A Plant's Motivation?

So,

What makes The Plant give advice to parents who come to these ngs for
help that will cause them MORE pain?

Why does The Plant fumble and flounder about like an Alzheimer's
victim never quite getting It's story straight?

Does The Plant have a money interest in the issues facing families and
agencies working with them?

Does it get fees for its posting here?

Does The Plant receive any state sponsored or paid benefits?

Has The Plant a relative, A Sprout perhaps, that screwed up so badly
It Too had an interaction with CPS?

Has The Plant had such an encounter Itself?

In that fateful encounter in childhood that The Plant has difficutly
remembering did It's father catch it and spank it, or is The Plant
another unspanked child who was spoiled by its parent into the current
lackluster, hapless, good for nothing The Plant appears to be?

Could it be the Father not only caught The Plant as a child and did
spank It, but did so many times, give that The Plant is unable to
clearly remember this incident, there could be others...many,
including beatings, possibly OTHER abuses It cannot "remember" either.

Did the parent protect The Plant from others who might harm It? What
is the mystery of The Plant's childhood then?

Is The Plant doing anything at all to actually help reform CPS or to
help families get their children back?

These and many other important questions remain to be answered.

The Plant won't answer them honestly, so it looks like someone who
knows the Plant will have to dig up the Dirt. Someone NOT connected to
the many organizations The Plant pimps for. Someone NOT an anti CPS
clone, sockpuppet, or other kind of loser...that let's you out,
Dennis, and more especially that all time winner, retire the do
nothing trophy, hapless twit, Greg.

Can it be done? Possibly Duplicitous Doug will step forward in It's
behalf. Risking of course, that I already KNOW what The Plant's story
really is and will blow his ass even more completely out of the water
than in the past when he lies or repeats lies he's been told.

The mystery.

What then, is A Plant's Motivation?

Kane

Kane,

I try very hard not to label people or use disrespectful names. I'd like
to replace "The Plant" with "Fern." Fern, can you address these
questions?

LaVonne

Kane wrote:

So,

What makes The Plant give advice to parents who come to these ngs for
help that will cause them MORE pain?

Why does The Plant fumble and flounder about like an Alzheimer's
victim never quite getting It's story straight?

Does The Plant have a money interest in the issues facing families and
agencies working with them?

Does it get fees for its posting here?

Does The Plant receive any state sponsored or paid benefits?

Has The Plant a relative, A Sprout perhaps, that screwed up so badly
It Too had an interaction with CPS?

Has The Plant had such an encounter Itself?

In that fateful encounter in childhood that The Plant has difficutly
remembering did It's father catch it and spank it, or is The Plant
another unspanked child who was spoiled by its parent into the current
lackluster, hapless, good for nothing The Plant appears to be?

Could it be the Father not only caught The Plant as a child and did
spank It, but did so many times, give that The Plant is unable to
clearly remember this incident, there could be others...many,
including beatings, possibly OTHER abuses It cannot "remember" either.

Did the parent protect The Plant from others who might harm It? What
is the mystery of The Plant's childhood then?

Is The Plant doing anything at all to actually help reform CPS or to
help families get their children back?

These and many other important questions remain to be answered.

The Plant won't answer them honestly, so it looks like someone who
knows the Plant will have to dig up the Dirt. Someone NOT connected to
the many organizations The Plant pimps for. Someone NOT an anti CPS
clone, sockpuppet, or other kind of loser...that let's you out,
Dennis, and more especially that all time winner, retire the do
nothing trophy, hapless twit, Greg.

Can it be done? Possibly Duplicitous Doug will step forward in It's
behalf. Risking of course, that I already KNOW what The Plant's story
really is and will blow his ass even more completely out of the water
than in the past when he lies or repeats lies he's been told.

The mystery.

What then, is A Plant's Motivation?

Kane

LaVonne said
I try very hard not to label people or use disrespectful
names. I'd like to replace "The Plant" with "Fern." Fern,
can you address these questions?

You try not to swear and whitewash like Kane?
But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?

Any point he makes is fruit of a poison tree.

Kane is so rabidly hateful of bio parents because
he feels his bio parents let him down and his adoptive
parents rescued him. The odd part of this is that
this story doesn't fit well given Kane's supposed age.
If he is indeed middle 40's, he was raised in the
late 50's or through the 60's, before Mondale wrote CAPTA.

Back in that era, there basically WAS NO Child Protection.

Yet he acts like he knows how it is, based on his own
experience from 30 plus years ago.

If some questions are to be answered, perhaps these
glaring inconsistencies about Kane should be answered.

Momentarily acting civilized does not make the length
and breadth of Kane's intent to smear and insult go away.
He swore a blue streak in ascps for over a year!
Despite his pretense at some sort of intellectual
superiority, his tactics of name calling, swearing and
smear abound in the newsgroup archive.
Where were you with your civilized amelioration when
he posted this large body of work?
No, you can not apologize FOR Kane.
He hangs around your neck like an albatross.

Kane tried using the old
"My buddy the psychologist says you're nutz" gambit.

