If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:03:37 -0800, Doan wrote:
"Instrument of Child Torture"??? ;-) If you didn't think it was why not post the URL that takes you to the page where you can purchase it? It's not hard to find. Show us your neutrality. Intrument of torture? Absolutely. It is a hard barely flexible quarter to 3/8s inch thick rod of nylon in a full grip handle. I own one I use as an example. Would you care to be struck with it? I offer it to adults to try out on themselves at various intensity. They cannot handle even a light swing and can't believe someone would hit a child with it....not even spankers believe it is really what it's sold for and think I made it all up. I could send you to the sales site. It could be used to draw blood and leave permanent..that is...life long scaring. I've seen children hit with less have permanent damange. And yes, in the hands of some of the people you apologize for, an instrument of torture. When I discovered an add for this filth many years ago in an educational magazine not only did I buy it, I personally wrote to every state's attorneys general and every CPS ageny head in the country to alert them to this new piece of child beating visciousness. Do you think a child struck with this is being "spanked?" Watch him not answer or weasel folks. Smart assing is his best skill. Doan You should check out the sickening directions that come with it...sounds like a piece right out of Dobson...."child as enemy." Ms Lawrence has a copy on her wb site. And filled with unctuous vomit about striking the child, in the most painful manner, to express love. Right up your alley, Doan. Another opportunity for a parent to "make up their own mind," and show your neutrality. We are closing on you, Doan. You and your child hating cronies. Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture
Dear newsgroup participants:
One of the anti-spanking zealots named Kane says that there is a 22" long 3/8" nylon rod with a handle marketed through "Home School Digest" for "Biblical training". Kane wrote It is a hard barely flexible quarter to 3/8s inch thick rod of nylon in a full grip handle. I own one I use as an example. Kane, being the totalitarian anti-spanker that he is, is of course trying to pretend that this is in some way representative of parental spanking. In turn, he advocates for a law making it illegal for parents to administer ANY form of spanking. This would in turn allow Child Protection caseworkers who are already anti-spanking zealots, to REMOVE children from their homes for this parental offense. Kane is strongly identified with CPS caseworkers and is an atheist who sees religion as a tool. Kane's guru, Strauss, however, got caught at bogus numbers in his research and has since moved on to try to prove that all "psychological aggression" is harmful to children. I don't know yet for certain, but I suspect that even so much as saying "no!" would likely be termed "psychological aggression" either now or in the future. As I hope many of you can imagine, this could lead to a society much like that described in the book "Lord Of The Flies". Can any of you provide information on this "implement" supposedly sold through a "Home School Digest" for "Biblical Training" ? Spanking a child with ANY object is illegal in Iowa, and spanking a child with an implement like this is of course ALREADY illegal in almost every state in the US. Parental spanking of a child for discipline, is legal within state guidelines in all 50 states. Child Protective Services in all 50 states, however, has been found to be not in compliance with Federal Regulations, noteably some intended to safeguard families against abuses BY the Child Protection agencies. Citizen Review Boards over Child Protection removals do not exist in many states, despite the TEN YEAR OLD requirement. (Don't confuse with CRB's over Foster Care) Administrative Grievance process about problems with services were proscribed in 1983 and in several states these processes do not yet exist. For example, in many cases, Families have Services Plans ("hoops") IMPOSED upon them, whereas it is Federally Required that Families be allowed Active Participation in the FORMATION of Services Plans. My family was denied this even after numerous complaints and requests. Iowa denied us the Grievance process saying that since we were not denied services (despite our statement we were!) that we could not have this grievance process. If you read the below, you will see that refusing us this avenue of redress on these grounds does not conform to the 45 CFR 205.10 requirements. (Not to mention that we did request certain services and were denied.) If you think about that logic, by the way, the state agency is, in effect, saying that families can not complain about QUALITATIVE problems with services. In addition, this would prevent families from complaining about services applied without BASIS. It also prevented us from presenting evidence that one service provider committed paper FRAUD in their "treatment paln". These are all things the GRIEVANCE process certainly should be dealing with but are, according to Kevin Concannon of Iowa DHS, these services problems are not eligible for a GRIEVANCE hearing. A caseworker fabrication that I supposedly have a ""Sex Abuse History"" is a pretty horrible LIE. After they were shown paper proof that it is FALSE, their refusal to correct it for 2.5 years is culpable. Such a LIE is never "In the Child's Best Interest". Please help us regain control over the REAL Instrument of Child Torture, Child Protective Services agencies themselves. (See AFCARS data, Wallis v. Escondido) Please snip judiciously so as to avoid overquoting. Greg in Iowa "FAQ Sheet/PIQ Directive" www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm click on -Policy -Child Welfare Policy Manual -Title IV-B (also notice SACWIS info) -Programmatic requirements -Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair hearings... or just enter the following URL or web link http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...?citID=178#686 [ verbatim, but some text converted to capital letters for EMPHASIS ] 2. Question: Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair hearings for appeals related to services as well as financial claims? Answer: Yes. The regulations at 1355.30 (p)(2) provide that the procedures for hearings found in 45 CFR 205.10 shall apply to all programs funded under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. Fair hearings in relation to services as well as financial claims are therefore covered under this regulation. The Department believes that the close programmatic and fiscal relationship between titles IV-E and IV-B makes a fair hearings requirement appropriate. The process for fair hearings under section 205.10 is ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FOR SERVICES HEARINGS AS FOR FINANCIAL HEARINGS. However, because the substantive portion of the regulations provides no examples of service issues, the State has the option of modifying the context of the hearing to ACCOMODATE SERVICES PROGRAM COMPLAINTS. The hearing process under either situation requires that recipients be advised of their RIGHT TO A HEARING, that they may be represented by an authorized representative, and that there be a timely notice of the date and place of the hearing. The following paragraphs, excerpted from the now obsolete section 1392.11, may be used as guidance for the hearings related to services issues. "The State must have a provision for a fair hearing, under which applicants and recipients may appeal DENIAL OF OR EXCLUSION FROM A SERVICE PROGRAM, FAILURE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF RECIPIENT CHOICE OF SERVICE or a DETERMINATION THAT THE INDIVIDUALS MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE SERVICE PROGRAM. The results of appeals must be formally recorded and all applicants and recipients must be advised of their right to appeal and the procedures for such appeal. THERE MUST BE A SYSTEM THROUGH WHICH RECIPIENTS MAY PRESENT GRIEVANCES ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE SERVICE PROGRAM." Examples of service issues in title IV-B that might result in a grievance or request for a hearing include: Agency failure to offer or provide APPROPRIATE PRE-PLACEMENT PREVENTATIVE SERVICES or REUNIFICATION SERVICES; Agency may not have placed child in the most FAMILY-LIKE setting in close proximity to his parents; Parents were not INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHTS to participate in periodic administrative reviews; Agency failed to provide services AGREED to in case plan; A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC SERVICE IS DENIED or NOT ACTED UPON; and Agency failure to carry out terms of adoption assistance agreements. Source/Date: ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04 (10/26/83) ------------------------------- I know if you read this law it might not LOOK like it applies to services directed by a Child Protection agency, but if you look at the "PIQ Directive" above you will see that indeed this law IS to be used for Administrative Grievance Hearings regarding services in Child Protection cases and involving state care of children. Long link wraps around, may need to be pieced together. Link tested December 25, 2003 and working. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...00&TYP E=TEXT [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 45, Volume 2, Parts 200 to 499] [Revised as of October 1, 2000] From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 45CFR205.10] [Page 20-24] TITLE 45--PUBLIC WELFARE CHAPTER II--OFFICE OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE (ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS), ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PART 205--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION--PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS--Table of Contents Sec. 205.10 Hearings. (a) State plan requirements. A State plan under title I, IV-A, X, XIV, or XVI(AABD) of the Social Security Act shall provide for a system of hearings under which: (1) The single State agency responsible for the program shall be responsible for fulfillment of hearing provisions which shall provide for: (i) A hearing before the State agency, or (ii) An evidentiary hearing at the local level with a right of appeal to a State agency hearing. Where a State agency adopts a system of evidentiary hearings with an appeal to a State agency hearing, it may, in some political subdivisions, permit local evidentiary hearings, and in others, provide for a single hearing before the State agency. Under this requirement hearings shall meet the due process standards set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) and the standards set forth in this section. (2) Hearing procedures shall be issued and publicized by the State agency. Such procedures shall provide for a face-to-face hearing or, at State option, a hearing by telephone when the applicant or recipient also agrees. Under this provision, the State shall assure that the applicant or recipient is afforded all rights as specified in this section, whether the hearing is face-to-face or by telephone; (3) Every applicant or recipient shall be informed in writing at the time of application and at the time of any action affecting his claim: (i) Of his right to a hearing, as provided in paragraph (a)(5) of this section; (ii) Of the method by which he may obtain a hearing; (iii) That he may be represented by an authorized representative, such as legal counsel, relative, friend, or other spokesman, or he may represent himself. (4) In cases of intended action to discontinue, terminate, suspend or reduce assistance or to change the manner or form of payment to a protective, vendor, or two-party payment under Sec. 234.60: [[Page 21]] (i) The