 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / October 2007New details on foster mother accused of murder
New details on foster mother accused of murder http://www.koaa.com/news/view.asp?ID=9079 There's new information tonight on foster mother accused of murdering a toddler in her care. 2 Year old Alize Vick was found unconscious Tuesday at the El Paso County home of Jules Cuneo. Cuneo was her foster mother, who later admitted to investigators that she threw the little girl. Alize died a day later. The investigation into this murder now moves into Cuneo's past. Investigators are now going through several files on Cuneo to determine if there were any signs of abuse leading to this little girl's death. Jules Cuneo cried as a judge advised of her of the first degree murder charges against her on Thursday. The foster mother is accused of killing Alize in a fit of frustration. She told sheriff's deputies that she threw the girl. On Thursday, we spoke with Alize's biological grandmother. She says, "I stressed concerns about the bruising on Alize 2 or 3 times." Apparently she wasn't the only one. According to investigators, in May while Alize was in Cuneo's care, a tape recording, allegedly of Cuneo, was turned over to the Department of Human Services. Bureau Chief Joe Breister works with the El Paso County Sheriff's Office. He says, "There appears to be an incident that was called in anonymously to the Department of Human Services." What was on that recording is still under wraps. There were at least 4 complaints, over several years, that were filed with the Department of Human Services. Cuneo was hired as a foster parent through Kid's Crossing. That is a contractor with the Department of Human Services. Barbara Drake is the director there. She says this is a tragedy that's not being ignored. She says, "We need to sort of look at what we did, how we responded. Are there things we can do differently, or better in the future." Drake says each foster parent goes through extensive training. They are subjected to background checks. They are also tested for mental illness. There are also caseworkers sent to check on foster families. Drake says, "There is a requirement that case workers be in the home a minimum of once a month. They have to see the child, interact with that child." If Cuneo did kill Alize, with all the training, and supervision, the question remains. Could this have been avoided? A statement was released by the attorney for Kid's Crossing. It says, "Thank you for your inquiry to Kid's Crossing. The hearts, and prayers of everyone at Kid's Crossing are with this little girl. Kid's Crossing has provided, and will continue to provide, the authorities with information, and assistance, and a complete, and thorough investigation of this tragic event. According to the Department of Human Services in El Paso county, this is first time a foster parent has been accused of murdering someone in their care in about 20 years. CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. every parent should read this .pdf from connecticut dcf watch... http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13 Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12 Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers. CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON... BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... > New details on foster mother accused of murder > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY > ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... Why was this child in foster care to begin with? Where was her mother and father? ... > Why was this child in foster care to begin with? Where was her mother > and father? Maybe CPS had the child removed while they were investigated for having too much garbage at the curb. What the f.ck does it matter WHY the foster had the child? The child was murdered.  SignatureIn solidarity, Michael© >> New details on foster mother accused of murder >> [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > Why was this child in foster care to begin with? Where was her mother > and father? Their two babies were impounded last spring. Where's Mommy & Daddy? In jail. Drugs! Sherman. > >> New details on foster mother accused of murder > [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > > Sherman. Same old story, over and over and over , drugged & drunken thugs having throw away babies. Procreating like dogs let to run loose. Then bitching because the government screws up. If you can't , at the very least, love your children more than getting high, don't have them. Birth control is everywhere. The first line is the parents.Its simple biology. "It's not a nightmare, bitch, so wake up from yours. It's a murder committed by the foster parent, not CPS or the biological parents or anyone else. That's the answer. " Who is the half witted bitch Micheal?? It was a nightmare for a couple babies who were born needing to be loved and cared for, which for most people, parents, is instinctual, but were squandered by their parents and for the little one who was murdered. I hope this foster mom fries, she needs to. So does whoever is responsible for signing off on her and ignoring the warning signs. I also hope other drug soaked people who are too busy getting high hear about this and somewhere in their brains it registers.....go to clinic.. get rubbers/pills for free. doing dope + having babies = baaaaddddd things man, babies die. Babies don't get having to lay around and be quiet till mommie and daddy come down, they don't get having to go out and fine the food they need to live cause mama spent all their money on crack. Babies