Been done before.

The nature of newsgroups is such that smearing people
is much easier than getting such stuff corrected.
Even correcting information loses out to sheer volume
of posting, and the determination of a poster to
post incorrect information.

Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the
childs stated age correct, referring to the child many
times as 6 when she was 7 and older throughout this.
I have pointed out the factual error, but they don't care.
They have since repeated the incorrect age repeatedly.

They have both tried to act like there was some
improper sexuality based only on minimal family
nakedness in the bathroom. One oddity is that Kane
revealed his almost nudist views of nakedness,
admitting he walked around with his adult male
privates exposed to young children.
I am much more conservative than that, yet what little
bit of "in passing" nakedness took place has been
blown up because DAN has some huge personal hangups.

Neither Dan nor Kane seems to care that CPS here
has never seen anything sexual to be an issue
in my families case.

When they compared me to Father Geoghan, I did
not see you object. Where was your civility then?

The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
communists. If are a moderate of their view and
speak up about their paranoia, expect to be vilified
or at least chastised. And the witch hunt proceeds.

The crusade to "save kids" gets a strong reaction,
and virtually NO reaction to make sure the
crusading ""child savers"" are not paranoid.

Nobody in the ChildAbuse Industry wants to speak up
and demand that false information needs to be corrected.
That would be seen as "in favor of child abusers".

Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
certainly worthy of question.

Do you not understand that?

There are a bunch of people in here who are
trying to defende themselves or our society from
unwarranted attacks from CPS. There is another
bunch in here who seems to want to assert that
all accused are guilty, just because they are
biological parents and they are accused.

People under attack and the attackers.

If the people under attack utter any offensive words,
it should be more understandeable than when the
other major faction insults and whitewashes.

Kane is not under attack.

He is connected with CPS. He first asserted that
he had a close relative who works for CPS. Later we
hear that he has experienced this from the inside,
as a child. The age he presents makes that dubious.
He had already shown that he hates bio-parents.
And he sad on a governing board over CPS.

How do you like those ethics?

My fiance' and I want our family back!

Kane is in here denying the WELL known faults of CPS.
He spews his hatred of bio-parents.
He calls us scum.

His good buddy Dan never publicly corrects him.

Ethics give way to some sick strategy for
newsgroup ""stature"".

But that's what smears are all about.

Keep in mind if you think that a parent is smearing
CPS, that an AGENCY has no civil rights, and that
you know very well that CPS does smear parents.

Like a lot of the caseworkers, Kane sees evil
child beating parents every time he sees a child.

Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
of the US Constitution. A basic Ethical contract
in our society.

I have personally talked to about 7 Social Workers, shown
them documentary proof, and asked about the ethical
responsibility of Social Workers to demand that known
false information in a Juvenile Court case be corrected.

Many acknowledge the problem.
None want to speak up about it.

So don't wonder why parents under attack are angry
and see CPS as a giant RACKET, an industry, a fraud, etc.

But look at Kane's posts.
He acts like he is the renaissance man. Some model.
He smears, slurs, demeans, insults, and what he seems
to think is reasoned discourse is just grandiose insult.

My personal view is that Dan and Kane have turned
this newsgroup into an insufferable mess so that
it is of no use to any parent falsely accused.
I asked Dan and Neal to stop fighting in here long ago.
Neal left. (And Dan acted triumphant! What a twit.)
Dan went from one flame war to another in here.
Apparently that is the only way Dan communicates.

The effect on many parents seeking help is that they
feel like CPS is watching anything they say in here,
and a few have had comments in here used in court
to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.
Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.
(Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
would simply demand that they bring the archive of
the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
all for lack of contextual setting.)

When things got a little sticky for Dan, Kane showed up.
And with the swearing and hostility, I am still not
convinced that Kane is not just Dan's sock puppet.

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
LaVonne said
I try very hard not to label people or use disrespectful
names. I'd like to replace "The Plant" with "Fern." Fern,
can you address these questions?

You try not to swear and whitewash like Kane?
But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?

Any point he makes is fruit of a poison tree.

Why is that?

Kane is so rabidly hateful of bio parents because
he feels his bio parents let him down and his adoptive
parents rescued him.

Where'd you get that info, Greg?

The odd part of this is that
this story doesn't fit well given Kane's supposed age.
If he is indeed middle 40's, he was raised in the
late 50's or through the 60's, before Mondale wrote CAPTA.

When did Kane claim he was in his mid-forties?

His SON may be in his forties...

Back in that era, there basically WAS NO Child Protection.

Yet he acts like he knows how it is, based on his own
experience from 30 plus years ago.

And thirty years of being in the business.

If some questions are to be answered, perhaps these
glaring inconsistencies about Kane should be answered.

Get yer facts sraight first, Greg, and then ask questions.

Momentarily acting civilized does not make the length
and breadth of Kane's intent to smear and insult go away.
He swore a blue streak in ascps for over a year!
Despite his pretense at some sort of intellectual
superiority, his tactics of name calling, swearing and
smear abound in the newsgroup archive.
Where were you with your civilized amelioration when
he posted this large body of work?