State or local agency shall give timely and adequate notice, except as provided for in paragraphs (a)(4) (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section. Under this requirement: (A) Timely means that the notice is mailed at least 10 days before the date of action, that is, the date upon which the action would become effective; (B) Adequate means a written notice that includes a statement of what action the agency intends to take, the reasons for the intended agency action, the specific regulations supporting such action, explanation of the individual's right to request an evidentiary hearing (if provided) and a State agency hearing, the circumstances under which assistance is continued if a hearing is requested, and if the agency action is upheld, that such assistance must be repaid under title IV-A, and must also be repaid under titles I, X, XIV or XVI (AABD) if the State plan provides for recovery of such payments. (ii) The agency may dispense with timely notice but shall send adequate notice not later than the date of action when: (A) The agency has factual information confirming the death of a recipient or of the AFDC payee when there is no relative available to serve as new payee; (B) The agency receives a clear written statement signed by a recipient that he no longer wishes assistance, or that gives information which requires termination or reduction of assistance, and the recipient has indicated, in writing, that he understands that this must be the consequence of supplying such information; (C) The recipient has been admitted or committed to an institution, and further payments to that individual do not qualify for Federal financial participation under the State plan; (D) The recipient has been placed in skilled nursing care, intermediate care or long-term hospitalization; (E) The claimant's whereabouts are unknown and agency mail directed to him has been returned by the post office indicating no known forwarding address. The claimant's check must, however, be made available to him if his whereabouts become known during the payment period covered by a returned check; (F) A recipient has been accepted for assistance in a new jurisdiction and that fact has been established by the jurisdiction previously providing assistance; (G) An AFDC child is removed from the home as a result of a judicial determination, or voluntarily placed in foster care by his legal guardian; (H) For AFDC, the agency takes action because of information the recipient furnished in a monthly report or because the recipient has failed to submit a complete or a timely monthly report without good cause. (See Sec. 233.37); (I) A special allowance granted for a specific period is terminated and the recipient has been informed in writng at the time of initiation that the allowance shall automatically terminate at the end of the specified period; (J) The agency has made a presumption of mismanagement as a result of a recipient's nonpayment of rent and provides for post hearings in such circumstances; (K) An individual's payment is suspended or reduced for failure to meet a payment after performance obligation as set forth at Sec. 233.101(b)(2)(iv) (B) or (C) of this chapter. In addition to the contents set forth in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section, the adequate notice must advise the individual of the right to have assistance immediately reinstated retroactive to the date of action at the previous month's level pending the hearing decision if he or she makes a request for a hearing and reinstatement within 10 days after the date of the notice. (iii) When changes in either State or Federal law require automatic grant adjustments for classes of recipients, timely notice of such grant adjustments shall be given which shall be ``adequate'' if it includes a statement of the intended action, the reasons for such intended action, a statement of the specific change in law requiring such action and a statement of the circumstances under which a hearing may be obtained and assistance continued. (iv) When the agency obtains facts indicating that assistance should be discontinued, suspended, terminated, or reduced because of the probable [[Page 22]] fraud of the recipient, and, where possible, such facts have been verified through collateral sources, notice of such grant adjustment shall be timely if mailed at least five (5) days before action would become effective. (5) An opportunity for a hearing shall be granted to any applicant who requests a hearing because his or her claim for financial assistance (including a request for supplemental payments under Secs. 233.23 and 233.27) is denied, or is not acted upon with reasonable promptness, and to any recipient who is aggrieved by any agency action resulting in suspension, reduction, discontinuance, or termination of assistance, or determination that a protective, vendor, or two-party payment should be made or continued. A hearing need not be granted when either State or Federal law requires automatic grant adjustments for classes of recipients unless the reason for an individual appeal is incorrect grant computation. (i) A request for a hearing is defined as a clear expression by the claimant (or his authorized representative acting for him), to the effect that he wants the opportunity to present his case to higher authority. The State may require that such request be in written form in order to be effective; (ii) The freedom to make such a request shall not be limited or interfered with in any way. The agency may assist the claimant to submit and process his request; (iii) The claimant shall be provided reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days, in which to appeal an agency action; (iv) Agencies may respond to a series of individual requests for hearing by conducting a single group hearing. Agencies may consolidate only cases in which the sole issue involved is one of State or Federal law or policy or changes in