Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / December 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
fx - 08 Nov 2007 06:24 GMT
RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
BY RICHARD WEXLER

http://www.kansas.com/205/story/219708.html

The real scandal in Kansas child welfare is not that the state is
oppressing Sedgwick County by giving authorities "only" 72 hours to keep
a child in limbo before a court decides if he ever needed to be torn
from his family in the first place ("More time: Courts need flexibility
on foster care," Nov. 1 editorial). The real scandal is that somewhere
near 80 percent of the children torn from their families in Sedgwick
County probably never needed to endure that trauma.

If you can send a child home within a week, odds are you never needed to
take that child at all.

The same authorities who claim that tearing apart a family is done only
when parents are a dire, imminent threat to their children now tell us
that 80 percent of the time, the threat goes away within a week. Either
the child goes home or is placed with a relative.

Those authorities also tell us they need six days to investigate the
case. But the way it's supposed to work is that you investigate first,
then decide if conditions are so bad that there's no alternative to
traumatizing the child by taking him away. The only exception is
supposed to be an emergency.

But if 80 percent of the children don't need to stay in care, few of
these cases really were emergencies. In Sedgwick County, the mantra is:
take the child and run first, ask questions later.

Children experience time very differently from adults; for children it
moves far more slowly. Six days of "protective custody" -- a better term
would be "internment" -- can be agony for an infant, a toddler or a
young child.

Even as time moves at a snail's pace, there is no way to explain to the
child why this has happened. How do you tell an 18-month-old it's all
"for your own good"? The child may experience it as akin to a
kidnapping. Other children may believe they've done something terribly
wrong, and now they are being punished.

As for the claim that Sedgwick County needs the extra time because of
the area's complex urban problems, the counties that include the cities
of Los Angeles and Chicago take children at a far lower rate than
Sedgwick County without holding them for six days first, and both cities
have excellent safety records.

The claim that Sedgwick County takes children at the lowest rate in the
state is a mirage, based on relabeling 80 percent of placements in
foster care as something else. The federal government doesn't put up
with that. The feds say if the child is out of the home more than 24
hours, it counts as an entry into care.

It should. You can be sure it "counts" to the child.

Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child
Protection Reform in Alexandria, Va.

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...
krp - 08 Nov 2007 12:57 GMT
> RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
> BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> 80 percent of the children torn from their families in Sedgwick County
> probably never needed to endure that trauma.

You know what will REALLY piss Danny Sullivan and Kent the idiot off? Is
finding that *I* am used as a source in one of Wexler's books!
Greegor - 08 Nov 2007 13:55 GMT
> > RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
> > BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> You know what will REALLY piss Danny Sullivan and Kent the idiot off? Is
> finding that *I* am used as a source in one of Wexler's books!

But if he can't GOOGLE it, Donald (Kane, panakakenkookoo, [:->  )
will get mad that you use a source that isn't online!   Professional
journals that aren't online had him all worked up once!   It was
hilarious!

He thinks searching in GOOGLE makes him a "RESEARCHER"!
krp - 09 Nov 2007 16:13 GMT
>> > RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
>> > BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> journals that aren't online had him all worked up once!   It was
> hilarious!

   But he claimed to have EVERY master's thesis, and doctoral dissertation
EVER written at EVERY university in the world right on his desktop on his
computer! EVERY LAST ONE!  Of course I regarded that in the same league with
his claims that there was a Taxi stand outside EVERY farmhouse in Cuba.

Remember - he was a "DOUBLE NAUGHT SPY" for the U.S. Air Farce!
Dan Sullivan - 08 Nov 2007 17:31 GMT
> > RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
> > BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> You know what will REALLY piss Danny Sullivan and Kent the idiot off? Is
> finding that *I* am used as a source in one of Wexler's books!

Of course you don't actually name the book.

Did ya forget the title???

Do you remember the picture of Jim Jones with President Carter's wife?

It's what's actually accomplished that matters.

What have you accomplished, pigborn?

Besides bilking people out of their hard earned money.

And phonying up the info about yourself on a couple of websites?
Greegor - 08 Nov 2007 18:52 GMT
> > "fx" <f...@starband.net> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> And phonying up the info about yourself on a couple of websites?

Show him what a man you are Dan!
Post something repetitively like a 6 year old.
krp - 09 Nov 2007 16:20 GMT
>> > RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
>> > BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Did ya forget the title???

Nope not at all. Why bother posting it Danny, YOU will just LIE about it
anyway. Did you look up those chapters and page numbers I gave you OR did
your Alzheimer's kick in again and you forgot them AGAIN???? You DO seem to
have BIG troubles with that 24 hour thing.. I find it MORE than a little
amusing that on ONE day you SCREAM that some chapters are "only one page"
and the next day in the SAME THREAD you can't remember AT ALL the Chapters
or page numbers.

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

PLEASE PLEASE TRY to remember the Chapters and page numbers THIS TIME Danny.
Write them down and tape them to your forehead!
Dan Sullivan - 09 Nov 2007 16:25 GMT
> >> > RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
> >> > BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> PLEASE PLEASE TRY to remember the Chapters and page numbers THIS TIME Danny.
> Write them down and tape them to your forehead!

Post the pages on your website.

That's all you have to do!!!!

Proof 24/7 every day till the end of time.

Unless there isn't real proof.

Can ya post the REAL proof on your website, pigborn?
krp - 09 Nov 2007 16:37 GMT
NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH COMMANDER

>> >> > RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
>> >> > BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>
> Can ya post the REAL proof on your website, pigborn?

Did you FORGET the pages and chapters ALREADY Danny?

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

POOR POOR POOR Danny senility has broken out ALL OVER!

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213

MEN FREEING MEN
ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.

Chapter 8 starting at page 154

Chapter 9 Pages 170, 171, 200

Chapter 10 Page 213
Dan Sullivan - 09 Nov 2007 16:44 GMT
> >> >> > RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
> >> >> > BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
>  Chapter 10 Page 213

Stop jerkin everyone off and post the pages on your website.

If there isn't anything to post... we'll know why.

It's all a pigborn lie.
krp - 09 Nov 2007 16:47 GMT
>> >> >> >http://www.kansas.com/205/story/219708.html
>>
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
>
> Stop jerkin everyone off and post the pages on your website.

Yeah I want my website CLUTTERED with all the stuff YOU demand MASTER!  Get
over yourself!
Dan Sullivan - 09 Nov 2007 17:05 GMT
> >> >> >> >http://www.kansas.com/205/story/219708.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>
> Yeah I want my website CLUTTERED with all the stuff YOU demand MASTER!

Someone has to be in charge of the pigs!

Don't talk with slop in your mouth, pigborn.

> Get over yourself!

Your website is already "cluttered" with supposed news stories about
people beating CPS and suing CPS yet there is no mention of you OR the
A-Team in the articles.

You wouldn't want to do a 180 and have something true there, to spoil
the theme, do ya, piggy boy.
Kent Wills - 10 Nov 2007 02:16 GMT
As I understand it, on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:25:50 -0800, Dan Sullivan
<dsulldan@optonline.net> wrote:

[...]

>> MEN FREEING MEN
>> ed. Francis Baumli, Ph.D.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>Can ya post the REAL proof on your website, pigborn?

    A valid request.
    While posting them wouldn't PROVE he wrote them, it would go
far in adding credibility to his claim.

    So what excuse will he use to not post them?

    I'm going with, "You'll claim they were altered."  But,
"Copyright restrictions won't permit it." is also viable.

Signature

Kent
Vegetarian:  Indian word for lousy hunter.

krp - 10 Nov 2007 14:38 GMT
> As I understand it, on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:25:50 -0800, Dan Sullivan
> <dsulldan@optonline.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> While posting them wouldn't PROVE he wrote them, it would go
> far in adding credibility to his claim.

BULLSHIT Kent YOU would just say they have "OBVIOUSLY BEEN ALTERED!!!!"
Dan Sullivan - 10 Nov 2007 15:16 GMT
> > As I understand it, on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:25:50 -0800, Dan Sullivan
> > <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> BULLSHIT Kent YOU would just say they have "OBVIOUSLY BEEN ALTERED!!!!"

So you're a mindreader, too?

Along with being a bulkshitter, pigborn?

And you quote Kent BEFORE he says what you quote.
Kent Wills - 10 Nov 2007 21:59 GMT
As I understand it, on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:16:10 -0800, Dan Sullivan
<dsulldan@optonline.net> wrote:

>> > As I understand it, on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:25:50 -0800, Dan Sullivan
>> > <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>So you're a mindreader, too?

    I posted that he would make such a claim.

>Along with being a bulkshitter, pigborn?
>
>And you quote Kent BEFORE he says what you quote.

    It's a part of his pathological NEED to be dishonest.

Signature

Kent

A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

Kent Wills - 10 Nov 2007 21:58 GMT
As I understand it, on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:38:38 GMT, " krp"
<web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>> As I understand it, on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:25:50 -0800, Dan Sullivan
>> <dsulldan@optonline.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
>BULLSHIT Kent YOU would just say they have "OBVIOUSLY BEEN ALTERED!!!!"

    Wow.  Exactly as I predicted.  And I posted my prediction.
    Maybe I should start my own psychic hot line :-)

Signature

Kent
The Roger is us!
We are One with The Roger!

Kent Wills - 10 Nov 2007 22:00 GMT
As I understand it, on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:38:38 GMT, " krp"
<web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:

>> As I understand it, on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:25:50 -0800, Dan Sullivan
>> <dsulldan@optonline.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
>BULLSHIT Kent YOU would just say they have "OBVIOUSLY BEEN ALTERED!!!!"

    Thank you for proving I can read you like the book you lied
about authoring.

Signature

Kent
Long Live The Grannie (and Gramps) Brigade!

Dan Sullivan - 08 Nov 2007 19:08 GMT
> > RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
> > BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> You know what will REALLY piss Danny Sullivan and Kent the idiot off? Is
> finding that *I* am used as a source in one of Wexler's books!

Of course you don't actually name the book.

Did ya forget the title???

Do you remember the picture of Jim Jones with President Carter's wife?

It's what's actually accomplished that matters.

What have you accomplished, pigborn?

Besides bilking people out of their hard earned money.

And phonying up the info about yourself on a couple of websites?
krp - 09 Nov 2007 16:29 GMT
>> > RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
>> > BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Did ya forget the title???

No there are others too I KNOW it pisses off a REALLY IMPORTANT blow hard
like you too.

Try looking at the interview the author did in

The Battle and the Backlash
David Heckler

Not to mention

Chapters in

Don't Blame Me, Daddy
Ashes to Ashes

And YOU the GREAT GREAT GREAT Dan Sullivan has done WHAT??????????
Dan Sullivan - 09 Nov 2007 16:39 GMT
> >> > RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
> >> > BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> No there are others too

I know, I've been to the library.

> I KNOW it pisses off a REALLY IMPORTANT blow hard
> like you too.

What does?

The fact that you can't remember the title?

> Try looking at the interview the author did in
>
> The Battle and the Backlash
> David Heckler

Why?

> Not to mention
>
> Chapters in
>
> Don't Blame Me, Daddy
> Ashes to Ashes

What about the chapters?

Are they longer than a single page?
krp - 09 Nov 2007 16:46 GMT
>> >> > The real scandal in Kansas child welfare is not that the state is
>> >> > oppressing Sedgwick County by giving authorities "only" 72 hours to
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> Are they longer than a single page?

Can't find them AGAIN Danny?  The senility is worse than I thought!!
eric_bacon22@yahoo.com - 11 Nov 2007 14:57 GMT
> RICHARD WEXLER: REAL FOSTER CARE SCANDAL IS NUMBER OF KIDS REMOVED
> BY RICHARD WEXLER
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> a child in limbo before a court decides if he ever needed to be torn
> from his family in the first place

  Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.  It is better to "tear"
a child from a home whether it is safe there or not and check things
out if there is a suspicion of abuse instead of keeping the child in
an environment that can kill him.  The foster care system is abused
just like actual parenthood is abused.  You can choose the random
horror story and post that here to represent all foster parents, but
in doing so, you will not be representing the truth.  There are
abusers on both sides, but there are also loving foster care parents
just as there are loving parents from stable homes.  If a situation in
a home becomes questionable, it should be questioned.  Where there's
smoke, there's usually fire.
krp - 11 Nov 2007 17:53 GMT
>> The real scandal in Kansas child welfare is not that the state is
>> oppressing Sedgwick County by giving authorities "only" 72 hours to keep
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> out if there is a suspicion of abuse instead of keeping the child in
> an environment that can kill him.

Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his family if
there is nothing wrong? What about the 'suspicion"  abuse having to have
some REALISTIC component to it before you grab kids and run?????
LK - 11 Nov 2007 19:20 GMT
>>> The real scandal in Kansas child welfare is not that the state is
>>> oppressing Sedgwick County by giving authorities "only" 72 hours to keep
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> if there is nothing wrong? What about the 'suspicion"  abuse having to
> have some REALISTIC component to it before you grab kids and run?????

Is this person a foster parent or something?

Trying to increase the monthly income?

Is it Ron in disguise?  Sounds like him.
Ron - 11 Nov 2007 23:25 GMT
>>>> The real scandal in Kansas child welfare is not that the state is
>>>> oppressing Sedgwick County by giving authorities "only" 72 hours to keep
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Is it Ron in disguise?  Sounds like him.

I dont use disguises, nym's, or any of that other crap.  I leave that to
kenny and others like him.  I prefer honesty to lying.

The story was written by someone like yourself, someone who believes
that the system is totally corrupted and evil.  Stupidity has its own
rewards.  I'm sure that kenny knows this very well, but is just to dam
stupid to stop using his usual tactics.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

Bearic - 12 Nov 2007 07:59 GMT
> >> <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1194793047.418847.314280@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> www.aboutkenpangborn.com

 The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.  The instances
of children being killed and abused in foster care are less than the
success stories.    Children in normal two-parent homes are killed by
their mothers and fathers sometimes, too, but you can't judge all
families harshly based on random anecdotal examples.   Resptectully,
E.B.
Greegor - 12 Nov 2007 11:30 GMT
>   The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
> one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.

GOT PROOF?

The Child Protection INDUSTRY has never proven
that they reduced child mortality or abuse one bit.
Cherry picked anecdotal stories are used for PR purposes.
(Note how below you blow off anecdotal stories...)

> The instances
> of children being killed and abused in foster care are less than the
> success stories.

They had better be, because the RATE is higher than
if they stayed home DESPITE the abuse!

Parents could argue the "instances" of abuse are
less than the success stories also, but it's a lame argument!

What brought you to this discussion and what is your
actual experience with the Child Protection INDUSTRY
Eric?   When somebody shills for the disgraced
BUREAUCRACY it's usually because they are a
beneficiary of it somehow.   Caseworker, contractor,
foster or adopter, somebody who is getting something somehow.

Donald Fisher lied about his "in" as a caseworker
for around 6 years before I proved he is a retired
Oregon state caseworker who resides just across
the border in WA state.

Apparently he thought this denial was advantageous
in discussions!     Gosh, I can't imagine why!    LOL

>  Children in normal two-parent homes are killed by
> their mothers and fathers sometimes, too, but you can't judge all
> families harshly based on random anecdotal examples.   Resptectully,
> E.B.

Actually, the Child Protection INDUSTRY very much
THRIVES on emphasizing the few horrific cases to
justify their funding, in propaganda, PR and legislative
appeals they work to create the mythology that the
horror stories are the bulk of their caseloads.

Cases involving blood, broken bones or sex abuse
are actually less than one % based on the Fed stats.

A bigger bunch is drug addicts.

But 80% never were removed for reasons that meet the
required imminent danger standard.

Would you like to be arrested because somebody
looked at you and decided you were thinking about
robbing a bank?

And they called it in and so you have to go to jail
""until it's sorted out"".    (BUREACRATIC HELL)

Removing a child is supposed to be done with
more care and legal safeguards than a jailable
offence, not fewer safeguards.

To "Err on the side of safety" has been ruled
as flagrantly unconstitutional, it generally only
makes sense to the people working for the
bureaucracy.
Bearic - 12 Nov 2007 18:43 GMT
> >   The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
> > one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.
>
> GOT PROOF?

Logic is proof.

If a child is in a dangerous environment and is then removed to a safe
environment, logic speaks to that fact.  The child is safer.  There
are instances in which the child protection services have been abused
just as there are instances in which the traditional family has seen
abuse, but CPS is not a conspiracy in which there is a plot to cause
harm to children.  It was created to help them and it does.

> The Child Protection INDUSTRY has never proven
> that they reduced child mortality or abuse one bit.
> Cherry picked anecdotal stories are used for PR purposes.
> (Note how below you blow off anecdotal stories...)

Child protection isn't an industry.  There are important controversies
about how to define abuse and neglect and your religion or personal
belief system might say, for example, that hitting a child or dousing
it with iced water is acceptable  whereby mine doesn't.  Since this is
a forum for opinion and not a court of law, I am stating my
opinions.   In my opinion, removing a child from a situation where it
is even suspected that he is in danger is better than the child ended
up dead because he wasn't removed.

> > The instances
> > of children being killed and abused in foster care are less than the
> > success stories.
>
> They had better be, because the RATE is higher than
> if they stayed home DESPITE the abuse!

In my opinion, a child should not be left in an abusive situation.

> Parents could argue the "instances" of abuse are
> less than the success stories also, but it's a lame argument!
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> beneficiary of it somehow.   Caseworker, contractor,
> foster or adopter, somebody who is getting something somehow.

What brought me to this discussion is my opinion and my actual
experience with child protection services is the direct observation of
seeing my son's three friends' lives saved from domestic abuse by the
CPS.  I was raised by parents who took in foster children throughout
my entire childhood and I witnessed first hand that those children
were treated well, with love and respect and that they were better off
than the environments they came out of.  Both of my parents interacted
with and worked closely with other foster parents in the
organizational capacity and  so I had a lot of exposure to other
foster families and never witnessed even one incident of abuse by the
foster families.  Some of the kids were pretty f.cked up with physical
injuries and the like, but they were treated with respect and love and
I am in touch with many of them today who are grateful that my parents
came into their lives.  Sure, not every situation is the same, but
from my personal experience, there was not any abuse by fostercare.
The system that placed these kids with my family always checked up on
them and did their best to provide as good quality services as their
poor budgets would allow.

> Donald Fisher lied about his "in" as a caseworker
> for around 6 years before I proved he is a retired
> Oregon state caseworker who resides just across
> the border in WA state.

I don't know who Donald Fisher is.

> Apparently he thought this denial was advantageous
> in discussions!     Gosh, I can't imagine why!    LOL

I don't know who Donald Fisher is.

> >  Children in normal two-parent homes are killed by
> > their mothers and fathers sometimes, too, but you can't judge all
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> appeals they work to create the mythology that the
> horror stories are the bulk of their caseloads.

Social workers make sh.t for salaries, so money can't be a motivating
factor for what you claim.  There are far too many abuse cases for
anyone to make much of anything monetarily.  The funding is sparce and
spread thin so what possible motivation would CPS have to lobby for
reform unless it would be to protect the children?

> Cases involving blood, broken bones or sex abuse
> are actually less than one % based on the Fed stats.

  So, did you find one web site that substantiates your claim and
decide to use that as basis for what you are saying?  You don't care
about abused kids.  Statistics are collected by human beings and for
each study that shows one result, you can find one that shows a
different one, so when you state something as you just have as fact,
rather than opinion, you look like an idiot.  Definitions of abuse
used in official government studies are based on laws, because
government definitions are needed for more than research purposes.
They are also needed for determining whether or not suspected abuse
should be reported, investigated, "substantiated"  and lead to action
by a social service agency or court. All of that takes money but in
the long run, it is being done for the kids.   On the other hand,
independent researchers can use different definitions because they
have different purposes than government agencies, like understanding
the different angles and prevention of emotional, physical, and/or
sexual abuse.  Regardless of what kind of study it is, small changes
in definitions can result in big differences in statistics on abuse
and neglect and those stats are used by people such as yourself to
portray abuse as less than it is.

> A bigger bunch is drug addicts.
>
> But 80% never were removed for reasons that meet the
> required imminent danger standard.