Amelioration?

Please explain.

No, you can not apologize FOR Kane.

No one's apologizing for Kane.

He hangs around your neck like an albatross.

Kane tried using the old
"My buddy the psychologist says you're nutz" gambit.

Been done before.

How many times, Greg?

The nature of newsgroups is such that smearing people
is much easier than getting such stuff corrected.

Which stuff?

Even correcting information loses out to sheer volume
of posting, and the determination of a poster to
post incorrect information.

Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the
childs stated age correct, referring to the child many
times as 6 when she was 7 and older throughout this.

Your girlfriend's daughter was never six?

I have pointed out the factual error, but they don't care.
They have since repeated the incorrect age repeatedly.

Brought to you from the Department of Redundancy Department.

They have both tried to act like there was some
improper sexuality based only on minimal family
nakedness in the bathroom. One oddity is that Kane
revealed his almost nudist views of nakedness,
admitting he walked around with his adult male
privates exposed to young children.
I am much more conservative than that, yet what little
bit of "in passing" nakedness took place has been
blown up because DAN has some huge personal hangups.

Yeah, I'm against non-related adult males being in the bathroom every time a
little girl needs to get out of the shower.

I'm against non-related adult males physically forcing little girls into the
shower.

I'm against non-related adult males forcing little girls to take cold
showers as punishment for wetting their pants.

Neither Dan nor Kane seems to care that CPS here
has never seen anything sexual to be an issue
in my families case.

Then why is there info about an earlier accusation of child sexual abuse
from a previous CPS investigation regarding YOU in yer girlfriend's case,
Greg?

When they compared me to Father Geoghan, I did
not see you object. Where was your civility then?

Who compared you to Father Geoghan?

And when?

The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
communists. If are a moderate of their view and
speak up about their paranoia, expect to be vilified
or at least chastised.

Is that a threat, Greg?

And the witch hunt proceeds.

The crusade to "save kids" gets a strong reaction,
and virtually NO reaction to make sure the
crusading ""child savers"" are not paranoid.

Nobody in the ChildAbuse Industry wants to speak up
and demand that false information needs to be corrected.
That would be seen as "in favor of child abusers".

Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
certainly worthy of question.

Do you not understand that?

There are a bunch of people in here who are
trying to defende themselves or our society from
unwarranted attacks from CPS. There is another
bunch in here who seems to want to assert that
all accused are guilty, just because they are
biological parents and they are accused.

Greg, you aren't a bioparent and you're the only one being accused of
maltreatment.

Your arguement doesn't hold water.

People under attack and the attackers.

If the people under attack utter any offensive words,
it should be more understandeable than when the
other major faction insults and whitewashes.

Kane is not under attack.

He is connected with CPS. He first asserted that
he had a close relative who works for CPS. Later we
hear that he has experienced this from the inside,
as a child. The age he presents makes that dubious.
He had already shown that he hates bio-parents.
And he sad on a governing board over CPS.

How do you like those ethics?

My fiance' and I want our family back!

Kane is in here denying the WELL known faults of CPS.

Kane loves to see CPS lose.

CPS loses for a very good reason... they deserve to lose.

He spews his hatred of bio-parents.

Not at all. He hates abusers.

He calls us scum.

You ARE scum, Greg.

His good buddy Dan never publicly corrects him.

Many times I've posted my displeasure in the words Kane chooses to use.

Ethics give way to some sick strategy for
newsgroup ""stature"".

You've got that backwards, Greg.

But that's what smears are all about.

Keep in mind if you think that a parent is smearing
CPS, that an AGENCY has no civil rights, and that
you know very well that CPS does smear parents.

Like a lot of the caseworkers, Kane sees evil
child beating parents every time he sees a child.

And you know that how, Greg?

Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
of the US Constitution.

"Parents see a fear of caseworkers... ???"

The trolly has left the tracks again, Greg.

A basic Ethical contract
in our society.

I have personally talked to about 7 Social Workers, shown
them documentary proof, and asked about the ethical
responsibility of Social Workers to demand that known
false information in a Juvenile Court case be corrected.

Show yer proof to the psych evaluator and get it into evidence.

Many acknowledge the problem.
None want to speak up about it.

So don't wonder why parents under attack are angry
and see CPS as a giant RACKET, an industry, a fraud, etc.

But look at Kane's posts.
He acts like he is the renaissance man. Some model.
He smears, slurs, demeans, insults, and what he seems
to think is reasoned discourse is just grandiose insult.

Kane believes he insults the people who DESERVE to be insulted.

My personal view is that Dan and Kane have turned
this newsgroup into an insufferable mess so that
it is of no use to any parent falsely accused.

It was an "insufferable mess" before I got here.

No one ever got their children back from FC.

And when the first one did whatsisname chastized the woman for not fighting
"for society!!!!!"

Yeah, all she did was get her three kids back.

And then David and Amy Carl got their five kids back.

Chuck got his daughter back the day before her first birthday.

Quite the "insufferable mess."