State or Federal law. In all group hearings, the policies governing hearings must be followed. Thus, each individual claimant shall be permitted to present his own case or be represented by his authorized representative; (v) The agency may deny or dismiss a request for a hearing where it has been withdrawn by the claimant in writing, where the sole issue is one of State or Federal law requiring automatic grant adjustments for classes of recipients, where a decision has been rendered after a WIN hearing before the manpower agency that a participant has, without good cause, refused to accept employment or participate in the WIN program, or has failed to request such a hearing after notice of intended action for such refusal, or where it is abandoned. Abandonment may be deemed to have occurred if the claimant, without good cause therefor, fails to appear by himself or by authorized representative at the hearing scheduled for such claimant. (6) If the recipient requests a hearing within the timely notice period: (i) Assistance shall not be suspended, reduced, discontinued or terminated (but is subject to recovery by the agency if its action is sustained), until a decision is rendered after a hearing, unless: (A) A determination is made at the hearing that the sole issue is one of State or Federal law or policy, or change in State or Federal law and not one of incorrect grant computation; (B) A change affecting the recipient's grant occurs while the hearing decision is pending and the recipient fails to request a hearing after notice of the change; (C) The recipient specifically requests that he or she not receive continued assistance pending a hearing decision; or (D) The agency has made a presumption of mismanagement as a result of a recipient's nonpayment of rent and provides for the opportunity for a hearing after the manner or form of payment has been changed for such cases in accordance with Sec. 234.60 (a)(2) and (a)(11). (ii) The agency shall promptly inform the claimant in writing if assistance is to be discontinued pending the hearing decision; and (iii) In any case where the decision of an evidentiary hearing is adverse to the claimant, he shall be informed of and afforded the right to make a written request, within 15 days of the mailing of the notification of such adverse decision, for a State agency hearing and of his right to request a de novo hearing. Unless a de novo hearing is specifically requested by the appellant, [[Page 23]] the State agency hearing may consist of a review by the State agency hearing officer of the record of the evidentiary hearing to determine whether the decision of the evidentiary hearing officer was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Assistance shall not be continued after an adverse decision to the claimant at the evidentiary hearing. (7) A State may provide that a hearing request made after the date of action (but during a period not in excess of 10 days following such date) shall result in reinstatement of assistance to be continued until the hearing decision, unless (i) the recipient specifically requests that continued assistance not be paid pending the hearing decision; or (ii) at the hearing it is determined that the sole issue is one of State or Federal law or policy. In any case where action was taken without timely notice, if the recipient requests a hearing within 10 days of the mailing of the notice of the action, and the agency determines that the action resulted from other than the application of State or Federal law or policy or a change in State or Federal law, assistance shall be reinstated and continued until a decision is rendered after the hearing, unless the recipient specifically requests that continued assistance not be paid pending the hearing decision. (8) The hearing shall be conducted at a reasonable time, date, and place, and adequate preliminary written notice shall be given. (9) Hearings shall be conducted by an impartial official (officials) or designee of the agency. Under this requirement, the hearing official (officials) or designee shall not have been directly involved in the initial determination of the action in question. (10) When the hearing involves medical issues such as those concerning a diagnosis, an examining physician's report, or a medical review team's decision, a medical assessment other than that of the person or persons involved in making the original decision shall be obtained at agency expense and made part of the record if the hearing officer considers it necessary. (11) In respect to title IV-C, when the appeal has been taken on the basis of a disputed WIN registration requirement, exemption determination or finding of failure to appear for an appraisal interview, a representative of the local WIN manpower agency shall, where appropriate, participate in the conduct of the hearing. (12) The hearing shall include consideration of: (i) An agency action, or failure to act with reasonable promptness, on a claim for financial assistance, which includes undue delay in reaching a decision on eligibility or in making a payment, refusal to consider a request for or undue delay in making an adjustment in payment, and discontinuance, termination or reduction of such assistance; (ii) Agency decision regarding: (A) Eligibility for financial assistance in both initial and subsequent determinations, (B) Amount of financial assistance or change in payments, (C) The manner or form of payment, including restricted or protective payments, even though no Federal financial participation is claimed. (13) The claimant, or his representative, shall have adequate opportunity: (i) To examine the contents of his case file and all documents and records to be used by the agency at the hearing at a reasonable time before the date of the hearing as well as during the hearing; (ii) At his option, to present his case himself or with the aid of an authorized representative; (iii) To bring witnesses; (iv) To