don't wait, they don't have the time. " I for one don't give the f.ck what you like or not." Apparently you do you half witted bitch. > > "firemonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > " I for one don't give the f.ck what you like or not." Apparently you > do you half witted bitch. You know, the mother is probably sitting in her jail cell right now thinking the same exact thing. "If I didn't screw up, my kid wouldn't have been placed into foster care and would still be alive today." She will probably go through the rest of her life blaiming everybody involved, including herself. But who cares about her right? It was her own choices that brought her to that point in her life. But at least she didn't murder anyone. I'm not trying to justify her actions in any way, we do dig our own holes. But in this case, the punnishment for whatever she did is a little extreme, so have a little sympathy. > > > "firemonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 159 lines] > holes. But in this case, the punnishment for whatever she did is a > little extreme, so have a little sympathy. I'll pass, just like she did on caring for the baby and keeping her out of foster care in the first place, but hey, thanks for the tip. She could make her "pain" work for good and speak to other young women who are started down a road like she choose to travel, get them to realize that getting high and recreationally giving birth to little completely dependant human beings is not a good idea, maybe then I'll show her a little more compassion then she did her own flesh and blood. > > > > "firemonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 167 lines] > completely dependant human beings is not a good idea, maybe then I'll > show her a little more compassion then she did her own flesh and blood. Furthermore.... you do understand that the window we humans have to nurture and protect our own babies is relatively small right?? 18 years.. Such a small sacrifice to grow healthy, caring and productive citizens. Our prisons are chuck full of folks whose parents made the same mistakes. And their children are busy filling all the new bigger prisons. All the compassion you can muster won't do a dam thing to change the cycle. With out getting into any details... a boy I know, hes about 15 now, was passed over by his parents for drugs and drinking. He calls me now from time to time, he never says anything, just sobs. I try not to sob with him, I say" I know honey". After several minutes he hangs up and I am left with the rage you see me display here at times. You don't know me. > > > > > "firemonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 174 lines] > same mistakes. And their children are busy filling all the new bigger > prisons. Granted. > All the compassion you can muster won't do a dam thing to change the > cycle. Bullshit. The way you treat others has everything to do with it. If you are going to take a parent and punnish them by putting them in jail for a drug charge. They'll get out learning nothing from their experience. Hell, they'll even be more likely to screw up again. But you take them and put them into a compassion based treatment program, show them the right way to do things, involve the family, provide the necessary supports and they are less likely to screw up again. People can change. So what they should be doing is helping the parents to get their lives on track. But instead, they just lock them up and destroy the family. And here you blame the mother for the kids death by letting her go into foster care in the first place when she's only responsible for her own actions. > With out getting into any details... a boy I know, hes about 15 now, > was passed over by his parents for drugs and drinking. He calls me now > from time to time, he never says anything, just sobs. I try not to sob > with him, I say" I know honey". After several minutes he hangs up and > I am left with the rage you see me display here at times. I'll admit that for some people there is no hope, but don't lable everybody else accordingly. > You don't know me. > > > > > > "firemonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 203 lines] > I'll admit that for some people there is no hope, but don't lable > everybody else accordingly.> You don't know me. Ok, whats your plan?? > > > > > > > "firemonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 205 lines] > > Ok, whats your plan?? Do everything possible to preserve the family. >>>>>>>>>> New details on foster mother accused of murder >>>>>>>>>> http://www.koaa.com/news/view.asp?ID=9079 [quoted text clipped - 162 lines] > > Do everything possible to preserve the family. Does that include keeping a child in a home where the parents are current illicit drug users? How about keeping a child in a home that is either confirmed or suspected of child abuse? Where do we draw the line? What levels of abuse or neglect are we as a nation willing to accept in the name of "preserving the family"? Here is where 99.9% of the arguments against CPS fall flat on their face. No one has that answer, not even CPS. The problem is that CPS is required by law to make those decisions even though they dont have that answer. And they get raked over the coals for it every time, but they are still REQUIRED to make the decision, by law. Our law. Yours, mine, gregg's, even fx's law. Ron Sorry if this goes through twice, I got a session expired message. Scroll down. > >>>>>>>>>> New details on foster mother accused of murder > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.koaa.com/news/view.asp?ID=9079 [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] > Does