I asked Dan and Neal to stop fighting in here long ago.
Neal left.

Hoo-FREAKIN-rayyyyyy!

(And Dan acted triumphant! What a twit.)

Why am I a "twit?"?

What did whatsisname ever do?

He posted that it was OK to force red pepper into children's mouths as
punishment and claimed that proof had already been posted on the NG.

After being challenged for months to cite the facts whatsismane finally
posted a news
story in which a policeman was arrested for committing the same offense and
had lost his job because of it!

Possibly permanently!!!

For over a year whatsisname claimed the red pepper punishment was OK'd by
the courts.

When all along he knew it was a lie.

This NG is a place where people come to get OUT of trouble with CPS... NOT
DEEPER INTO TROUBLE!!!

Hey, and you didn't mention that Bob SueCPS left too.

Altho he does pop in from time to time ( anonymously) when you and Dennis
can't take the heat.

Dan went from one flame war to another in here.
Apparently that is the only way Dan communicates.

I communicate very well, Greg.

The effect on many parents seeking help is that they
feel like CPS is watching anything they say in here,

A few people from CPS have posted here.

and a few have had comments in here used in court
to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.

Bull ****, Greg.

Name em.

Name one!

Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.

Why on earth would an anonymous person... someone who's unrecognizable and
untraceable... be inhibited?

That's the reason they ARE anonymous... NOT to be inhibited.

(Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
would simply demand that they bring the archive of
the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
all for lack of contextual setting.)

YOU would demand???

You aren't even allowed in the Courtroom, Greg.

When things got a little sticky for Dan, Kane showed up.

What things got sticky for me, Greg?

I haven't lost ONCE to CPS since 1987.

And with the swearing and hostility, I am still not
convinced that Kane is not just Dan's sock puppet.

You aren't convinced that you being in the bathroom everytime a little girl
finished showering, you physically forcing her back into the shower when she
hadn't rinsed off enough, and you forcing her to take cold showers as
punishment for wetting her pants, isn't FREAKIN child maltreatment; WHEN IT
IS!!!

Now be sure you fail to respond to everything I've just posted, Greg, as
usual.

Dan

Your girlfriend's daughter was never six?
Not during this case.

Yeah, I'm against blah, blah...
Who gives a rip? Nobody appointed you God.

Then why is there info about an earlier accusation
of child sexual abuse from a previous CPS investigation
regarding YOU in yer girlfriend's case, Greg?

1. There never was any prior accusation of any such thing.
2. There is no accusation of sexual abuse in this case.
3. The caseworker LIED, about past, in affidavit to court.

The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
communists. If
[you]
are a moderate of their view and speak up about their
paranoia, expect to be vilified or at least chastised.

Is that a threat, Greg?

How is a description of your mode of operation in
any way a threat from me?

Greg, you aren't a bioparent and you're the only
one being accused of maltreatment.

Who else wants to volunteer to stand trial
before you, the grand inquisitor?

Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
of the US Constitution.

"Parents see a fear of caseworkers... ???"

The trolly has left the tracks again, Greg.

Yes, it has.

A basic Ethical contract
in our society.

Show yer proof to the psych evaluator and get it into evidence.

"Sure! Stick your neck right in this noose! We won't pull it!"

What makes you think that a psychologist (not a hard science remember)
who is unethical enough to accept a 1" stack of documents from
uncredentialed non-professionals would be rightious?
Wouldn't he want to please the CPS amateurs who send him so much
business? Do you think he didn't get the message that this stack
was intended to RIG the psych eval?

We've seen other fiascos first hand that don't put that
outside the realm of reasonable suspicion.

Kane believes he insults the people who DESERVE to be insulted.

And you teased because I made a redundant comment?

It was an "insufferable mess" before I got here.
No one ever got their children back from FC.

That is flat out not true. Why did you say it?

And when the first one did whatsisname chastized the
woman for not fighting "for society!!!!!"

Is this where you preach blind cooperation at all costs??

And then David and Amy Carl got their five kids back.

And you think you were the only person sending them info??
I thought it was pretty hilarious and idiotic how CPS
got a court order to abscond with their computer to look
for incriminating files, considering it was a
WEB TV terminal, which has NO FILES in it whatsoever!

Did you help them launch any action because of the
aggregious illegal search and seizure?

Do you think you have in any way stopped that sort of
violation of people's rights?

They haven't sued for the terrible FISHING EXPEDITION
this computer grab represents?

But I'm not making any claims to stroke my ego.

Chuck got his daughter back the day before her first birthday.

What did whatsisname ever do?

He posted that it was OK to force red pepper into children's mouths as
punishment and claimed that proof had already been posted on the NG.

You badgered him about it constantly. Familiar tactic from you.
Any contribution he could have made to this forum was obscured
by your endless and unprompted whining about your attitude.
Nobody Care's about your attitude.
The endless bandwidth wasted dealing with your puke could have
lead to something constructive, aside from your ego.

I posted pleadings. You puked all over it.

Where are yours? At least I TRIED. You didn't.