establish all pertinent facts and circumstances; (v) To advance any arguments without undue interference; (vi) To question or refute any testimony or evidence, including opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. (14) Recommendations or decisions of the hearing officer or panel shall be based exclusively on evidence and other material introduced at the hearing. The transcript or recording of testimony and exhibits, or an official report containing the substance of what transpired at the hearing, together with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding, and the recommendation or decision of the hearing officer or [[Page 24]] panel shall constitute the exclusive record and shall be available to the claimant at a place accessible to him or his representative at a reasonable time. (15) Decisions by the hearing authority shall: (i) In the event of an evidentiary hearing, consist of a memorandum decision summarizing the facts and identifying the regulations supporting the decision; (ii) In the event of a State agency de novo hearing, specify the reasons for the decision and identify the supporting evidence and regulations. Under this requirement no persons who participated in the local decision being appealed shall participate in a final administrative decision on such a case. (16) Prompt, definitive, and final administrative action shall be taken within 90 days from the date of the request for a hearing. (17) The claimant shall be notified of the decision in writing and, to the extent it is available to him, of his right to appeal to State agency hearing or judicial review. (18) When the hearing decision is favorable to the claimant, or when the agency decides in favor of the claimant prior to the hearing, the agency shall promptly make corrective payments retroactively to the date the incorrect action was taken. (19) All State agency hearing decisions shall be accessible to the public (subject to provisions of safeguarding public assistance information). (b) Federal financial participation. Federal financial participation is available for the following items: (1) Payments of assistance continued pending a hearing decision. (2) Payments of assistance made to carry out hearing decisions, or to take corrective action after an appeal but prior to hearing, or to extend the benefit of a hearing decision or court order to others in the same situation as those directly affected by the decision or order. Such payments may be retroactive in accordance with applicable Federal policies on corrective payments. (3) Payments of assistance within the scope of Federally aided public assistance programs made in accordance with a court order. (4) Administrative costs incurred by the agency for: (i) Providing transportation for the claimant, his representative and witnesses to and from the place of the hearing; (ii) Meeting other expenditures incurred by the claimant in connection with the hearing; (iii) Carrying out the hearing procedures, including expenses of obtaining an additional medical assessment. [38 FR 22007, Aug. 15, 1973, as amended at 44 FR 17941, Mar. 23, 1979; 45 FR 20480, Mar. 28, 1980; 47 FR 5673, Feb. 5, 1982; 47 FR 47827, Oct. 28, 1982; 51 FR 9202, Mar. 18, 1986; 53 FR 36579, Sept. 21, 1988; 57 FR 30425, July 9, 1992] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture
"Greg Hanson" wrote in message om... Dear newsgroup participants: snip Please snip judiciously so as to avoid overquoting. snip Greg in Iowa |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture
On 25 Dec 2003 06:39:06 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote: Dear newsgroup participants: One of the anti-spanking zealots named Kane says that there is a 22" long 3/8" nylon rod with a handle marketed through "Home School Digest" for "Biblical training". Not only do I say so, I provide the link to three websites that comfirm it. And on one it uses the product flyer to give the dimensions and components. Kane wrote It is a hard barely flexible quarter to 3/8s inch thick rod of nylon in a full grip handle. I own one I use as an example. All of which is correct. Kane, being the totalitarian anti-spanker that he is, is of course trying to pretend that this is in some way representative of parental spanking. It is sold for, and obiously purchased (My first encounter was five years ago), for exactly that purpose. Although I do NOT recall using the world "spanking" to describe the use of this instrument of torture. It falls well within the parental definition of an acceptable use of corporal punishment. In turn, he advocates for a law making it illegal for parents to administer ANY form of spanking. You are either misinformed or a liar. I think both definitions cover you well. I have specifically stated my intent is to do everything I know how to avoid what is most likely inevitable if the spanking in all it's forms does not diminish. And that is to encourage and educate so that people will voluntarily chose a non-pain parenting approach. This would in turn allow Child Protection caseworkers who are already anti-spanking zealots, to REMOVE children from their homes for this parental offense. I know a number of CPS workers who with their own children use CP for discipline. You are lying yet again. What they will do is, under the laws of their various states, remove children that have marks or injuries related to CP of any kind. Kane is strongly identified with CPS caseworkers Well, some like me and then some don't, but few fail to respect me. and is an atheist who sees religion as a tool. I am an atheist. How would you know what I see religion as? Kane's guru, Strauss, I have repeatedly stated that I am not a follower of studies as a way to answer definitively the questions around the issue of spanking. I'm not sure Straus if for that matter. It's, like all research and human inquiry, is an ongoing process. however, got caught at bogus numbers in his research and has since moved