Who said anything about imminent danger and whose 80% stat are you
quoting?  Hair splitting according to your strict definition doesn't
place an in danger child out of danger.  One of the kids who stayed
with us, the one I am closest to now as an adult, still speaks about
his father holding his head under the water in the bathtub until he
blacked out.  When CPS came to investigate, the pop was all smiles and
the investigation showed no signs of the kid being in "imminent
danger".  As soon as CPS left, the dad was all over the kids again.
One didn't make it.  The other two were eventually removed from the
home, but not before they had scars that would last for the rest of
their lives.  The whole time, the dad claimed, "I was just spanking
them and that is my right."  There are some sick f.cks out there.  I
say get the kids out if there is any doubt about their safety.

> Would you like to be arrested because somebody
> looked at you and decided you were thinking about
> robbing a bank?

Wouldn't like it one bit, but if I gave others enough ammo to make
that assumption about me, it might not be a bad idea to get me checked
out rather than risk someone getting hurt or killed.  The point I make
with this is that no one would suspect me of being a bank robber
because I lead an exemplary life.  If I behaved in a way that would
cause someone to suspect that, maybe I should be checked out.  I
wouldn't like it, but if it saved lives, why not?  That is the greater
good.

> And they called it in and so you have to go to jail
> ""until it's sorted out"".    (BUREACRATIC HELL)
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> makes sense to the people working for the
> bureaucracy.

And to the child whose life has been saved .  Respectfully, E.B.
krp - 13 Nov 2007 12:36 GMT
>> >   The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
>> > one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.
>>
>> GOT PROOF?

> Logic is proof.

   Try using some!

> If a child is in a dangerous environment and is then removed to a safe
> environment, logic speaks to that fact.  The child is safer.  There
> are instances in which the child protection services have been abused
> just as there are instances in which the traditional family has seen
> abuse, but CPS is not a conspiracy in which there is a plot to cause
> harm to children.  It was created to help them and it does.

   Your infantile argument begins with TWO false premises.

1. That ALL family environments are "dangerous" for children.

2. That ALL state care environments are SAFE for children.

   Want to re-think that at all?

   Tell me Eric, how badly did your mother heat you?
Bearic - 13 Nov 2007 16:04 GMT
> >> >   The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
> >> > one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>     Your infantile argument begins with TWO false premises.

   You have clearly never engaged in formal debate, padre gordo,
because the only two false premises here are the ones that you're
making since I never said either of the things you are claiming below
and since I was not an abused child.

> 1. That ALL family environments are "dangerous" for children.

      When I first came to this group, I had to skip dozens of angry
posts about your character as a liar.  Now I understand why they were
written by so many people.  You really are an insane pig.  Aren't
you?   Did you extract this lie from your left nostril or your right
one or was it your butt cheeks, padre gordo?   I did not write that I
feel all family environments are dangerous.

> 2. That ALL state care environments are SAFE for children.

Another lie, I see.  How old were you when you gained that reputation
you have for lying, padre gordo?   I have written in just about every
post that I didn't think this was true.

>     Want to re-think that at all?
>
>     Tell me Eric, how badly did your mother heat you?

   How badly did my mother HEAT me?   roflmao~ You are as illiterate
as the others say, too.  Is there anything behind all that hot, rancid
air you spew, or are you ready to admit the kind of low-life,
malicious, dim-witted weasel that you are?  I have, possibly, the
best, kindest parents in the world, people who extended their hearts
and homes to help dozens of children through the years and gave me the
first hand experience and knowledge that I have with foster children.
You are as full of sh.t as everyone says, paper tiger.  You need help,
badly.  I pray to God above that you don't have children of your own.
LK - 13 Nov 2007 17:29 GMT
>> >> >   The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
>> >> > one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> making since I never said either of the things you are claiming below
> and since I was not an abused child.

Still, your arguement that a child should be removed based on an accusation
with no substantiation is wrong.

>> 1. That ALL family environments are "dangerous" for children.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> one or was it your butt cheeks, padre gordo?   I did not write that I
> feel all family environments are dangerous.

No real argument, so you resort to the personal attack.  Typicol.  You'll
fit right in.

>> 2. That ALL state care environments are SAFE for children.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> and homes to help dozens of children through the years and gave me the
> first hand experience and knowledge that I have with foster children.

Your parents sold you a line of bullshit.

> You are as full of sh.t as everyone says, paper tiger.  You need help,
> badly.  I pray to God above that you don't have children of your own.
Ron - 13 Nov 2007 20:55 GMT
>>>>>   The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
>>>>> one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> making since I never said either of the things you are claiming below
> and since I was not an abused child.

The first thing you will learn about our beloved kenny (krp), is that he
has no interest in debate, formal or otherwise.  He much prefers going
off on tangents and ignoring the facts that others present that
contradict his views.

But, one must learn these things for themselves, so have a good time.

>> 1. That ALL family environments are "dangerous" for children.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> you have for lying, padre gordo?   I have written in just about every
> post that I didn't think this was true.

From the very first day that kenny began participating in Usenet.

>>     Want to re-think that at all?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> You are as full of sh.t as everyone says, paper tiger.  You need help,
> badly.  I pray to God above that you don't have children of your own.

See?  It didnt take him all that long to alienate another possible
client/supporter.  kenny is our resident spaz, we try and treat him
nicely but he will have none of that.  Which of course forces us to
treat him like exactly what he is.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

krp - 14 Nov 2007 14:56 GMT
> See?  It didnt take him all that long to alienate another possible
> client/supporter.  kenny is our resident spaz, we try and treat him nicely
> but he will have none of that.  Which of course forces us to treat him
> like exactly what he is.

Ron he's no more a "potential client" or supporter than you are.
Ron - 14 Nov 2007 16:21 GMT
>> See?  It didnt take him all that long to alienate another possible
>> client/supporter.  kenny is our resident spaz, we try and treat him nicely
>> but he will have none of that.  Which of course forces us to treat him
>> like exactly what he is.
>
> Ron he's no more a "potential client" or supporter than you are.

So, you call someone you dont know names.  Hmm, nice business model
kenny.  What do you do when they come through the front door, piss on
their shoes?

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

krp - 14 Nov 2007 14:54 GMT
>> >> >   The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
>> >> > one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> > abuse, but CPS is not a conspiracy in which there is a plot to cause
>> > harm to children.  It was created to help them and it does.

>>     Your infantile argument begins with TWO false premises.

(discussion snipped)

>    You have clearly never engaged in formal debate, padre gordo,
> because the only two false premises here are the ones that you're
> making since I never said either of the things you are claiming below
> and since I was not an abused child.

   They are what your arguments boil down it.

>> 1. That ALL family environments are "dangerous" for children.

>       When I first came to this group, I had to skip dozens of angry
> posts about your character as a liar.  Now I understand why they were
> written by so many people.  You really are an insane pig.  Aren't
> you?   Did you extract this lie from your left nostril or your right
> one or was it your butt cheeks, padre gordo?   I did not write that I
> feel all family environments are dangerous.

   Just the ones where "anonymous allegations" are made. Ad Hominem noted.

>> 2. That ALL state care environments are SAFE for children.

> Another lie, I see.  How old were you when you gained that reputation
> you have for lying, padre gordo?   I have written in just about every
> post that I didn't think this was true.

   Oh so now we have something to work on. Not "ALL" families are bad and
not all state care environments are safe. Now all we have to do is argue
about numbers.

>>     Want to re-think that at all?

>>     Tell me Eric, how badly did your mother treat you?

>    How badly did my mother HEAT me?   roflmao~ You are as illiterate
> as the others say, too.  Is there anything behind all that hot, rancid
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> You are as full of sh.t as everyone says, paper tiger.  You need help,
> badly.  I pray to God above that you don't have children of your own.

   Hope you have something better going for you than personal attacks like
some others around here.
LK - 12 Nov 2007 17:42 GMT
>> >> <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1194793047.418847.314280@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>  The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
> one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.

Saves lives on one level, destroys lives on the next.  The kids are alive
yes, but their lives are all f.cked up.

> The instances
> of children being killed and abused in foster care are less than the
> success stories.

Just curious, what is YOUR definition of success?  In your own words please.
I can look in a dictionary myself.

> Children in normal two-parent homes are killed by
> their mothers and fathers sometimes, too, but you can't judge all
> families harshly based on random anecdotal examples.   Resptectully,
> E.B.

So, what's your point?
Bearic - 14 Nov 2007 00:35 GMT
> "Bearic" <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >  The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
> > one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.
>
> Saves lives on one level, destroys lives on the next.  The kids are alive
> yes, but their lives are all f.cked up.

 So is your point that since there exists the possibility of
emotional consequences, the child should be left to die?  Nice.

> > The instances
> > of children being killed and abused in foster care are less than the
> > success stories.
>
> Just curious, what is YOUR definition of success?  In your own words please.
> I can look in a dictionary myself.

Success meaning that the life of the child was saved when that child
would have otherwise died.

> > Children in normal two-parent homes are killed by
> > their mothers and fathers sometimes, too, but you can't judge all
> > families harshly based on random anecdotal examples.   Resptectully,
> > E.B.
>
> So, what's your point?

 That IS my point.  There are dozens, hundreds and thousands of
children who have died or been abused at the hands of their biological
parents, yet I won't make some outlandish claim that the system of
biological parenthood f.cks up kid's lives.  And yeah, some foster
parents abuse the system and I advocate those sick people go to jail,
but those people do not comprise the whole of the foster care system,
L.K.  There are good foster parents out here who care about and do
right by the children.  Respectfully, E.B.
LK - 14 Nov 2007 04:09 GMT
>> "Bearic" <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>  So is your point that since there exists the possibility of
> emotional consequences, the child should be left to die?  Nice.

The possibility of emotional consequences?

Emotional consequences would pretty much be a sure thing.  The abuse,
neglect or potential for death is what is unsure in the senario based on
your claim that a child should be removed based on a phone call to the
hotline with no proof of abuse and have the safety factors determined after
the fact.  The emotional consequences of such actions would be devistating
to the child as well as to the parents.  The family unit would be broken.

>> > The instances
>> > of children being killed and abused in foster care are less than the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Success meaning that the life of the child was saved when that child
> would have otherwise died.

So every call to the hotline means that the child will die if they don't
take immediate action?

>> > Children in normal two-parent homes are killed by
>> > their mothers and fathers sometimes, too, but you can't judge all
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> children who have died or been abused at the hands of their biological
> parents,

And yet the human race has survived for hundreds and thousands of years
prior to the creation of foster care.  Some people suffer and some people
have the world handed to them on a silver platter.  Some children are born
into extreme poverty so are you giving to the Christian Childrens Fund to
help rescue as many of them as you can?  It's called life.  And life is
fragile.  sh.t happens.  Children who aren't abused or neglected die also.

> yet I won't make some outlandish claim that the system of
> biological parenthood f.cks up kid's lives.

Good.

> And yeah, some foster
> parents abuse the system and I advocate those sick people go to jail,
> but those people do not comprise the whole of the foster care system,
> L.K.

Maybe you just need to read or hear a few more of the horror stories.  The
foster care system is in a sorry state.  The system does not make a good
parent.  You are either unwilling to see or just plain ignorant of the
facts.

> There are good foster parents out here who care about and do
> right by the children.  Respectfully, E.B.

I never claimed there wasn't.  I believe that most foster parents are well
intentioned people.  But you know the old saying, the road to hell is paved
with good intentions.

Most of the foster parents that I have delt with seem to have adopted a
belief system that I personally find to be self-righteous and hypocritical
as well as repulsive.  It's kind of like a "my sh.t don't stink," mentality.
dragonsgirl - 14 Nov 2007 06:24 GMT
>>> "Bearic" <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
> as well as repulsive.  It's kind of like a "my sh.t don't stink,"
> mentality.

Most of the ones I've met and personally known have attitude toward parents,
but I believe that, for the most part, that attitude is developed because of
the secretive nature of the cases of the children they deal with.
I've known of fosters being outright lied to about the children that they
foster, and the situations that brought them to foster care.
I really can't blame them for that sometimes.
If you bring a two year old child to my door and ask me to take care of that
child because their mother tried to poison them, I'm going on the defensive
about this parent.  Who wants to like a child beater or baby killer?
But the fact is, what they are told, and what is truth is often...not really
the same.
They're in the dark on what's going on in the case, and all they really know
is that they can provide a home and support to the child.
That's really all they're supposed to do.
I've met a few that were very supportive to the parents.  I've met a few
that acted like the family was the children of Manson.
Again, I think much of that depends on what they've been told by DFS.
And, some are just a.sholes who think their sh.t don't stink.
fx - 12 Nov 2007 20:10 GMT
>>>> <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1194793047.418847.314280@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>>
>> www.aboutkenpangborn.com

  The system does experience some  corruption, as all systems do to
> one degree or another, but as a whole, it saves lives.  The instances
> of children being killed and abused in foster care are less than the
> success stories.    Children in normal two-parent homes are killed by
> their mothers and fathers sometimes, too, but you can't judge all
> families harshly based on random anecdotal examples.   Resptectully,
> E.B.

An Inconvenient Truth about Child Protective Services, Foster care, and
the Child Protection "INDUSTRY"

Child Protective Services 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.

Currently Child Protective Services violates more civil rights on a
daily basis then all other agencies combined, Including the NSA/CIA
wiretaping program…

FOSTER CARE IS A 80 PERCENT FAILURE:. A Brief Analysis of the Casey
Family Programs. Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. By Richard Wexler

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:E2PcWEpNCD4J:www.nccpr.org/reports/cfpanaly
sis.doc


or for .doc
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/cfpanalysis.doc

HOW THE WAR AGAINST CHILD ABUSE BECAME A WAR AGAINST CHILDREN
http://www.nccpr.org/issues/1.html

A recent study has found that 12-18 months after leaving foster care:

30% of the nation’s homeless are former foster children.
27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated
33% were receiving public assistance
37% had not finished high school
2% receive a college degree
50% were unemployed
*Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support

Children in foster care are three to six times more likely than children
not in care to have emotional, behavioral and developmental problems,
including conduct disorders, depression, difficulties in school and
impaired social relationships. Some experts estimate that about 30% of
the children in care have marked or severe emotional problems. Various
studies have indicated that children and young people in foster care
tend to have limited education and job skills, perform poorly in school
compared to children who are not in foster care, lag behind in their
education by at least one year, and have lower educational attainment
than the general population.
*Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support

80 percent of prison inmates have been through the foster care system.

The highest ranking federal official in charge of foster care, Wade
Horn of the Department of Health and Human Services, is a former child
psychologist  who says the foster care system is a giant mess and should
just be blown up.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2017991

Four rigorous studies have found that at least 30 percent of America’s
foster children could be home right now if their parents had decent housing.

This study found thousands of children already in foster care who would
have done better had child protection agencies not taken them away in
the first place.

Front-page story in USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm?csp=34#Close

The full study is available here.
http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fosterlt_march07_aer.pdf

The bottom line? - Child Protective Services and the Foster Care system
for the most part turns out young adults that are nothing more than
walking wreckage...

CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

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...
Bearic - 12 Nov 2007 21:51 GMT
> >>>> <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1194793047.418847.314280@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
> are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
> 100,000 children.

Have you personally analyzed the data?  How many of these children who
die do so as a result of the injuries they received from their abusers
prior to being in foster care?  I suggest these numbers are possibly
tainted by that issue alone.  For example, if Johnny was stabbed by
his mother, went into hospital and was placed in foster care the day
he got out, but died of complications from his wounds the next day, it
would show up on the data that he died in foster care, but would that
be accurate?  No.

CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
> and kills more children then parents in the United States.

How do you know this as fact?

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.

So what would you do with those three snotty nosed kids who were just
taken away from their crack whore  mother, the ones who cuss like
sailors and who steal and beat up their siblings?  Where are you going
to put them?  Are you going to take care of them?

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.

You really do believe it is a conspiracy.  Don't you?  Social workers
don't get together to plot against parents.  They go to college  and
are taught by people who know what they are talking about to learn to
spot the signs of neglect and abuse.  Any child who is suspected of
being abused needs to be taken away from the situation until it can be
determined that it is safe to go back.  If the child is then placed
with some unfit liar, the child should be taken away from that
situation, too, and the lying foster parent can rot in prison where
they belong.  But for you to claim that social workers are there to
take kids away from their parents wrongfully is just craziness.  That
is a stupid thing to say.  The whole CPS system is under funded and
over worked and pie holes like yours aren't going to help these kids
by bashing the system whose existence happened to protect them.

> Currently Child Protective Services violates more civil rights on a
> daily basis then all other agencies combined, Including the NSA/CIA
> wiretaping program...

Bullshit.

> FOSTER CARE IS A 80 PERCENT FAILURE:. A Brief Analysis of the Casey
> Family Programs. Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. By Richard Wexler
>
> http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:E2PcWEpNCD4J:www.nccpr.org/repor...
>
> or for .dochttp://www.nccpr.org/reports/cfpanalysis.doc

ONE study.  Big f.cking deal.  Wexler probably made a lot of money
from all of the abusive parents who went out and bought his work to
soothe their own abusing a.shole egos.

> HOW THE WAR AGAINST CHILD ABUSE BECAME A WAR AGAINST CHILDRENhttp://www.nccpr.org/issues/1.html
>
> A recent study has found that 12-18 months after leaving foster care:
>
> 30% of the nation's homeless are former foster children.

The address the issue of homelessness instead of attacking the system
that was put into place to protect them!

> 27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated

I would blame their abusing parents before I blamed those who tried to
rescue them. Don't forget they were abused first.

> 33% were receiving public assistance

Address the issue that   a lot of the right wing fundies forbid condom
distribution and sex education that might prevent those pregnancies in
the first place.

> 37% had not finished high school

That is the fault of foster care or of the parents who abused them?

> 2% receive a college degree

It's tough to get a college degree with daddy is a drunk and mama is a
crack whore.  A lot of foster kids are in that situation.  It isn't
CPS's fault.

> 50% were unemployed

It might be hard for some kid to concentrate even after he or she
grows up if he woke up every morning seeing thier dad's fist coming at
them or watching mama spread her legs for Uncle Anybody.  Why blame
foster care for that?

> *Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support
>
> Children in foster care are three to six times more likely than children
> not in care to have emotional, behavioral and developmental problems,
> including conduct disorders, depression, difficulties in school and
> impaired social relationships.

That statement does not prove causality.

Some experts estimate that about 30% of
> the children in care have marked or severe emotional problems.

Again, no causality.   If ten kids' legs are sawed off by the birth
parents and all ten kids go to foster care, the statistics are also
going to say that 100% of the kids under foster care had no legs but
it doesn't speak to foster care as being the CAUSE of those things.

Various
> studies have indicated that children and young people in foster care
> tend to have limited education and job skills, perform poorly in school
> compared to children who are not in foster care, lag behind in their
> education by at least one year, and have lower educational attainment
> than the general population.

Duh.  Most of the kids in foster care have been abused.  ABUSED kids
have limited education adn job skills, perform poorly in school
compared to chidlren who are not ABUSED, lag behind in their education
and so forth.   That isn't CAUSED by foster care.

> *Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support
>
> 80 percent of prison inmates have been through the foster care system.

They have also suffered child abuse not necessarily at the hands of
their foster care parents.  Close to that many also has dicks but you
can't blame them because they are male.  Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

> The highest ranking federal official in charge of foster care, Wade
> Horn of the Department of Health and Human Services, is a former child
> psychologist  who says the foster care system is a giant mess and should
> just be blown up.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2017991

Since it is in place to HELP children, maybe you should be trying to
help them do that instead of trying to tear it down.   It sucks when
foster parents abuse kids.  Those people should be locked up forever
right alongside the parents who abused them in the first place.

> Four rigorous studies have found that at least 30 percent of America's
> foster children could be home right now if their parents had decent housing.

IF they had decent housing implies that they don't, so are you saying
the kids should be put back into some situation where they are living
out on the streets?

> This study found thousands of children already in foster care who would
> have done better had child protection agencies not taken them away in
> the first place.

Bullshit.  You can't make a statement like that and expect it to be
taken as fact.  That is bullshit plain and simple.

> Front-page story in USA Today.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm?csp...
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> for the most part turns out young adults that are nothing more than
> walking wreckage...

  Most of those kids are walking wreckage to begin with or they
wouldn't be IN the system.    Respectfully, E.B.
krp - 12 Nov 2007 12:41 GMT
> The story was written by someone like yourself, someone who believes that
> the system is totally corrupted and evil.  Stupidity has its own rewards.
> I'm sure that kenny knows this very well, but is just to dam stupid to
> stop using his usual tactics.

