 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / July 2006Malnourished in NJ Foster home SELECTIVE
What was this child removed from her parents for? http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060721/NEWS02/607210447/1070/BUSINESS Shocked judge sentences pair to prison for disabled girl's nightmare foster care GIRL: Weighed only 21 pounds at age 5, bore marks of restraint injuries DEFENDANTS: Beachwood couple had other foster children, all well cared for Photo of fosters http://cmsimg.app.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B3&Date=20060721&Category=NEWS02 &ArtNo=607210447&Ref=AR&Profile=1070&MaxW=300 Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 07/21/06 BY MICHAEL AMSEL TOMS RIVER BUREAU TOMS RIVER NEW JERSEY - Calling the case an "incomprehensible atrocity" like nothing else he had ever seen, Superior Court Judge Peter J. Giovine on Thursday sentenced to prison the foster parents of a disabled girl found severely malnourished while in their care. Cynthia and Ernest Davison of Beachwood received terms of four and three years, respectively, for child endangerment. The 5-year-old girl weighed just 21 pounds and bore marks of injuries indicating she had been restrained when authorities entered their home in December 2004 and removed the child. Prior to his sentencing, Ernest Davison said he was "terribly sorry for the child and everyone involved." "I regret my lack of action," he said. Moments before that, weeping and looking distraught, Cynthia Davison mumbled "I'm sorry" when Giovine asked if she had anything to say. She mouthed "I love you" to her husband as she was led away in handcuffs. The malnourished girl, now 6, had been placed with the couple in October 2003 by a private agency, authorities said. She was removed from the Davisons' home in December 2004, along with three other disabled children living there, by state Division of Youth and Family Services workers who received a tip that a child who lived there was being neglected. Authorities said they found the girl malnourished, with bruises on her ankles and wrists indicating she had been restrained for long periods of time. The other children appeared well cared for, authorities said. Giovine said he was horrified and appalled when he examined photos of the malnourished child. "In all my years, I have never seen anything like that," Giovine said. "It was unimaginable. I am just dumbfounded how this occurred. One asks oneself how one human being can do something like that to another human being." The malnourished girl is now doing well, authorities said. Attorney Steve Secare, who represented Ernest Davison, said the prison term was warranted. "There are few things more abhorrent in our society than the neglect of a child," Secare said. Attorney S. Karl Mohel, who represented Cynthia Davison, said his client really regrets what happened. "She has been very remorseful from the first day that I met her," Mohel said. This story contains information from previous Asbury Park Press stories. > What was this child removed from her parents for? http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060721/NEWS02/607210447/1070/BUSINESS > Shocked judge sentences pair to prison for disabled girl's nightmare > foster care [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Photo of fosters http://cmsimg.app.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B3&Date=20060721&Category=NEWS02 &ArtNo=607210447&Ref=AR&Profile=1070&MaxW=300 > Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 07/21/06 > BY MICHAEL AMSEL TOMS RIVER BUREAU [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Peter J. Giovine on Thursday sentenced to prison the foster parents of > a disabled girl found severely malnourished while in their care. Hey, Toms River. Figures. Cynthia McCourt and Joseph Yili, both Social Workers in Toms River, snatched my autistic son many years ago -- they refused to acknowledge his autism, blaming his symptoms instead on "emotional abuse" (I have the paperwork to back this up!) My son was 3 at the time and in need of special schooling, special training, etc., all of which was neglected by DYFS. We got him back -- fortunately -- 18 months later. And manage to repair *some* of the damage they did to him. But as always, no one ever learns and Toms River continues to be the site of DYFS atrocities after all these many years. There was a screwball psychologist, Dennis Coffey, who "tested" me for my IQ and determined that my IQ was "average" despite the fact that I taught myself advanced mathematics when I was a kid, launched my career as a software engineer *without any formal schooling*, and many, many other things that is not typical of someone of "average intelligence". Let alone what intelligence has to do with how good a parent you are, anyway. Read the whole story here: http://syc.org/cases/fred_and_rochelle  Signature-- Edmond Dantes, CMC And Now for something Completely Different: http://suzuki.ReallyHotOrNot.com http://battery.hugmykids.com http://kayaking.WomanMinutes.com http://struts.Auto1Parts.com http://office.desktopgod.com http://resort.prosperitysprinkler.com http://mantle.funiturenow.com > What was this child removed from her parents for? Why would that matter? The trick, Greg, if you wish to prove CPS the courts and the state WRONG is to find OUT. Constantly posting an insinuating question defeats YOUR purpose. No one takes you seriously and consigns you regularly to the "Boy that Cried Wolf," category. > http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060721/NEWS02/607210447/1070/BUSINESS > Shocked judge sentences pair to prison for disabled girl's nightmare [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Services workers who received a tip that a child who lived there was > being neglected. So much for the "Privatization" scheme. I've fought against this for years precisely because it places another layer between a child and their worker. Notice WHO PUT AND END TO THIS PLACEMENT AND RESCUED THE CHILD, GREG? > Authorities said they found the girl malnourished, with bruises on her > ankles and wrists indicating she had been restrained for long periods [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > This story contains information from previous Asbury Park Press > stories. What have you proven with this post, Greg? That there are people that do bad things? Where, in this entire article is there any connection to wrong doing by CPS, Greg? You make a fool of yourself every time you post such things with your vapid "question." Keep it up, and help show the general immorality of the anti-CPS crowd. You are a perfect example. Lies, spin, innuendo and nothing more. Why make such a fool of yourself? Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > What was this child removed from her parents for? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > GIRL: Weighed only 21 pounds at age 5, bore marks of restraint injuries Greg, how much did the children of Ruth and Brian Christine weigh when they were taken into CPS custody? Even a FRIEND of theirs who BELIEVED IN FASTING admitted that the child looked "skinny," in a later picture. " "She's skinnier," Guthrie said when showed a photo of Miriam. Wesenberg asked him whether she looked unhealthy. "Yes," he replied. Guthrie said that both his and the Christines' religious beliefs permit fasting, which can last for varying periods of time. " Miriam, at age 2 weighed just 15 lbs. Greg. http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=45758 What untreated injury to one child's head was revealed BY ANOTHER CHILD to a police officer as having been done by Brian? "The girls told an officer that a cut on Lydia's forehead came from falling down the bus stairs after her father slapped her on the head for wetting the bed. Authorities took the girls into state custody. At a hospital, a doctor testified he found the girls malnourished and staff had to leave the room because of the smell from the infected cut on Lydia's forehead. The girls were hospitalized for four days. Miriam weighed just 15 pounds. " http://oregonfamilyrights.com/christines/sentencing/katu/may_28.htm " A 2-inch gash on the forehead of one child, Lydia, was so infected the "odor overwhelmed the room. A couple of us stepped out," he said. Brian Christine is accused of hitting Lydia after she wet the bed, causing her to fall down the bus stairs and cut her head. Lydia, then 3, also had bruising under both her eyes and blood in both her ear drums -- classic signs of a skull fracture that was confirmed by X-rays and a CAT scan, he said. " http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_0510_news_christines_jury.71d9d293.html Where you not among those that defended the actions of the Christines, Greg? There are bad people in the world, Greg. And people that make mistakes, Greg. There are people that are sick, stupid, and even addicted and MORE stupid. And those that are mislead, as the Christines were. Who do YOU know that gave advice to the Christines, Greg? How is it that you miss those stories that don't serve or tend to destroy your agenda? And how is it that you address ONLY those that APPEAR to serve your agenda? > DEFENDANTS: Beachwood couple had other foster children, all well cared > for Sounds like a person that may be mentally ill, Greg. I wonder if CPS had her psych evaluated....oh wait, she was NOT a CPS foster parent. > Photo of fosters > http://cmsimg.app.