on to try to prove that all "psychological aggression" is harmful to children. I don't believe the former is true, while the latter makes sense for a researcher looking into the effects of various parenting methods on children. What would you think his next research project would be, watermelon cultivation? I don't know yet for certain, Oh, you can be certain you don't know. but I suspect that even so much as saying "no!" would likely be termed "psychological aggression" either now or in the future. The context would be the determining factor. Age of child, the setting and activities underway, frequency, tone, intensity. But then you phonies love to avoid context and rant your little rants. As I hope many of you can imagine, this could lead to a society much like that described in the book "Lord Of The Flies". Well, I've been watching folks bring up LOTF a few times trying to link the behaviors of the children to non-spanking, and I've waited patiently to see if any of you have actually read the book. In fact the story begins with a group of island marooned English schoolboys, one of the more notoriously switched, paddled, humiliated and otherwise mistreated child demographics. Do you wish to continue to use them of an example of non-cp outcomes? Can any of you provide information on this "implement" supposedly sold through a "Home School Digest" for "Biblical Training" ? What are you fishing for? Do you really think the people that use The Rod are going to come to this ng and confess? Please. Spanking a child with ANY object is illegal in Iowa, Could you cite the law please. I believe Iowa statutes are online. For instance, here is the PDF of an Iowa form for use by a citizen to make a report of abuse...spanking is specifically covered, yet "objects" are NOT. Care to explain: http://tinyurl.com/3c7ll or http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/policyana...s/470-3789.pdf I find this one even more interesting in light of your complaint that a service plan was created without participation of "the family." http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/policyana...s/470-3239.pdf From one of Q&As on the form: "WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF I DON'T COOPERATE? If the child protection worker cannot talk to you or your family members about the incident reported, the assessment will have to be completed without information which only you can provide regarding the alleged abuse and regarding your family' strengths and concerns." This goes directly to Iowa law apparently, that if you don't "cooperate," as you have so proudly made known you unwillingness to do, the worker has to ("will have to be completed") make a report anyway without your input. R R R So THAT'S why there was a service plan without participation. and spanking a child with an implement like this is of course ALREADY illegal in almost every state in the US. "Implements" are not named in many states, yet there are parents that would use similar instruments on children and consider it acceptable CP. Parental spanking of a child for discipline, is legal within state guidelines in all 50 states. One state does NOT specifically protect the parent. Guess which one. So now please continue your argument that The Rod and its presence on scene have some CPS vs parent issues. Child Protective Services in all 50 states, however, has been found to be not in compliance with Federal Regulations, noteably some intended to safeguard families against abuses BY the Child Protection agencies. How did I know you were going to switch tracks? R R R Citizen Review Boards over Child Protection removals do not exist in many states, Which ones. despite the TEN YEAR OLD requirement. (Don't confuse with CRB's over Foster Care) Please cite the section and paragraph in Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) PL 105-89 (1997)where that is required by law. Or possibly you are thinking of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA), P.L. 93-247, 88 Stat. 4, 42 U.S.C. §§5101-5107. For instance, under CAPTA one must read carefully to determine the requirement of the state to do as you claim: "Under federal law, each state, in order to receive funding under the Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants Program of Title I, must establish Citizen Review Panels. These Panels are charged with providing oversight of child protective services (CPS) at both a state and local level. The federal legislation uses very general language in establishing both a scope of responsibility for the Panels and specific operational requirements." Note that this, and often many mandates by the Feds, are worded ("in order to receive funding under....etc.")so that the states can do as they wish if they are willing to forgo particular funding streams. And you can bet the states pick and choose. Possibly Iowa and other states choose to NOT avail themselves of Title I funding. Administrative Grievance process about problems with services were proscribed in 1983 and in several states these processes do not yet exist. For example, in many cases, Families have Services Plans ("hoops") IMPOSED upon them, whereas it is Federally Required that Families be allowed Active Participation in the FORMATION of Services Plans. Please post the Federal requirement(s). Here, for instance, is one interpretation, that I have found consistent from state to state...note carefully, where I've placed the "****," that there are at least two approaches to Service Plans, one being to involve the family, and the other simply to inform the family of the requirements they must meet...kinda shoots your ASSumptions right in the ... well, you know. In a comment on Service Plans at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/fostercare-r...1/chapter2.htm "............... Rather than having the caseworker serve as the expert to determine what the family needs to do, the family is encouraged to come up with plans for what needs to be done. In practice, family conferencing programs vary in the extent to which families are empowered to come up with their own solutions. ****In some localities, family conferencing is a means to inform families about the permanency planning process, what is expected from the family, and what the repercussions will be if problems are not remedied in a timely fashion (i.e., the termination of parental rights).