After being challenged for months to blah blah..

Nobody cares about your hysterical judgements of who you
decide to vilify. You are as rediculous as Joe McCarthy was.
He died of syphilis. What's your excuse?

For over a year whatsisname claimed the red pepper blah.

This NG is a place where people come to get OUT of trouble snip

Then why to you puke all over it with your incessant inane innuendo?

Hey, and you didn't mention that Bob SueCPS left too.

Altho he does pop in from time to time ( anonymously)
when you and Dennis can't take the heat.

Heat from you? You're just vomitous.

and a few have had comments in here used in court
to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.

Bull ****, Greg.
Name em.
Name one!

I don't drop names the way you do.
I'm not a pro, but I know that it would not be proper to do.
If you're such an expert, why don't you understand that?

You have done this sort of challenging a lot, apparently
completely ignorant of privacy laws and ethical issues.
You think I or others OWE you an answer to every question.
You're the grand inquisitor, put us on the rack!

Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.

Why on earth would an anonymous person... someone who's
unrecognizable and untraceable... be inhibited?

That's the reason they ARE anonymous... NOT to be inhibited.

Ask Ron! He has the access to certain databases at work.
He thought he was anonymous, that when he posted his info
publicly on the internet, nobody would notice.

(Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
would simply demand that they bring the archive of
the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
all for lack of contextual setting.)

YOU would demand???

That's a recommendation to help any who might
have that problem in the future.
If they want to USE THIS, make them BRING IT ALL IN
so that the comments can be put in context and
properly cross examined.

Too complex a concept, Dan?

You aren't convinced that you being in the bathroom blah.
Why should I be convinced of blah.
When CPS and the court have no legal issue there?

You waste everybody's precious time whining about these
things that the system here says are not issues in this case.

FOR AN EXAMPLE: FROM ANOTHER CASE
I didn't like that story about the cop who diddled
a 16 year old girl who volunteered at a fire station.

Whether I LIKE that or not, however, is NOT an issue
in that state where legally it was consensual.
If it's not illegal, drop it and move along.

Instead of harassing the cop for doing something you
and I both think was rotten, the way to deal with our
displeasure is to change the laws, not to do an
end-run around the meaning of a law because we don't
like it.

You have been redundant in your smear of me for a long time.
You have no grasp of facts from which to lecture me.

Your pretense of helpful attitude is ludicrous in this forum.
You have wasted this bandwidth for a long time.

Your redundant smear of me, prompted generally when
I criticize CPS, does not make you appear very good spirited.

I am able to agree to disagree. You seem unable to.

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
Your girlfriend's daughter was never six?
Not during this case.

Oh, but she was six prior to the removal.

Were you involved with the mother when this girl was six?

Were you living in the house when the girl was six?

How old was the little girl when you became involved with her mother?

Yeah, I'm against blah, blah...
Who gives a rip? Nobody appointed you God.

You posted that I had "huge personal hangups."

I simply elaborated in regards to your situation.

That IS what we were speaking about.

Then why is there info about an earlier accusation
of child sexual abuse from a previous CPS investigation
regarding YOU in yer girlfriend's case, Greg?

1. There never was any prior accusation of any such thing.

I wrote that there was INFO about an earlier accusation... not that there
WAS one.

2. There is no accusation of sexual abuse in this case.

What is in the CPS caserecord regarding you and the little girl in the
bathroom?

Have you ever read the mother's entire CPS caserecord?

3. The caseworker LIED, about past, in affidavit to court.

And that failed to create the suspicion of new sexual abuse?

If sexual abuse isn't part of the mother's case why are you concerned about
the affidavit, Gereg?

The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
communists. If
[you]
are a moderate of their view and speak up about their
paranoia, expect to be vilified or at least chastised.

Is that a threat, Greg?

How is a description of your mode of operation in
any way a threat from me?

YOU wrote that LaVonne should "EXPECT to be villified or at least
chastised."

Greg, you aren't a bioparent and you're the only
one being accused of maltreatment.

Who else wants to volunteer to stand trial
before you, the grand inquisitor?

This IS a newsgroup, Greg.

You do realize that when you post information you WILL get a response.

In fact you even ASKED for comments.

Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
of the US Constitution.

"Parents see a fear of caseworkers... ???"

The trolly has left the tracks again, Greg.

Yes, it has.

A basic Ethical contract
in our society.

Show yer proof to the psych evaluator and get it into evidence.

"Sure! Stick your neck right in this noose! We won't pull it!"

If you've got nothing to hide...

What makes you think that a psychologist (not a hard science remember)
who is unethical enough to accept a 1" stack of documents from
uncredentialed non-professionals would be rightious?
Wouldn't he want to please the CPS amateurs who send him so much
business? Do you think he didn't get the message that this stack
was intended to RIG the psych eval?

When I went for my interview when I was accused in Fam Ct of molesting my
daugher the evaluator was Eileen Treacy.

Kelly Michael's case in NJ et al...

Do a Google on her, Greg.

We've seen other fiascos first hand that don't put that
outside the realm of reasonable suspicion.