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B3&Date=20060721&Category=NEWS02 &ArtNo=607210447&Ref=AR&Profile=1070&MaxW=300 [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > This story contains information from previous Asbury Park Press > stories. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Interesting. So she wasn't removed from a loving and nurturing home that provided for her needs. Based on this information, it appears that the issue is not removal from the biological home, but quality of placement after the removal. Two different issues. Suppose Greegor will take the time to address this in a future post? LaVonne >> What was this child removed from her parents for? >> [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] >> This story contains information from previous Asbury Park Press >> stories. > Interesting. So she wasn't removed from a loving and nurturing home > that provided for her needs. > > Based on this information, it appears that the issue is not removal from > the biological home, but quality of placement after the removal. There simply isn't any information on this case. I pointed to the Christine case (you may be unfamiliar with it) that there was a great hue and cry about in defense of the Christines taking their children from CPS custody at gunpoint. Lies were pile on lies and the most outrageous attacks on doctors and other health professionals, on workers, on everyone but the perps. Mean nasty ol' CPS took their children away, and placed them all with grandparents. The Christines followed the advice of notorious anti-CPS anti-Government nutsos and they are both now in prison for many years. > Two different issues. Suppose Greegor will take the time to address > this in a future post? He addresses NOTHING that, like Fern, he thinks does not answer his dream about Evil CPS being responsible for everything from day care to failure to orbit a cow around Saturn. > LaVonne He becomes increasing irrational even as he thinks he's become more clever at dodging and asking stupid "questions." And interesting, even fascinating sort, don't you think? Kane >>> What was this child removed from her parents for? >>> [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] >>> This story contains information from previous Asbury Park Press >>> stories. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >> Interesting. So she wasn't removed from a loving and nurturing home >> that provided for her needs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There simply isn't any information on this case. Sorry, I should have read more carefully. > I pointed to the Christine case (you may be unfamiliar with it) that > there was a great hue and cry about in defense of the Christines taking > their children from CPS custody at gunpoint. I remember something about this, but would have to read more information in order to discuss it. > Lies were pile on lies and the most outrageous attacks on doctors and > other health professionals, on workers, on everyone but the perps. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > dream about Evil CPS being responsible for everything from day care to > failure to orbit a cow around Saturn. So, the basic issue remains -- inadequate foster care does not automatically mean that removal was unwarranted. It simply means that better screening and oversight is needed for both children left in the home, and for out of home placements. No, sadly you are correct. If the answer to a question doesn't fulfill his EVIL CPS dream, there is no reason to respond. A non-response is often more informative than an actual post, don't you think? LaVonne >> LaVonne > [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] >>>> This story contains information from previous Asbury Park Press >>>> stories. > What was this child removed from her parents for? I have no idea why the child was removed from her parents. Once again, are you claiming that negligent/abusive foster care somehow means that she should not have been removed from her parents? Your logical makes no sense. Being placed in a bad foster home has nothing to do with the care she was receiving at home, nor does it result in the conclusion you are attempting to make that the child should not have been removed. Perhaps the child should have been removed, and there needs to be more oversight, more training, and better education for foster parents and the CPS system. This takes money. Cough if up, Greegor. Or start making the case the the child and other children from similar posts of yours were removed in error. There are two different points here. One, should the child have been removed? Two, if the child needs removal, how can a safe placement be assured. The arguments are not one and the same, as you seem to believe. LaVonne > http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060721/NEWS02/607210447/1070/BUSINESS > Shocked judge sentences pair to prison for disabled girl's nightmare [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > This story contains information from previous Asbury Park Press > stories. >> What was this child removed from her parents for? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > LaVonne In a previous instance, just a day ago, he tried the same stupid garbage. I look that case up. The child was removed because the mother was and admitted to being highly incompetent to parent AND her boyfriend had used the 10 year old girl for his sex toy. What these poor excuses for human beings are up to, and always have been, is to try and divert from the fact that the vast majority of cases CPS and the state intervene in DO in fact stop the abuse of the child. Their desire to cut funding (already done because of budget shortfalls in many states anyway) and their constant search for minutia and attempts to make those appear to be the rule and larger problems than is true makes clear they are destructing and have serious problems with "authority." They wish to STAY that way, obviously or they would not spend their time doing what they do here. Kane >> http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060721/NEWS02/607210447/1070/BUSINESS >> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >> This story contains information from previous Asbury Park Press >> stories. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) It's just TOO CONVENIENT when such horror stories come out of foster care, for the system sicofants to pretend that all of these kids were removed for horror stories at home. It's statistically an impossibility. Of the kids the state removes to foster care, an incredible percentage were removed for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as reported by the agencies themselves! The results prove the STATE is a worse parent than most parents they second guess. > It's just TOO CONVENIENT when such horror stories > come out of foster care, for the system sicofants to > pretend that all of these kids were removed for horror > stories at home. No such pretense is made. YOU do not look things up to find out. I DO, and report them back to you, lame-of-brain. > It's statistically an impossibility. It's statistically irrelevant. We are discussing individual cases. If YOU wish to provide some statistics let us know. Are you really prepared to say that the majority of children, or statistically significant number that are removed, then abused or killed by foster parents were removed without sufficient cause? > Of the kids the state removes to foster care, > an incredible percentage were removed for > ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as reported by the > agencies themselves! No, that is not true. And all the lies you make, and all the dodging and spinning Doug does will not put Humpty Dumpty back together again. > The results prove the STATE is a worse parent > than most parents they second guess. Where did you get the idea the "STATE" is a parent? They do NOT parent. Foster parent's and adoptive parents, and bio parents "PARENT." The state does not. It's not its job, nor its mandate, nor its intent. It makes DECISIONS about who will parent. And that's the LAW. And that in very few cases. The number of families that come into contact with the state on issues of abuse and neglect is minuscule compared to the total population, despite the lie you quoted from an anti-CPS website not long back in these newsgroups. Now let's see that proof you have where "the results prove" your claim. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > It makes DECISIONS about who will parent. And that's the LAW. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the lie you quoted from an anti-CPS website not long back in these > newsgroups. Hi, Kane, Around 5,500,000 children are subjects of child abuse/neglect reports annually. In 2004 alone, this represented more than 7.5% of the entire child population of 73,000,000. http://tinyurl.com/g6on9 That is hardly "minuscule." Since the average family includes a little more than 2 children, an average American family's odds of having one of their children subject to a CPS report is about 1 in 6 EACH and EVERY YEAR. The odds of coming in contact with CPS at sometime during the 18 years a family member is a child is very high. A child is more likely to be a subject of a CPS investigation or assessment than they are to join the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. Kane, you continue to claim that there are vast numbers of abused and neglected children who are not reported. You have said that the number of unreported victims is six times the number of those reported. If any substance to such a claim, then 100% of children in this country would be subject to reports EACH YEAR. >> It makes DECISIONS about who will parent. And that's the LAW. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Around 5,500,000 children Doug, I said "The number of families " and it's right up there. You wouldn't be up to one of your manipulative reconstructions here, now would you? > are subjects of child abuse/neglect reports > annually. Define a report. Define an investigation. In which is the family and or child actually contacted one per each? At least. Think hard before you reply. Surly you can spin this, 0:-> In 2004 alone, this represented more than 7.5% of the entire > child population of 73,000,000. Doug, don't fudge. It's actually 73,277,998 children. Which comes out to about half that many FAMILIES by your calculation...where did you get "2" per family though. Not in referred families, Doug. Not in those referred and INVESTIGATED. Doug, you've got to take lessons from the pupil. Greg is careful, or careless, or too lazy to post actual links to citations as you did below. You could not have given me better argument to cut your claims to shreds, easily, than the information at the source cited, > http://tinyurl.com/g6on9 Let's begin with what you read and ignored, or read and want hidden, or stupidly didn't read; what we are actually talking about here: "Each week, child protective services (CPS) agencies in the United States receive approximately 60,000 referrals alleging that children have been abused or neglected. Some of these referrals lie outside the responsibility of the CPS agencies and may be forwarded to other agencies, such as income maintenance departments or health departments. Other referrals do not have sufficient information to enable followup. For these and other reasons, including the workload of the agency, approximately one-third of referrals are screened out [[[ Actually MORE than one third..37% plus ]]] and do not receive further attention from CPS. The remaining two-thirds of referrals are screened in as reports to CPS agencies because they meet the States' policies for conducting an investigation or assessment." In other words, out of all the "referrals" one third are screened out. Referrals are on FAMILIES, not children specifically. And we have less than two thirds of the original number actually including CONTACT...the subject of our discussion. > That is hardly "minuscule." Depends on your definition of the word. When it comes to this issue, yes, Doug it is. And to me it is because I KNOW that so much child abuse goes unreported and when reported un-investigated. > Since the average family includes a little more than 2 children, an average > American family's odds of having one of their children subject to a CPS > report is about 1 in 6 EACH and EVERY YEAR. The odds of coming in contact > with CPS at sometime during the 18 years a family member is a child is very > high. Really? Let's see what the cited source actually says, Doug. You've already fudged the figures in favor of YOUR claim. Tsk, Doug. How careless and revealing of you. "During 2004, an estimated total of 3 million referrals, including approximately 5.5 million children, were made to CPS agencies. The national rate was 42.6 referrals per 1,000 children for 2004 compared with 39.1 referrals per 1,000 children for 2003. 3, 4 CPS agencies screened in 62.7 percent of referrals and screened out 37.3 percent. These results were similar to 2003 data, which indicated 67.9 percent were screened in and 32.1 percent were screened out." Oh dear. Look at that last paragraph, Doug. You were using the total of referrals, while I was referring to the REPORTS THAT ARE SCREENED IN...because contacts (the subject here) do NOT take place unless an investigation is begun. Neither child nor family will even KNOW that a report has been made if it is screened OUT. That means AT THE HOTLINE, Doug, before it is assigned to a worker to investigate. Let's rerun some numbers, shall we? Without the spin and fudge you whirl and fling so freely. And I insist we do this with MY original statement which would actually work in YOUR favor percentage wise, if you were telling the truth. FAMILIES, not children. And we KNOW that families are referred MORE than once commonly, and we know that the totals we are going to use would be reduced MORE if we knew how many of these were repeat FAMILIES being referred. Nevertheless, here we go: 67.9% of 3,121,643 REFERRALS, not children, stupid. Or you have to reduce by about 2.5 the total which would work in MY favor and NOT yours. 2,119,595 is the figure I get. How about you. Now if we look at all the children, 73,277,998, we see that in fact the percentage of REPORTS (Not EVEN actual contacts...the thing you and other BS artists keep ranting about) would be 2.89% of the entire child population of the US in 2004. And, Doug, let's remember that not all of those result in anything more than cursory contact and nothing further. That is NOT representative of the numbers of cases opened. > A child is more likely to be a subject of a CPS investigation or assessment > than they are to join the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. The rant of the propagandists. It's meaningless. Compare it to the number of children seen by their pediatricians, stupid. > Kane, you continue to claim that there are vast numbers of abused and > neglected children who are not reported. Yes, that is correct. And I have posted authoritative opinions that support my claim. ER doctors and other health professionals that come in contact with children in such situations. They are quite aware of how hard it is to positively identify abuse by the set standards they must follow. Police deal with this as well. > You have said that the number of > unreported victims is six times the number of those reported. I don't recall making that claim. I very well may have quoted others as estimating it. Why would you claim that I have made a positive number claim when I am careful NOT to do so? It's an estimate if anything. > If any > substance to such a claim, then 100% of children in this country would be > subject to reports EACH YEAR. The math please. Show us your work. You can keep trying to buy people with your three dollar bills Doug, but outside of the occasional rare Greg you aren't really going to get very far with people that can think for themselves. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) I had written: >> Around 5,500,000 children are subjects of child abuse/neglect reports >> annually. > Doug, I said "The number of families " and it's right up there. You > wouldn't be up to one of your manipulative reconstructions here, now would > you? Not at all. You should have looked at the URL I cited. I will quote it. There were 3 million families involved -- less than 2.0 children per family. "During 2004, an estimated total of 3 million referrals, including approximately 5.5 million children, were made to CPS agencies." http://tinyurl.com/g6on9 > Define a report. A case involving child abuse/neglect allegations phoned into the hotline. USDHHS refers to them alternatively as "referrals." > Define an investigation. I used your often used-defination -- report of child abuse or neglect where a finding may be made by the intake operators or field personnel. You posit that the process gone through to screen out a report is an "investigation." About 3,000,000 children were subject to field investigations in 2004. > In which is the family and or child actually contacted one per each? At > least. Always in field investigations. > Think hard before you reply. Surly you can spin this, 0:-> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > per family though. Not in referred families, Doug. Not in those referred > and INVESTIGATED. I was going on memory regarding child population and rounded off. It comes out to LESS than half that many families. There was about 1.83 children per family. > Doug, you've got to take lessons from the pupil. Greg is careful, or > careless, or too lazy to post actual links to citations as you did below. > You could not have given me better argument to cut your claims to shreds, > easily, than the information at the source cited, The information I cited fully support my comments, which is why I cited that URL. http://tinyurl.com/g6on9 > Let's begin with what you read and ignored, or read and want hidden, or > stupidly didn't read; what we are actually talking about here: > > "Each week, child protective services (CPS) agencies in the United States > receive approximately 60,000 referrals alleging that children have been > abused or neglected. ... Which comes out to about 3,000,000 reports (referrals) that year. >Some of these referrals lie outside the responsibility of the CPS agencies >and may be forwarded to other agencies, such as income maintenance [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [[[ Actually MORE than one third..37% plus ]]] Yep. > and do not receive further attention from CPS. The remaining two-thirds of > referrals are screened in as reports to CPS agencies because they meet the > States' policies for conducting an investigation or assessment." > In other words, out of all the "referrals" one third are screened out. > Referrals are on FAMILIES, not children specifically. And we have less > than two thirds of the original number actually including CONTACT...the > subject of our discussion. Yep. Child maltreatment is over-reported. Many are screened out. 62.7% are screened in. That comes to 1,881,000 reports involving 3,000,000 children EACH YEAR. In the 18 years of a childhood, that's 54,000,000 children and over 33,800,000 families. >> That is hardly "minuscule." > > Depends on your definition of the word. When it comes to this issue, yes, > Doug it is. And to me it is because I KNOW that so much child abuse goes > unreported and when reported un-investigated. I would not consider it minuscule at all. A large percentage of families have had contact with CPS and there is a high probability that families will have contact with the agency in the future, even though the vast majority of the reports are unfounded. >> Since the average family includes a little more than 2 children, an >> average American family's odds of having one of their children subject to [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > work in YOUR favor percentage wise, if you were telling the truth. > FAMILIES, not children. Actually, the exact number of children per family would be 1.83, rather than 2.0 I estimated, so the exact numbers would actually work in favor of my argument. > And we KNOW that families are referred MORE than once commonly, and we > know that the totals we are going to use would be reduced MORE if we knew [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 67.9% of 3,121,643 REFERRALS, not children, stupid. Or you have to reduce > by about 2.5 the total which would work in MY favor and NOT yours. 3,121,643 referrals involving 5,500,000 children, which is what I said in the first post. > 2,119,595 is the figure I get. How about you. For what? Number of reports? If you are talking about number of children, I got a different number -- as did USDHHS. "The number of children included in all referrals was calculated by multiplying the average number of children included in a referral (1.84) by the number of estimated referrals (3,121,643). The estimate was then rounded to the nearest half-million." That comes to 5,500,000 children. > Now if we look at all the children, 73,277,998, we see that in fact the > percentage of REPORTS (Not EVEN actual contacts...the thing you and other > BS artists keep ranting about) would be 2.89% of the entire child > population of the US in 2004. Not even close. No. 3,000,000 children were subjects of field investigations. And 5,500,000 children were subjects of referrals. NCANDS itself reports that 3,503,000 children were subject to a CPS investigation in 2004. http://tinyurl.com/zqbcz Given NCANDS total, 4.78% of the entire child population were subjects of a CPS investigation in 2004 -- a single year. I don't know how you got your number. > And, Doug, let's remember that not all of those result in anything more > than cursory contact and nothing further. That is NOT representative of > the numbers of cases opened. Yes, many of the contacts are very brief. As I have said, maltreatment is over-reported and in many cases the worker is able to unsubstantiate the allegations very quickly. Some are quite absurd and easily unfounded. > I had written: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not at all. You should have looked at the URL I cited. I've been quoting it CORRECTLY. You have spun it. > I will quote it. > There were 3 million families involved -- less than 2.0 children per family. Here is what is on the site: "4 The number of children included in all referrals was calculated by multiplying the average number of children included in a referral (1.84) by the number of estimated referrals (3,121,643). The estimate was then rounded to the nearest half-million." That was used to calculate the total number of children for referrals BEFORE THERE WAS ANY SCREENING OUT. So there IS not 5.5 million children having contact. 1/3 were screened OUT. Or, to put it more simply, 1/3 of all referrals reguardless of the number of children involved were screened out. So you cannot have a 5.5 million referrals claimed to all involve CONTACT. > "During 2004, an estimated total of 3 million referrals, including > approximately 5.5 million children, were made to CPS agencies." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A case involving child abuse/neglect allegations phoned into the hotline. > USDHHS refers to them alternatively as "referrals." Yep. No CONTACT AS YET for the family or child by CPS. >> Define an investigation. > > I used your often used-defination -- report of child abuse or neglect where > a finding may be made by the intake operators or field personnel. Nope. I've never used that. You are now flat out lying. > You > posit that the process gone through to screen out a report is an > "investigation." About 3,000,000 children were subject to field > investigations in 2004. Yes, that is CORRECT. So that would mean CONTACT FOR THOSE CHILDREN, NOT FOR 5.5 MILLION CHILDREN. > > In which is the family and or child actually contacted one per each? At >> least. > > Always in field investigations. Yep. Since when is an allegation (which IS what a referral is) an investigation? Get this into your head. A "referral" is not a contact, because a "referral" or "report" of abuse, is NOT an investigation. >> Think hard before you reply. Surly you can spin this, 0:-> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > out to LESS than half that many families. There was about 1.83 children per > family. It's insignificant to the issue, so I won't argue the number. What IS important to note is that you are playing fast and loose with what constitutes CONTACT, the ONLY subject under discussion here as a primary claim by YOU and by the anti-CPS whackos. >> Doug, you've got to take lessons from the pupil. Greg is careful, or >> careless, or too lazy to post actual links to citations as you did below. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The information I cited fully support my comments, which is why I cited that > URL. No, Doug it most certainly does NOT do that. > http://tinyurl.com/g6on9 > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ... Which comes out to about 3,000,000 reports (referrals) that year. And 1/3 of those are REJECTED, screened out and go NO further than the phone conversation with whoever reported. Thus only 2/3s DO result in being SCREENED IN. Is any of this getting through to you? 2/3 of 3 million reports/referrals would be WHAT DOUG? Then multiply THAT result by 1.83 children per family on average. What do YOU get? I get TWO MILLION REFERRALS BY 1.83 children, Doug, which is 3,660,000 children TOTAL. Now the child population of the US is 73,000,000 Do YOU want to do your math again? >> Some of these referrals lie outside the responsibility of the CPS agencies >> and may be forwarded to other agencies, such as income maintenance [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Yep. Child maltreatment is over-reported. Nope. It's no more "over-reported" than incidences called into the police turn out to not be crimes. That does make crime over reported, Doug. We both know that crime and child abuse are NOT all reported. > Many are screened out. 62.7% > are screened in. Yeeeup. > That comes to 1,881,000 reports involving 3,000,000 > children EACH YEAR. In the 18 years of a childhood, that's 54,000,000 > children and over 33,800,000 families. Opps. YOu didn't just jump to an 18 year figure for a little journalistic license, now did you, Doug. R R R R R Just sort of to bury the argument about the percentage, now did you, Doug. You are of course avoiding the TOTAL NUMBER OF CHILDREN BORN DURING THOSE 18 YEARS to be able to make a claim of a certain percentage that come into contact with CPS...how clever of you. Let's, however, just for the fun of it AND f.cking ACCURACY, stick to the one year we are working with. Unless you wish to come up with the total births for 18 years. 0:-> So, what's the percentage? R R R R R >>> That is hardly "minuscule." >> Depends on your definition of the word. When it comes to this issue, yes, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have contact with the agency in the future, even though the vast majority of > the reports are unfounded. Well one third are rejected out of hand before any family is even contacted, Doug. That sounds like pretty good work on CPS part, at the gate, don't you think? You can't fault CPS for "reports," Doug. They do not make random sales calls. Trust me on this. >>> Since the average family includes a little more than 2 children, an >>> average American family's odds of having one of their children subject to [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > 2.0 I estimated, so the exact numbers would actually work in favor of my > argument. No, actually it works the opposite. If there were MORE children per family YOU'D have a higher percentage of "contacts." Are you what my dad meant when he referred to some folks as "chuckleheads?" >> And we KNOW that families are referred MORE than once commonly, and we >> know that the totals we are going to use would be reduced MORE if we knew [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > For what? Number of reports? If you are talking about number of children, > I got a different number -- as did USDHHS. Nope, for the number left AFTER 1/3 are SCREENED OUT. > "The number of children included in all referrals was calculated by > multiplying the average number of children included in a referral (1.84) by > the number of estimated referrals (3,121,643). The estimate was then rounded > to the nearest half-million." > > That comes to 5,500,000 children. For REFERRALS. Referrals are NOT contacts, Doug. You know that. And one third of the "referrals" WERE SCREENED OUT. Leaving far less than 3,000,000. In fact if you remove one third you get about 2 million. NOW you can multiply by 1.83 children per family, stupid. Or "referrals." >> Now if we look at all the children, 73,277,998, we see that in fact the >> percentage of REPORTS (Not EVEN actual contacts...the thing you and other >> BS artists keep ranting about) would be 2.89% of the entire child >> population of the US in 2004. > > Not even close. You are right. It's LESS. If you have 3,660,000 children, the figure that I cam up with by calculating the REAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES, you get, 0.049 5% So five percent of all the "children" coming into contact with CPS does NOT equate with 5 percent of the FAMILIES...my claim which YOU tried to spin, Doug. I said FAMILIES, you changed it to CHILDREN. Why did you do that, Doug? So tell us, Doug, what does a "contact" mean in terms of "bad?" Or do you people just rattle off whatever looks "sinister" and hope no one notices. I'd venture that a large percentage of the population have police contact as well. Is police contact "evil?" Should we find a way to stop all those cops from "contact" with the population? Especially since so many times the person being contacted is INNOCENT of any crime? And back we have come full circle to YOUR desire to have CPS NOT investigate cases until WHAT DOUG, UNTIL WHAT? Death or serious injury. Is that not right, you scum? > No. 3,000,000 children were subjects of field investigations. And > 5,500,000 children were subjects of referrals. A referral is not a "contact." NCANDS itself reports that > 3,503,000 children were subject to a CPS investigation in 2004. > http://tinyurl.com/zqbcz > > Given NCANDS total, 4.78% of the entire child population were subjects of a > CPS investigation in 2004 -- a single year. No. That is not true. Investigations of the same child repeated within the year are counted as separate investigations. And more than one investigation is not only possible, it is frequent. That would be all those where children are not removed, or removed and returned and another report results in an ensuing investigation. > I don't know how you got your number. The same way you did. The problem is that YOU put meanings into these numbers that do not apply. >> And, Doug, let's remember that not all of those result in anything more >> than cursory contact and nothing further. That is NOT representative of >> the numbers of cases opened. > > Yes, many of the contacts are very brief. Yep. Hardly equates with Evil CPS or malpractice, Doug. So what IS your point, other than the usual hyperbole from the nutso anti CPS crowd with a 'gee, ain't it awful,' claim that amounts to hot air. > As I have said, maltreatment is > over-reported So what? That is not CPS responsibility. They do NOT control the incoming reports. That is entirely out of their hands. > and in many cases the worker is able to unsubstantiate the > allegations very quickly. Yep. Nice work, CPS. Imagine the the hard work they do in a state of nearly constant overwhelm. Amazing, isn't it? > Some are quite absurd and easily unfounded. Yes, precisely correct. CPS didn't make them. So what we have here is hot air, spinning, bullshit, and your usual. Anything else you'd like to discuss? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > > It makes DECISIONS about who will parent. And that's the LAW. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That is hardly "minuscule." Only Kane can categorize millions of families as "miniscule". I guess if MILLIONS is "miniscule", what about his claim of 'about 1,500" children died every year as a result of "spanking that escalated"? Antispanking zealotS and logic... are they mutually exclusive? ;-) Doan >>> It makes DECISIONS about who will parent. And that's the LAW. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > MILLIONS is "miniscule", what about his claim of 'about 1,500" children > died every year as a result of "spanking that escalated"? Depends entirely if you are talking about "contact" as opposed to DEATHS, stupid. Minuscule (learn to spell stupid -- It was right in front of you) is not a number, nor a measure. It is a concept. 3 million children is about 5% of the total number of children in the country, for the year 2004. Contact is not "death," monkeyboy. > Antispanking > zealotS and logic... are they mutually exclusive? ;-) Nope. But you and logic and truth might be, nei? > Doan Kane Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > >>> It makes DECISIONS about who will parent. And that's the LAW. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > a number, nor a measure. It is a concept. 3 million children is about 5% > of the total number of children in the country, for the year 2004. Look it up in a dictionary before you open your mouth, FOOL! ;-) miniscule Audio pronunciation of "miniscule" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-skyl) adj. Variant of minuscule. 1. Very small; tiny. See Synonyms at small. 2. Of, relating to, or written in miniscule. > Contact is not "death," monkeyboy. Oh! I love that logic! 5% is "minuscule" but .002% is not! > > Antispanking > > zealotS and logic... are they mutually exclusive? ;-) > > Nope. But you and logic and truth might be, nei? And you have neither the logic nor the truth! Your mom must be proud! ;-) AF >>>>> It makes DECISIONS about who will parent. And that's the LAW. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> > And you have neither the logic nor the truth! Your mom must be proud! ;-) Comparing death to contact? Yes, monkeyboy, whatever you say. 0:-] > AF Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >>>>> It makes DECISIONS about who will parent. And that's the LAW. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> > Look it up in a dictionary before you open your mouth, FOOL! ;-) R R R ....you put it in quotes right after another poster used it. Can we presume you were then quoting the dictionary and not him? See it, right up there? It says, "That is hardly 'minuscule.'" Your logic dysfunction got you again, Dummy. And why, Dear Monkeyboy, didn't you include the URL to the citation? > miniscule Audio pronunciation of "miniscule" ( P ) Pronunciation Key > (mn-skyl) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1. Very small; tiny. See Synonyms at small. > 2. Of, relating to, or written in miniscule. Could it be because even the dictionary entries SWITCH to the more common spelling when giving examples of this 'variant?' http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Miniscule You got the brains of a pissant boy. Doug did not use the variant. He used the common and more used spelling. Now either you quoted him, which would require his spelling or the courtesy of an editorial [sic] from you, or you did not. If you did quote, you misspelled it, because you did not spell it the way he did. If you didn't quote, then please explain the quotation marks. Thanks. 0:-> >> Contact is not "death," monkeyboy. >> > Oh! I love that logic! 5% is "minuscule" but .002% is not! Contact is "minuscule" in effect. In fact the point of my argument with Doug, that you seem to have conveniently snipped away, and Greegorian moment of AA (Attribution Abortion). Death is not "minuscule" in effect, even if it's a single death out of many many millions. Or, we can go with your logic. And that of those who conduct wars and keep scores. They frequently downplay one kind or person's death, and play up another, for effect. But then, you, Doug, Greg, and the myriads of pissants that have posted to these ngs for years are accustomed to this kind of slanted writing. Screech for us. 0:-> >>> Antispanking >>> zealotS and logic... are they mutually exclusive? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > AF Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >> It makes DECISIONS about who will parent. And that's the LAW. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > child population of 73,000,000. > http://tinyurl.com/g6on9 Nonsense. That's "reports" not contacts. And Contacts amount to 3 million at most. And a high percentage of those go NOWHERE. > That is hardly "minuscule." > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with CPS at sometime during the 18 years a family member is a child is very > high. "Coming in contact" is an antiCPS groupie catchphrase. Like a buzzword. It's become "important" only because it's been repeated again and again to the vulnerable "gee ain't it awful....let's destroy the government" crowd, that neither thinks, nor learns. Except what YOU want it to. Little lockstep sheep. Coming in contact is something people do a lot of in the real world, Doug. With police, fireman, nurses, doctors, social workers, neighbors, family members, teachers. And even dentists. And the calls to CPS are not generated by CPS, but those OTHER people I just listed. > A child is more likely to be a subject of a CPS investigation or assessment > than they are to join the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. So what? And you might want to consider ... THEY HAVE, ON AVERAGE, WEEKLY CONTACT WITH SCOUT LEADERS. Who..., well, we'll discuss that in a moment. Want to discuss child contacts by CPS vs Child contacts by scouting officials? You are grasping for straws to support nonsense propaganda, Doug. And you might be interested to know: http://www.girlscoutstotem.org/alc/download/3SafetyLeadersGirls.pdf ... "Reporting Child Abuse If you suspect that one of the girls in your troop is being abused or neglected, you must contact Child Protective Services (CPS) and the Council staff in your area within 48 hours. CPS has trained personnel who will discuss the facts with you. All information is to be kept confidential and discussed only with appropriate Council staff. Washington statute defines child abuse or neglect as: “…the injury, sexual abuse sexual exploitation, negligent treatment, or mal reatment of a child by any person under circumstances which indicate that the child's health, welfare, and safety is harmed.” (RCW 26.44.020) Any person making a good faith report concerning suspected child abuse or neglect is provided civil and criminal immunity by Washington state statute. (RCW 26.44.060)" ... You see, Doug, unlike you, we IN SCOUTING, (yes, I've done that too) know when we see abuse and how often we see it. And what to do about it. And we do not minimize it, nor do we wish to wait until the child is visibly injured or DEAD TO REPORT TO THE AUTHORITIES. Yer sick, boy. > Kane, you continue to claim that there are vast numbers of abused and > neglected children who are not reported. Yes, that's correct. Please prove otherwise. You will have some formidable opponents in LE, health professionals, mental health professionals, and THE ADULTS THAT GREW UP ABUSED AS CHILDREN AND IT WAS NOT REPORTED, OR NOT REPORTED FOR MANY YEARS UNTIL THEY WERE OLDER. I count EVERY ABUSE INCIDENT, DOUG. Every one. Even the reports that ARE made often are about a child (the count is ONE at that point) who may have been abused many many times, with many incidences THAT DO NOT GO COUNTED. YOU want to minimize that, apparently. > You have said that the number of > unreported victims is six times the number of those