   Totally? Nobody said that. That is corrupt is a point many of us are
prepared to argue successfully Ronny!'
LK - 12 Nov 2007 17:30 GMT
>>>>> The real scandal in Kansas child welfare is not that the state is
>>>>> oppressing Sedgwick County by giving authorities "only" 72 hours to
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> I dont use disguises, nym's, or any of that other crap.  I leave that to
> kenny and others like him.  I prefer honesty to lying.

Ron

That wasn't ment as an insult to you.  My God!

> The story was written by someone like yourself, someone who believes that
> the system is totally corrupted and evil.

I can't believe you would think such a thing about me!  I don't think that
the system is corrupted and evil.  Just the people running it and profiting
from it.

> Stupidity has its own rewards.  I'm sure that kenny knows this very well,
> but is just to dam stupid to stop using his usual tactics.

But this isn't necessarily about Kenny, now is it?  Please stick to the
topic.

> Ron
Ron - 13 Nov 2007 03:34 GMT
>>>>>> The real scandal in Kansas child welfare is not that the state is
>>>>>> oppressing Sedgwick County by giving authorities "only" 72 hours to
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> That wasn't ment as an insult to you.  My God!

And I didnt take it as such.  The stance of the individual who wrote the
post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with.

>> The story was written by someone like yourself, someone who believes that
>> the system is totally corrupted and evil.
>
> I can't believe you would think such a thing about me!  I don't think that
> the system is corrupted and evil.  Just the people running it and profiting
> from it.

The system IS the people.  We both know that.  One cannot be without the
other.

As for profit, hmmm, other than the companies that provide services to
those in the system (companies are usually "For Profit" concerns) I cant
think of anyone who actually makes a profit.

>> Stupidity has its own rewards.  I'm sure that kenny knows this very well,
>> but is just to dam stupid to stop using his usual tactics.
>
> But this isn't necessarily about Kenny, now is it?  Please stick to the
> topic.

He was an example.  A pretty good one to.  As such the comment was quite
"On Topic".

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 13 Nov 2007 05:20 GMT
> >>>> <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1194793047.418847.314280@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> And I didnt take it as such.  The stance of the individual who wrote the
> post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with.

Oh Ron has found a friend.

> >> The story was written by someone like yourself, someone who believes that
> >> the system is totally corrupted and evil.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> The system IS the people.  We both know that.  One cannot be without the
> other.

So...

> As for profit, hmmm, other than the companies that provide services to
> those in the system (companies are usually "For Profit" concerns) I cant
> think of anyone who actually makes a profit.

The GAL's, therapists, drug companies, lawyers, adpotion agencies,
foster care agencies, you and Eric here.

> >> Stupidity has its own rewards.  I'm sure that kenny knows this very well,
> >> but is just to dam stupid to stop using his usual tactics.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> He was an example.  A pretty good one to.  As such the comment was quite
> "On Topic".

well he's not the one in here preaching that we should remove kids
based on an accusation to the hotline with no substantiation of abuse
or neglect either.  If you believe that's the way things should be
done then you are pretty stupid.  You would be no better then a common
babystealer just as he is.

I'm also not interested in joining your personal attack squad.  It is
wrong for you to publish anybodys personal information all over usenet
no matter how much you dislike them.  I'm interested in discussing the
issue.  So be an adult about this.  My god Ron.  You are like a sheep
following the herd.  I am well aware that you do not like Ken and Greg
and probably me too as well as a few others who you have mentioned.
So you should just ignore us if you don't like us.  Don't give us the
time of day.  You probably don't like anybody who is critical of your
precious CPS.  So be it.  Ken made a point that I agree with.
Children are harmed by the removal so the children should not be
removed unless it is absoloutely necessary.

You and Eric want to jump the gun.  Shoot first and ask questions
later.  That is the wrong thing to do.

> Ron
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ron - 13 Nov 2007 21:06 GMT
>>>>>> <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1194793047.418847.314280@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> The GAL's, therapists, drug companies, lawyers, adpotion agencies,
> foster care agencies, you and Eric here.

The system is specifically designed to provide us with a level of
reimbursement that meets only 90% of the needs of the child on our care.
 IOW, we loose 10% each and every month with each and every child.

Its easy math.

>>>> Stupidity has its own rewards.  I'm sure that kenny knows this very well,
>>>> but is just to dam stupid to stop using his usual tactics.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> done then you are pretty stupid.  You would be no better then a common
> babystealer just as he is.

Kindly read what I posted.  Get back to me when you finish.

> I'm also not interested in joining your personal attack squad.  It is
> wrong for you to publish anybodys personal information all over usenet

I never have, and never will.  You might want to take a look at some of
gregg's posts though.  Its pretty common for him to do that.

I dont have an "attack squad", personal or otherwise.  I provide facts
and reasonable deductions based on those facts.  I can support every
single one of my claims, with facts.  So far, you have provided no
facts, only claims.

> no matter how much you dislike them.  I'm interested in discussing the
> issue.  So be an adult about this.  My god Ron.  You are like a sheep
> following the herd.  I am well aware that you do not like Ken and Greg
> and probably me too as well as a few others who you have mentioned.

I dont dislike the individuals (with the exception of kenny, he just
cant tell the truth about anything, and I dont like liars), only their
uneducated and ignorant positions.  And they have many of them.  When
challenged on these they run, hide, bluster, obfuscate, misrepresent,
and generally spin anything they can in attempts to support
unsupportable positions.  Its laughable.

> So you should just ignore us if you don't like us.  Don't give us the
> time of day.  You probably don't like anybody who is critical of your
> precious CPS.  So be it.  Ken made a point that I agree with.
> Children are harmed by the removal so the children should not be
> removed unless it is absoloutely necessary.

I have made that very same point many times.  Amazing that kenny and I
actually agree on something.  OTOH, there comes a point where removal IS
necessary, for the health and wellbeing of the child.  CPS workers are
trained to know where that point is, not kenny or yourself.

> You and Eric want to jump the gun.  Shoot first and ask questions
> later.  That is the wrong thing to do.

Ron
Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 13 Nov 2007 21:30 GMT
>>>>>>> <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1194793047.418847.314280@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
>
> Kindly read what I posted.  Get back to me when you finish.

But do you believe that a child should be removed with no substantiation of
abuse or neglect based on a phone call to the Child Abuse Hotline?  It's a
simple question.  Yes or no would do.

>> I'm also not interested in joining your personal attack squad.  It is
>> wrong for you to publish anybodys personal information all over usenet
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> one of my claims, with facts.  So far, you have provided no facts, only
> claims.

No you just follow along.

>> no matter how much you dislike them.  I'm interested in discussing the
>> issue.  So be an adult about this.  My god Ron.  You are like a sheep
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> necessary, for the health and wellbeing of the child.  CPS workers are
> trained to know where that point is, not kenny or yourself.

The topic is regarding Eric's opinion that children should be removed based
on a phone call.  Do you agree with Eric yes, or do you agree with myself
and kenny and even dragonsgirl seems to agree that there should be atleast
some level of substantiatable abuse before a remobal takes place?

Answer the simple yes or no.  You can do it.

>> You and Eric want to jump the gun.  Shoot first and ask questions
>> later.  That is the wrong thing to do.
>
> Ron
Ron - 14 Nov 2007 03:00 GMT
>>>>>>>> <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:1194793047.418847.314280@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
> abuse or neglect based on a phone call to the Child Abuse Hotline?  It's a
> simple question.  Yes or no would do.

Simple question I agree, but the answer cannot be as simple as yes or no.

Based solely on a phone call?  No, not hardly.  Based upon a call and
subsequent investigation or visitation by an investigating worker, if
called for then yes.

>>> I'm also not interested in joining your personal attack squad.  It is
>>> wrong for you to publish anybodys personal information all over usenet
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No you just follow along.

Not even that really.  I base my opinions on observed fact.  Observed
here and in other places.  If that happens to coincide with the opinions
of others then so much the better.  But I am no where near afraid to go
it on my own opinion wise, branch out into new areas of knowledge and
fact upon which to base an opinion.

>>> no matter how much you dislike them.  I'm interested in discussing the
>>> issue.  So be an adult about this.  My god Ron.  You are like a sheep
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Answer the simple yes or no.  You can do it.

See above.

The problem with your question is who sets that level?  For gregg,
unless it is him setting the level, whoever gets the assignment will get
it wrong.  For others, well lets say that they use ignorance of the
facts as a shield of feathers.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 14 Nov 2007 05:31 GMT
<cut the BS>
>> But do you believe that a child should be removed with no substantiation
>> of abuse or neglect based on a phone call to the Child Abuse Hotline?
>> It's a simple question.  Yes or no would do.
>
> Simple question I agree, but the answer cannot be as simple as yes or no.

The question is stated clearly and simply.  Do you believe that a child
should be removed with no substantiation of abuse or neglect based on a
phone call to the Child Abuse Hotline?

> Based solely on a phone call?  No, not hardly.

Yet here you say...

"The stance of the individual who wrote the
post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/3ba010b
4100bd2f4?dmode=source


Which seems like a yes to me.  So I'm getting some very contradictory
answers from you Ron.  What's up with that?

> Based upon a call and subsequent investigation or visitation by an
> investigating worker, if called for then yes.

This is what we are trying to get through this idiot Eric's head.  Thank you
Ron.
krp - 14 Nov 2007 15:15 GMT
The following paragraph is far more TELLING than Ronny can possible know:
CONFESSION TIME:

> The system is specifically designed to provide us with a level of
> reimbursement that meets only 90% of the needs of the child on our care.
> IOW, we loose 10% each and every month with each and every child.

> I have made that very same point many times.  Amazing that kenny and I
> actually agree on something.  OTOH, there comes a point where removal IS
> necessary, for the health and wellbeing of the child.  CPS workers are
> trained to know where that point is, not kenny or yourself.

   I disagree CPS workers RARELY have ANY "training" that would prepare
them to make such evaluations. Nationally few CPS caseworkers actually have
a degree that is related to such decisions. Most have educations in
completely unrelated fields. As to training, in most places, new CPS case
workers are shoved out on the streets with little or no real training. Some
is OJT, some is laughable "in-service" training. An hour or maybe a few
hours. The notion of well trained case workers is a joke. Which is why a
well schooled lawyer can induce them to implode on the witness stand when
asked the right questions. You and I don't agree Ron because we come at the
issue from vastly different planes. I'm not a whore for the status quo, you
are!
Ron - 14 Nov 2007 16:02 GMT
> The following paragraph is far more TELLING than Ronny can possible know:
> CONFESSION TIME:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> issue from vastly different planes. I'm not a whore for the status quo, you
> are!

You and I have been through this discussion before kenny, and you were
proven wrong then quickly and clearly.  So if I were you, I'd drop it.
No need for you to be embarrassed again, is there?

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

krp - 14 Nov 2007 16:41 GMT
> You and I have been through this discussion before kenny, and you were
> proven wrong then quickly and clearly.  So if I were you, I'd drop it. No
> need for you to be embarrassed again, is there?

   Sorry Ronny, you jumping up on the table, lifting your skirt and
screaming hysterically is NOT proving somebody wrong. The articles proved me
RIGHT, you ATTEMPTED (badly) to confuse the issue by inserting a article on
hiring  "AGENCY SUPERVISORS" in place of case workers. You didn't fool
anyone Ronny. I know you think you won.  The same source for CASE WORKERS
said that "any college degree" qualifies. And statistically MOST CPS case
workers (NOT SUPERVISORS) do NOT have a degree in ANY of the mental health
fields.
Ron - 15 Nov 2007 01:04 GMT
>> You and I have been through this discussion before kenny, and you were
>> proven wrong then quickly and clearly.  So if I were you, I'd drop it. No
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> workers (NOT SUPERVISORS) do NOT have a degree in ANY of the mental health
> fields.

The link was to an ENTRY LEVEL position kenny, as was clearly stated
both on the page and in the post, with a REQUIREMENT for a Bachelors
degree as a minimum.

Once again you prove my tag line to be 100% accurate.  Thanks for the
effort.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

krp - 15 Nov 2007 14:40 GMT
>>> You and I have been through this discussion before kenny, and you were
>>> proven wrong then quickly and clearly.  So if I were you, I'd drop it.
>>> No need for you to be embarrassed again, is there?

>>     Sorry Ronny, you jumping up on the table, lifting your skirt and
>> screaming hysterically is NOT proving somebody wrong. The articles proved
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> MOST CPS case workers (NOT SUPERVISORS) do NOT have a degree in ANY of
>> the mental health fields.

> The link was to an ENTRY LEVEL position kenny, as was clearly stated both
> on the page and in the post, with a REQUIREMENT for a Bachelors degree as
> a minimum.

   IN ANYTHING!!!!! As *I* said and you vehemently DENIED.  You claimed
they had to have a degree in mental health. I said MOST do not, you went
searching and came up with the Nebraska ADS. Nice wiggling Ron. But you
proved MY claim that a case worker need ONLY have a college degree ANY
college degree. In ANYTHING. Basket weaving, Bible Studies, Etruscan Art
History ANYTHING Ronny! The link you tried to piust to prove they needs a
MASTER'S DEGREE in some mental health disipline did NOT apply to case
workers but Agency SUPERVISORS. You TRIED to smokescreen the issue Ron.

> Once again you prove my tag line to be 100% accurate.  Thanks for the
> effort.

   Ping once again he MISSES THE MARK!
Bearic - 12 Nov 2007 07:55 GMT
> > <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1194793047.418847.314280@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Is it Ron in disguise?  Sounds like him.

   Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting
up in the morning and going to work way.   All I'm saying is that if
there is reason to suspect abuse, get the child out of the environment
until it can be determined one way or the other.    Respectfully, E.B.
krp - 12 Nov 2007 12:43 GMT
>    Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
> increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting
> up in the morning and going to work way.   All I'm saying is that if
> there is reason to suspect abuse, get the child out of the environment
> until it can be determined one way or the other.    Respectfully, E.B.

   And to you an ANONYMOUS call to the hot line is sufficient "reason" to
yank a child from its family?
Bearic - 12 Nov 2007 16:27 GMT
> >    Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
> > increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>     And to you an ANONYMOUS call to the hot line is sufficient "reason" to
> yank a child from its family?

  A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a
home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place,
yes.  Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.
Things happen in families.
firemonkey - 12 Nov 2007 17:29 GMT
> > "Bearic" <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> yes.  Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.
> Things happen in families.

I think intake workers need to be well trained in culling out false
reports.
krp - 12 Nov 2007 18:00 GMT
>> > >    Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
>> > > increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> I think intake workers need to be well trained in culling out false
> reports.

   What he's saying is that an anonymous accusation is enough to TAKE the
kids until you PROVE you did NOT abuse your child!
Bearic - 14 Nov 2007 15:31 GMT
> "ASSmonkey" <mehitabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>     What he's saying is that an anonymous accusation is enough to TAKE the
> kids until you PROVE you did NOT abuse your child!

I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an
investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
be dead.
krp - 14 Nov 2007 16:48 GMT
>>     What he's saying is that an anonymous accusation is enough to TAKE
>> the
>> kids until you PROVE you did NOT abuse your child!

> I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
> temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
> leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an
> investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
> be dead.

   Eric you just are incapable of getting it. Most parents who get accused
are INNOCENT! You will NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER accept that as a fact.
Most of those occasions there is no REAL probability the child will be dead.
In fact very few cases. Your notion that the parents must PROVE themselves
innocent, and not just legally innocent (because they cover their trails and
fool people easily) but to YOUR standard.  Presumably with YOU as the sole
judge and jury. Back tot old "where there is smoke there is ALWAYS fire"
thing you have.
krp - 12 Nov 2007 17:59 GMT
>> >    Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
>> > increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> yes.  Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.
> Things happen in families.

   You'd have easily made promotion in the Gestapo to the rank of
"groupenfuehrer!"
Bearic - 14 Nov 2007 15:24 GMT
> >> >    Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
> >> > increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>     You'd have easily made promotion in the Gestapo to the rank of
> "groupenfuehrer!"

  I don't care what you think.  If doing this saves the life of even
one kid, it is worth it, at least to me, it is and to a lot of the
foster parents it is too.  You seem more concerned with being "right"
or at least giving the appearance of being "right" than you seem to
care anything about kids.  My ego isn't that big.  I care more about
the kids.   I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his
family  temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong
than in  leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape
of an investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid
might be dead, and I did say TEMPORARILY and I did say IF THERE IS
REASON TO THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG.
krp - 14 Nov 2007 16:43 GMT
>> >> >    Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
>> >> > increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> one kid, it is worth it, at least to me, it is and to a lot of the
> foster parents it is too.

No matter how many kids you have to destroy to get to that ONE..............
Your argument would be nice *IF* there were NO HARM by yanking kids wrongly.
The FACT is that there IS harm to the kids, harm to the family, and harm to
society!
LK - 14 Nov 2007 16:50 GMT
>> >> >    Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
>> >> > increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> or at least giving the appearance of being "right" than you seem to
> care anything about kids.

If you cared so much about the kids you'd relize the value of their family.

> My ego isn't that big.  I care more about
> the kids.

So much that you'd destroy their mental health based on a phone call.

> I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his
> family  temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong
> than in  leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape
> of an investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid
> might be dead, and I did say TEMPORARILY and I did say IF THERE IS
> REASON TO THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG.

Now you are changing your wording.  If there is reason to believe that
something is wrong, there should be an investigation, if that provides
evidence that something is wrong then the kid may be better off in foster
care.  You were saying that a phone call to the child abuse hotline is
enough reason to remove a kid.

Just admit you were wrong.
LK - 12 Nov 2007 17:59 GMT
>> >    Not a foster parent and certainly not someone who needs to
>> > increase his monthly income in any way other than the standard getting
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> yes.  Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.
> Things happen in families.

Do you have any understanding of the harm caused to the child by the
removal?

Do you know that most reports of child abuse or neglect are unsubstantiated?

Where would they keep all the kids that they remove until they could prove
otherwise?  Isn't there already a shortage of GOOD foster homes?

Do you think that innocent parents would stand for having their children
removed from their care and placed with strangers while a babystealer
determines the safety levels of the children in their care?

How much would that number increase from what there already is?

Who would pay for it?  Your ideas aren't even idealistic, just ignorantly
self-righteous.
Bearic - 14 Nov 2007 00:39 GMT
> >> "Bearic" <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> Who would pay for it?  Your ideas aren't even idealistic, just ignorantly
> self-righteous.

 Tell me. What would YOU do with the four abused kids of the crack
whore, all dirty and diseased and illiterate,maybe not English
speaking, with no one who is willing to take them in?
krp - 14 Nov 2007 15:59 GMT
>> >   A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a
>> > home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place,
>> > yes.  Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.
>> > Things happen in families.

>  Tell me. What would YOU do with the four abused kids of the crack
> whore, all dirty and diseased and illiterate,maybe not English
> speaking, with no one who is willing to take them in?

   So all mothers are crack whores because "somebody" calls and claims they
are?  Statistics on false reporting indicate otherwise.
Bearic - 14 Nov 2007 15:30 GMT
> >> "Bearic" <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Do you have any understanding of the harm caused to the child by the
> removal?

I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an
investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
be dead.

> Do you know that most reports of child abuse or neglect are unsubstantiated?

Yeah I know that some abusive parents cover their trails fairly well
after they abuse their kids, because they don't want to be caught.

> Where would they keep all the kids that they remove until they could prove
> otherwise?  Isn't there already a shortage of GOOD foster homes?

No thanks to people like you who do all the bashing.  Did you ever
stop to think that being a foster parent might attract more good
foster parents if people like you didn't campaign against it so much.
It is YOU who are hurting these kids as much as their abusers.

> Do you think that innocent parents would stand for having their children
> removed from their care and placed with strangers while a babystealer
> determines the safety levels of the children in their care?

Innocent parents should be cleared quickly, because abused kids are
obvious about their abuse even when they don't speak it. There are
signs and trained experts can tell.

> How much would that number increase from what there already is?
IF what?

> Who would pay for it?  Your ideas aren't even idealistic, just ignorantly
> self-righteous.

