 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / March 2007Georgia: DCFS Administrator Arrested For Child Cruelty: DFCS official denies abuse...
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/03/13/0313dfcs.ht ml?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13 DFCS official denies abuse By CRAIG SCHNEIDER Published on: 03/13/07 One of Fulton County's top child welfare officials was arrested after being accused of striking her 8-year-old daughter 34 times with a belt, police said Monday. Cylenthia Clark, 38, of Fayetteville was charged with felony child cruelty on Saturday. Clark is assistant director of the Fulton County office of the state Division of Family and Children Services. The arrest warrant alleges that on Feb. 7, Clark told the child to remove all her clothes except her panties and then whipped her with the belt on the back, arms, legs and face. The girl and her three sisters, ages 6, 5 and 3, were taken from Clark's care and placed in protective custody, Fayetteville police Lt. Beverly Trainor said. In an interview, Clark acknowledged spanking her daughter but said, "I am not a child abuser. I have never abused my children." Clark got out of jail on bond Saturday. Trainor said the girl's school reported marks on the child's back and arms Feb. 28 to Fayette DFCS. That report was passed on to Fayetteville police. Clark said her daughter had been aggressive lately, fighting in an after-school program at Hood Avenue Primary and even fighting a teacher who tried to break it up. "I did spank her, but I didn't abuse her," Clark said. "I don't even want to spank my kids, but it's a last resort." DFCS spokeswoman Dena Smith said Clark is back on the job but only doing administrative work and has no involvement in child protection cases. The arrest of one of Fulton's top child welfare officials stunned workers in the county office and leaders in Georgia's child welfare community. Officials at Fulton DFCS have power to investigate parents for child abuse and neglect, and even to remove children from their homes and place them in foster care. "We would hope that the people we entrust with our children would hold the same values as we do," said Normer Adams, executive director of the Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children. "The values that people hold reflect in what they practice. How can you take someone's child away, when you're doing something like this?" Adams said he thinks Clark should be put on administrative leave until the case is resolved. DFCS officials said Clark arrived in the Fulton office less than a year ago. Clark and her husband are separated, Fayetteville police said, and he lives in another state. Fulton DFCS workers said the office was shocked to hear the news. "She's a nice person," said Fulton DFCS worker Richard Maynard. "It's unfortunate, and my prayers go out to her and her family." Shantreas O'Neil, a Fulton social services specialist, said, "All of us doing this work are responsible for protecting the kids, so it would surprise me if this happened to any worker." Neighbors at Weatherly Walk apartments in Fayetteville said Clark appeared to be a caring mother. "I was always amazed she could get all those little girls dressed and herself ready for work," said Lori Holt, the mother of twin 8-month-old boys. "I'm doing good to get out of here with bottles and diapers." Clark said she was surprised to be arrested. "I'm sure they [Fayette DFCS and police] were following protocol, but from my experience that [an arrest] is reserved for more severe cases," Clark said. The arrest comes as Fulton DFCS has come under attack from several of its own workers who criticized top managers as arrogant and belligerent. The workers say the management style has prompted many employees to leave, burdening others with more work and leaving some children in danger of abuse and neglect. State DFCS Director Mary Dean Harvey said the Fulton office has increased its scrutiny of workers since a lawsuit settlement last year in which a federal court ordered the office to improve its care of children. She said the greater demands may have led some disgruntled workers to complain and leave. She also said the Fulton office is performing better. > http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/03/13/... > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > She said the greater demands may have led some disgruntled workers to > complain and leave. She also said the Fulton office is performing better. Very scary. Good question is posed in the article; 'How can you take away someone else's children when you are treating your own children this way?' The lady said that she spanks her kids she doesn't abuse them. Don't alot of parents say the exact same thing? That grey area when corporal punishment is involved. This employee said that her child has been aggressive lately and has been assaulting people. Ok, if that is the case, why did she offer herself the services she has families get into? It's obvious that the child should have been in counseling if she was as bad off as her mother outlined her to be. Uh oh. She's a single mother. Prime target for CPS. Ok, the part where one person said, 'She's a nice person' got me laughing. Why you may ask? When CPS comes a-knocking, us parents are outlined as everything BUT nice people. You know, we are disheveled, stresssed out, depressed, angry, etc. Anything but nice. But one of their own? She's a nice person and her co-workers are shocked. > http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/03/13/... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > being accused of striking her 8-year-old daughter 34 times with a belt, > police said Monday. Clearly the mother was out of control. <<<snip>>> > "I did spank her, but I didn't abuse her," Clark said. "I don't even > want to spank my kids, but it's a last resort." This is the only excuse that migh be acceptable to CPS... if only the mother didn't hit the kid 34 times with a belt. <<<snip>>> > Clark said she was surprised to be arrested. She could say she WASN'T surprised. > "I'm sure they [Fayette DFCS and police] were following protocol, but > from my experience that [an arrest] is reserved for more severe cases," > Clark said. More severe? Like a dead kid? This woman was actually reviewing cases as one of those PAPER PUSHING supervisors who urge workers to make cases even when they shouldn't. She didn't see the actual homes, kids or parents, just PUSHED THE PAPER and urged the NUMBERS to keep the funding up. People like THIS WOMAN are a true danger to society! Her implosion might actually save lives. Perhaps her replacement drone won't be so robotic. She got her hand in her own meatgrinder. Redo of a thread from last week. >This woman was actually reviewing cases as one >of those PAPER PUSHING supervisors who urge >workers to make cases even when they shouldn't. And your proof of this would be? Why not stick to the actual issue. You have a child abuser. The child abuser was a spanker. The spanker, like some, NOT all spankers, lost control. >She didn't see the actual homes, kids or parents, Supervisors in many professions rely on the reports of subordinates. If they did not, then everyone would be either a supervisor, or a worker. >just PUSHED THE PAPER and urged the NUMBERS >to keep the funding up. I'm still waiting after all these years for this to be proven. I see lots of opinion about it, here and there an expert or two, but no actual proof that children are taken ONLY TO KEEP the numbers up. >People like THIS WOMAN are a true danger to society! I will go with that one because she is an obvious example of why spanking is a terrible and dangerous parenting strategy. >Her implosion might actually save lives. >Perhaps her replacement drone won't be so robotic. Well, despite my disapproval of her beating of her child, and my unwillingness to have her be a supervisor in CPS precisely because she would NOT likely be as hard on spankers that loose it and beat (after all, she's one of them, is she not?) I cannot say with certainty that she was robotic or in fact might not save lives in her supervisory role, and neither can you. You are spouting again, based on nothing by your biases. >She got her hand in her own meatgrinder. That's true, but in fact is counter intuitive to your claims of her being a bad supervisor that does bad things to families. You have zero proof that is so. It's just a controversial enough case with high profile for the media to jump on to give you an excuse to say about anything that pops in your head without having to think through your babble. >Redo of a thread from last week. Yes. Now, tell us, what do YOU think about my claim that spankers lose it and beat their children? This one did. Others do. It's one of the primary sources of physical abuse to children. "I was just," as she has claimed, "disciplining." "I was just spanking, I don't beat my children." Your thoughts? On spanking? Anything other than your continual mindless babbling about CPS that diverts from real reform and improvement? Kane > >This woman was actually reviewing cases as one > >of those PAPER PUSHING supervisors who urge [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The spanker, like some, NOT all spankers, lost control. Nice admission that not all spankers lose control. But she professed to be a non-spanker. A non-practitioner who resorts to it is of course ignorant of how to do it right. > >She didn't see the actual homes, kids or parents, > > Supervisors in many professions rely on the reports of subordinates. And in the Child Protection INDUSTRY that often means OVERRULING the caseworker and ordering them to make cases they shouldn't or closing cases they shouldn't. > If they did not, then everyone would be either a supervisor, or a > worker. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lots of opinion about it, here and there an expert or two, but no > actual proof that children are taken ONLY TO KEEP the numbers up. California Bench Guide for Juvenile court. Judges instructed to make their decisions with an eye to maintaining FUNDING. > >People like THIS WOMAN are a true danger to society! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > would NOT likely be as hard on spankers that loose it and beat (after > all, she's one of them, is she not?) She is a professed non-spanker. > I cannot say with certainty that > she was robotic or in fact might not save lives in her supervisory [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You have zero proof that is so. How would you characterize her thought processes considering she hit the kid with an implement 35 times even though she knows the LAW better than most people on that issue. > It's just a controversial enough case with high profile for the media > to jump on to give you an excuse to say about anything that pops in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > This one did. She claims to be a non-spanker. Herein lies the problem. > Others do. It's one of the primary sources of physical abuse to > children. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Kane Are you saying this is spanking? >> >This woman was actually reviewing cases as one >> >of those PAPER PUSHING supervisors who urge [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Nice admission that not all spankers lose control. It's not an "admission" as in "reluctantly agreed to," Greg. It's a simple fact I've stated before. >But she professed to be a non-spanker. She did? Where did she do that? Citation, Greg. How can one be a non-spanker but call what they did "spanking," Greg? >A non-practitioner who resorts to it >is of course ignorant of how to do it right. Greg, on aps, again and again this has been brought up. And there IS no right way to do it. It's a last resort ploy when one's ability to parent has been surpassed. How is that "right," Greg? >> >She didn't see the actual homes, kids or parents, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >them to make cases they shouldn't or closing cases >they shouldn't. Does it? Citations, Greg? >> If they did not, then everyone would be either a supervisor, or a >> worker. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Judges instructed to make their decisions with >an eye to maintaining FUNDING. Provide a link. I KNOW what it says, and that is NOT the intent. The intent is to not FORGET when a case is in fact decided on to make it official by filling out the paperwork required by the feds. There was a long string of these "errors" on the part of the judges that cost the people of the state considerable money, Greg. Not the other way around. One cannot, judge or not, create the federal dollars if the child isn't eligible for them. So the rule is, don't let the case leave the courtroom, ever, without signing off on the federal form. >> >People like THIS WOMAN are a true danger to society! >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >She is a professed non-spanker. And you are an obvious liar, or worse, stupid, with a selective memory. ' "I did spank her, but I didn't abuse her," Clark said."' ... '"I don't even want to spank my kids, but it's a last resort."' Read that line aloud to an 8th grade kid, say Lisa's daughter, and ask her if this mother uses spanking, stupid. >> I cannot say with certainty that >> she was robotic or in fact might not save lives in her supervisory [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >35 times even though she knows the LAW better >than most people on that issue. Thirty four times, Greg. And I would characterize her as a parent that lost control while spanking and escalated it to a beating, Greg. Are you claiming that all parents that do that have in general, on all matters, poor thought processes, Greg? How about giving a cold shower to a six year old that wet herself while at play? >> It's just a controversial enough case with high profile for the media >> to jump on to give you an excuse to say about anything that pops in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >She claims to be a non-spanker. >Herein lies the problem. The problem lies in your lies, Greg. Or your stupidity. And your lack of literacy. She claims spanking is a last resort, Greg. With that big excuse that all "beating" parents use when caught. "I was just disciplining." >> Others do. It's one of the primary sources of physical abuse to >> children. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Are you saying this is spanking? That is the best you can come up with when I ask for your thoughts on this "spanking" that was in fact a beating, and that this is the primary excuse for parents when caught..."I was just disciplining?" Obviously you don't want to answer, Greg, and ducked. 0:] > >> >This woman was actually reviewing cases as one > >> >of those PAPER PUSHING supervisors who urge [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Citation, Greg. It's in the original news articles. > How can one be a non-spanker but call what they did "spanking," Greg? Perhaps being a non-spanker she has an EXTREME concept of what spanking is? Perhaps she really BELIEVED the anti spanking extremist rhetoric? But as a "responsible party", a supervisor who is supposed to have judgement, clearly she lacks judgement. > >A non-practitioner who resorts to it > >is of course ignorant of how to do it right. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How is that "right," Greg? Save your stupid RHETORIC for somebody dumb enough to buy into it. > >> >She didn't see the actual homes, kids or parents, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Does it? Citations, Greg? Didn't you just exclude other options? > >> If they did not, then everyone would be either a supervisor, or a > >> worker. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > FORGET when a case is in fact decided on to make it official by > filling out the paperwork required by the feds. The exact wording is very blatant. It IS of course VERY awkward for the state, to say the least. After they revise the text will you deny that it carried such a stench? > There was a long string of these "errors" on the part of the judges > that cost the people of the state considerable money, Greg. Not the > other way around. But the wording with the "stench" is going to cost them even more! > One cannot, judge or not, create the federal dollars if the child > isn't eligible for them. So the rule is, don't let the case leave the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And you are an obvious liar, or worse, stupid, with a selective > memory. What part of "professed non-spanker" don't you understand? She outright stated she is not a spanker, quoted in the article. > "I did spank her, but I didn't abuse her," Clark said."' ... > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Are you claiming that all parents that do that have in general, on all > matters, poor thought processes, Greg? She is not a practitioner of spanking. If she was she'd probably know better than to flip out at it. > How about giving a cold shower to a six year old that wet herself > while at play? Or exiting the sauna and jumping into a snow bank? Lenge Livre' Norge' > >> It's just a controversial enough case with high profile for the media > >> to jump on to give you an excuse to say about anything that pops in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > "I was just disciplining." But as a trained Child Protection Caseworker she knows exactly how she broke the law. If she went too far and then afterwards REALIZED she had, I would have been more forgiving, but knowing the laws exactly, and knowing what she actually did, her ""defense"" is beyond stupid. Is she going to claim temporary insanity? > >> Others do. It's one of the primary sources of physical abuse to > >> children. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > >> Your thoughts? She knows the rules. Momentary spaz would be bad but human. She's like that nut case caseworker who killed Logan Marr. Big preaching against spanking, aire of superiority, OBSESSIVE, worked at being ""superior"" and lording over real parents. Yet she KILLED Logan Marr! Totally cognizant of what she did yet IN DENIAL. > >> On spanking? This is less about spanking and more about the chuckleheads that sit around JUDGING parents and calling the shots on the lives of families. A Bill Of Rights nightmare! > >> Anything other than your continual mindless babbling about CPS that > >> diverts from real reform and improvement? >From within you mean? 30 + years is more than enough. Their time is up. > >> Kane > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > primary excuse for parents when caught..."I was just disciplining?" > Obviously you don't want to answer, Greg, and ducked. I have answered. You're just an OBSESSED nut case, whining you didn't get what you wanted. >> >> >This woman was actually reviewing cases as one >> >> >of those PAPER PUSHING supervisors who urge [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >It's in the original news articles. Then you'll have no trouble at all picking it out and quoting it for us, using a link to the article, right? We'll wait right here. >> How can one be a non-spanker but call what they did "spanking," Greg? > >Perhaps being a non-spanker she has an EXTREME concept of what >spanking is? Perhaps as a professional in the child protection field she knows what the extremes are an aren't. Because, she's an admitted spanker. >Perhaps she really BELIEVED the anti spanking extremist rhetoric? Perhaps the moon is made of limburger instead of green, eh? >But as a "responsible party", a supervisor who is supposed >to have judgement, clearly she lacks judgement. Everyone in the world would be out of work, Greg, if we held them to perfection before we would let them be in a profession, or job, Greg. Is that why you took Sabbatical...the become perfect? >> >A non-practitioner who resorts to it >> >is of course ignorant of how to do it right. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Save your stupid RHETORIC for somebody dumb enough to buy into it. "Greg, on aps, again and again this has been brought up. And there IS no right way to do it. It's a last resort ploy when one's ability to parent has been surpassed." Then YOU, Greg, are now the ONE, that person that finally can answer "The Question": Exactly where is the line between safe non-injurious corporal punishment, and abusive hitting with injury? Ready, set, go! >> >> >She didn't see the actual homes, kids or parents, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Didn't you just exclude other options? No. What I said was: "Supervisors in many professions rely on the reports of subordinates." Your answer is not to my question. It's simply asking to dodge by forcing me to reexamine the original question. I have, now it's your turn. Have another go at it: Greg: "And in the Child Protection INDUSTRY that often means OVERRULING the caseworker and ordering them to make cases they shouldn't or closing cases they shouldn't." Kane: "Does it? Citations, Greg?" Your statement is simple. My questions are simple. If you know of these decisions and order happening "often" then you surely have a source somewhere that will support your claim. May we see that source or those sources? Thanks. >> >> If they did not, then everyone would be either a supervisor, or a >> >> worker. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Provide a link. Greg? You made a specific claim. Support it with an authoritative source. Where IS the California Bench Guide for Juvenile Court? >> I KNOW what it says, and that is NOT the intent. The intent is to not >> FORGET when a case is in fact decided on to make it official by >> filling out the paperwork required by the feds. > >The exact wording is very blatant. Then it won't be long before you present it here for us to ponder, right? >It IS of course VERY awkward for the state, to say the least. Could be. May we see it please? I want the wording, and a verifying source that is available on line, or you can admit it's YOUR opinion of what the document says. >After they revise the text will you deny that it carried such a >stench? Are they planning on revising the text? I don't see why. Judges are expected to do their tasks. One of them, without even KNOWING if the child is 4E eligible, is to sign off on WHY the child is being placed in TC and out of home care. Eligibility will be examined later in the case. On all such placements. Now tell us, Greg. If NO money was involved would you want the judge to FAIL to make record of WHY CPS is removing the child? And do you know that that sign off is required even if the judge does NOT agree to the out of home placement? It's simply forcing the judge <ahem, clears throat cautiously in respect of the bench>, to do what judges were supposed to do before, Greg. With or without federal funding programs. >> There was a long string of these "errors" on the part of the judges >> that cost the people of the state considerable money, Greg. Not the >> other way around. > >But the wording with the "stench" is going to cost them >even more! Please post those exact words, Greg, and not from one of your silly childish anti government website "citations," unless of course they provide links giving full availability to SOURCE...the 'bench guide,' itself. Thanks. >> One cannot, judge or not, create the federal dollars if the child >> isn't eligible for them. So the rule is, don't let the case leave the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >What part of "professed non-spanker" don't you understand? >She outright stated she is not a spanker, quoted in the article. What does that say right below this point in our exchange, Greg? >> "I did spank her, but I didn't abuse her," Clark said."' ... >> >> '"I don't even want to spank my kids, but it's a last resort."' It does NOT say "I'm not a spanker," Greg. It just says it's a last resort though I don't want to use it. That is exactly the kind of wording seen in abuse cases where the parent has claimed they only were disciplining. She's a spanker who lost it, stupid. Why did you skip my quote, still insisting she's was a non-spanker? >> >> I cannot say with certainty that >> >> she was robotic or in fact might not save lives in her supervisory [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >She is not a practitioner of spanking. Sorry. Here statement, if you read it with standard english language comprehension is a very clear statement that she APPROVES of spanking as a last resort, and while she doesn't WANT TO, she does use it as a last resort...otherwise she would have said, "I DO NO SPANK AND NEVER HAVE." >If she was she'd probably know better than to flip out at it. So Greg. Start a new thread. In it I'd like YOU to give us a list of child "offenses" it's proper to spank for, and how to spank, specifically. What to use. How hard to hit. How many strokes. How frequently as in number of hits per time period. Should be easy for you, considering you think yourself so expert that you could offer the state of Iowa your services teaching Iowa DFS clients how to spank properly. Okay, HOW? >> How about giving a cold shower to a six year old that wet herself >> while at play? > >Or exiting the sauna and jumping into a snow bank? Lenge Livre' >Norge' I do that voluntarily. And from intense heat to cold, that frankly I can't even feel, given my body temp. As soon as I feel the least chill, I remove myself from the snow bank. And no one orders me, or forces me, or watches over me to make me do it. And I'm not a little six year old girl with an unrelated male being my "punishment guard," Greg. You still don't get it do you Greg? The world has to work according to your fantasies in YOUR head, doesn't it Greg. Little girls don't mind being forced to take cold showers while mom's boyfriend watches, isn't that what you think, Greg? And you do believe that child wet themselves purposefully and that punishment is the right way to handle it, don't you, Greg? >> >> It's just a controversial enough case with high profile for the media >> >> to jump on to give you an excuse to say about anything that pops in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >But as a trained Child Protection Caseworker >she knows exactly how she broke the law. Yes, I'd say so. I'd also say at the time, she was not thinking, or "knowing" much of anything...rather like a parent out of control. >If she went too far and then afterwards >REALIZED she had, I would have been >more forgiving, but knowing the laws exactly, >and knowing what she actually did, her >""defense"" is beyond stupid. Then you'd have to believe that people that beat their children don't know the law exactly. >Is she going to claim temporary insanity? She might. So? >> >> Others do. It's one of the primary sources of physical abuse to >> >> children. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >She knows the rules. Most everyone knows the rules, Greg. Problem is the rules on spanking are, like some other rules (law) are not all that clear. It's the nature of the event itself that precludes that. Hitting someone, especially a possibly flinching wriggling child, does not lend itself to exactness, Greg. In one way I agree with some of the more sane advocates of spanking in arguments about the effects of pain on learning. Some ... and you must see that "SOME" oversized ... learning events can take place with pain. My argument has to do with SPANKING, not with pain itself. The entire act is fraught with very dangerous possibilities. She got caught in one of those dangerous outcomes. Why? Can't say. Bad day? Hormone imbalance? Other medical or psychiatric conditions (by psychiatric, I mean neurological imbalance of some kind not within her control), all reasons for ME to be against spanking as a practice. It's tough enough to drive with other people on the road, any of which could be impaired in the same ways, Greg. Or don't you drive? >Momentary spaz would be bad but human. Yep. And you appear to be saying that because she was a CPS supervisor she is not allowed to have a momentary spaz. They text for those during hiring, right? >She's like that nut case caseworker who >killed Logan Marr. Don't you think that's just a tad hyperbolic? You wouldn't be exaggerating for effect, just a tiny bit, now would you? Or does it give you a woody to keep bring up that child's death and dancing in her blood, again, Greg? >Big preaching against >spanking, aire of superiority, OBSESSIVE, >worked at being ""superior"" and lording over >real parents. This supervisor is known to have done that? You have some evidence we did not see in the news article? Please share. >Yet she KILLED Logan Marr! The supervisor did not kill Logan Marr or anyone else. She could have, since I read there were strikes to the head, killed her daughter. Again, my stand against spanking is based on such risks as this. >Totally cognizant of what she did yet IN DENIAL. Well, this supervisor did not kill, Greg. And it does NOT sound like she's the least bit in denial, but rather that she's shocked at herself. But then, like your opinion being what it is, that she's a "non-spanking" that had she been a regular trained practitioner as you claim you are, my opinion is as stated...she was shocked at herself and her actions. Did you know that most parents get a walk on such things? No prior record of abuse with the agency. No serious injury to the child. Willing to take a parenting class (sans spanking instruction, I do believe 0:] ), and a period of supervision. Kids aren't removed in spanking cases, Greg. Other than for the investigation period. Of course if YOU showed up in the courtroom as the alleged perp, Greg, no doubt the judge would make it a six year run (unknowingly of course) because you'd go all pissy and start defending yourself as being a "responsible spanker," and "by damn not going to take any of those silly classes." >> >> On spanking? > >This is less about spanking and more about >the chuckleheads that sit around JUDGING >parents and calling the shots on the lives >of families. A Bill Of Rights nightmare! In what way? You do understand the signers of the Constitution, and framers of the Bill Of Rights, were far from perfect human beings themselves, right Greg? No requirement for anyone to be perfect is built into the BOR, Greg. Sorry. >> >> Anything other than your continual mindless babbling about CPS that >> >> diverts from real reform and improvement? > >>From within you mean? >30 + years is more than enough. >Their time is up. Nope. CPS will never be perfect. It's a human service agency, and humans aren't perfect. Nor does CPS have a mandate to make them perfect. In all human endeavors there are uncontrolled variables, Greg. So little pricks like you can babble on with your weirdness and we can keep you OUT of the mainstream decision making. You make just enough noise to be noticed, accounted for, and discounted. >> >> Kane >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I have answered. Took you long enough, and sure did not answer all questions that were important. Parse your and my commentary and note where you failed to respond. Some pretty significant stuff ignored by you. >You're just an OBSESSED nut case, You just hate it when I comment on the actual content, don't you boy? Greg, if you'll check I've stuck entirely to the subject here. With YOU making the side runs, repeatedly...though I thank you for holding "my family's case" to a minimum in this thread. >whining you didn't get what you wanted. Get what I wanted? What did I want, Greg? I got a CPS supervisor that risked her child's life using a belt to beat her with. I don't want that, Greg. Not from her or anyone. I got a woman that made plain she DOES know the law, Greg, and that it's legal to 'spank' and that though she doesn't want to spank, she does recognize and use it as a last resort. I got one more thing I wanted Greg. Yet another display by you of your inability to reason, think, and be factual. And to see once again that you are a coward, stupid, and a self important little prick. Come on, make me take a cold shower, little man. I think I pissed myself laughing at your antics. 