reported. Likely I quoted and authority. Show me my statement. I think that is under reported. Notice, I did NOT say WHAT YOU CLAIM. You said, liar, that I claimed the "NUMBER OF CHILDREN" is underreported. While that is TRUE, what I claim is that the amount of ABUSE AND NEGLECT is underreported, and Doug, if you were truthful, you would admit what is common knowledge and certainly understandable to an objective person....that children that come into the CPS SYSTEM are NOT usually the victims of a single incident of abuse. Abuse is a continuum that can and does go on for years. Often undiscovered because parents hide it, of course. Don't you get tired of lying? > If any > substance to such a claim, then 100% of children in this country would be > subject to reports EACH YEAR. There IS no 'substance' to that claim BECAUSE YOU CHANGED MY CLAIM. I would venture that the incidences of abuse to children are underreported to a level of HUNDREDS OF TIMES what is reported. And when ONE was reported the count of incidences NOT entered into data banks. Only if they were DIFFERENT KINDS. No data is keep by federal authorities on how MANY TIMES A CHILD IN A SINGLE CASE IS ABUSED IN A PARTICULAR WAY, say incidences of sexual abuse. If they were sexually molested once, it's a count of one. If they were sexually molested 50 times, that is a COUNT OF ONE. You are a liar. You are because you attempt to deceive. You should be ashamed of yourself. Obviously you are not. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >> Around 5,500,000 children are subjects of child abuse/neglect reports >> annually. In 2004 alone, this represented more than 7.5% of the entire [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nonsense. That's "reports" not contacts. And Contacts amount to 3 million > at most. And a high percentage of those go NOWHERE. Hi, Kane, That's right, as I posted above. However, "contacts" is your term, not USDHHS' or mine. The number of children who were subject to actual CPS field investigations in 2004 was 3,503,000 -- well over 3 million "at most". http://tinyurl.com/zqbcz > "Coming in contact" is an antiCPS groupie catchphrase. Like a buzzword. > It's become "important" only because it's been repeated again and again to > the vulnerable "gee ain't it awful....let's destroy the government" crowd, > that neither thinks, nor learns. Except what YOU want it to. "Contact" is your wording. I have referred to the number of children USDHHS says were subject to CPS reports (5.5 million) and the number of children subject to CPS field investigations/assessments (3.5 million). What is a "contact"? > Coming in contact is something people do a lot of in the real world, Doug. > With police, fireman, nurses, doctors, social workers, neighbors, family > members, teachers. And even dentists. That may be, but it was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the number of children subject to CPS hotline reports and the 3,500,000 children who were subjects of CPS investigations/assessments in 2004. > And the calls to CPS are not generated by CPS, but those OTHER people I > just listed. Some are. Some aren't. A large percentage of calls to CPS come from social service workers themselves. And a large percentage of calls are made by people who remain anonymous, which you did not list. >... if you were truthful, you would admit what is common knowledge and >certainly understandable to an objective person....that children that come >into the CPS SYSTEM are NOT usually the victims of a single incident of >abuse. I agree. The majority of children that come into the CPS system are NOT victims of an incident of abuse. A large percentage (over 100,000 children in 2004) who are forcibly removed from their families are non-victims, according to USDHHS. > I would venture that the incidences of abuse to children are underreported > to a level of HUNDREDS OF TIMES what is reported. Does that mean that the state needs to investigate hundreds of times the number of families it does presently? If CPS investigated one hundred times the number of children reported in 2004, almost ALL of the children in the United States would be subjects of investigations in a single year. >>> Around 5,500,000 children are subjects of child abuse/neglect reports >>> annually. In 2004 alone, this represented more than 7.5% of the entire [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > field investigations in 2004 was 3,503,000 -- well over 3 million "at most". > http://tinyurl.com/zqbcz I've decided that when you start right off with a blatant lie in your first paragraph you have excused me from having to feel any responsibility to reply. No, Doug, "contact" is NOT my "term." And you can see that by the next sentence which I wrote prior to the above nonsense YOU wrote. >> "Coming in contact" is an antiCPS groupie catchphrase. Like a buzzword. Have a great day, liar. 0:-> >> It's become "important" only because it's been repeated again and again to >> the vulnerable "gee ain't it awful....let's destroy the government" crowd, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > the number of children reported in 2004, almost ALL of the children in the > United States would be subjects of investigations in a single year. Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) The only liar here is you, Kane! Nothing new. First, it was the LIE that 1500 children died each year from discipline that started with a spanking. Now this. Anybody here believe Kane's claims? Doan > >>> Around 5,500,000 children are subjects of child abuse/neglect reports > >>> annually. In 2004 alone, this represented more than 7.5% of the entire [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb > contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > >> Around 5,500,000 children are subjects of child abuse/neglect reports > >> annually. In 2004 alone, this represented more than 7.5% of the entire [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > the number of children reported in 2004, almost ALL of the children in the > United States would be subjects of investigations in a single year. 100 times? That's "miniscule"! Doan Greegor made no attempt to respond to my post. He simply posted every diversionary tactic possible to call attention away from the post and the questions I asked. This reminds me of a garbage bag of generalities, and the garbage bag is bursting! >> It's just TOO CONVENIENT when such horror stories >> come out of foster care, for the system sicofants to >> pretend that all of these kids were removed for horror >> stories at home. > > No such pretense is made. Of course not. Notice the word "all." Over-reaching for the generalities garbage bag. > YOU do not look things up to find out. I DO, and report them back to > you, lame-of-brain. You looked up the Jordan case, where I intentionally omitted any references, but stated the source. Greegor stated opinion and garbage. >> It's statistically an impossibility. > > It's statistically irrelevant. We are discussing individual cases. If > YOU wish to provide some statistics let us know. If discussing individual cases, as we are, statistics are an impossibility. Statistics are exremely possible for Greegor's charge that is an attempt at generalization. The stats are available. Let's see if Greegor can find them. (snip) >> Of the kids the state removes to foster care, >> an incredible percentage were removed for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, that is not true. And all the lies you make, and all the dodging and > spinning Doug does will not put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I wonder what an "incredible percentage" is, in Greegor's mind? I wonder if he has "incredible percentage" stats? Or is the garbage bag of unsupported claims nearly bursting? >> The results prove the STATE is a worse parent >> than most parents they second guess. > > Where did you get the idea the "STATE" is a parent? They do NOT parent. > Foster parent's and adoptive parents, and bio parents "PARENT." Oh, you know better that this. Of course the "STATE" is a parent. They remove children from wonderfully loving homes. These children bed down at the capital. Senators and representatives take turns feeding and caring for the children. And the governor comes in from time to time to feed and change the diapers of the little ones. Senators and representatives take time out of their busy schedule to take the older ones to school. And designated members pick up children after school. The governor stays to prepare dinner for the children, read them stories, and put them to bed. Isn't this how the government works in your state? It's how the government works in Greegor's state, and I know I'm going to storm the capital to get this kind of parental involvement from legislators and the governor of my state. Wow! A state that parents its children. LaVonne > The state does not. It's not its job, nor its mandate, nor its intent. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Now let's see that proof you have where "the results prove" your claim. Greegor, Here's the post you cut, but attempted a threaded response. I think Kane has it right. If you have no response that supports your forever EVIL CPS fantasy, you attempt to divert. Poor debate, Greegor, and even poorer logic. You post a garbage bag of generalities having nothing to do with anything in the thread. You, of course, have no support for your garbage bag of generalities. And you do know what most people do with a full garbage bag, I assume. LaVonne > What was this child removed from her parents for? I have no idea why the child was removed from her parents. Once again, are you claiming that negligent/abusive foster care somehow means that she should not have been removed from her parents? Your logical makes no sense. Being placed in a bad foster home has nothing to do with the care she was receiving at home, nor does it result in the conclusion you are attempting to make that the child should not have been removed. Perhaps the child should have been removed, and there needs to be more oversight, more training, and better education for foster parents and the CPS system. This takes money. Cough if up, Greegor. Or start making the case the the child and other children from similar posts of yours were removed in error. There are two different points here. One, should the child have been removed? Two, if the child needs removal, how can a safe placement be assured. The arguments are not one and the same, as you seem to believe." > It's just TOO CONVENIENT when such horror stories > come out of foster care, for the system sicofants to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The results prove the STATE is a worse parent > than most parents they second guess. > It's just TOO CONVENIENT when such horror stories > come out of foster care, for the system sicofants to > pretend that all of these kids were removed for horror > stories at home. "All these kids," Greegor? All what kids? What are you talking about? All the imaginary kids in your fantasy, in order to justify your CPS experience? The garbage bag of Greegor's generalities is nearly full. > It's statistically an impossibility. It is statistically impossible to prove "all" of any human variable. That is what statistical significance is all about. I'd ask you if you understood the term, but I'm afraid the Greegor garbage bag would burst, and since you refuse to answer anyway, why waste a good bag. > Of the kids the state removes to foster care, > an incredible percentage were removed for > ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as reported by the > agencies themselves! "Incredible percentage" were removed for "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING." Reference: Greegor (2006). "Greegor's unsupported opinion in a futile attempt to deal with his experiences with CPS." CPS;APS > The results prove the STATE is a worse parent > than most parents they second guess. Greegor, you now have a reference and you are published! And I'm having a little difficulty providing transportation for my child right now. I'm calling the state. Can you tell me how to do this? They might be a worse parent, but I know that you would never have printed and published "The State as Parent" without facts. If I go to my governor, will he give me transportation while my car is in the shop? Aren't your posts just a giggle and a hoot? LaVonne Re: Greegor's Misinformation! wasRe: Malnourished in NJ Foster home SELECTIVE LaVonne: Could you please explain the message title you posted? Where's the misinformation exactly? Do you believe you were an abused child, LaVonne? > Re: Greegor's Misinformation! wasRe: Malnourished in NJ Foster home > SELECTIVE > > LaVonne: > Could you please explain the message title you posted? What's to explain. You have posted misleading insinuating garbage as you so frequently do. > Where's the misinformation exactly? Unnnhhh...Greg. Read the post. Don't abort the attributions. Then you could more easily have read it right here. > Do you believe you were an abused child, LaVonne? See what she meant about misinformation. That's misleading in that it has nothing to do with her post, or your comments she is replying to. Do you believe you were an abused child, Greg, and if not why not? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > > Re: Greegor's Misinformation! wasRe: Malnourished in NJ Foster home > > SELECTIVE [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Do you believe you were an abused child, Greg, and if not why not? Do you believe that you've abused your kid, Kane? If not, why not? Doan >>> Re: Greegor's Misinformation! wasRe: Malnourished in NJ Foster home >>> SELECTIVE [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > Do you believe that you've abused your kid, Kane? If not, why not? Nope. I did not beat him. Nor did I more than pat him through heavy bedding. It was wrong, but not abusive. Now, can I expect an answer from Greg, or are you now his mouthpiece, monkeyboy? How hard did your parent, or parents hit you, anyway when they spanked you? > Doan 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Re: Greegor's Misinformation! wasRe: Malnourished in NJ Foster home > SELECTIVE > > LaVonne: > Could you please explain the message title you posted? What is it about the term "misinformation" that you don't understand? > Where's the misinformation exactly? If you had the guts to actually include the post you are attempting to refute, this would be easily answered and abundantly clear. Why are you so afraid to actually include at least portions of the post in your response attempts? > Do you believe you were an abused child, LaVonne? Diversion is your speciality, but it really isn't terribly effective if you are trying to engage in intelligent debate strategies. But perhaps making a coherent point and engaging in intelligent debate is neither your goal, nor within your ability. LaVonne > > Re: Greegor's Misinformation! wasRe: Malnourished in NJ Foster home > > SELECTIVE > > Could you please explain the message title you posted? > What is it about the term "misinformation" that you don't understand? > > > > Where's the misinformation exactly? > If you had the guts to actually include the post you are attempting to > refute, this would be easily answered and abundantly clear. Why are you > so afraid to actually include at least portions of the post in your > response attempts? Is quoting "gutsy" and is not quoting unrelated text a dodge? I thought I was giving you a broader area to explain YOUR TITLING. > > Do you believe you were an abused child, LaVonne? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LaVonne Clearly answering a DIRECT QUESTION isn't your specialty. But wait! isn't that DIVERSION you just practiced? You are a propagandist w.nker posing for "intelligent debate" on the INTERNET? Get real. Quit pulling on what's left of your pud. > > Do you believe you were an abused child, LaVonne? >>> Re: Greegor's Misinformation! wasRe: Malnourished in NJ Foster home >>> SELECTIVE [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You are a propagandist w.nker posing for "intelligent debate" > on the INTERNET? Get real. Quit pulling on what's left of your pud. When was the last time you mentioned that I posted profanity, Greg? I mean as an argument that brings my credibility into question? 0:-] >>> Do you believe you were an abused child, LaVonne? Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.