  How are they "self" righteous?  I advocate for the kids.  There
isn't one thing in this for me, liar.  My kids have never been abused
and I am self-assured enough about my parenting skills to know I won't
ever be reported as an abuser.  I can say the same for my wife.  There
isn't any smoke.  We are good parents.  Our kids know it.  Our friends
know it.  Our community knows it, because we put our family first.
krp - 14 Nov 2007 16:44 GMT
>> >>news:1194854155.180436.182990@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> Yeah I know that some abusive parents cover their trails fairly well
> after they abuse their kids, because they don't want to be caught.

That's the old; "Where there's smoke there is ALWAYS fire bit again."
dragonsgirl - 14 Nov 2007 17:22 GMT
>> >> "Bearic" <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> isn't any smoke.  We are good parents.  Our kids know it.  Our friends
> know it.  Our community knows it, because we put our family first.

I'd have to disagree with you on that.
Don't blindly assume that you will never be reported for abuse or neglect.
Many a good parent found themselves the subject of abuse and neglect
allegations based on nothing more than knowing the wrong person.
There are people out there who use DFS as a weapon against others.
Those in the middle of custody battles and divorces, those who have ticked
off a family member somehow, etc.
ANYONE can make a false report, and many do.
You may find out that trivial things like not trimming your trees quickly
enough to suit your neighbors can spur false allegations.
krp - 15 Nov 2007 15:07 GMT
> "Bearic" <eric_bacon22@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>   How are they "self" righteous?  I advocate for the kids.  There
>> isn't one thing in this for me, liar.  My kids have never been abused
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> You may find out that trivial things like not trimming your trees quickly
> enough to suit your neighbors can spur false allegations.

   He admits a skewed view, that his parents were foster parents and
fostered a lot of kids. It may be a low question to ask, but yet one that
MUST be asked. How much $$$$$$ did they make being foster parents a month?
LK - 14 Nov 2007 17:33 GMT
>> >> "Bearic" <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
> be dead.

You think that an annoynomous phone call to the child abuse hotline is
"reason to think something is wrong."

>> Do you know that most reports of child abuse or neglect are
>> unsubstantiated?
>
> Yeah I know that some abusive parents cover their trails fairly well
> after they abuse their kids, because they don't want to be caught.

Do you believe that a family has rights?

Do you believe that a parent who does not abuse or neglect their children
has the right to parent that child the way they see fit?

>> Where would they keep all the kids that they remove until they could
>> prove
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> stop to think that being a foster parent might attract more good
> foster parents if people like you didn't campaign against it so much.

Well I'm glad that my work is having an effect.

> It is YOU who are hurting these kids as much as their abusers.

First of all a.shole, you know nothing about me.  You know nothing about why
I take the stand on this issue that I do.  Second of all, I am all for the
kids.  I am all for protecting kids who actually NEED PROTECTION and I
believe everybody in this group is.  You are for protecting them from good
loving parents who do not abuse them based on a phone call to the child
abuse hotline.  You fail to see that most calls to the hotline are
unsubstantiated, yet you think it's ok to take that kid anyway, claiming
"it's better to be safe then sorry."

Therefore it's "anti-family" people like you who are hurting these kids even
more then any typicol abuser.  What you want to do could scar a kid for life
based on a false accusation against their parents.   You minimize the damage
in your own head, and would probably even consider yourself a hero for doing
it.

>> Do you think that innocent parents would stand for having their children
>> removed from their care and placed with strangers while a babystealer
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> obvious about their abuse even when they don't speak it. There are
> signs and trained experts can tell.

But under your ideology, the system would be overwhelmed.  More abused
children would slip through the cracks and be killed based on the backlog
alone.

>> How much would that number increase from what there already is?
> IF what?

if your idea was implemented.

>> Who would pay for it?  Your ideas aren't even idealistic, just ignorantly
>> self-righteous.
>
>   How are they "self" righteous?  I advocate for the kids.

You advocate for the unnecessary disruption / destruction of their lives and
well being.

> There
> isn't one thing in this for me, liar.

So mommy and daddy aren't giving you a cut of their profits?

> My kids have never been abused
> and I am self-assured enough about my parenting skills to know I won't
> ever be reported as an abuser.

Neither have mine.

But don't be so sure that you will or could never be reported as an abuser.
Right Dan Sullivan?  Back me up on this line.

> I can say the same for my wife.

Does she share your view or can she see reason?

> There
> isn't any smoke.  We are good parents.  Our kids know it.  Our friends
> know it.  Our community knows it, because we put our family first.

I would hope so if only for the sake of your children.
krp - 15 Nov 2007 15:10 GMT
>> I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
>> temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
>> leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an
>> investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
>> be dead.

> You think that an annoynomous phone call to the child abuse hotline is
> "reason to think something is wrong."

   he has stated that he does 20 times now LK.

>>> Do you know that most reports of child abuse or neglect are
>>> unsubstantiated?

>> Yeah I know that some abusive parents cover their trails fairly well
>> after they abuse their kids, because they don't want to be caught.

> Do you believe that a family has rights?

   Apparently he doesn't. More important, he refuses to believe that
yanking a kid from the family hurts the kid.  He's way too invested because
his parents were foster parents and he can only see the issue from that
side.
LK - 15 Nov 2007 17:53 GMT
>>> I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
>>> temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>    he has stated that he does 20 times now LK.

I know.

>>>> Do you know that most reports of child abuse or neglect are
>>>> unsubstantiated?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> because his parents were foster parents and he can only see the issue from
> that side.

He also talks about how good his parents are.  Yet they raised a moron.  Go
figure.
krp - 16 Nov 2007 14:37 GMT
>>>> I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
>>>> temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> He also talks about how good his parents are.  Yet they raised a moron.
> Go figure.

I wouldn't say he's a moron, just extremely biased.
LK - 16 Nov 2007 14:56 GMT
>>>>> I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
>>>>> temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> I wouldn't say he's a moron, just extremely biased.

Look how he sucks up to them, even as an adult.
Greegor - 13 Nov 2007 22:18 GMT
>    A call that reports child abuse is reason to remove a child from a
> home until it can be determined whether or not the abuse took place,
> yes.  Where a child's life is at stake, you can't be too careful.
> Things happen in families.

You think children should be removed based on every report?

Do you have any professional support in that delusion?
krp - 12 Nov 2007 12:39 GMT
>>>> The real scandal in Kansas child welfare is not that the state is
>>>> oppressing Sedgwick County by giving authorities "only" 72 hours to
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> if there is nothing wrong? What about the 'suspicion"  abuse having to
>> have some REALISTIC component to it before you grab kids and run?????

> Is this person a foster parent or something?
>
> Trying to increase the monthly income?
>
> Is it Ron in disguise?  Sounds like him.

   The thinking is quite typical of the "hysterical" thinking within the
social work field. They never quite are able to recognize the consequences
of their actions on others. It never occurs to them that yanking a young
child from their families is a traumatic experience, and nowhere are they
able to process that often the foster family environment is FAR more harmful
to the child than the environment they were removed from would have been IF
the allegations were true, which most often they prove NOT to have been. By
DHS' own statistics 66% of the cases conclude as having been "unfounded."

   We are talking about people not well grounded in the understanding of
child development and who don't appreciate the psychic trauma on a child to
be yanked from their family. Bowlby did some studies on the effect of being
lost had on children. Even something as minor as being separated from mommy
in a department story could pose life affecting trauma. It's not just that
these folks don't understand that, they don't give a flying sh.t either.
They are just 100%$ positive that "where there is smoke there ALWAYS is
fire!"  You can't argue with them.
Bearic - 12 Nov 2007 07:54 GMT
> <eric_baco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> there is nothing wrong? What about the 'suspicion"  abuse having to have
> some REALISTIC component to it before you grab kids and run?????

 I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an
investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
be dead.  Better to be safe than sorry.  If it turns out that the
abuse didn't take place, good for the kid, but if it turns out that it
did, the kid's life is saved.  These are children we're talking
about,  I believe it is better to get the child to safety and ask
questions later.   Respectfully E.B.
krp - 12 Nov 2007 12:42 GMT
>> Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his family
>> if
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
> be dead.  Better to be safe than sorry.

But you are wrong.
Bearic - 12 Nov 2007 16:24 GMT
> >> Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his family
> >> if
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> But you are wrong.

 Oh?  So you believe that when there is a reported possibility of
danger or abuse, it is better to leave the kid in the situation  where
he can get killed rather than ruffle the feathers of the parents and
maybe cause them some humiliation if the charges are false?  Me, I'd
rather see the child safe.  Out of all the people concerned, the
children are the ones who do not have a choice in the matter.

 I'm glad you weren't my parent.
krp - 12 Nov 2007 17:58 GMT
>> >  I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
>> > temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> rather see the child safe.  Out of all the people concerned, the
> children are the ones who do not have a choice in the matter.

   Since 66% prove out to be "unfounded" (according to US HHS) I feel the
"possibility" needs to me more than an ANONYMOUS REPORT. I think the
anonymous report should send out a TRAINED case worker. However - at that
point unless they SEE something or come across some evidence to suggest
something more than the "mere possibility" of abuse, that you shouldn't just
yank the kid just because of some remote possibility of abuse. IF we yanked
the children from their parents on just the thinnest "possibility" that they
might be abused, than we should get ALL children rounded up and placed in
state crèches because it might be possible that the parents some day might
abuse them, even if we have no evidence they actually have been. You just
seem incapable of understanding that it is the CHILDREN who are harmed by
yanking them away from their families. You are obviously without a clue on
child development. You'd make a good case worker.
Bearic - 14 Nov 2007 00:37 GMT
> >> >  I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
> >> > temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>     Since 66% prove out to be "unfounded" (according to US HHS) I feel the
> "possibility" needs to me more than an ANONYMOUS REPORT.

Start right there with this claim.  I'd like for you to substantiate
that claim because I don't believe the US HHS makes it.  Give some
citation or method of verifying this because I suspect there is more
to this 66% number than you are stating.

I think the
> anonymous report should send out a TRAINED case worker.

To do what?  Investigate???  That is what I said. The incident should
be investigated.  If some anonymous person calls the fire department
and says, "There is a house on fire and six kids are in it, and the
firemen get there and don't see smoke, you can bet they are going to
get the kids out of the house while they double check to make sure
everything is ok.  From where I sit, child abuse is every bit as
dangerous as fire.  I was raised with foster brothers and sisters.  I
have heard stories that will make your toenails curl, padre gordo.

However - at that
> point unless they SEE something or come across some evidence to suggest
> something more than the "mere possibility" of abuse, that you shouldn't just
> yank the kid just because of some remote possibility of abuse.

Wrong.  Wrong. Wrong.  Wrong. Wrong.

Abusive parents can sometimes fake their way out of  a situation like
that, show no signs that they are abusive and fool everyone around
them.  One of my foster brothers lost his blood brother because of an
incident just like that.  The case worker went to the scene after an
anonymous call, their dad smiled and laid claim to some cock and bull
story about how his ex wife was trying to harass him and as soon as
the convinced case worker left, he tried to kill all of the kids.  He
succeeded with one of them and the other two ended up with my parents
taking care of them.

IF we yanked
> the children from their parents on just the thinnest "possibility" that they
> might be abused, than we should get ALL children rounded up and placed in
> state cr?ches because it might be possible that the parents some day might
> abuse them, even if we have no evidence they actually have been. You just
> seem incapable of understanding that it is the CHILDREN who are harmed by
> yanking them away from their families.

You don't know what you're talking about, padre gordo. There are
signs.  If someone suspects child abuse enough to report it, it is
worth making the effort to save the kids rather than take the chance
of not.  If it turns out that the claim is false, too bad.  The
children are the most important people in the situation, not their
parents.  The children are the ones who need protection.  The children
are the ones who do not have voices.

You are obviously without a clue on
> child development. You'd make a good case worker

You are the one without a clue on child development, padre gordo.  I
would not make a good case worker because I am not trained in that
line of work.  You would not make a good case worker because you tell
lies and are ignorant.  E.B.
krp - 14 Nov 2007 15:57 GMT
>>     Since 66% prove out to be "unfounded" (according to US HHS) I feel
>> the
>> "possibility" needs to me more than an ANONYMOUS REPORT.

> Start right there with this claim.  I'd like for you to substantiate
> that claim because I don't believe the US HHS makes it.  Give some
> citation or method of verifying this because I suspect there is more
> to this 66% number than you are stating.

  Let's start with this Eric. The things you do NOT know would fill the
Library of Alexxandria.

START HERE!!!!!
www.hhs.state.ne.us/jus/memos/HdbkPnts.pdf

www.hhs.state.ne.us/cha/2004Report.pdf

http://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/articles.cfm?&issue_id=2001-03&article_id=234

www.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/H8050/A001-2004.pdf

state.nj.us/.../Final Child Abuse Neglect Statistical Report CY04.pdf

hhs.csus.edu/homepages/sw/title-ive/Division_31_CWS_Regulations_II.pdf

>> However - at that point unless they SEE something or come across some
>> evidence to suggest
>> something more than the "mere possibility" of abuse, that you shouldn't
>> just
>> yank the kid just because of some remote possibility of abuse.

> Wrong.  Wrong. Wrong.  Wrong. Wrong.

> Abusive parents can sometimes fake their way out of  a situation like
> that, show no signs that they are abusive and fool everyone around
> them.

   You seem NOT to understand what country you live in. You'd have really
fit in in Nazi Germany or today in Venezuela. The concept of our legal
system is that it is better that a thousand guilty walk free than even ONE
innocent lose their liberty wrongly. Now somewhere between ideals is where
we need to be, and that is that an anonymous call is not enough to grab
kids.  There has to be SOME indication on the investigator's visit to base
removal on. Bruises, the child saying "mommy hits me" something more than an
anonymous report.!
Bearic - 14 Nov 2007 15:20 GMT
> >> >  I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
> >> > temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> yanking them away from their families. You are obviously without a clue on
> child development. You'd make a good case worker.

 I appeal to you one more time.  I want to see a source for that 66%
figure.  It is not on the US HHS web site so where did you get it?  I
want to read the data analysis on that and assuming it is true (which
I don't) tell me what you would do with the other percentage, the ones
who played out as actually being in danger.  The children 4 or 5 of
them of the drunk father or the crack whore mother who don't have a
sista to pawn them off of, the kids whose throats would be slashed if
they stayed.  Are your spare rooms full of needy children?  I doubt
it. I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an
investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
be dead. Sounds like that's fine by you, that the kids die.   E.B.
krp - 14 Nov 2007 16:41 GMT
>     Since 66% prove out to be "unfounded" (according to US HHS) I feel the
> "possibility" needs to me more than an ANONYMOUS REPORT. I think the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> yanking them away from their families. You are obviously without a clue on
> child development. You'd make a good case worker.

 I appeal to you one more time.  I want to see a source for that 66%
figure.  It is not on the US HHS web site so where did you get it?

I provided the LINKS.
LK - 12 Nov 2007 18:17 GMT
>> >> Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his
>> >> family
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>  I'm glad you weren't my parent.

You are so sugar coating the issue.  And you really have no f.cking clue
what you're talking about. You and your perfect little life view.    It's
because of idiots like you that the system is in the sorry assed state that
it is in.  It's because of idiots like you that innocent families are
destroyed for being poor.

But lets just examine your idea for a moment.  We remove every kid based on
every call to the Child Abuse Hotline until such time as they are proven
safe.

That would piss enough innocent parents off that there would be a HUGE
public outcry against the whole system.   Probably bringing about tons of
lawsuits.  Hell we may even be able to shut it down alltogether!

Then what would happen to the kids that were really abused?
krp - 13 Nov 2007 12:34 GMT
>>> >  I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
>>> > temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
>>> > leaving him there while both parties cut through the red tape of an
>>> > investigation because by the time it is all sorted out, the kid might
>>> > be dead.  Better to be safe than sorry.

>>> But you are wrong.

>>  Oh?  So you believe that when there is a reported possibility of
>> danger or abuse, it is better to leave the kid in the situation  where
>> he can get killed rather than ruffle the feathers of the parents and
>> maybe cause them some humiliation if the charges are false?  Me, I'd
>> rather see the child safe.  Out of all the people concerned, the
>> children are the ones who do not have a choice in the matter.

>>  I'm glad you weren't my parent.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> that it is in.  It's because of idiots like you that innocent families are
> destroyed for being poor.

   No he's right he should be glad I'm not his parent. I'd have sent him to
his room to do some reading to learn how FOS he is.
He'd rather do Play Station 3.
Bearic - 14 Nov 2007 00:44 GMT
> >>> >  I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
> >>> > temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> his room to do some reading to learn how FOS he is.
> He'd rather do Play Station 3.

  I was raised by two parents who had foster kids from the time  I
was two years old until I reached adulthood, padre gordo.  They were
good to those kids and good to their bio kids.    I had every
Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving and Fourth of July with families where
foster kids lived.  I know from first hand experience that I am right
and I also know that pricks like you are too selfish to do anything
for kids besides sit there on your fat tushes and shoot off your big
mouths on subjects you don't understand.  You are ignorant.     It is
your attitude, padre gordo ,and the lies you have already told about
this all.  You are the crazy man that all of those posts say you
are.   I wouldn't be surprised to hear you were a child beater
yoursef.  You would probably get some kind of sexual satisfaction from
that, prick.
LK - 14 Nov 2007 04:14 GMT
>> >>> >  I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
>> >>> > temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> yoursef.  You would probably get some kind of sexual satisfaction from
> that, prick.

So judgemental.
Bearic - 14 Nov 2007 04:23 GMT
> >> >>> >  I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
> >> >>> > temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> So judgemental.

 Admittedly, I am prone to harsh judgment against  people such as
this krp dude who tells lies about me and accuses my parents of abuse.
I began my discourse with a respectful tone.  He turned the discussion
into an abusive one.  If he can't stand the heat, he should get out of
the kitchen.  NO ONE talks to me that way and gets away with it.
Particularly not some ignorant blow hard who doesn't have a clue.  And
besides, I have now been sent plenty of information about him to shed
light on the sickness he has in his head and I have now had the
opportunity to read some of his history, so if your two words about
being judgmental were intended to make me feel bad, you are barking up
the wrong tree.
Ron - 14 Nov 2007 16:17 GMT
>>>>>>>>  I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
>>>>>>>> temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> being judgmental were intended to make me feel bad, you are barking up
> the wrong tree.

Ahhh, another convert.  Congratulations, the truth will set you free.

kenny, please take note of this.  Even the newcomers who attempt to
engage you in reasonable discourse eventually find that my tag line is
100% accurate.  I find it amazing that you continue to prove it with
each and every post.  Thanks for the help.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

krp - 14 Nov 2007 16:19 GMT
>  Admittedly, I am prone to harsh judgment against  people such as
> this krp dude who tells lies about me and accuses my parents of abuse.

   Sensittive little twerp aren't ya?  That you are prone to "harsh
judgment" literally leaps off the monitor from the things you write.

> I began my discourse with a respectful tone.

   No you began it being dogmatic and accusatory and nobody dare disagree
with you.

> I have now had the opportunity to read some of his history,

   You seem to put lots of faith in ANONYMOUS crap, don't ya?
LK - 14 Nov 2007 17:36 GMT
>>  Admittedly, I am prone to harsh judgment against  people such as
>> this krp dude who tells lies about me and accuses my parents of abuse.
>
>    Sensittive little twerp aren't ya?  That you are prone to "harsh
> judgment" literally leaps off the monitor from the things you write.

Prone to harsh judgement against innocent parents based on a phone call.

>> I began my discourse with a respectful tone.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>    You seem to put lots of faith in ANONYMOUS crap, don't ya?
krp - 15 Nov 2007 15:11 GMT
>>>  Admittedly, I am prone to harsh judgment against  people such as
>>> this krp dude who tells lies about me and accuses my parents of abuse.
>>
>>    Sensittive little twerp aren't ya?  That you are prone to "harsh
>> judgment" literally leaps off the monitor from the things you write.

> Prone to harsh judgement against innocent parents based on a phone call.

   He has a vested interest here. His parents did a great deal of
fostering. He can only see one side of the issue based on his life
experience, he CANNOT concieve of any other reality than his own.
LK - 15 Nov 2007 17:59 GMT
>>>>  Admittedly, I am prone to harsh judgment against  people such as
>>>> this krp dude who tells lies about me and accuses my parents of abuse.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> fostering. He can only see one side of the issue based on his life
> experience, he CANNOT concieve of any other reality than his own.