that include keeping a child in a home where the parents are > current illicit drug users? Ron Why would you try to kill a positive statement like that? I never said that it would be possible 100% of the time. In this case, however, I have a hard time seeing how it was in this child's best interest to be removed and placed into the foster care system with this foster parent. It also seems that the grandmother had an interest in this childs well being. Now this sweet innocent child is dead, so please explain to me how that was in her best interest. What, was it in her best interest to put her out of her misery or something? > How about keeping a child in a home that is either confirmed or > suspected of child abuse? Depends on the severity of the abuse. And just because someone is suspected of something, doesn't mean that it happened. So you are suggesting that we remove the kid because of an unfounded suspicion? What if it turns out that the allegations of abuse are unsubstantiated? The kid would be ripped away from their parents because of an anonymous phone call or a false accusation which instantly makes the parents suspected of abuse? That's not abusive? > Where do we draw the line? What levels of abuse or neglect are we as a > nation willing to accept in the name of "preserving the family"? That's half the problem, because, to my knowledge, that line has never been drawn. If it has, please correct me and I will stand corrected. They also don't weigh the damage caused to a child by a removal and distruction of the family vs. the level of abuse or neglect that they have experienced in the home. Often times the removal is more harmful to the child, ie the little girl in this news story, Marcus Feisel, Logan Marr, etc. Those kids are dead Ron, they died at the hands of their foster parents not their birth parents. I also didn't say that preserving the family ment that there should never be an intervention. Unfortunately there are children who are better off in foster care. I could not deny that and still be serious about this or taken seriously. And I'm not for keeping a kid in a dangerous situation, nor would I ever claim to be. But does that mean that it is best to cut them off completely from all of their family? Grandparents? Aunts & Uncles? Or what about when they seperate siblings? I posted a link a while back to a YouTube video, Raynard Price "Ask A Foster Parent Anything- Destroying Kids" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH-aVO3HtxI Remember? Watch it again. Especially the end of it. If you have the ability, watch it with an open mind. Maybe you'll learn something, maybe you'll be able to relate to it due to your own experience as a foster parent. Then again, from looking at some of your older posts, maybe not. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because that's just the kind of person I am. I have enough faith in the human race to believe that even a foster parent could see the light. CPS destroys kids, that's what this foster parent claims in this video. That's what I believe because I've seen if first hand. That's the problem. Ok, I'll admit that there are some success stories, babies taken because of lagetimate abuse and neglect and adopted by loving families who thrive and do well. But that doesn't happen enough to justify the foster care system as it is. > Here is where 99.9% of the arguments against CPS fall flat on their > face. In your own biased and self-righteous opinion. > No one has that answer, not even CPS. Bullshit! >The problem is that CPS is > required by law to make those decisions even though they dont have that > answer. And they get raked over the coals for it every time, but they > are still REQUIRED to make the decision, by law. Our law. Yours, mine, > gregg's, even fx's law. You know the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." The intent of the law is good, the result of it's interpretation is not. We are all subject to commit human error especially in regards to forcing ones morality onto others. What this is Ron, is a moral argument, not a legal one. The goal law is pretty much cut and dry in it's attempt to "protect children from abuse and neglect" yet in all of it's vagueness, which leaves it subject to interpretation, the law itself is abused by those with an agenda. Ask yourself. Would you be a foster parent for free Ron? Would you do it simply out of the kindness of your heart? Would you do it for nothing more then the self-gratification of committing a good deed or for good karma? Do you think that Jesus Christ is smiling down upon you because of what you are doing? Or does that check you get every month have anything to do with it? Be honest. You know when a child enters the system, they become a commodity. You also know as well as I do that the only reason CPS gets raked over the coals as often as they do is because the media has created a bias in public perception. They blow everything out of proportion. You know when the average person with no experience with child abuse or the foster care system just hears the words child abuse and neglect, people shutter and think in terms of what they've been shown on TV or in the newspapers which is only the most extreme cases. So what I said above was... "Do everything possible to preserve the family." Does that mean that it will work 100% of the time? No, unfortunately not. Does that mean that we will ever be able to protect 100% of the children? No. So you'll still have a job. But they at least have to try. Why? Because it's always in the best interest of the child to be with a family who loves them, and a lot of these parents who loose their kids just