By the end of the interview she was telling me that her report to the court
was gonna be in my favor and against the person who made the accusation.

Her report forced the Fam Ct Judge to throw the charges against me out of
Court.

Oh yeah, and I did the interview without my attny.

Kane believes he insults the people who DESERVE to be insulted.

And you teased because I made a redundant comment?

Sure. ;-))))))) Sure.

It was an "insufferable mess" before I got here.
No one ever got their children back from FC.

That is flat out not true.

Name one person who came to this NG who was given advice that got them their
children back before the summer of 2001.

Why did you say it?

'Cause it's true.

And when the first one did whatsisname chastized the
woman for not fighting "for society!!!!!"

Is this where you preach blind cooperation at all costs??

I never preached blind cooperation.

Try and prove I did, Greg.

And then David and Amy Carl got their five kids back.

And you think you were the only person sending them info??

I never said I was.

And they were sending ME info and having me evaluate it for them!

I thought it was pretty hilarious and idiotic how CPS
got a court order to abscond with their computer to look
for incriminating files, considering it was a
WEB TV terminal, which has NO FILES in it whatsoever!

Did you help them launch any action because of the
aggregious illegal search and seizure?

I was never asked.

Do you think you have in any way stopped that sort of
violation of people's rights?

I think monumental errors like that on the part of CPS or the County Attny
are a gift to be appreciated and exploited to the MAX.

They haven't sued for the terrible FISHING EXPEDITION
this computer grab represents?

I have no idea.

But I'm not making any claims to stroke my ego.

No, you're just waiting for that BIG lawsuit against DSS with that BIG
payoff that's never gonna come.

Chuck got his daughter back the day before her first birthday.

What did whatsisname ever do?

He posted that it was OK to force red pepper into children's mouths as
punishment and claimed that proof had already been posted on the NG.

You badgered him about it constantly. Familiar tactic from you.

Whatsisname wrote that the red pepper punishment was legal when he knew it
wasn't, and people could have lost their children, their jobs, and possibly
could have gone to prison because his intentional misinformation.

Any contribution he could have made to this forum was obscured
by your endless and unprompted whining about your attitude.

Unprompted??? The guy was a LIAR!!!

His advice was DANGEROUS!!!

Nobody Care's about your attitude.
The endless bandwidth wasted dealing with your puke could have
lead to something constructive, aside from your ego.

I posted pleadings. You puked all over it.

YOU asked for comments!!!!

I commented!!!!!

Where are yours? At least I TRIED.

The only thing you tried was to nail the coffin shut on the possibility of
the mother being reunited with her daughter.

And you succeeded.

Are you really that freakin stupid to think something that obvious (your
true intentions) wouldn't be recognized?

You didn't.

After being challenged for months to blah blah..

Nobody cares about your hysterical judgements of who you
decide to vilify. You are as rediculous as Joe McCarthy was.
He died of syphilis. What's your excuse?

Still have that Motion mentality goin for ya, Greg.

For over a year whatsisname claimed the red pepper blah.

This NG is a place where people come to get OUT of trouble snip

Then why to you puke all over it with your incessant inane innuendo?

ooOOoo alliteration!

And I "puked all over" your motion because that was the best it deserved.

Hey, and you didn't mention that Bob SueCPS left too.

Altho he does pop in from time to time ( anonymously)
when you and Dennis can't take the heat.

Heat from you?

I didn't say from me.

Too many people got fed up with the nonsensical ranting and raving.

Now if only you would see the light, Greg.

You're just vomitous.

and a few have had comments in here used in court
to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.

Bull ****, Greg.
Name em.
Name one!

I don't drop names the way you do.
I'm not a pro, but I know that it would not be proper to do.
If you're such an expert, why don't you understand that?

I understand you're a lying AH.

You have done this sort of challenging a lot, apparently
completely ignorant of privacy laws and ethical issues.
You think I or others OWE you an answer to every question.
You're the grand inquisitor, put us on the rack!

If only I could...

Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.

Why on earth would an anonymous person... someone who's
unrecognizable and untraceable... be inhibited?

That's the reason they ARE anonymous... NOT to be inhibited.

Ask Ron! He has the access to certain databases at work.
He thought he was anonymous, that when he posted his info
publicly on the internet, nobody would notice.

(Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
would simply demand that they bring the archive of
the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
all for lack of contextual setting.)

YOU would demand???

That's a recommendation to help any who might
have that problem in the future.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

If they want to USE THIS, make them BRING IT ALL IN
so that the comments can be put in context and
properly cross examined.

Too complex a concept, Dan?

Not fer a couch potato like yerself, Greg.

You aren't convinced that you being in the bathroom blah.
Why should I be convinced of blah.
When CPS and the court have no legal issue there?

You waste everybody's precious time whining about these
things that the system here says are not issues in this case.

Is everything documented, Greg, or are there some concerns discussed in FAM
Ct BEFORE your girlfriend walks in without you?

Now make yer trolly jump the tracks, Greg.