How much of a cut do you get Eric?
krp - 14 Nov 2007 16:02 GMT
>>> >>> >  I think there is LESS harm in yanking a kid from his family
>>> >>> > temporarily if there is reason to think something is wrong than in
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>>
> So judgemental.

Sanctimonious boor!
krp - 14 Nov 2007 16:01 GMT
>   I was raised by two parents who had foster kids from the time  I
> was two years old until I reached adulthood, padre gordo.  They were
> good to those kids and good to their bio kids.

That's wonderful. Many faster families are not so good. And many times the
biological parents did nothing wrong.
You simply don't understand the consequences of yanking children when it
wasn't necessary.

When it IS - fine. But I am speaking of when it ISN'T!
Ron - 13 Nov 2007 03:37 GMT
>>> Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his family
>>> if
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> But you are wrong.

The FACTS dont support your conclusion kenny.  Nothing new about that,
but I thought I'd just point it out.

Ron
Signature

Kenneth Pangborn is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 13 Nov 2007 05:38 GMT
> >>> Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his family
> >>> if
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
krp - 13 Nov 2007 12:52 GMT
THE ADULT

>>>> Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his
>>>> family  if
>>>> there is nothing wrong? What about the 'suspicion"  abuse having to
>>>> have
>>>> some REALISTIC component to it before you grab kids and run?????

>> But you are wrong.

> The FACTS dont support your conclusion kenny.  Nothing new about that, but
> I thought I'd just point it out.

   Oh but the FACTS DO support me Ronny, your CPS BULLSHIT doesn't. They
have an entire field of psycholgy that supports my conclusions Ronny baby.
It's called "CHILD DEVELOPMENT." From its pioneers like John Bowlby on
studying the basics of "attachment and loss" the field has learned much
about trauma to children. Dispruting their envionment is now well
researched. Even children of military families. show SEVERE evelopmental
disruptions from the lack of attachments to communities and friends not to
mention devastation of ties to extrended families.

   Now ROON- we all KNOW by this time that you consider yourself to be a
formidable EXPERT (maybe even Certified AAAAA+) on these subjects, you have
chosen a side here. Let me review to give you a last opportunity to correct
any misconceptions of what you are CLAIMING:

You have said I am TOTALLY WRONG and that the "facts don't support my
conclusions: let's list them from above.

1. I am statiing that there IS harm to children who are wrongly removed from
their families.

This means that YOU are claiming there is absolutely NO HARM of ANY kind
whatsoever!  NONE!

2. I am saying that the "suspicion of abuse" whould be based on something
more substantial than an anonymous telephone call.

This means that YOU say no matter how obviously bullshit an anonymous call
is, they should send the SWAT team in to storm a house guns blazing yo
rescue the kiddies. (A little hype there just to illustrate a point you will
miss otherwise.)

And you say NO facts support me.....

> Ron

   Ron - you wish to be taken seriously? Remember the role you WERE playing
here along with Kane and Danny, was that YOU were here as "CHRIST" to save
parents facing abuse allegations.  YOU were their MESSIAH! You were the
ADULT HERE!  And YOU were going to devastate me.

   Ron I have to ask you. As it stand right now in November of 2007, how
many folks facing false allegations do you think would now go to YOU to be
saved? How many do you think see you are a rational adult with your "lying
sack of sh.t" stuff?  You think your image is pretty good, do you? You and
Danny with some kelp from the Kook patrol have surely thrown lots of manure
on me. You need to ask yourself, who did it hurt most? Me? Ronny, baby, your
cover here is blown whether you realize it or not. Just about anybody has
been able to see that YOU are the "enemy." This just isn't the fox guarding
the henhouse Ronny, it is a chicken being dumb enough to walk into a pack of
foxes. Or in this case wolves in sheep's clothing.
firemonkey - 13 Nov 2007 13:56 GMT
> >>>> Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his
> >>>> family  if
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
> the henhouse Ronny, it is a chicken being dumb enough to walk into a pack of
> foxes. Or in this case wolves in sheep's clothing.
Bearic - 13 Nov 2007 16:06 GMT
> >>>> Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his
> >>>> family  if
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> disruptions from the lack of attachments to communities and friends not to
> mention devastation of ties to extrended families.

   Keeping a child in an abusive environment is worse.  If the
parents are suspected of abuse, the child should be removed until it
has been determined that the child is safe.    Disrespectfully, since
you lied about my parents ~ E.B.
dragonsgirl - 13 Nov 2007 17:14 GMT
>> >>>> Hmmmm and do you think there is NO harm in yanking a kid from his
>> >>>> family  if
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> has been determined that the child is safe.    Disrespectfully, since
> you lied about my parents ~ E.B.

Maybe we have a misunderstanding here about the process by which child abuse
is investigated and removal is made?
EB said that children should be removed when a hotline call is made.
The hotline, EB, is nothing more than an allegation made by someone for some
reason.
Could be harrassment, could be the old 'divorce and custody' trick, could be
a misunderstanding, could be abuse, and could be nothing.
The allegations are either screened out, or sent to the local office for an
investigator to be assigned.
The investigator, in an effort to determine if abuse or neglect exists,
interviews the child, the parents, sometimes the caller (especially if they
are a mandated reporter), interviews neighbors or other significant persons
in the case, such as other parents to the child or paramours to the parent,
etc.
Using this information the investigator can usually determine whether or not
there exists immediate harm.
If so, the child is removed, if not, then the investigation may continue and
a determination made within a designated period of time.
I can give you an example that might help you understand this process.

Back in about 1995 or 1996 a hotline came in alleging that I had left my
five children (all young) at home alone over the previous weekend.
When the worker arrived she read off the allegations to me and asked to see
the kids.  I told her that it was absurd, that I never left my kids at home
alone, and that we had been in Kansas City the prior weekend, that we had
taken the kids to an indoor theme park there called Jungle Jim's, had stayed
with friends, etc.

I then called the kids from the back yard, and she very appropriately asked
the kids if they had been on a trip with mom and dad recently.  The kids
told her that we had just come back from Kansas City where mom and dad took
them to Jungle Jim's and they rode rides and played games, etc.

It was very easy for the worker to determine that the allegations were
untrue without removal.

Sometimes it's not quite that easy, and more time is needed to make a
determination, especially with very very young children who cannot express
themselves verbally.  However, with seemingly obvious signs of abuse or
neglect, such as bruising or weight loss, coupled with other possible
indicators that might very well indicate abuse or neglect, but not clearly
and convincingly, it may serve a purpose to the child to be removed from the
home until a determination can be made.

To state that a child should be removed when a hotline call comes in is
wrong.  Especially in cases where there is no clear evidence of abuse or
neglect.

I would think that the severity of the allegations, as well as the
indicators, would play a huge role in removal.  It's not cut and dried 'just
take them', and to do so is a violation...both for the family, and for the
child.  It is devastating for a child to be removed and placed with people
that they do not know.  That is absolute fact.  The mandate of child
protective services is the best interests of the child.  It is not in the
child's best interests to yanked out of thier home without cause.

I think maybe if you had said 'removed on FOUNDED allegations' there would
not be controversy concerning your opinions.  I think you may also have
meant that...removal upon a founded determination, or while further
necessary investigation is done.
LK - 13 Nov 2007 17:44 GMT
<cut the bs>

> I think maybe if you had said 'removed on FOUNDED allegations' there would
> not be controversy concerning your opinions.  I think you may also have
> meant that...removal upon a founded determination, or while further
> necessary investigation is done.

He repeatedly claims that a phone call to the hotline is all that is needed.
No founded determination necessary.  A call is all they should need.  Shoot
first and ask questions later.  He minimizes the harm caused to the child by
the removal as if it's practically non-existent.  Claims it's better to be
safe then sorry.  And he probably thinks that if the accusations are
unsubstantiated, that everything will simply be just wonderful again as if
the experience were no big deal.
krp - 14 Nov 2007 15:06 GMT
>> I think maybe if you had said 'removed on FOUNDED allegations' there
>> would not be controversy concerning your opinions.  I think you may also
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> accusations are unsubstantiated, that everything will simply be just
> wonderful again as if the experience were no big deal.

   While he doesn't like it, his argument must rest on two premises;

1. That biological family units are always (or almost always) bad.

2. That state care systems are always (or almost always) good.

   What do we see? His parents were foster parents. So any suggestion that
foster parents might not be perfect is going to set Eric off.
BOO HOO!

   He seems not to understand the logic of his own arguments.
LK - 14 Nov 2007 17:41 GMT
>>> I think maybe if you had said 'removed on FOUNDED allegations' there
>>> would not be controversy concerning your opinions.  I think you may also
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>    He seems not to understand the logic of his own arguments.

So lets set him off.  Your parents are probably as full of sh.t as you are
Eric!
krp - 15 Nov 2007 15:12 GMT
>>>> I think maybe if you had said 'removed on FOUNDED allegations' there
>>>> would not be controversy concerning your opinions.  I think you may
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> So lets set him off.  Your parents are probably as full of sh.t as you are
> Eric!

You want to set the little twerp off? Demand from him mow much his parents
MADE each month fostering those kids.
LK - 15 Nov 2007 18:01 GMT
>>>>> I think maybe if you had said 'removed on FOUNDED allegations' there
>>>>> would not be controversy concerning your opinions.  I think you may
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> You want to set the little twerp off? Demand from him mow much his parents
> MADE each month fostering those kids.

He probably quit this group.  I don't think he likes us.  Boo hoo.
krp - 16 Nov 2007 14:37 GMT
>>>>>> I think maybe if you had said 'removed on FOUNDED allegations' there
>>>>>> would not be controversy concerning your opinions.  I think you may
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>>
> He probably quit this group.  I don't think he likes us.  Boo hoo.

He's probably in his room stabbing his teddy bear!
LK - 16 Nov 2007 14:59 GMT
>>>>>>> I think maybe if you had said 'removed on FOUNDED allegations' there
>>>>>>> would not be controversy concerning your opinions.  I think you may
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> He's probably in his room stabbing his teddy bear!

I doubt it, his mommy probably sits on the edge of his bed telling him that
everything will be ok.
krp - 16 Nov 2007 15:05 GMT
>>>>>>>> I think maybe if you had said 'removed on FOUNDED allegations'
>>>>>>>> there would not be controversy concerning your opinions.  I think
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> I doubt it, his mommy probably sits on the edge of his bed telling him
> that everything will be ok.

No I have this picture of him flying into a rage and hacking away at his
Teddy Bear with a kitchen knife like a DERANGED Norman Bates.
krp - 14 Nov 2007 15:03 GMT
> Maybe we have a misunderstanding here about the process by which child
> abuse is investigated and removal is made?

   No -  no misunderstanding Betty. He thinks that kids should be removed
until the parents can prove their home is SAFE. He was clear; "where there's
smoke there's fire!"

> EB said that children should be removed when a hotline call is made.

   He also said that; "Where there's some, there's fire!"

> The hotline, EB, is nothing more than an allegation made by someone for
> some  reason.
> Could be harrassment, could be the old 'divorce and custody' trick, could
> be a misunderstanding, could be abuse, and could be nothing.

   Eric seems to believe that almost all reports are true.

> The allegations are either screened out, or sent to the local office for
> an  investigator to be assigned.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> persons in the case, such as other parents to the child or paramours to
> the parent, etc.

> Using this information the investigator can usually determine whether or
> not there exists immediate harm.
> If so, the child is removed, if not, then the investigation may continue
> and a determination made within a designated period of time.
> I can give you an example that might help you understand this process.

   Would that this were so. As they say betty, "in a perfect world." My
point is right along with yours. The case investigator comes out, speaks to
everyone, takes notes. My point is that is the investigator sees nothing to
support the allegation, they should not remove the children. They should
have some substantive reason for snatching the kids.  THAT is where Eric and
I disagree. His point is that even when the investigator sees nothing, the
children should be removed until that family environment is "PROVED" to be
safe.
Dan Sullivan - 13 Nov 2007 18:12 GMT
>     Keeping a child in an abusive environment is worse.  If the
> parents are suspected of abuse, the child should be removed until it
> has been determined that the child is safe.

If all it took was a suspicion of abuse anyone could call the hotline
and have all the children in the neighborhood placed in foster care.

I have been investigated more than 15 times.

Five times CPS claimed they had credible evidence that I abused or
neglected my children.

And all five times when I availed myself of challenging their claim of
credible evidence, they produced NOTHING!!!!

And CPS was forced by their own system and Judge's to reverse all five
of their decisions.

Those findings included sexual abuse, broken bones, inadequate
guardianship, emotional neglect, excessive corporal punishment... and
on and on.

I was founded once for hitting my son in the face on a weekend I was
denied visitation and I had a police report to prove that weekend I
didn't get my kids.
Greegor - 13 Nov 2007 22:32 GMT
> >     Keeping a child in an abusive environment is worse.  If the
> > parents are suspected of abuse, the child should be removed until it
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> denied visitation and I had a police report to prove that weekend I
> didn't get my kids.

Eric, even the SYSTEM SUCKS on here disagree with
your theory that kids should be removed based only on
an abuse report called in on the hotline.

If your position was so, it would be a Public Relations disaster
that the Child Protection INDUSTRY would not survive.

Yes, it IS a huge INDUSTRY, with several tiers of beneficiaries.
What made you think it's not an INDUSTRY?
Kent Wills - 14 Nov 2007 01:15 GMT
As I understand it, on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:32:28 -0800, Greegor

>> >     Keeping a child in an abusive environment is worse.  If the
>> > parents are suspected of abuse, the child should be removed until it
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>Yes, it IS a huge INDUSTRY, with several tiers of beneficiaries.
>What made you think it's not an INDUSTRY?

    I didn't see the original post, so it's possible a comment
about it being an industry was made.  However, there's nothing in the
part Dan quoted, or Dan's reply about any industry.

Signature

Kent
Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!

Kent Wills - 14 Nov 2007 01:13 GMT
As I understand it, on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:12:45 -0800, Dan Sullivan
<dsulldan@optonline.net> wrote:

>>     Keeping a child in an abusive environment is worse.  If the
>> parents are suspected of abuse, the child should be removed until it
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>denied visitation and I had a police report to prove that weekend I
>didn't get my kids.

    You are good.  You can physically assault someone when they
aren't in proximity of you.
    BTW, stop poking me in the shoulder :)

Signature

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

krp - 14 Nov 2007 15:07 GMT
>>     Keeping a child in an abusive environment is worse.  If the
>> parents are suspected of abuse, the child should be removed until it
>> has been determined that the child is safe.
>
> If all it took was a suspicion of abuse anyone could call the hotline
> and have all the children in the neighborhood placed in foster care.

   That's PRECISELY what happened in Jordan, Minnesota Danny!
krp - 14 Nov 2007 14:57 GMT
>>     Oh but the FACTS DO support me Ronny, your CPS BULLSHIT doesn't. They
>> have an entire field of psycholgy that supports my conclusions Ronny
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> to
>> mention devastation of ties to extrended families.

>    Keeping a child in an abusive environment is worse.  If the
> parents are suspected of abuse, the child should be removed until it
> has been determined that the child is safe.

   Thank you HERR HITLER!
Ron - 14 Nov 2007 03:21 GMT
> THE ADULT
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>     Oh but the FACTS DO support me Ronny, your CPS BULLSHIT doesn't. They
> have an entire field of psycholgy that supports my conclusions Ronny baby.

I'd ask a normal person to support that kind of a statement, but we all
know that you are not even close to normal kenny so I wont waste my time.

> It's called "CHILD DEVELOPMENT." From its pioneers like John Bowlby on
> studying the basics of "attachment and loss" the field has learned much
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> This means that YOU are claiming there is absolutely NO HARM of ANY kind
> whatsoever!  NONE!

Please, show me where I wrote that kenny.  Other than in your seriously
screwed up mind that is.

> 2. I am saying that the "suspicion of abuse" whould be based on something
> more substantial than an anonymous telephone call.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> And you say NO facts support me.....

Please, show me where I wrote that kenny.  Other than in your seriously
screwed up mind that is.

>> Ron
>
>     Ron - you wish to be taken seriously? Remember the role you WERE playing
> here along with Kane and Danny, was that YOU were here as "CHRIST" to save
> parents facing abuse allegations.  YOU were their MESSIAH! You were the
> ADULT HERE!  And YOU were going to devastate me.

My my kenny, what big lies you tell.

I am no messiah.  Never claimed to be.  But given what I have sen of
your web site for the "Ateam", the delusions of grandeur are certainly
coming from you.

>     Ron I have to ask you. As it stand right now in November of 2007, how
> many folks facing false allegations do you think would now go to YOU to be
> saved? How many do you think see you are a rational adult with your "lying
> sack of sh.t" stuff?

After reading your posts?  Your history?  100% kenny.  100%.  My
credibility is quite healthy and flowing with life, whereas yours is
currently somewhere between your toilet and the waste water treatment
facility.

> You think your image is pretty good, do you?

Compared to yours?  Golden.  Platinum.  Diamond.  Pure as the driven snow.

> You and
> Danny with some kelp from the Kook patrol have surely thrown lots of manure
> on me.

No kenny.  We didnt throw anything.  Those huge piles of manure are of
your own making, we only point them out to others.

> You need to ask yourself, who did it hurt most? Me? Ronny, baby, your
> cover here is blown whether you realize it or not. Just about anybody has
> been able to see that YOU are the "enemy." This just isn't the fox guarding
> the henhouse Ronny, it is a chicken being dumb enough to walk into a pack of
> foxes. Or in this case wolves in sheep's clothing.

Fox's?  Hen houses?  Do you now think you are a farmer kenny?

Lets be honest kenny (Something I do well, but something you completely
fail at).  At the link below is a small, SMALL, list of your
transgressions against those who use Usenet.  All of it verifiable as
far as I can tell.  All of it pointing to the FACT that you are a lying
sack of sh.t.  You can waffle and misdirect all you like kenny, but
anyone who takes the time to research what is available at that link can
and WILL come to the same conclusion.

As I said, my credibility is quite healthy and flowing with life.  I'll
let others confirm my estimate of your credibility after they do their
own research.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

krp - 14 Nov 2007 16:21 GMT
> As I said, my credibility is quite healthy and flowing with life.  I'll
> let others confirm my estimate of your credibility after they do their own
> research.

The Moore website?  Well Ronny you HAVE rested your credibility on it.
Ron - 15 Nov 2007 01:09 GMT
>> As I said, my credibility is quite healthy and flowing with life.  I'll
>> let others confirm my estimate of your credibility after they do their own
>> research.
>
> The Moore website?  Well Ronny you HAVE rested your credibility on it.

And so far it seems to be holding up quite well.  After all kenny, you
have never made a credible challenge of anything posted there now have
you?  Even when offered a free ride, an open invitation to not only
discredit mr moore but also to have his web site removed for all time,
and the opportunity to prove to anyone and everyone posting to Usenet
that you were right about his military discharge, you failed. Miserably
at that.

You have no credibility kenny, which is why you have no place to rest it.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

krp - 15 Nov 2007 15:20 GMT
>>> As I said, my credibility is quite healthy and flowing with life.  I'll
>>> let others confirm my estimate of your credibility after they do their
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> And so far it seems to be holding up quite well.

YEAH I know Ronny. You are the biggest BADDEST BADASS on the net and YOU are
REALLY showing me man!

<Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>   A legend in your own mind. You name
calling doesn't make ANY if it So Ron. Maybe you USED to impress people here
with your bully boy antics. Do you have ANY idea how many people now see you
for the CPS whore you are  Ron? You and Sullivan? Have *I* don it ot you?
NO, Ron, you guys did it to yourself. Your cover as "NATURE'S HELPERS" is
blown. People can see you for what you are! NOT A FRIEND!

Ron you'll NEVER seel that BULLSHIT here ever again! It's OVER! But you're
too dumb to know that.

MY WHAT BIG TEETH YOU HAVE GRANDMA!

Go back tot he CPS office and tell everybody to go screw themselves.

The thing that SHOULD produce great fear in people:

"HELLO, I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I AM HERE TO HELP YOU!"
Greegor - 13 Nov 2007 22:20 GMT
Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
be removed based on every report made?

Until the parents are proven innocent?
Ron - 14 Nov 2007 03:26 GMT
> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
> be removed based on every report made?
>
> Until the parents are proven innocent?