screwed up or did some stupid things. They do everything in their power to make it right. And it's never good enough. You have to have enough faith in the human race to believe that people can change for the better, don't you? If you don't then you could only be anti-birth parent, and if that's the case, you have no business being a foster parent. That would only make you part of the problem and nothing of a solution. I mean, why wouldn't you be supportive of a family that is doing everything in their power to make it right? If they're not, that's another story. > Ron LK > Sorry if this goes through twice, I got a session expired message. > Scroll down. [quoted text clipped - 178 lines] > What, was it in her best interest to put her out of her misery or > something? Its not possible, not even close to 100% of the time. Children die far more often in the family home of abuse and/or neglect than they do in foster care. Facts prove this. Not fx's facts, but the honest facts. >> How about keeping a child in a home that is either confirmed or >> suspected of child abuse? > > Depends on the severity of the abuse. And just because someone is > suspected of something, doesn't mean that it happened. So you are > suggesting that we remove the kid because of an unfounded suspicion? Who draws that line? So we suspect abuse or neglect. OK, so do we leave the child in that environment until such time as it is confirmed one way or another? Do we leave the child in that environment knowing that there is a fairly good possibility that they will continue to be abused or neglected? Who draws that line? > What if it turns out that the allegations of abuse are > unsubstantiated? The kid would be ripped away from their parents > because of an anonymous phone call or a false accusation which > instantly makes the parents suspected of abuse? That's not abusive? Sure it is, I have never said it wasnt. But here we have the question again, do we knowingly cause some harm to prevent the possibility of significant harm? Or do we just take our chances and leave the child in the home? Can you make that call? Can I? No, neither of us can. In most states the law enforcement official on the scene makes the call, NOT CPS. Yet CPS workers are the one's that get blamed each and ever time. As a former LEO myself I have had to make that call, more than once. That decision is never made lightly, but it is always done based upon criteria that has been well thought out and pretty general in nature because no rule or procedure can cover every possible situation. >> Where do we draw the line? What levels of abuse or neglect are we as a >> nation willing to accept in the name of "preserving the family"? > > That's half the problem, because, to my knowledge, that line has never > been drawn. If it has, please correct me and I will stand corrected. It has, it must. But as I said above, that line is drawn by the LEO who is there, based on some rather non-specific rules, because that is all we have to go on. > They also don't weigh the damage caused to a child by a removal and > distruction of the family vs. the level of abuse or neglect that they > have experienced in the home. Often times the removal is more harmful Sure they do. A removal does not guarantee the destruction of the family. > to the child, ie the little girl in this news story, Marcus Feisel, > Logan Marr, etc. Those kids are dead Ron, they died at the hands of > their foster parents not their birth parents. For you that is a loosing argument. "Three-quarters (76.6%) of child fatalities were caused by one or more parents. More than one-quarter (28.5%) of fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone. Nonparental perpetrators (e.g., other relative, foster parent, residential facility staff, "other," and legal guardian) were responsible for 13.0 percent of fatalities." http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/chapterfour.htm#status I could name far more children killed by their parents than you can by foster parents. Its the nature of things. But even one killed by a foster parent is to many. Just as one killed by a parent is. > I also didn't say that preserving the family ment that there should > never be an intervention. Unfortunately there are children who are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Grandparents? Aunts & Uncles? Or what about when they seperate > siblings? Cutting off from parents/siblings/grandparents is not a decision that is made by CPS. The courts decide that. But sure enough, CPS gets the blame for it. As for separation of siblings, most often that is a logistical issue, not a decision that CPS makes for any other reason. There just simply are not enough foster parents out there. Nor are there enough willing to take large sibling groups, or sibling groups where there are special needs present. One special needs child is a job, 5 are 10 times as bad. > I posted a link a while back to a YouTube video, Raynard Price "Ask A > Foster Parent Anything- Destroying Kids" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > just the kind of person I am. I have enough faith in the human race > to believe that even a foster parent could see the light. "see the light". Hmmm. I have been a foster parent for more than 15 years. More than 230 kids in that time. I've been investigated several times, and I have seen the damage that parents can and often are more than willing to do to their own children. > CPS destroys kids, that's what this foster parent claims in this > video. That's what I believe because I've seen if first hand. That's > the problem. Ok, I'll admit that there are some success stories, > babies taken