Master's Degree in Earch Childhood Special Education, and a Ph.D. in Early Childhood Educatiohn/Early Childhood Special Education. I worked for many years in child care. I worked in special education. I now teach graduate courses at the University of Minnesota for students who are enrolled in the ECE/ECSE licensure program. This is why I acted like Fern was a liar about my connection to CPS. She was a liar, Greg. LaVonne Greg Hanson wrote: LaVonne? Do you work directly for the state of MN or as a contractor? Why did you act like Fern was a liar about your connection to CPS? Are you an heir to a large family estate?
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ADHD motivation technique | K C | General | 4 | March 19th 04 12:49 AM |
| Motivation needed | Leigh McCuen | Breastfeeding | 10 | February 26th 04 04:45 PM |
| Obsessive behavior in 4 year old | Michelle Spina | General | 99 | February 18th 04 05:45 AM |
Linear Mode