**** In other areas, family members are expected to participate fully in the design of the intervention and service plan to provide an environment where the child can one day return home. Ideally, family conferences are used throughout the service process to evaluate progress and make new plans as necessary. Supporters of family conferencing believe that it is effective because it identifies additional supportive resources for the parent and child, helps to break down the sometimes adversarial relationship between child welfare staff and family so that all are working toward a common goal, and serves to give the family notice of the consequences of inaction on the part of the parent." So, Greegor....so you see a federal LW in that? Notice at the bottom of the page where this web site originates. My family was denied this even after numerous complaints and requests. Your 'family' was denied most likely because of YOU and your slimy handprints all over the family. Do you think social workers can't spot a "User" in a split second? Your underestimation of other people is legend here, and I'd bet there as well. Iowa denied us the Grievance process saying that since we were not denied services (despite our statement we were!) that we could not have this grievance process. What "services" were you denied? You blew one righteously...and that was likely quite enough to negate ANY responsibility of the state to your or "your family." That IS all it takes, smart ass. Just the hint of unwillingness to cooperate and the entire show is down the ****ter. Nice going there "family" man. If you read the below, you will see that refusing us this avenue of redress on these grounds does not conform to the 45 CFR 205.10 requirements. (Not to mention that we did request certain services and were denied.) Like storing YOUR personal **** at state expense, or having the state collect the overdue child support from the little girl's father to be used for the same thing? If you think about that logic, by the way, the state agency is, in effect, saying that families can not complain about QUALITATIVE problems with services. You can complain all you want...you are NOT a family member, despite your bull**** to the contrary. When you marry the mother you've got a start, then adopt the child...you will THEN be a family member and related to the girl. In addition you have never answered this question: is the child Title IV-E eligible? If not YOUR case doesn't fall under ASFA or any other guidelines you so kindly quoted below that is ALL ABOUT FUNDING. Call Iowa. Ask if they have to follow ASFA in cases that are NOT IV-E eligible. State law yes, federal law, NO dumbass. In addition, this would prevent families from complaining about services applied without BASIS. They are probably constrained from using language referring to a "whiner" but basically you qualify. They can drop whiners on their asses instantly through a series of laws and case law findings. Don't you think they KNOW that kind of thing ahead of time? Do you think you are the first good-for-nothing freeloader they've run across? It also prevented us from presenting evidence that one service provider committed paper FRAUD in their "treatment paln". Awwww...what "paper FRAUD" would that be, Greefor the Whiner? These are all things the GRIEVANCE process certainly should be dealing with but are, according to Kevin Concannon of Iowa DHS, these services problems are not eligible for a GRIEVANCE hearing. Yep. Just like I said. If the child isn't IV-E eligible and or the state of Iowa doesn't give a **** for Title I funding you can go **** up a rope for all he cares. A caseworker fabrication that I supposedly have a ""Sex Abuse History"" is a pretty horrible LIE. Sure would like to have access to all the paperwork involved. After they were shown paper proof that it is FALSE, their refusal to correct it for 2.5 years is culpable. What do you mean by "correct?" Remove the allegation? Not hardly. They can and will leave it there, along with the "shower" reports, just in case. If you gave them a copy of the "paper proof" they'll keep that too, and likely check up on the veracity of said proof. Such a LIE is never "In the Child's Best Interest". On the contrary. Unless the "LIE" is proven a lie in a court of law they are remiss to dismiss it themselves. They are NOT required to make a judgement, but to build a case and fill up a case record. Please help us regain control over the REAL Instrument of Child Torture, Child Protective Services agencies themselves. (See AFCARS data, Wallis v. Escondido) Which "us" are you begging for help for? YOU? Please snip judiciously so as to avoid overquoting. Sure, bubbah, but I want to be sure and not miss a thing. Greg in Iowa "FAQ Sheet/PIQ Directive" www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm click on -Policy -Child Welfare Policy Manual -Title IV-B (also notice SACWIS info) -Programmatic requirements -Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair hearings... or just enter the following URL or web link http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...?citID=178#686 [ verbatim, but some text converted to capital letters for EMPHASIS ] Verbatim, but watch for where I insert **** 2. Question: Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair hearings for appeals related to services as well as financial claims? Answer: Yes. The regulations at 1355.30 (p)(2) provide that the procedures for hearings found in 45 CFR 205.10 shall apply to all programs funded