How many times have I answered that question for you gregg?  Having
memory issues?  Senility setting in?

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

Greegor - 14 Nov 2007 03:46 GMT
G > Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
G > be removed based on every report made?
G > Until the parents are proven innocent?

Ron > How many times have I answered that
Ron > question for you gregg?
Ron > Having memory issues?  Senility setting in?

Got a link?  Yes or NO are just too difficult Ron?

You're still refusing to capitalize my name
or spell it right?   Kind of a faggoty way
to insult somebody isn't it?
LK - 14 Nov 2007 04:29 GMT
> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
> be removed based on every report made?
>
> Until the parents are proven innocent?

I asked him that, he's running around the issue and resorting to personal
attacks against krp to support his refusal to answer directly.  But Ron did
say...

"The stance of the individual who wrote the
post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/3ba010b
4100bd2f4?dmode=source


Which would be a yes.
Greegor - 14 Nov 2007 04:42 GMT
> > Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
> > be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Which would be a yes.

I am amused that Ron has an opinion
he won't stand up and be accounted for!
LK - 14 Nov 2007 05:00 GMT
>> > Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>> > be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> I am amused that Ron has an opinion
> he won't stand up and be accounted for!

Give him a break, he's probably been told so many lies over the years by
social workers that he has a case of FMS.

This sort of a question must be very hard for him.
dragonsgirl - 14 Nov 2007 06:13 GMT
>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Which would be a yes.

Hardly.
The poster didn't make it very clear what they meant, as I tried to point
out.
Ron, like I, believes that in cases of sufficient cause, removal during
further investigation is sometimes necessary.
He also pointed out that it depends on who's standard of abuse you are
referring to.
It's obvious that we don't all have the same standards.
he can't completely agree, or completely disagree because he doesn't know
exacts.
That's not a denial or confirmation on his part.
krp - 14 Nov 2007 15:19 GMT
>> "The stance of the individual who wrote the
>> post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> The poster didn't make it very clear what they meant, as I tried to point
> out.

Betty I disagree. Eric made himself VERY clear. Don't defend Ron. Eric
was/is as subtle as a 50 megaton bomb. He's hard to miss, he straight
forward with what he believes, even if he doesn't always see it in its most
simple ramifications.
Ron - 14 Nov 2007 16:12 GMT
>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Which would be a yes.

I always say that honesty is the best policy.  You might want to give it
a try.

"Simple question I agree, but the answer cannot be as simple as yes or no."

And it cant.  Black and White in the HHS system just does not exist.
And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for that.
 Humans are involved, and an imperfect justice system trying to sort
out all the differing degrees of demands of the citizens that it is
trying to serve.  A simple yes or no will rarely suffice in any case,
and it will never be acceptable to all the concerned parties.

"Based solely on a phone call?  No, not hardly.  Based upon a call and
subsequent investigation or visitation by an investigating worker, if
called for then yes. "

Gee, that seemed to be pretty clear to me.

Now, the other statement I made was not as clear as I could have made
it, but then again neither is the issue.

"The stance of the individual who wrote the post is familiar, and one
that I do not totally disagree with."

Usually that tells someone that I am familiar with that particular stand
on the issue, and that it is something that I dont totally disagree
with.  It also means that it is something that I dont totally agree with.

I hope that clears up this little moral issue for you.  If not then I'll
admit that your issues are beyond my ability to help with.  I'd suggest
that you contact your clergy member and pose these questions to them.
Morality is more in their court than mine.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 14 Nov 2007 18:19 GMT
>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> I always say that honesty is the best policy.  You might want to give it a
> try.

What have I lied about Ron?  Please be specific.

> "Simple question I agree, but the answer cannot be as simple as yes or
> no."

Yes it is a simple yes or no answer.  Is a phone call to the Child abuse
hotline enough to yank a kid from their home.

The correct answer is no.

Should there be an investigation into such accusations?

That is a different question isn't it.  The correct answer would be yes.

Then if that investigation turns up anything substantial then the child
should be removed and sent to you Ron.  The phone call is not enough

> And it cant.  Black and White in the HHS system just does not exist.

Your trying to make the issue seem more complicated then it really is Ron.

> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for that.

No, I have people like you and CPS workers to blame for that.

>  Humans are involved, and an imperfect justice system trying to sort out
> all the differing degrees of demands of the citizens that it is trying to
> serve.

Irrelevent bullshit Ron.

> A simple yes or no will rarely suffice in any case, and it will never be
> acceptable to all the concerned parties.

Bullshit Ron.

> "Based solely on a phone call?  No, not hardly.  Based upon a call and
> subsequent investigation or visitation by an investigating worker, if
> called for then yes. "

Thank you Ron.  You finally answered a direct simple yes or no question.
Bravo!

> Gee, that seemed to be pretty clear to me.

And  pretty simple wasn't it?

> Now, the other statement I made was not as clear as I could have made it,
> but then again neither is the issue.

But the issue is simple, is a phone call enough?  You now say no.  There
should be an investigation.  You, myself, dragonsgirl, DS, krp, and I think
possibly even Greg agree.  Why are you beating a dead horse with irrelivent
bullshit?

> "The stance of the individual who wrote the post is familiar, and one that
> I do not totally disagree with."

> Usually that tells someone that I am familiar with that particular stand
> on the issue, and that it is something that I dont totally disagree with.
> It also means that it is something that I dont totally agree with.

The you are contradicting yourself.

> I hope that clears up this little moral issue for you.  If not then I'll
> admit that your issues are beyond my ability to help with.  I'd suggest
> that you contact your clergy member and pose these questions to them.
> Morality is more in their court than mine.
>
> Ron

I just made a call.  The minister I spoke to agrees with me.  A child should
not be removed based only on a phone call, but only after such accusations
are investigated and substantiated.

But also remember.  Even Jesus Christ himself said, "Let no man seperate
what God has joined together."

Ron is a foster parent

Learn more about foster care at
http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
Ron - 15 Nov 2007 01:29 GMT
>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> What have I lied about Ron?  Please be specific.

"I asked him that, he's running around the issue and resorting to
personal attacks against krp to support his refusal to answer directly.
 But Ron did say...

"The stance of the individual who wrote the
post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/3ba010b
4100bd2f4?dmode=source


Which would be a yes."

Clear enough?  Is there somewhere in my statement where the word "Yes"
appears?  "Which would be a yes." appears to be a lie.  So, as I said,
honestly is the best policy, and you might want to give it a try.

>> "Simple question I agree, but the answer cannot be as simple as yes or
>> no."
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The correct answer is no.

Opinions vary.

> Should there be an investigation into such accusations?
>
> That is a different question isn't it.  The correct answer would be yes.

Opinions also vary.

> Then if that investigation turns up anything substantial then the child
> should be removed and sent to you Ron.  The phone call is not enough

What makes you think I want them?  I have enough now as it is.

>> And it cant.  Black and White in the HHS system just does not exist.
>
> Your trying to make the issue seem more complicated then it really is Ron.

No actually I'm not.  I have barely touched the level of complication
that this issue truly is.

>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for that.
>
> No, I have people like you and CPS workers to blame for that.

"Whoosh!!!"

Obviously that was a bit over your head.  When I get a moment or four
I'll try and reduce the level of sophistication of the comment to
something you will be able to get.

>>  Humans are involved, and an imperfect justice system trying to sort out
>> all the differing degrees of demands of the citizens that it is trying to
>> serve.
>
> Irrelevent bullshit Ron.

Humans irrelevant.  Hmmm.  Interesting.

>> A simple yes or no will rarely suffice in any case, and it will never be
>> acceptable to all the concerned parties.
>
> Bullshit Ron.

I have never, not in my 15+ years as a foster parent, nor as my 5+ years
as a service provider, seen a simple Yes or No satisfy all the parties
involved in an HHS case.  So, while for your limited frame of reference
you may think it bullshit, my much larger frame says that it is an
extremely accurate statement.

>> "Based solely on a phone call?  No, not hardly.  Based upon a call and
>> subsequent investigation or visitation by an investigating worker, if
>> called for then yes. "
>
> Thank you Ron.  You finally answered a direct simple yes or no question.
> Bravo!

Hmmm, seems that the answer I provided was quite clear in the original
post (which is where I got that quote from).  Did you miss the original
answer?

>> Gee, that seemed to be pretty clear to me.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> The you are contradicting yourself.

No.  I am stating that there are always gray areas of any case, and none
are ever exactly the same as another.  So, while there are certain parts
of his conclusions that I tend to agree with, there are others that I
dont.  Clear enough?

>> I hope that clears up this little moral issue for you.  If not then I'll
>> admit that your issues are beyond my ability to help with.  I'd suggest
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> But also remember.  Even Jesus Christ himself said, "Let no man seperate
> what God has joined together."

Investigations sometimes take weeks, or even longer.  You and your
priest would leave a child in an environment where the child's safety is
in question?  Somehow I think that you phrased the question in such a
way as to get the answer you wanted, misrepresenting the issue.

> Ron is a foster parent
>
> Learn more about foster care at
> http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 15 Nov 2007 03:34 GMT
>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> attacks against krp to support his refusal to answer directly. But Ron did
> say...

First of all, krp made a lagetimate point, on topic in the thread.  I assume
you disagreed just because it was him who said it.  Whatever, I could be
wrong I suppose.  Like I said, I'm not interested in your petty squabbles.
Then you resorted to the personal attack.  In fact, this thread is full of
personal attacks from you.  Go back and read any post from you.  You did not
answer the question until I (metaphore: please do not asume I'm abusing Ron
physically) twisted your arm a bit.

In fact this tag line of yours is also a personal attack irrelevent of the
topic of the thread.  Therefore you have not posted anything to this thread
without a personal attack of some kind.

Therefore that is not a lie.

> "The stance of the individual who wrote the
> post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/3ba010b
4100bd2f4?dmode=source

>
> Which would be a yes."

That was not a lie either.  That was an assumption based on the wording in
the context of the thread.  Go back and reread, if you can, look at it from
my perspective.  It seemed that you agreed with Eric.  Originally you did
not answer the question.

If you want to be interpreted clearly then you should speak clearly.

> Clear enough?  Is there somewhere in my statement where the word "Yes"
> appears?

Oh cut it out Ron.  Lets analyze your statement.

>"The stance of the individual who wrote the
> post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."

I assume that the wording before the comma ( , ) means that you are fimiliar
with Eric's position.  If I am wrong please correct me.  In other words you
are familiar with the belief that children should be removed based on
nothing more then a phone call to the child abuse hotline, have the home and
parents investigated and the children returned to their homes if there is no
evidence of abuse or neglect.

After the comma should speak for itself, but I will explain it to you
anyway.

> "and one that I do not totally disagree with."

If you do not totally disagree with Eric's position, then you must at least
agree somewhat with Eric's position that children should be removed based on
nothing more then a phone call to the child abuse hotline.  Which means,
that yes you do agree with Eric's position that children should be removed
based on nothing more then a call to the child abuse hotline.

As I said, if I am wrong in this assumption, feel free to correct me.  But
do so clearly.

> "Which would be a yes." appears to be a lie.

Now you are acting like a CPS worker by putting a play on my words.  I did
not state that you said, "which would be a yes." I stated that you said,
>"The stance of the individual who wrote the
> post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."
and assumed that you did agree with Eric's position.

> So, as I said, honestly is the best policy, and you might want to give it
> a try.

So should you.  Because you are either lying when you said...
>"The stance of the individual who wrote the
> post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."

or here when you said, and I quote...
> "Based solely on a phone call?  No, not hardly.  Based upon a call and
> subsequent investigation or visitation by an investigating worker, if
> called for then yes. "

>>> "Simple question I agree, but the answer cannot be as simple as yes or
>>> no."
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Opinions vary.

But that's not the point is it?

>> Should there be an investigation into such accusations?
>>
>> That is a different question isn't it.  The correct answer would be yes.
>
> Opinions also vary.

But that is not the point is it?

>> Then if that investigation turns up anything substantial then the child
>> should be removed and sent to you Ron.  The phone call is not enough
>
> What makes you think I want them?  I have enough now as it is.

So you don't want the kids?  Nice Ron.  That must make them feel real good
about their situations.

>>> And it cant.  Black and White in the HHS system just does not exist.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> No actually I'm not.  I have barely touched the level of complication that
> this issue truly is.

Bullshit Ron.

You take a big problem and break it down into it's smaller components in an
effort to improve upon the whole.  I think I learned that in the fifth
grade.  Did you ever learn anything like that?

This is a small part of a much larger problem that this thread has been
analyzing.  A particular position held by some in society regarding what
should be done to solve a much larger problem.  It has not been analyzing
the whole problem by any means.

This is what I mean when I talk about the Mentality of the Foster Parent
being self-righteous and hypocritical.  They fail to realize this and
instead take the small part out of context and blow it out of proportion and
instead of improving upon the whole, you make it seem worse then it actually
is.

This is what you are doing here Ron.

>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for that.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> try and reduce the level of sophistication of the comment to something you
> will be able to get.

If you say so.

>>>  Humans are involved, and an imperfect justice system trying to sort out
>>> all the differing degrees of demands of the citizens that it is trying
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Humans irrelevant.  Hmmm.  Interesting.

Not humans, just your bullshit.

>>> A simple yes or no will rarely suffice in any case, and it will never be
>>> acceptable to all the concerned parties.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> you may think it bullshit, my much larger frame says that it is an
> extremely accurate statement.

See above.

>>> "Based solely on a phone call?  No, not hardly.  Based upon a call and
>>> subsequent investigation or visitation by an investigating worker, if
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> post (which is where I got that quote from).  Did you miss the original
> answer?

Actually I responded to it.
>>> Gee, that seemed to be pretty clear to me.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>> The you are contradicting yourself.
> '
So this issue is confusing for you?

> No.  I am stating that there are always gray areas of any case, and none
> are ever exactly the same as another.  So, while there are certain parts
> of his conclusions that I tend to agree with, there are others that I
> dont.  Clear enough?

sure.
>>> I hope that clears up this little moral issue for you.  If not then I'll
>>> admit that your issues are beyond my ability to help with.  I'd suggest
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Ron
Ron - 15 Nov 2007 18:11 GMT
>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>
> First of all, krp made a lagetimate point, on topic in the thread.

I consider nothing from krp to be legitimate, not even his name.  But
thats a personal bias, one that is well earned.

> I assume
> you disagreed just because it was him who said it.  Whatever, I could be
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> answer the question until I (metaphore: please do not asume I'm abusing Ron
> physically) twisted your arm a bit.

kenny deserves nothing less.

So far I dont believe that I have made any against you.  Observations
that you may not like, yes, but personal attacks?  No, I dont think so.

> In fact this tag line of yours is also a personal attack irrelevent of the
> topic of the thread.  Therefore you have not posted anything to this thread
> without a personal attack of some kind.

Its called a "Tag Line", a line with goes at the bottom of each and
every post I make regardless of which Usenet forum I post to.  Tag lines
are used in many different ways and for many different reasons.  I have
my reasons for my tag line, and this is the way I choose to use it.
Feel free to develop your own, its entertaining.

> Therefore that is not a lie.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> my perspective.  It seemed that you agreed with Eric.  Originally you did
> not answer the question.

You know what they say about assumptions dont you?  Considering that you
posted it as a definitive rather than as an assumption, "Which would be
a yes", certainly makes it a lie.

> If you want to be interpreted clearly then you should speak clearly.

I rarely mispeak/mispost myself.

>> Clear enough?  Is there somewhere in my statement where the word "Yes"
>> appears?
>
> Oh cut it out Ron.  Lets analyze your statement.

Oh please, lets.

>> "The stance of the individual who wrote the
>> post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."
>
> I assume that the wording before the comma ( , ) means that you are fimiliar
> with Eric's position.

Correct so far.

> If I am wrong please correct me.  In other words you
> are familiar with the belief that children should be removed based on
> nothing more then a phone call to the child abuse hotline, have the home and
> parents investigated and the children returned to their homes if there is no
> evidence of abuse or neglect.

Familiar with it, yessir'ee.

> After the comma should speak for itself, but I will explain it to you
> anyway.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> that yes you do agree with Eric's position that children should be removed
> based on nothing more then a call to the child abuse hotline.

Lets look at his statement, the whole statement, not just the line you
object to.

"Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.  It is better to "tear" a
child from a home whether it is safe there or not and check things out
if there is a suspicion of abuse instead of keeping the child in an
environment that can kill him."

Any rational person would agree with that statement, to at least some
point.

> As I said, if I am wrong in this assumption, feel free to correct me.  But
> do so clearly.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."
> and assumed that you did agree with Eric's position.

Your splitting hairs.  I gave you an out, a place where you could say
"oops" by my stating that it appears to be a lie.  It sure does appear
to be a lie.  Not a big one as far as lies go, but still a lie.

I do agree with his position, at least to a point.  What I did not make
clear was where that point is, nor did I feel the need to as any
rational individual should also agree with the statement "to a point".
Instead you admit making an assumption based upon what I said, and an
inappropriate and incorrect assumption at that.

The fact is that CPS screens out about 40% of all the calls made
concerning abused or neglected children
(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/chaptertwo.htm#screen).
By screens out they mean that the report or the source are of such a
nature that they do not require additional action.

Now, of those that are screened in and investigated, about 30% have "at
least one child was found to be a victim of maltreatment".  That means
that some concerned citizen was correct in their own personal assessment
of the situation.  Just off the top of my head that seems to indicate
that one in five calls to the hotline are determined to be correct.
About 20%.  Interesting odds wouldn't you agree?

>> So, as I said, honestly is the best policy, and you might want to give it
>> a try.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> subsequent investigation or visitation by an investigating worker, if
>> called for then yes. "

Your position seems somewhat obtuse.  I hope that what you have read
above makes it a bit more clear for you.

>>>> "Simple question I agree, but the answer cannot be as simple as yes or
>>>> no."
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> But that's not the point is it?

That is EXACTLY the point.  Opinions vary.  100% on point.

>>> Should there be an investigation into such accusations?
>>>
>>> That is a different question isn't it.  The correct answer would be yes.
>> Opinions also vary.
>
> But that is not the point is it?

That is also EXACTLY the point.  Opinions vary.  100% on point.
Obviously, or we would not be having this conversation.

>>> Then if that investigation turns up anything substantial then the child
>>> should be removed and sent to you Ron.  The phone call is not enough
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> So you don't want the kids?  Nice Ron.  That must make them feel real good
> about their situations.

Of course I dont want the kids.  I have 6 of my own right now, and over
the years have cared for more than 230.  I believe that I have done my
part, well above and beyond the call of duty.  If I choose to not take a
kid or kids for ANY reason then that is my decision and mine alone.
What others think about that is of no concern to me.

>>>> And it cant.  Black and White in the HHS system just does not exist.
>>> Your trying to make the issue seem more complicated then it really is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
> Bullshit Ron.

Hmmm.  I'd try and explain it to you, but there just isn't the time.

> You take a big problem and break it down into it's smaller components in an
> effort to improve upon the whole.  I think I learned that in the fifth
> grade.  Did you ever learn anything like that?

If it were as simple as that dont you think someone over the last 45
years would have given it a try?

> This is a small part of a much larger problem that this thread has been
> analyzing.  A particular position held by some in society regarding what
> should be done to solve a much larger problem.  It has not been analyzing
> the whole problem by any means.

Oh, so your trying to get to the bottom of why this individual has such
an opinion and why I might agree with it in part.  I see now.  Wow.  WAY
TO MISS THE OBVIOUS!  Maybe you should have read his reasons for his
belief's, I do believe he posted them.

> This is what I mean when I talk about the Mentality of the Foster Parent
> being self-righteous and hypocritical.  They fail to realize this and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> This is what you are doing here Ron.

Hmmm.  I don't remember you mentioning being a foster parent.  Have you?
 Are you?  If not then how in the world could you know what the
mentality of a foster parent is?  How could you know if we are
"self-righteous and hypocritical" or not?  Have you performed studies on
foster parents?  Read studies on them?  Know any foster parents?  Have
life long friends who are?

Please, tell us where you get such an "interesting" opinion of foster
parents.

>>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for that.
>>> No, I have people like you and CPS workers to blame for that.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>
> Not humans, just your bullshit.

The fact that the system from top to bottom is made up of humans,
policies designed by humans, administered by humans, overseen by humans,
and changed by humans is not relevant.  Hmmm, interesting.