because of lagetimate abuse and neglect and adopted by > loving families who thrive and do well. But that doesn't happen > enough to justify the foster care system as it is. One persons story is not sufficient. Sorry, its just not. Some years ago I posted a story to this news group about one of my kids. I could tell it again but that also would be one child's/persons story, and not really indicative of all children in foster care, just as your UTUBE story is not. The anti-CPS mob is great about telling individual stories, one side of that story for sure, and claiming that the one story speaks for everyone ever involved with the system. Sorry, thats not how it works. >> Here is where 99.9% of the arguments against CPS fall flat on their >> face. > > In your own biased and self-righteous opinion. Fact, not opinion. Intellectually honest people acknowledge this, but certainly not those with an agenda. >> No one has that answer, not even CPS. > > Bullshit! Really? You have the answer? Please, enlighten us. Where do we as a nation, as a people, draw that line? Please, this is your opportunity to stick it to me good (you would be the first, and after 8 or so years here that would be quite an accomplishment). Make a decision, tell us where YOU think we should draw the line. "At THIS point the preservation of the family is no longer more important than the health and well-being of the child". Are you willing to go on record here on this? Are you willing to decide the point at which every single child is less important than his/her family? >> The problem is that CPS is >> required by law to make those decisions even though they dont have that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > neglect" yet in all of it's vagueness, which leaves it subject to > interpretation, the law itself is abused by those with an agenda. Good intentions is all we have. ALL we can hope to have. Because none of us, CPS worker, parent, LEO, none of us can tell the future or know what is in the hearts of others. We have only history to go on, things we know happened and things we think may happen given what we know to be human nature. "Of the children who received an investigation, approximately one-quarter were determined to have been abused or neglected. Based on a victim rate of 12.1 per 1,000 children, an estimated 899,000 children were found to be victims in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico." http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/chapterthree.htm#child Thats 899,000 children, with 899,000 different stories, 899,000 different requirements, and thats just for 2005. The laws must be somewhat vague, simply because there is no other way to administer such a vast problem. > Ask yourself. > > Would you be a foster parent for free Ron? Been there, done that. > Would you do it simply out of the kindness of your heart? Been there, done that. > Would you do it for nothing more then the self-gratification of > committing a good deed or for good karma? Also been there and done that. > Do you think that Jesus Christ is smiling down upon you because of > what you are doing? Dont know, dont care. I'm an agnostic. > Or does that check you get every month have anything to do with it? Sure it does. It keeps a roof over our heads, food on the table, gas in the car, and books in the school backpacks. > Be honest. You know when a child enters the system, they become a > commodity. Its a fact. Even before they enter the system really. We are all little more than commodities to someone somewhere. It depends on that individuals perspective. One can choose to be nothing more than a commodity or one can choose to be a provider as well. I've made my choice. > You also know as well as I do that the only reason CPS gets raked over > the coals as often as they do is because the media has created a bias > in public perception. They blow everything out of proportion. You An honest interpretation. Congratulations. Because CPS and foster parents are also commodities. > know when the average person with no experience with child abuse or > the foster care system just hears the words child abuse and neglect, > people shutter and think in terms of what they've been shown on TV or > in the newspapers which is only the most extreme cases. And rarely the whole truth. Only some facts as presented by a third party. Just as fx's presentation of what he/she considers to be facts are nothing more than an intentional misinterpretation of the available data. > So what I said above was... "Do everything possible to preserve the > family." Does that mean that it will work 100% of the time? No, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > things. They do everything in their power to make it right. And it's > never good enough. Wrong. More than 90% of the time it IS good enough, and that is why they get their kids back. Its the 10% or so like gregg who dont. Those who fight the system, even at the cost of their own children. They loose perspective on what IS and IS NOT important. Getting the kids home IS important. Compared to that, clearing one's name or making the system look bad is not. > You have to have enough faith in the human race to believe that people > can change for the better, don't you? Not nearly as much as I use to. Seeing 90% of 230+ kids come into the system and then be returned to homes, only to have them come back to me or another foster parent I know, has washed it away. Some people are willing to take the effort to improve, but most are just way to lazy. > If you don't then you could > only be anti-birth parent, and if that's the case, you have no > business being a foster parent. That would only make you part of the > problem and nothing of a solution. I mean, why wouldn't you be > supportive of a family that is doing everything in their power to make > it right? If they're not, that's another story. Unfortunately it is all to often THE story. >> Ron > > LK Ron ... >> Why would you try to kill a positive statement like that? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > than they do in foster care. Facts prove this. Not fx's facts, but > the honest facts. The agencies facts, Ronaldo 'ol boy. Not honest facts. >>> How about keeping a child in a home that is either confirmed or >>> suspected of child abuse? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So we suspect abuse or neglect. OK, so do we leave the child in that > environment until such time as it is confirmed one way or another? You don't have a problem removing that child so why is it so horrendous an idea to leave the child there until it's proven? > Do we leave the child in that environment knowing that there is a > fairly good possibility that they will continue to be abused or > neglected? First you say you 'suspect' abuse, now it is a 'fairly good possibility'. That shows your f.cked up thinking processes, gay boy. From suspected to fairly good possibility in one short paragraph. > Who draws that line? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > again, do we knowingly cause some harm to prevent the possibility of > significant harm? What is so difficult to comprehend in what you just asked? You want to 'knowingly' cause some harm because of something you absolutely don't know if there is any harm being caused. > Or do we just take our chances and leave the child > in the home? Can you make that call? Can I? > > No, neither of us can. Wrong you f.cking liar. You and your agencies DO make just that very call every time you remove a child for suspected abuse. > In most states the law enforcement official on > the scene makes the call, NOT CPS. I would bet that law enforcement isn't involved on even a fraction of the investigations. Show me some data to support your claim that a law enforcement officer on the scene makes the call for CPS to remove. > Yet CPS workers are the one's that > get blamed each and ever time. As a former LEO myself I have had to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and pretty general in nature because no rule or procedure can cover > every possible situation. And were you a foster parent while you were active in law enforcement? If you were, you were quite biased. >>> Where do we draw the line? What levels of abuse or neglect are we >>> as a nation willing to accept in the name of "preserving the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > who is there, based on some rather non-specific rules, because that is > all we have to go on. CPS removes the children. Does CPS have law enforcement at every investigation including the initial contact? I bet not. >> They also don't weigh the damage caused to a child by a removal and >> distruction of the family vs. the level of abuse or neglect that they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sure they do. A removal does not guarantee the destruction of the > family. The family unit is broken the instant the child is no longer in the household you stupid f.ck. It may be reassembled later, but it is damaged. >> to the child, ie the little girl in this news story, Marcus Feisel, >> Logan Marr, etc. Those kids are dead Ron, they died at the hands of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > foster parents. Its the nature of things. But even one killed by a > foster parent is to many. Just as one killed by a parent is. What the f.ck does that have to do with the children that are killed by foster parents, you stupid c.nt? >> I also didn't say that preserving the family ment that there should >> never be an intervention. Unfortunately there are children who are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is made by CPS. The courts decide that. But sure enough, CPS gets > the blame for it. The courts have telepathy that a child should be removed? Or does CPS initiate the process to the courts to remove the child? > As for separation of siblings, most often that is a logistical issue, > not a decision that CPS makes for any other reason. There just simply > are not enough foster parents out there. Nor are there enough willing > to take large sibling groups, or sibling groups where there are > special needs present. One special needs child is a job, 5 are 10 > times as bad. What the f.ck does that have to do with the fact that they are often separated? Because they have to, it becomes ok? >> I posted a link a while back to a YouTube video, Raynard Price "Ask A >> Foster Parent Anything- Destroying Kids" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > several times, and I have seen the damage that parents can and often > are more than willing to do to their own children. You seen their abuse directly? Or are you just relying on what CPS told you happened? >> CPS destroys kids, that's what this foster parent claims in this >> video. That's what I believe because I've seen if first hand. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the one story speaks for everyone ever involved with the system. > Sorry, thats not how it works. FX seems to have posted LOTS of stories. Starting to get the picture, you fuckhead? >>> Here is where 99.9% of the arguments against CPS fall flat on their >>> face. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > things we know happened and things we think may happen given what we > know to be human nature. History is proving that fosters kill and rape others children. > "Of the children who received an investigation, approximately > one-quarter were determined to have been abused or neglected. Based on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Been there, done that. Liar. >> Would you do it simply out of the kindness of your heart? > > Been there, done that. Liar. >> Would you do it for nothing more then the self-gratification of >> committing a good deed or for good karma? > > Also been there and done that. Liar. >> Do you think that Jesus Christ is smiling down upon you because of >> what you are doing? > > Dont know, dont care. I'm an agnostic. And a liar. >> Or does that check you get every month have anything to do with it? > > Sure it does. It keeps a roof over our heads, food on the table, gas > in the car, and books in the school backpacks. Exactly, MONEY. >> Be honest. You know when a child enters the system, they become a >> commodity. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > are nothing more than an intentional misinterpretation of the > available data. So a story whereby a foster parent kills a child, is just a misinterpretation? LOL. You're f.cking rich, Ronaldo. >> So what I said above was... "Do everything possible to preserve the >> family." Does that mean that it will work 100% of the time? No, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Ron SignatureIn solidarity, Michael© > >>>>>>>>>> New details on foster mother accused of murder > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.koaa.com/news/view.asp?ID=9079 [quoted text clipped - 180 lines] > > Ron How about putting the parents in rehab with their children? Its been proven to work in many states. How about placing children with their family members, proven to work. NCCPR has proven over and over again, placing children in foster care should be the last resort. How about CPS stop taking children for Arbitrary reason's. > > >>>>>>>>>> New details on foster mother accused of murder > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.koaa.com/news/view.asp?ID=9079 [quoted text clipped - 188 lines] > > How about CPS stop taking children for Arbitrary reason's. How about selfish, ignorant drugged/drunked out people not breeding until they have cleaned up and straightened up in the first place. Why is it always after the fact with you people? Why subject babies to it in the first place? > > > >>>>>>>>>> New details on foster mother accused of murder > > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.koaa.com/news/view.asp?ID=9079 [quoted text clipped - 193 lines] > Why is it always after the fact with you people? > Why subject babies to it in the first place? How about looking at things thur the eyes of a child, instead of your own? Children still love and long to be with their parents and families. In a perfect world people would live the way you see fit, untill then how about doing what is in the childs best intrest, which means helping their parents be better parents. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> New details on foster mother accused of murder > > > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.koaa.com/news/view.asp?ID=9079 [quoted text clipped - 197 lines] > instead of your own? Children still love and long to be > with their parents and families. > In a perfect world people would live the way you see fit, > untill then how about doing what is in the childs best intrest, > which means helping their parents be better parents. How about looking at things thur the eyes of a child, instead of your own? " I have, I remember a 12 yr old girl I knew. When she told her mom that moms new boyfriend was f.cking her on the couch after mom passed out at night after a 1/2 gallon of cheap vodka every night, mom slapped her in the mouth and told her to "shut up, he pays the rent." End of story. I can go on for hours with these stories, along with some from my own childhood.. Why do you think I'm so pissed? I've been there TL ... >> How about looking at things thur the eyes of a child, >> instead of your own? Children still love and long to be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > her in the mouth and told her to "shut up, he pays the rent." End of > story. You have countless 'stories'. > I can go on for hours with these stories, along with some from my own > childhood.. Why do you think I'm so pissed? Observably you're pissed at all parents, with the exclusion of foster parents. I do find it remarkable that you maintain that you could go on for hours with these types of stories. That is something a social worker would be able to do, not an ordinary individual. > I've been there TL I speculate you're still there. SignatureIn solidarity, Michael© > > > > > > > > "firemonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 207 lines] > > Do everything possible to preserve the family. Do everything possible to preserve the family. Where will you get the money ? You willl convince society to do this "saving" how again? How will you cure the junkies? How will cure incestuous pedophiles? How do you that everything possibly can be done isn't being done NOW. How again? ANY REAL child welfare reformers would immediately trot out their plan, with something other than a shallow hypocritical vapid statement like "Do everything possible to preserve the family." >> > > > > > > > "firemonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 330 lines] > with something other than a shallow hypocritical vapid statement like > "Do everything possible to preserve the family." It's not really all that easy, is it FM? I've seen it said in this group that CPS should be scrapped