FOR AN EXAMPLE: FROM ANOTHER CASE
I didn't like that story about the cop who diddled
a 16 year old girl who volunteered at a fire station.

Whether I LIKE that or not, however, is NOT an issue
in that state where legally it was consensual.
If it's not illegal, drop it and move along.

Instead of harassing the cop for doing something you
and I both think was rotten, the way to deal with our
displeasure is to change the laws, not to do an
end-run around the meaning of a law because we don't
like it.

You have been redundant in your smear of me for a long time.

I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks... if only you were a cat!

You have no grasp of facts from which to lecture me.

You have no grasp of reality OR empathy for a little girl and her mother.

Your pretense of helpful attitude is ludicrous in this forum.

ooOOoo!!

You have wasted this bandwidth for a long time.

oooOOOooo!!!

Your redundant smear of me, prompted generally when
I criticize CPS, does not make you appear very good spirited.

If there two things I can't stand it's CPS doin a bad job and people who
maltreat kids.

I am able to agree to disagree. You seem unable to.

You seem to be a child abuser!

Dan

Greg Hanson wrote:

Your girlfriend's daughter was never six?
Not during this case.

So the answer to the big issue about lying and children's ages is now
revealed? Too bad I spent so much time and energy responding to an earlier
post.

Good grief!

LaVonne

And thirty years of being in the business.
And a fine job he did indeed.
Why, kids who didn't even KNOW they were abused by their
parents can now be abused by professionals (CPS).

Oh, give poor Greg a break. He lost his kids to CPS, or so he says. He needs
to engage in the attack game. He has no answers to your questions. I already
asked them (grin).

LaVonne

Dan Sullivan wrote:

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
LaVonne said
I try very hard not to label people or use disrespectful
names. I'd like to replace "The Plant" with "Fern." Fern,
can you address these questions?

You try not to swear and whitewash like Kane?
But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?

Any point he makes is fruit of a poison tree.

Why is that?

Kane is so rabidly hateful of bio parents because
he feels his bio parents let him down and his adoptive
parents rescued him.

Where'd you get that info, Greg?

The odd part of this is that
this story doesn't fit well given Kane's supposed age.
If he is indeed middle 40's, he was raised in the
late 50's or through the 60's, before Mondale wrote CAPTA.

When did Kane claim he was in his mid-forties?

His SON may be in his forties...

Back in that era, there basically WAS NO Child Protection.

Yet he acts like he knows how it is, based on his own
experience from 30 plus years ago.

And thirty years of being in the business.

If some questions are to be answered, perhaps these
glaring inconsistencies about Kane should be answered.

Get yer facts sraight first, Greg, and then ask questions.

Momentarily acting civilized does not make the length
and breadth of Kane's intent to smear and insult go away.
He swore a blue streak in ascps for over a year!
Despite his pretense at some sort of intellectual
superiority, his tactics of name calling, swearing and
smear abound in the newsgroup archive.
Where were you with your civilized amelioration when
he posted this large body of work?

Amelioration?

Please explain.

No, you can not apologize FOR Kane.

No one's apologizing for Kane.

He hangs around your neck like an albatross.

Kane tried using the old
"My buddy the psychologist says you're nutz" gambit.

Been done before.

How many times, Greg?

The nature of newsgroups is such that smearing people
is much easier than getting such stuff corrected.

Which stuff?

Even correcting information loses out to sheer volume
of posting, and the determination of a poster to
post incorrect information.

Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the
childs stated age correct, referring to the child many
times as 6 when she was 7 and older throughout this.

Your girlfriend's daughter was never six?

I have pointed out the factual error, but they don't care.
They have since repeated the incorrect age repeatedly.

Brought to you from the Department of Redundancy Department.

They have both tried to act like there was some
improper sexuality based only on minimal family
nakedness in the bathroom. One oddity is that Kane
revealed his almost nudist views of nakedness,
admitting he walked around with his adult male
privates exposed to young children.
I am much more conservative than that, yet what little
bit of "in passing" nakedness took place has been
blown up because DAN has some huge personal hangups.

Yeah, I'm against non-related adult males being in the bathroom every time a
little girl needs to get out of the shower.

I'm against non-related adult males physically forcing little girls into the
shower.

I'm against non-related adult males forcing little girls to take cold
showers as punishment for wetting their pants.

Neither Dan nor Kane seems to care that CPS here
has never seen anything sexual to be an issue
in my families case.

Then why is there info about an earlier accusation of child sexual abuse
from a previous CPS investigation regarding YOU in yer girlfriend's case,
Greg?

When they compared me to Father Geoghan, I did
not see you object. Where was your civility then?

Who compared you to Father Geoghan?

And when?

The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
communists. If are a moderate of their view and
speak up about their paranoia, expect to be vilified
or at least chastised.

Is that a threat, Greg?

And the witch hunt proceeds.

The crusade to "save kids" gets a strong reaction,
and virtually NO reaction to make sure the
crusading ""child savers"" are not paranoid.

Nobody in the ChildAbuse Industry wants to speak up
and demand that false information needs to be corrected.
That would be seen as "in favor of child abusers".

Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
certainly worthy of question.

Do you not understand that?

There are a bunch of people in here who are
trying to defende themselves or our society from
unwarranted attacks from CPS. There is another
bunch in here who seems to want to assert that
all accused are guilty, just because they are
biological parents and they are accused.

Greg, you aren't a bioparent and you're the only one being accused of
maltreatment.

Your arguement doesn't hold water.

People under attack and the attackers.

If the people under attack utter any offensive words,
it should be more understandeable than when the
other major faction insults and whitewashes.

Kane is not under attack.

He is connected with CPS. He first asserted that
he had a close relative who works for CPS. Later we
hear that he has experienced this from the inside,
as a child. The age he presents makes that dubious.
He had already shown that he hates bio-parents.
And he sad on a governing board over CPS.

How do you like those ethics?

My fiance' and I want our family back!

Kane is in here denying the WELL known faults of CPS.

Kane loves to see CPS lose.

CPS loses for a very good reason... they deserve to lose.

He spews his hatred of bio-parents.

Not at all. He hates abusers.

He calls us scum.

You ARE scum, Greg.

His good buddy Dan never publicly corrects him.

Many times I've posted my displeasure in the words Kane chooses to use.

Ethics give way to some sick strategy for
newsgroup ""stature"".

You've got that backwards, Greg.

But that's what smears are all about.

Keep in mind if you think that a parent is smearing
CPS, that an AGENCY has no civil rights, and that
you know very well that CPS does smear parents.

Like a lot of the caseworkers, Kane sees evil
child beating parents every time he sees a child.

And you know that how, Greg?

Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
of the US Constitution.

"Parents see a fear of caseworkers... ???"

The trolly has left the tracks again, Greg.

A basic Ethical contract
in our society.

I have personally talked to about 7 Social Workers, shown
them documentary proof, and asked about the ethical
responsibility of Social Workers to demand that known
false information in a Juvenile Court case be corrected.

Show yer proof to the psych evaluator and get it into evidence.

Many acknowledge the problem.
None want to speak up about it.

So don't wonder why parents under attack are angry
and see CPS as a giant RACKET, an industry, a fraud, etc.

But look at Kane's posts.
He acts like he is the renaissance man. Some model.
He smears, slurs, demeans, insults, and what he seems
to think is reasoned discourse is just grandiose insult.

Kane believes he insults the people who DESERVE to be insulted.

My personal view is that Dan and Kane have turned
this newsgroup into an insufferable mess so that
it is of no use to any parent falsely accused.

It was an "insufferable mess" before I got here.

No one ever got their children back from FC.

And when the first one did whatsisname chastized the woman for not fighting
"for society!!!!!"

Yeah, all she did was get her three kids back.

And then David and Amy Carl got their five kids back.

Chuck got his daughter back the day before her first birthday.

Quite the "insufferable mess."

I asked Dan and Neal to stop fighting in here long ago.
Neal left.

Hoo-FREAKIN-rayyyyyy!

(And Dan acted triumphant! What a twit.)

Why am I a "twit?"?

What did whatsisname ever do?

He posted that it was OK to force red pepper into children's mouths as
punishment and claimed that proof had already been posted on the NG.

After being challenged for months to cite the facts whatsismane finally
posted a news
story in which a policeman was arrested for committing the same offense and
had lost his job because of it!

Possibly permanently!!!

For over a year whatsisname claimed the red pepper punishment was OK'd by
the courts.

When all along he knew it was a lie.

This NG is a place where people come to get OUT of trouble with CPS... NOT
DEEPER INTO TROUBLE!!!

Hey, and you didn't mention that Bob SueCPS left too.

Altho he does pop in from time to time ( anonymously) when you and Dennis
can't take the heat.

Dan went from one flame war to another in here.
Apparently that is the only way Dan communicates.

I communicate very well, Greg.

The effect on many parents seeking help is that they
feel like CPS is watching anything they say in here,

A few people from CPS have posted here.

and a few have had comments in here used in court
to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.

Bull ****, Greg.

Name em.

Name one!

Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.

Why on earth would an anonymous person... someone who's unrecognizable and
untraceable... be inhibited?

That's the reason they ARE anonymous... NOT to be inhibited.

(Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
would simply demand that they bring the archive of
the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
all for lack of contextual setting.)

YOU would demand???

You aren't even allowed in the Courtroom, Greg.

When things got a little sticky for Dan, Kane showed up.

What things got sticky for me, Greg?

I haven't lost ONCE to CPS since 1987.

And with the swearing and hostility, I am still not
convinced that Kane is not just Dan's sock puppet.

You aren't convinced that you being in the bathroom everytime a little girl
finished showering, you physically forcing her back into the shower when she
hadn't rinsed off enough, and you forcing her to take cold showers as
punishment for wetting her pants, isn't FREAKIN child maltreatment; WHEN IT
IS!!!

Now be sure you fail to respond to everything I've just posted, Greg, as
usual.

Dan

"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

--------------------------------------