>>>> A simple yes or no will rarely suffice in any case, and it will never be
>>>> acceptable to all the concerned parties.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>
> Actually I responded to it.

Hmmm, I looked through the archives and am unable to find your response.
 Please take a moment and post a link to it.

>>>> Gee, that seemed to be pretty clear to me.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>> '
> So this issue is confusing for you?

Not at all.  But it does seem that my position is a bit confusing to you.

>> No.  I am stating that there are always gray areas of any case, and none
>> are ever exactly the same as another.  So, while there are certain parts
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>>> Learn more about foster care at
>>> http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com

Ron
Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 15 Nov 2007 20:50 GMT
>>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> I consider nothing from krp to be legitimate, not even his name.  But
> thats a personal bias, one that is well earned.

So you agree with my next point.  If ken said that the sun was yellow would
you agree with him?

>> I assume you disagreed just because it was him who said it.  Whatever, I
>> could be wrong I suppose.  Like I said, I'm not interested in your petty
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> kenny deserves nothing less.

Well I'll leave that between you and him.

> So far I dont believe that I have made any against you.  Observations that
> you may not like, yes, but personal attacks?  No, I dont think so.

I never accused you of making any against me.  As I've never made any
against you.  Observations that you may not like, yes, but personal attacks?
No, I don't think so.

I would hope that regardless of our disagreement on the issue(s) at hand, we
can continue to engage in a somewhat intelligent debate without resorting to
such childishness as the personal attack.

We're all adults here Ron.

>> In fact this tag line of yours is also a personal attack irrelevent of
>> the topic of the thread.  Therefore you have not posted anything to this
>> thread without a personal attack of some kind.
>
> Its called a "Tag Line", a line with goes at the bottom of each and every
> post I make regardless of which Usenet forum I post to.

Yes Ron, I know.

> Tag lines are used in many different ways and for many different reasons.

Yes Ron, I know.

> I have my reasons for my tag line, and this is the way I choose to use it.

Yes Ron, I know.  But two wrongs don't make a right.

> Feel free to develop your own, its entertaining.

No thanks, you'd accuse me of spamming the news group with a link to Legally
Kidnapped.  Spamming newsgroups like this tends to have a negative effect on
your search engine position and Google Page Rank.  It's ok once in a while.
But that would be over doing it.

>> Therefore that is not a lie.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> You know what they say about assumptions dont you?

Yes I do.

> Considering that you posted it as a definitive rather than as an
> assumption, "Which would be a yes", certainly makes it a lie.

Still the stating of an assumption.  Not a lie.  It was an interpretation of
your own words Ron.

>> If you want to be interpreted clearly then you should speak clearly.
>
> I rarely mispeak/mispost myself.

There are lots of things that you say that could be taken ambigously.

>>> Clear enough?  Is there somewhere in my statement where the word "Yes"
>>> appears?
>>
>> Oh cut it out Ron.  Lets analyze your statement.
>
> Oh please, lets.

and we did.

>>> "The stance of the individual who wrote the
>>> post is familiar, and one that I do not totally disagree with."
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Familiar with it, yessir'ee.

Good enough.

>> After the comma should speak for itself, but I will explain it to you
>> anyway.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> should be removed based on nothing more then a call to the child abuse
>> hotline.

Here we go.  Ron insists on bringing more into it, in an effort to make it
appear more complex then it already is.

> Lets look at his statement, the whole statement, not just the line you
> object to.

If you insist.

> "Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.  It is better to "tear" a
> child from a home whether it is safe there or not and check things out if
> there is a suspicion of abuse instead of keeping the child in an
> environment that can kill him."

Ok.

> Any rational person would agree with that statement, to at least some
> point.

Any rational person with no experience with CPS, or knowledge of what harm
could come about to the child or the family unit if there were no abuse.
Most people in this country are ignorant of the seriousness of this issue.

But since you insist.  We will analyze his statement to death.  Why I
bother, I don't know.  I guess even I believe that there is hope for you yet
Ron.

> "Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.  It is better to "tear" a
> child from a home whether it is safe there or not and check things out if
> there is a suspicion of abuse instead of keeping the child in an
> environment that can kill him."

> "Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
Is a metaphore.  Lets replace it with words fitting to the argument.

Where there's an accusation, there's usually abuse.  I claim nothing more
then an assumption that this is what he means.  Please correct me if I'm
wrong Eric.

However Ron.  Even you yourself admit this to be wrong in the case of calls
to the child abuse hotline with your own words, later in this very post you
say...
> Just off the top of my head that seems to indicate that one in five calls
> to the hotline are determined to be correct. About 20%.

Meaning that 80% are incorrect accusations of abuse.  That's 4 out of 5 that
are inaccurate.
> Interesting odds wouldn't you agree?
Absoloutely.  Even Ken only claims 66%.  I like your numbers better.

Moving on.

> It is better to "tear" a child from a home whether it is safe there or not
> and check things out if there is a suspicion of abuse instead of keeping
> the child in an environment that can kill him."

I disagree.  It is better to check into it, determine if there is sufficient
evidence to warant a removal, and if and only if there is enough REAL
evidence to warrant a removal, then remove the child to safety.  Why Ron?
Because if you don't, you will unnecessarily remove children who are
perfectly safe in their own homes.

>> As I said, if I am wrong in this assumption, feel free to correct me.
>> But do so clearly.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> "oops" by my stating that it appears to be a lie.  It sure does appear to
> be a lie.  Not a big one as far as lies go, but still a lie.

You're beating a dead horse.  A misinterpretation of your meaning is hardly
a lie.  If it was a misinterpretation.

> I do agree with his position, at least to a point.  What I did not make
> clear was where that point is, nor did I feel the need to as any rational
> individual should also agree with the statement "to a point". Instead you
> admit making an assumption based upon what I said, and an inappropriate
> and incorrect assumption at that.

I assumed that you agreed with Erics position.

And you do, at least to some point.

> The fact is that CPS screens out about 40% of all the calls made
> concerning abused or neglected children
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> one in five calls to the hotline are determined to be correct. About 20%.
> Interesting odds wouldn't you agree?

See above.

>>> So, as I said, honestly is the best policy, and you might want to give
>>> it a try.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Your position seems somewhat obtuse.  I hope that what you have read above
> makes it a bit more clear for you.

I have tried to clarify it for you.

>>>>> "Simple question I agree, but the answer cannot be as simple as yes or
>>>>> no."
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> That is EXACTLY the point.  Opinions vary.  100% on point.

We agree to disagree.

>>>> Should there be an investigation into such accusations?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> That is also EXACTLY the point.  Opinions vary.  100% on point. Obviously,
> or we would not be having this conversation.

We agree to disagree.

>>>> Then if that investigation turns up anything substantial then the child
>>>> should be removed and sent to you Ron.  The phone call is not enough
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> kid or kids for ANY reason then that is my decision and mine alone. What
> others think about that is of no concern to me.

If you say so.

>>>>> And it cant.  Black and White in the HHS system just does not exist.
>>>> Your trying to make the issue seem more complicated then it really is
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Hmmm.  I'd try and explain it to you, but there just isn't the time.

Like I said, Bullshit Ron.

>> You take a big problem and break it down into it's smaller components in
>> an effort to improve upon the whole.  I think I learned that in the fifth
>> grade.  Did you ever learn anything like that?
>
> If it were as simple as that dont you think someone over the last 45 years
> would have given it a try?

Certainly.  And they have.  Clinton signed the Adoption and Safe Families
act in 97 for example, to address the problem of children lingering in
foster care for years.  Did it fix the problem?  No it gave the agencies
more target dollars to shoot for.

But it was an attempt to fix a smaller part of a much larger problem, wasn't
it?

>> This is a small part of a much larger problem that this thread has been
>> analyzing.  A particular position held by some in society regarding what
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> MISS THE OBVIOUS!  Maybe you should have read his reasons for his
> belief's, I do believe he posted them.

He did.  And I did read them.  They don't actually mean much to me.

>> This is what I mean when I talk about the Mentality of the Foster Parent
>> being self-righteous and hypocritical.  They fail to realize this and
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Hmmm.  I don't remember you mentioning being a foster parent.
I'm not.

> Have you?
No.

>  Are you?
No.  If I were, I'd probably agree with your opinion.

> If not then how in the world could you know what the mentality of a foster
> parent is?
Experience.

> How could you know if we are "self-righteous and hypocritical" or not?
In your particular case, from your own words and actions.

>Have you performed studies on foster parents?
Some things are just plain obvious Ron.  It does take a special kind of
person to be a foster parent.  Wouldn't you agree?  Have you never looked
down on a birth-parent?

> Read studies on them?
Don't have to.

> Know any foster parents?
Several.

> Have life long friends who are?
Well I had hoped that would be you Ron.

> Please, tell us where you get such an "interesting" opinion of foster
> parents.
Perhaps I was once a foster child Ron.  Anything's possible.

>>>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for
>>>>> that.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> designed by humans, administered by humans, overseen by humans, and
> changed by humans is not relevant.  Hmmm, interesting.

Yes Ron, humans are prone to error.  Even you.  BFD.

>>>>> A simple yes or no will rarely suffice in any case, and it will never
>>>>> be acceptable to all the concerned parties.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Hmmm, I looked through the archives and am unable to find your response.
> Please take a moment and post a link to it.
Scroll up.

>>>>> Gee, that seemed to be pretty clear to me.
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Not at all.  But it does seem that my position is a bit confusing to you.
Not confusing, contradictory.

>>> No.  I am stating that there are always gray areas of any case, and none
>>> are ever exactly the same as another.  So, while there are certain parts
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Ron
Ron - 16 Nov 2007 00:02 GMT
>>>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> So you agree with my next point.  If ken said that the sun was yellow would
> you agree with him?

I would carefully review the facts first, then make an assessment based
upon those facts not on what kenny had to say.  I have come to the
understanding that every single thing that kenneth pangborn says is
suspect.

>>> I assume you disagreed just because it was him who said it.  Whatever, I
>>> could be wrong I suppose.  Like I said, I'm not interested in your petty
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
> Well I'll leave that between you and him.

Fine by me.  I prefer it that way.

>> So far I dont believe that I have made any against you.  Observations that
>> you may not like, yes, but personal attacks?  No, I dont think so.
>>
> I never accused you of making any against me.  As I've never made any
> against you.  Observations that you may not like, yes, but personal attacks?
> No, I don't think so.

Hmmm, I'd have to agree with you.  I looked and could find none.

> I would hope that regardless of our disagreement on the issue(s) at hand, we
> can continue to engage in a somewhat intelligent debate without resorting to
> such childishness as the personal attack.
>
> We're all adults here Ron.

The first part of your statement I'd agree with.  As for the second
part, I have serious reservations.

>>> In fact this tag line of yours is also a personal attack irrelevent of
>>> the topic of the thread.  Therefore you have not posted anything to this
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Yes Ron, I know.  But two wrongs don't make a right.

I'd say its not a wrong but an accurate representation of the facts.
Facts available to anyone who cares to do even a very basic level of
research on the subject.  Facts are neither right nor wrong, they just are.

>> Feel free to develop your own, its entertaining.
>
> No thanks, you'd accuse me of spamming the news group with a link to Legally
> Kidnapped.  Spamming newsgroups like this tends to have a negative effect on
> your search engine position and Google Page Rank.  It's ok once in a while.
> But that would be over doing it.

OK, but I think google and other search engines are more than capable of
dealing with it.

>>> Therefore that is not a lie.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Still the stating of an assumption.  Not a lie.  It was an interpretation of
> your own words Ron.

OK, I'll give you that one.  After all, I dont know you nor can I read
your mind.

>>> If you want to be interpreted clearly then you should speak clearly.
>> I rarely mispeak/mispost myself.
>>
> There are lots of things that you say that could be taken ambigously.

As I said, I rarely misspeak/mispost myself.  If there is some ambiguity
in a statement I make you can safely assume that I mean it to be there.
for reasons I may or may not explain.

>>>> Clear enough?  Is there somewhere in my statement where the word "Yes"
>>>> appears?
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> Here we go.  Ron insists on bringing more into it, in an effort to make it
> appear more complex then it already is.

The complexity is already there, all I did was point it out.

>> Lets look at his statement, the whole statement, not just the line you
>> object to.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> could come about to the child or the family unit if there were no abuse.
> Most people in this country are ignorant of the seriousness of this issue.

While I'd agree that most people are a bit ignorant of the seriousness
of the issue I would not agree that those who have a history with them
would universally have problems with his statement.

> But since you insist.  We will analyze his statement to death.  Why I
> bother, I don't know.  I guess even I believe that there is hope for you yet
> Ron.

Just as I believe that there is hope for you.  Unfortunately I dont
think we hold out for the same outcome's.

>> "Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.  It is better to "tear" a
>> child from a home whether it is safe there or not and check things out if
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> "Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
> Is a metaphore.  Lets replace it with words fitting to the argument.

Lets not.  Putting words in his mouth serves no responsible purpose.

> Where there's an accusation, there's usually abuse.  I claim nothing more
> then an assumption that this is what he means.  Please correct me if I'm
> wrong Eric.

"The moon is composed of 90% rock and cosmic debris."
"The moon is composed of 90% green cheese and sunflower seeds."

We could change the meaning of each and every sentence ever written with
the changing of one or two words, but where is the honesty in that?

> However Ron.  Even you yourself admit this to be wrong in the case of calls
> to the child abuse hotline with your own words, later in this very post you
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> Interesting odds wouldn't you agree?
> Absoloutely.  Even Ken only claims 66%.  I like your numbers better.

My numbers come from the HHS web site.  I'm not entirely sure where
kenny gets his.  I could guess, but that would be for no other reason
than its entertainment value.

> Moving on.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I disagree.

OK!!!!  You are more than welcome to, after all its your right.

> It is better to check into it, determine if there is sufficient
> evidence to warant a removal, and if and only if there is enough REAL
> evidence to warrant a removal, then remove the child to safety.  Why Ron?
> Because if you don't, you will unnecessarily remove children who are
> perfectly safe in their own homes.

I can't argue with that.  Its the reason that investigative case workers
have specific guidelines on the time frame is between initial report and
first contact with the individuals.

"Most States set requirements for beginning an investigation into a
report of child abuse or neglect. While some States have a single
timeframe for responding to reports, many States establish priorities
based on the information received from the report source. Of the States
that establish priorities, many specify a high-priority response as
within 1 hour or within 24 hours. Lower priority responses range from 24
hours to 14 days.

Because CPS agencies receive reports of varying degrees of urgency,
average response times reflect the types of reports that are received,
as well as the ability of workers to meet the time standards. The median
response time from report to investigation was 67 hours or approximately
2-3 days. The average response time for these States was 89 hours or
approximately 4 days."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/chaptertwo.htm#response

>>> As I said, if I am wrong in this assumption, feel free to correct me.
>>> But do so clearly.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> You're beating a dead horse.  A misinterpretation of your meaning is hardly
> a lie.  If it was a misinterpretation.

OK, I'll give you that one.  After all, I dont know you nor can I read
your mind.

Bear in mind though that you have said that I am occasionally unclear
when I write something.  The same can now be said of you.

>> I do agree with his position, at least to a point.  What I did not make
>> clear was where that point is, nor did I feel the need to as any rational
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> And you do, at least to some point.

Well said.

>> The fact is that CPS screens out about 40% of all the calls made
>> concerning abused or neglected children
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>>
> We agree to disagree.

You may sir, I do not.  Eric is a case in point.  His opinion varies
from yours as it does from mine.  Opinions vary.  That is indeed a 100%
accurate statement.

>>>>> Should there be an investigation into such accusations?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>>
> If you say so.

Oh believe me, I do.

>>>>>> And it cant.  Black and White in the HHS system just does not exist.
>>>>> Your trying to make the issue seem more complicated then it really is
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
> Like I said, Bullshit Ron.

OK, I see that you just are refusing to see the point.  Let me see if I
can clear it up a bit for you.

"During FFY 2005, 62.8 percent of victims experienced neglect, 16.6
percent were physically abused, 9.3 percent were sexually abused, 7.1
percent were psychologically maltreated, and 2.0 percent were medically
neglected.7 In addition, 14.3 percent of victims experienced such
"other" types of maltreatment as "abandonment," "threats of harm to the
child," or "congenital drug addiction." States may code any condition
that does not fall into one of the main categories—physical abuse,
neglect, medical neglect, sexual abuse, and psychological or emotional
maltreatment—as "other." These maltreatment type percentages total more
than 100 percent because children who were victims of ***more than one
type of maltreatment were counted for each maltreatment***."
(emphasis supplied)

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/chapterthree.htm#types

Each and every single case is different.  How the system reacts to each
case is also different.  How the system *should* react to each situation
must also be different.  Add into that the variable personalities of
case managers, parents, children, CASA's, GAL's, Law Enforcement
Officers, defense attorneys, court reporters, witness's, family,
friends, yadda yadda yadda......  Each individual involved in a case
brings into that case complication.  Its unavoidable.  No two cases are
alike, and no matter how far down we break the problem its always going
to be that way.  We cannot have 300,000,000 laws, one for each
individual in the country, so the laws must be loose enough to allow for
those differences.

>>> You take a big problem and break it down into it's smaller components in
>>> an effort to improve upon the whole.  I think I learned that in the fifth
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>>
> He did.  And I did read them.  They don't actually mean much to me.

But they tell the whole story.

>>> This is what I mean when I talk about the Mentality of the Foster Parent
>>> being self-righteous and hypocritical.  They fail to realize this and
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>  Are you?
> No.  If I were, I'd probably agree with your opinion.

Maybe, but then again I kind of doubt it.  I know no foster parents who
believe as I do.  Most of them are just as you say, self-righteous, self
absorbed, wack-jobs.

>> If not then how in the world could you know what the mentality of a foster
>> parent is?
> Experience.
>
>> How could you know if we are "self-righteous and hypocritical" or not?
> In your particular case, from your own words and actions.

Given that you have never seen my actions ...

>> Have you performed studies on foster parents?
> Some things are just plain obvious Ron.  It does take a special kind of
> person to be a foster parent.  Wouldn't you agree?  Have you never looked
> down on a birth-parent?

"Some things are just plain obvious Ron."  That is the loosest form of
thinking.  Stereotyping.

>> Read studies on them?
> Don't have to.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> parents.
> Perhaps I was once a foster child Ron.  Anything's possible.

Sure is, but a bit of background sure would be helpful in understanding
where you have obtained this set of opinions.

>>>>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for
>>>>>> that.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>>
> Yes Ron, humans are prone to error.  Even you.  BFD.

Not just error but they also complicate things.  Its unavoidable.  A
part of human nature.

>>>>>> A simple yes or no will rarely suffice in any case, and it will never
>>>>>> be acceptable to all the concerned parties.
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>> Not at all.  But it does seem that my position is a bit confusing to you.
> Not confusing, contradictory.

Not that I can see.

>>>> No.  I am stating that there are always gray areas of any case, and none
>>>> are ever exactly the same as another.  So, while there are certain parts
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>>>>> Learn more about foster care at
>>>>> http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com

Ron
Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 16 Nov 2007 05:09 GMT
>>>>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> understanding that every single thing that kenneth pangborn says is
> suspect.

Even if it's common knowledge?

>>>> I assume you disagreed just because it was him who said it.  Whatever,
>>>> I could be wrong I suppose.  Like I said, I'm not interested in your
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Fine by me.  I prefer it that way.

It's setteled then.

>>> So far I dont believe that I have made any against you.  Observations
>>> that you may not like, yes, but personal attacks?  No, I dont think so.
[quoted text clipped - 115 lines]
>
> The complexity is already there, all I did was point it out.

But that was not the topic of the conversation.  I am well aware that it is
a complex issue.

>>> Lets look at his statement, the whole statement, not just the line you
>>> object to.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> the issue I would not agree that those who have a history with them would
> universally have problems with his statement.

Espeically when they make money off the system, right?

>> But since you insist.  We will analyze his statement to death.  Why I
>> bother, I don't know.  I guess even I believe that there is hope for you
>> yet Ron.
>
> Just as I believe that there is hope for you.  Unfortunately I dont think
> we hold out for the same outcome's.

Agreed.