0;] ...."I'm too stupid to piss downwind." .... So, Stupid, notice the language in the following story, compare it to the language of this admitted SPANKER, and try another weasel. This one won't work. This supervisor was NOT a NON-spanker, Greg. She says plainly that she believed in spanking, though she "didn't want to." NON-spankers Don't say, "spanking as a last resort," stupid. Try this one on for size. Are these spankers who just weren't properly instructed in how to spank? Notice the very last sentence in the story, Greg, and don't dodge. Give us your opinion. Surely church people know how to spank properly, Greg. Fern seemed to think so: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070327/ap_on_re_us/church_child_death;_ylt=ArCdztmS .MgKsiJlG25thzHMWM0F Back to Story - Help Yahoo! News Ga. parents sentenced in boy's death By DANIEL YEE, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago A suburban Atlanta couple was sentenced Tuesday to life plus 30 years in prison in the beating death of their 8-year-old son, a case that prompted authorities to raid the family's church because it supports corporal punishment. Prosecutors said Joseph and Sonya Smith beat their son Josef, locked him in a wooden box and confined him to a closet for hours at a time before he died in October 2003. The boys' parents had told authorities Josef had passed out and never regained consciousness after the family gathered in the kitchen to participate in a prayer session with their church via the Internet. Their attorneys argued the boy didn't die from the injuries, and that the medical examiner failed to perform tests that would have found a cause of his death. "I think it's serious enough where you should receive the maximum punishment and it should be on top of life," Superior Court Judge James Bodiford told the couple in sentencing them. The Smiths looked at each other but said nothing as Bodiford imposed the sentences. About two dozen supporters were in the courtroom, and several friends spoke on the couple's behalf, describing them as kind. Bodiford called the letters of support for the Smiths "amazing," but said the supporters likely didn't have all the details. The Smiths are members of the Franklin, Tenn.-based Remnant Fellowship Church, which grew out of church leader Gwen Shamblin's Weigh Down Workshop, a Christian diet program she created in the 1980s. Authorities raided the church in June 2004 as part of the investigation of Josef Smith's death, but church officials have not been accused of wrongdoing in the case. Former Remnant members have said church teachings on discipline include discussion of corporal punishment. Shamblin has said the church leaves discipline to parents and believes in spankings as a last resort. Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Questions or Comments Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback >> >> >This woman was actually reviewing cases as one >> >> >of those PAPER PUSHING supervisors who urge [quoted text clipped - 226 lines] >You're just an OBSESSED nut case, >whining you didn't get what you wanted. Are you trying to change the subject Kane? If so, WHY? >Are you trying to change the subject Kane? I cannot answer your question unless you include the subject you are referring to, Greg. We covered two main ones, at least. Her, the supervisor, as a decision maker...which I have answered to. And her as a "NON-spanker," as you claim but have not shown from her statements to be true. While I have shown that indeed, she speaks the very language of the spanker. And in the past tense. You are utterly and totally stupid, Greg. That is certain. And proven repeatedly here for years. > If so, WHY? Why are you trying to change the subject to "subject changing," that has not happened, Greg? YOU are running, as usual. Which subject would you prefer to discuss Greg? And why have YOU changed the subject? Show us where she is a non-spanker, Greg. And show us where someone that has made an error necessarily would be then shown to be unable to make ANY proper decisions. Doubtless Einstein made some errors in calculation (He failed "gymnasium level" -high school- math, Greg). No, Greg, you are so deeply flawed in thinking that "errors" is too kind a descriptor for you. What you are caught up in is the fundy thinking that your kind and your buddies are prone to. You are error prone to an immense degree, but to hide that from yourselves you insist others be error free. And when they are not this "proves" your superiority and "correctness." You are profoundly and utterly and permanently stupid. The lot of you. Hint: YOU, Greg, dodged by changing the subject from both the subjects under discussion. Spanking v beating, and the decision making capacity of someone that makes an error. BOTH YOUR OWN SUBJECTS. You jumped to: Greg; "And in the Child Protection INDUSTRY that often means OVERRULING the caseworker and ordering them to make cases they shouldn't or closing cases they shouldn't." YOU changed the subject, little boy. TO RUN from failing to answer either of the other subjects YOU brought up when I showed your thinking as flawed. Now, show us from what statement of the supervisor she demonstrates being a "non-spanker," and how making an error disqualifies her, or anyone from doing their job well on ALL OTHER OCCASIONS. Keep Albert in mind as you ponder. He wasn't even a recognized scientist, nothing but a patent office lower level clerk, when he did his major work on E=MC2, stupid boy. You can't bring down CPS by pointing out a single error a supervisor made in her own child rearing. Any more than you can wipe out the medical profession because of one or more mistakes or even crimes committed by doctors. Why waste your time, stupid? 0:] |
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.