completely, and either rebuilt from the ground up with all new employees, or never rebuilt and the job of child protection be placed in the hands of law enforcement. Some even say that CPS only needs reform. But rarely does anyone ever provide suggestions or answers to the hard questions like 'if the states scrap CPS where do all the children currently in state care go?' Where would the children deemed abused or neglected go immediately following LE taking over? ETC. I think once someone said 'send them all back home'. Nifty idea...except we must remember that they aren't all in state care for trivial things like dirty houses and bickering parents. At least some of the kids in state care are there for very real abuse and neglect. If the same people who shout 'send 'em' home' were on a panel that was charged with deciding the fate of the children currently in state care, and had access to complete files to determine where the child would go, that shout would die down rather quickly. Case in point: I the neighbor I have mentioned who had two children taken into state care when she, her husband, and her husband's friend were all arrested on charges of sexual abuse of the two children. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the only one of the three parents to actually make it back out of jail was the neighbor of mine. She had not only condoned the abuse, but participated in it as well. Would our panel of judges send these two children back to their mother, who was awaiting trial for the abuse of the two children? If they did, citing that she had not been convicted yet, then when she was convicted THEN where would the kids go??? She received many years of probation because she was pregnant during the time of the incidents and for most of her trial...however, because she wasn't in jail, would it be ok to leave the kids with her even after her conviction? If not, where would they go? Live at the police station with the LE that removed them from her care? If no Social Services existed then the children would not have had any placement options. There are no easy answers, and even the questions get blurry. I believe this is the reason that our social service agencies are far less than up to par. Couple that with the secrecy that surrounds the juvenile court system, and you have a disaster waiting to happen. > > > > > > > > > "firemonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 210 lines] > Do everything possible to preserve the family. > Where will you get the money ? Less kids in foster care would have to save a few bucks. Where do they get all the money for that? > You willl convince society to do this > "saving" how again? Tell them the truth. Here's my effort. http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com Most people let it happen because they don't know the reality of it. > How will you cure the junkies? Rehab. Positive reinforcement. > How will cure incestuous pedophiles? Homosexual football team. Let them be the ball. Castration, shoot them. There's all kinds of things you could do. I'm not saying don't protect them from stuff like that. My god! > How do you that everything possibly can be done isn't being done NOW. You try to help them straighten their lives out. If it can't be done, it can't be done. > How again? compassionate based treatment. > ANY REAL child welfare reformers would immediately trot out their > plan, > with something other than a shallow hypocritical vapid statement like > "Do everything possible to preserve the family." You're obviously not a reformer, you seem way too anti-parent for that. So how would you know? > > > > > > > > "firemonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 207 lines] > > Do everything possible to preserve the family. How are you going to do that?? How will you convince society to throw more of their tax dollars at curing drug addicts, alcoholics and incestuous pedophiles? Who will pay for it?? How many chances do we give a parent, do we have dollar amount or cut off point?? Have many of their children do they get to abuse before someone( you?) steps in and says enough. Will you use the witchcraft on your site to "spell" into loving their children more than their drug of choice? Should we keep building prisons cemeteries and hope for the best?? > New details on foster mother accused of murder > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > complaints, over several years, that were filed with the Department of > Human Services. Cuneo was *hired* as a foster parent through Kid's > Crossing. That is a contractor with the Department of Human Services. > Barbara Drake is the director there. She says this is a tragedy that's not > being ignored. She says, *"We need to sort of look at what we did, > how we responded. Are there things we can do differently, or better in the > future."* > Drake says each foster parent goes through extensive training. They are > subjected to background checks. They are also tested for mental illness. > There are also caseworkers sent to check on foster families. Drake says, > "There is a requirement that case workers be in the home a minimum of once > a month. They have to see the child, interact with that child." *If Cuneo did kill Alize,* with all the training, and supervision, the > question remains. *Could this have been avoided?* A statement was released > by the attorney for Kid's Crossing. It says, "Thank you for your inquiry > to Kid's Crossing. The hearts, and prayers of everyone at Kid's Crossing [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE > "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
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.