under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. Fair hearings in relation to services as well as financial claims are therefore covered under this regulation. The Department believes that the close programmatic and fiscal relationship between titles IV-E and IV-B makes a fair hearings requirement appropriate. The process for fair hearings under section 205.10 is ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FOR SERVICES HEARINGS AS FOR FINANCIAL HEARINGS. However, because the substantive portion of the regulations provides no examples of service issues, the State has the option of modifying the context of the hearing to ACCOMODATE SERVICES PROGRAM COMPLAINTS. Oh, they do do they? Imagine...the state has the option. Shucks. The hearing process under either situation requires that recipients be advised of their RIGHT TO A HEARING, that they may be represented by an authorized representative, and that there be a timely notice of the date and place of the hearing. If the state has exercised its "option." Were you not advised of your right to a hearing? Did you read everything the mother signed? Did she even give you everything? The following paragraphs, excerpted from the now obsolete section 1392.11, may be used as guidance for the hearings related to services issues. "The State must have a provision for a fair hearing, under which applicants and recipients may appeal DENIAL OF OR EXCLUSION FROM A SERVICE PROGRAM, FAILURE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF RECIPIENT CHOICE OF SERVICE or a DETERMINATION THAT THE INDIVIDUALS MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE SERVICE PROGRAM. The results of appeals must be formally recorded and all applicants and recipients must be advised of their right to appeal and the procedures for such appeal. THERE MUST BE A SYSTEM THROUGH WHICH RECIPIENTS MAY PRESENT GRIEVANCES ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE SERVICE PROGRAM." Examples of service issues in title IV-B that might result in a grievance or request for a hearing include: Agency failure to offer or provide APPROPRIATE PRE-PLACEMENT PREVENTATIVE SERVICES or REUNIFICATION SERVICES; Agency may not have placed child in the most FAMILY-LIKE setting in close proximity to his parents; Parents were not INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHTS to participate in periodic administrative reviews; Agency failed to provide services AGREED to in case plan; A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC SERVICE IS DENIED or NOT ACTED UPON; and Agency failure to carry out terms of adoption assistance agreements. So which of the above, or any others you imagine, did the state fail to provide? Source/Date: ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04 (10/26/83) ------------------------------- I know if you read this law it might not LOOK like it applies to services directed by a Child Protection agency, but if you look at the "PIQ Directive" above you will see that indeed this law IS to be used for Administrative Grievance Hearings regarding services in Child Protection cases and involving state care of children. If you haven't blown your right to a hearing by refusing to perform parts or all of the service plan. Which one's did you screw up again? I forget. Long link wraps around, may need to be pieced together. Link tested December 25, 2003 and working. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...00&TYP E=TEXT snip............ Before the reader exhausts him or herself under the deluge of manure you are prone to spread let me familarize you with your own situation and why little or possibly NONE of your whining applies: The state can, if it so deems, refuse to do anything other than the barest of protective services. Why? Because they see a non-family member the parent is unwilling to schuck themself of intruding in the case. When your "SO" wakes up and kicks your worthless ass OUT the state can be held accountable then and only then to all these laws and policies. YOU are the problem for "your family" Greegor, because you are NOT FAMILY, ASSHOLE. Not by state law in Iowa. You are a millstone around the neck of the stupid mother. And YOU are terrified to let her come here and read what you have writen and our replies. Introduce us to your "SO" Greegor. In the words of your new butt buddy: I double dare you. You are a **** faced lying scumbag that is living off someone else's loss and pain. And you love it because it makes you feel more important than you are. That's what brings you to this newsgroup. The sense of importance you derive out of the mess you have made of someone else's life and all the people that are ****ed off at you for it. I am wrapping my present to you...20 feet of 3/4 inch hemp rope. Use it in good health. Where may I post the package too please? Kane |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture
Kane wrote
Not only do I say so, I provide the link to three websites that comfirm it. And on one it uses the product flyer to give the dimensions and components. The only link I saw you post on this was one to a no-spank propaganda site. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Help Eliminate an Instrument of Child Torture
"Greg Hanson" wrote in message om... Kane wrote Not only do I say so, I provide the link to three websites that comfirm it. And on one it uses the product flyer to give the dimensions and components. The only link I saw you post on this was one to a no-spank propaganda site. No one ever claimed you were the sharpest knife in the drawer... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chemically beating children: THOR to hammer fluoridation finally? | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 18 | July 25th 04 05:31 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 142 | November 16th 03 07:46 PM |
A Plant's Motivation? | Kane | Spanking | 44 | October 16th 03 01:51 PM |
'Horrible' Home | Kane | General | 1 | July 16th 03 02:29 AM |