>>> "Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.  It is better to "tear" a
>>> child from a home whether it is safe there or not and check things out
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> "The moon is composed of 90% rock and cosmic debris."
> "The moon is composed of 90% green cheese and sunflower seeds."

Atleast stick with the topic.

> We could change the meaning of each and every sentence ever written with
> the changing of one or two words, but where is the honesty in that?

One can make a reasonable assumption of anothers meaning.  I don't think
Eric was talking about the moon Ron.  I also did ask for his agreement.

>> However Ron.  Even you yourself admit this to be wrong in the case of
>> calls to the child abuse hotline with your own words, later in this very
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> OK!!!!  You are more than welcome to, after all its your right.

So it's better to rip 4 unabused children away from their homes in order to
save the one that is actually abused?

>> It is better to check into it, determine if there is sufficient evidence
>> to warant a removal, and if and only if there is enough REAL evidence to
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
> Well said.

His position is still wrong.

>>> The fact is that CPS screens out about 40% of all the calls made
>>> concerning abused or neglected children
[quoted text clipped - 157 lines]
> believe as I do.  Most of them are just as you say, self-righteous, self
> absorbed, wack-jobs.

Ron!  I'm surprised at you.

That statement is worthy of a whole new thread.

>>> If not then how in the world could you know what the mentality of a
>>> foster parent is?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Given that you have never seen my actions ...

The tone of your words.

>>> Have you performed studies on foster parents?
>> Some things are just plain obvious Ron.  It does take a special kind of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> "Some things are just plain obvious Ron."  That is the loosest form of
> thinking.  Stereotyping.

Just stating an observation.

>>> Read studies on them?
>> Don't have to.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Sure is, but a bit of background sure would be helpful in understanding
> where you have obtained this set of opinions.

And why would that be necessary?

>>>>>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for
>>>>>>> that.
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
>
> Ron
Ron - 16 Nov 2007 21:45 GMT
>>>>>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>>
> Even if it's common knowledge?

Absolutely.  100%  I know its not real reasonable, but then again we are
talking about kenny pangborn.  He has never told the truth before, there
caution is always indicated.

>>>>> I assume you disagreed just because it was him who said it.  Whatever,
>>>>> I could be wrong I suppose.  Like I said, I'm not interested in your
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
> But that was not the topic of the conversation.  I am well aware that it is
> a complex issue.

Splitting hairs again.

The topic of the conversation is also the issue.

>>>> Lets look at his statement, the whole statement, not just the line you
>>>> object to.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>
> Espeically when they make money off the system, right?

No.  Even case managers have issues with the system, not just the
occasional foster parent.  No one I know is totally satisfied with how
things work.  They all think that there is room for improvement, serious
room, but they also acknowledge that its the best we have and change for
the better takes time.

>>> But since you insist.  We will analyze his statement to death.  Why I
>>> bother, I don't know.  I guess even I believe that there is hope for you
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>> We could change the meaning of each and every sentence ever written with
>> the changing of one or two words, but where is the honesty in that?

You put words in his mouth.  Just as much "on the topic" as I did with
the moon.

> One can make a reasonable assumption of anothers meaning.  I don't think
> Eric was talking about the moon Ron.  I also did ask for his agreement.

Then wait until he gives it.  Assumptions are dangerous.

>>> However Ron.  Even you yourself admit this to be wrong in the case of
>>> calls to the child abuse hotline with your own words, later in this very
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> So it's better to rip 4 unabused children away from their homes in order to
> save the one that is actually abused?

Could be.  Depends on the case.  Rarely is a single child of a family
group the only one being abused or neglected.  One if confirmed, and
they others are automatically a "maybe", at least until the facts are
determined.  Leaving the others in the home is an irresponsible act, and
of course something to be avoided.

>>> It is better to check into it, determine if there is sufficient evidence
>>> to warant a removal, and if and only if there is enough REAL evidence to
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>>
> His position is still wrong.

Opinions vary.  Obviously he does not agree with you.

>>>> The fact is that CPS screens out about 40% of all the calls made
>>>> concerning abused or neglected children
[quoted text clipped - 155 lines]
>
> That statement is worthy of a whole new thread.

Happy to oblige.

>>>> If not then how in the world could you know what the mentality of a
>>>> foster parent is?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
> The tone of your words.

Hmm, I was not aware that Usenet included tones.  Interesting, I must be
more careful then.  But still, what I write here has nothing to do with
actions, only with opinions, facts, and belief's.

>>>> Have you performed studies on foster parents?
>>> Some things are just plain obvious Ron.  It does take a special kind of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
> Just stating an observation.

And that justifies stereotyping?

>>>> Read studies on them?
>>> Don't have to.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>
> And why would that be necessary?

Helpful, not necessary.

>>>>>>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for
>>>>>>>> that.
[quoted text clipped - 104 lines]
>>>>>>> Learn more about foster care at
>>>>>>> http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 16 Nov 2007 23:35 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> talking about kenny pangborn.  He has never told the truth before, there
> caution is always indicated.

Have you ever treated a parent that way Ron?

>>>>>> I assume you disagreed just because it was him who said it.
>>>>>> Whatever, I could be wrong I suppose.  Like I said, I'm not
[quoted text clipped - 123 lines]
>
> Splitting hairs again.

Complicating the issue again?

> The topic of the conversation is also the issue.

In part yes.

>>>>> Lets look at his statement, the whole statement, not just the line you
>>>>> object to.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> No.  Even case managers have issues with the system,
Case managers are also part of the issue with the system.

> not just the occasional foster parent.
Most foster parents kiss a.s to the CPS workers.  Especially if they have an
adoption agenda.

> No one I know is totally satisfied with how things work.
What about you Ron?  Are you totally satisfied with the way things work?

What about you Eric?

> They all think that there is room for improvement, serious room, but they
> also acknowledge that its the best we have and change for the better takes
> time.

More time then they're willing to put into it.

>>>> But since you insist.  We will analyze his statement to death.  Why I
>>>> bother, I don't know.  I guess even I believe that there is hope for
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Then wait until he gives it.  Assumptions are dangerous.

I would, but I dont' think he likes us.

I don't know why...  All we were doing was calling him on his bullshit.

>>>> However Ron.  Even you yourself admit this to be wrong in the case of
>>>> calls to the child abuse hotline with your own words, later in this
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> determined.  Leaving the others in the home is an irresponsible act, and
> of course something to be avoided.

Allow me to rephrase.  You obviously didn't get my meaning.

So it's better to destroy 4 non abusive families in order to save the one
that is abusive?

>>>> It is better to check into it, determine if there is sufficient
>>>> evidence to warant a removal, and if and only if there is enough REAL
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> Opinions vary.  Obviously he does not agree with you.

Oh well.  What can you do?

>>>>> The fact is that CPS screens out about 40% of all the calls made
>>>>> concerning abused or neglected children
[quoted text clipped - 159 lines]
>
> Happy to oblige.

I do wish you'd elaborate though.

>>>>> If not then how in the world could you know what the mentality of a
>>>>> foster parent is?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> more careful then.  But still, what I write here has nothing to do with
> actions, only with opinions, facts, and belief's.

Ok Ron.  Maybe actions wasn't the best word to use.  Don't they use figures
of speech where you come from Ron?

>>>>> Have you performed studies on foster parents?
>>>> Some things are just plain obvious Ron.  It does take a special kind of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> And that justifies stereotyping?

You're doing the same thing.

So I guess it does.  How would you know that foster parents are
self-righteous.

>>>>> Read studies on them?
>>>> Don't have to.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Helpful, not necessary.

Why would it be helpful?  Why would you even care?  Looking for some ammo?

>>>>>>>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for
>>>>>>>>> that.
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
>
> Ron
Ron - 17 Nov 2007 18:04 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>>>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>>
> Have you ever treated a parent that way Ron?

I try not to deal with bio parents (as a foster parent), it only
complicates my main task of caring for the children.

As a professional in the field, when I am tasked with providing support
to a bio parent caution is always indicated.  It is always better to
believe and verify than just believe.

>>>>>>> I assume you disagreed just because it was him who said it.
>>>>>>> Whatever, I could be wrong I suppose.  Like I said, I'm not
[quoted text clipped - 128 lines]
>>
> In part yes.

I'm glad we agree on that, in part.

>>>>>> Lets look at his statement, the whole statement, not just the line you
>>>>>> object to.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Most foster parents kiss a.s to the CPS workers.  Especially if they have an
> adoption agenda.

Some do, yes.  Few are in it with a secret agenda of adoption.  It is my
experience that case managers are more likely to kiss the a.s of the
foster parent since there are so few of us and we have far more control
of placement than the workers.

>> No one I know is totally satisfied with how things work.
> What about you Ron?  Are you totally satisfied with the way things work?

No, not completely.  I see many areas where the system can be improved,
but I also acknowledge that change is difficult and often expensive.
Despite the best wishes of all those who work within the system money is
what makes it work.  Money is what provides the services, therapists,
doctors, workers, and anything else you can think of.  No one makes
their fortune working with the nations HHS systems, the best they can
hope for is to break even (FP's and the like) or to make a living
(therapists, doctors, commercial group home systems, etc.).  gregg touts
that fact that there is a check going to someone each and every month
for every kid or family in the system.  "Money is what makes the world
turn", even gregg must have some form of income to survive.

> What about you Eric?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
> More time then they're willing to put into it.

Another nice assumption.

I have been resident in this news group for nearly 10 years now, and I
have asked more times than I can count for ideas to improve the system
that will not put more kids in danger and will not devolve what we
currently have as a system into anarchy.  No one has yet given me a
viable answer.  You may be the first, but the track record here is
pretty miserable.

>>>>> But since you insist.  We will analyze his statement to death.  Why I
>>>>> bother, I don't know.  I guess even I believe that there is hope for
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>>
> I would, but I dont' think he likes us.

Can you blame him?  He makes one statement, wrong or right, and gets
assaulted from every angle.  One must have a thicker skin than that to
hang around here, and not many do.

Look at our buddy gregg.  He gets it every day from 90% of the
participants here, yet he continues to post.  I'd say he has a pretty
thick skin wouldnt you?

> I don't know why...  All we were doing was calling him on his bullshit.

If indeed it is bullshit.  Arguing a subject is one thing, but providing
support for one's belief's is something totally different.  I have yet
to see either you or he provide solid support for either of your
positions.  Proclamations are all very well, but you have to back it up
to be taken seriously.

>>>>> However Ron.  Even you yourself admit this to be wrong in the case of
>>>>> calls to the child abuse hotline with your own words, later in this
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>>
> Allow me to rephrase.  You obviously didn't get my meaning.

I understood what you wrote.  Seems that your meaning was a tad unclear.

> So it's better to destroy 4 non abusive families in order to save the one
> that is abusive?

Does an unjustified removal mean that the family is destroyed?  If that
were true then there would be far more people supporting your position
than there are.

>>>>> It is better to check into it, determine if there is sufficient
>>>>> evidence to warant a removal, and if and only if there is enough REAL
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>>
> Oh well.  What can you do?

Try and convince them otherwise.  Here it is a pretty useless exercise,
but out there in the real world where one can make the attempt face to
face there is the possibility of success.

>>>>>> The fact is that CPS screens out about 40% of all the calls made
>>>>>> concerning abused or neglected children
[quoted text clipped - 160 lines]
>>
> I do wish you'd elaborate though.

Isn't this thread long enough?

I did once before, maybe 4 or 5 years back, but no one seemed
interested.  With the different characters we have now I may get a
different response, but somehow I doubt it.

>>>>>> If not then how in the world could you know what the mentality of a
>>>>>> foster parent is?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Ok Ron.  Maybe actions wasn't the best word to use.  Don't they use figures
> of speech where you come from Ron?

I was just playing with you.  I understand your meaning, and yes I can
occasionally be a bit caustic here.

My personal opinions rarely translate to what I may do as a foster
parent or as a professional service provider.  I have learned through
trial and error that I have to keep my opinions out of my work with
families and kids.   Can you imagine how difficult I find that
sometimes?  Here I can let go pretty freely without any chance of it
affecting my professional or personal life.

>>>>>> Have you performed studies on foster parents?
>>>>> Some things are just plain obvious Ron.  It does take a special kind of
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
> You're doing the same thing.

Could be.

> So I guess it does.  How would you know that foster parents are
> self-righteous.

Hmmm, maybe because I know quite a few?  Not all, but some for sure.
I'd not call that stereotyping but observation.

>>>>>> Read studies on them?
>>>>> Don't have to.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>
> Why would it be helpful?  Why would you even care?  Looking for some ammo?

Not really.  I suppose it could be use for that but I am a bit more
interested in finding where and how such opinions are formed.  If we can
find the genesis for something like that we can figure a way to fix
things so that opinions such as yours don't come about in the very
beginning rather than allowing them to fester and grow.

>>>>>>>>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame for
>>>>>>>>>> that.
[quoted text clipped - 106 lines]
>>>>>>>>> Learn more about foster care at
>>>>>>>>> http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com

Ron
Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 17 Nov 2007 21:22 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 211 lines]
> foster parent since there are so few of us and we have far more control of
> placement than the workers.

Ron, you force me to bring in more of Lanette's bullshit here.
http://foster-care.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/adopting-through-foster-care-1
That's just one of her posts. Here's another.
http://foster-care.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/national-adoption-month-f
oster-care-adop


I know, I know.  It's adoption blogs.

>>> No one I know is totally satisfied with how things work.
>> What about you Ron?  Are you totally satisfied with the way things work?
>
> No, not completely.  I see many areas where the system can be improved,
> but I also acknowledge that change is difficult and often expensive.
Please specify.  And remember, foster care is expensive too.

> Despite the best wishes of all those who work within the system money is
> what makes it work.  Money is what provides the services, therapists,
> doctors, workers, and anything else you can think of.

Don't forget the meds Ron.
http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster13.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1508994

> No one makes their fortune working with the nations HHS systems, the best
> they can hope for is to break even (FP's and the like) or to make a living
> (therapists, doctors, commercial group home systems, etc.).

> gregg touts that fact that there is a check going to someone each and
> every month for every kid or family in the system.  "Money is what makes
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> answer.  You may be the first, but the track record here is pretty
> miserable.

If they invested into the family unit instead of the system so much, there
would be less kids in foster care.

We've been through this before Ron.

>>>>>> But since you insist.  We will analyze his statement to death.  Why I
>>>>>> bother, I don't know.  I guess even I believe that there is hope for
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> assaulted from every angle.  One must have a thicker skin than that to
> hang around here, and not many do.

Come on Ron, growing up around foster children would toughen anybody up.

And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling them on
their bullshit.

> Look at our buddy gregg.  He gets it every day from 90% of the
> participants here, yet he continues to post.  I'd say he has a pretty
> thick skin wouldnt you?

Well, if you're anti-cps and a pussy at the same time, you're not going to
go very far.

>> I don't know why...  All we were doing was calling him on his bullshit.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Proclamations are all very well, but you have to back it up to be taken
> seriously.

It's a moral argument, not a technical one Ron.

>>>>>> However Ron.  Even you yourself admit this to be wrong in the case of
>>>>>> calls to the child abuse hotline with your own words, later in this
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Does an unjustified removal mean that the family is destroyed?
The harm would be done.

> If that were true then there would be far more people supporting your
> position than there are.

You and eric seem to be the only ones who don't.

Remove a kid based on nothing more then a phone call.

>>>>>> It is better to check into it, determine if there is sufficient
>>>>>> evidence to warant a removal, and if and only if there is enough REAL
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
> but out there in the real world where one can make the attempt face to
> face there is the possibility of success.

>>>>>>> The fact is that CPS screens out about 40% of all the calls made
>>>>>>> concerning abused or neglected children
[quoted text clipped - 168 lines]
> With the different characters we have now I may get a different response,
> but somehow I doubt it.

Try.

>>>>>>> If not then how in the world could you know what the mentality of a
>>>>>>> foster parent is?
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> Hmmm, maybe because I know quite a few?  Not all, but some for sure. I'd
> not call that stereotyping but observation.
Same here.

>>>>>>> Read studies on them?
>>>>>> Don't have to.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> so that opinions such as yours don't come about in the very beginning
> rather than allowing them to fester and grow.

Experience Ron.

>>>>>>>>>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame
>>>>>>>>>>> for that.
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
>
> Ron
Ron - 19 Nov 2007 16:48 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 212 lines]
> Ron, you force me to bring in more of Lanette's bullshit here.
> http://foster-care.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/adopting-through-foster-care-1

Not an uncommon reaction to the placement of a child, nor is it an
uncommon case.  I have seen several cases like what she describes in my
time as a foster parent.  If we did not attach to these children then
what could we do to foster their attachment to others (parents) or to
deal with the world?  Little.

I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view, she
sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster parent.

> That's just one of her posts. Here's another.
> http://foster-care.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/national-adoption-month-f
oster-care-adop

I have adopted from the system myself.  It has its good points and its
bad, as Lanette suggests.  Nothing in what she writes is incorrect or
fantastic in nature.  She seems like quite the reasonable individual to
me based on the two blog entries that you provide links to.

Both entries see to be quite reasonable.  Nothing objectionable that I
can note.  Obviously you have concern with them, please let me in on
whatever it is that you find so objectionable about them.

> I know, I know.  It's adoption blogs.

Generally I am not a blog type person.  I dont have a personal blog, nor
do I have any blogs that I read consistently.  In fact I may actually
read a blog once every 6 months at most.

I find those blogs that I have read to be full of unsupported personal
opinions and bias of a grand nature.  I have my own opinions and
attitudes, I dont need to read anyone else's for additional information
or insight.

>>>> No one I know is totally satisfied with how things work.
>>> What about you Ron?  Are you totally satisfied with the way things work?
>> No, not completely.  I see many areas where the system can be improved,
>> but I also acknowledge that change is difficult and often expensive.
> Please specify.  And remember, foster care is expensive too.

Foster care is by far the least expensive portion of the entire sphere
of CPS.  Therapists ($120 - $300 per hour), Court ($250 + per hour),
Medicade/Medicare ($1000 + per month minimum), case management ($1000
per month, minimum), and all the associated other expenses per child per
month.  At $222 per month Nebraska is getting quite the deal.  Wyoming,
$400 per month per child, also quite the deal.

What would I like to see improved?  Case loads.  In the 2005 NCANDS
report it shows that the average investigative case worker has a case
load of 67.5 cases per year.  Not much, right?  Wrong.  Phone calls (1
hour per child per day), paperwork (1+ hour per child per week), court
preparation (2+ hours per child per court date), and on and on and on.

Case Manger Salaries:  Protection/Safety Worker (Entry level position),
Nebraska, $13.13 / hour.

Wyoming:  Benefits Specialist 5 (Not an entry level position, but the
only one currently posted on their web site)$13.55 per hour.

Oregon:  HUMAN SERVICES CASE MANAGER  $15.06 / hour

Texas:  CPS Investigator  $14.51 / hour

These are just examples.  And of course the pay rarely ever equals the
amounts of work or education required.

>> Despite the best wishes of all those who work within the system money is
>> what makes it work.  Money is what provides the services, therapists,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1508994

Thats another thread all by itself.  I have a feeling that we would
agree more on this issue than any other.

>> No one makes their fortune working with the nations HHS systems, the best
>> they can hope for is to break even (FP's and the like) or to make a living
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> If they invested into the family unit instead of the system so much, there
> would be less kids in foster care.

"For FFY 2005, 25.7 children per 1,000 children in the population
received preventive services. This results in a national estimate of
nearly 2,000,000 children. For FFY 2004, the rate was 26.7 children per
1,000 children in the population based on data from 35 States."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/chaptersix.htm#prevent

More.  Hmmm.  Where is the dividing line?  Where do we say "This
percentage for supporting dysfunctional families, this percentage for
protecting and helping the children."?  I'm certainly not wise enough to
put that mark on the sheet, and I know of no one who is.

> We've been through this before Ron.

Certainly.  But there is always such great conversation on this topic
that I feel that it can be revisited as often as we like.  Opinions and
demands vary by such a degree that I don't think we can ever exhaust the
possibilities.

>>>>>>> But since you insist.  We will analyze his statement to death.  Why I
>>>>>>> bother, I don't know.  I guess even I believe that there is hope for
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>>
> Come on Ron, growing up around foster children would toughen anybody up.

I'm not sure that gregg was.  Not really all that interested either.

> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling them on
> their bullshit.

Only if it IS BS.  One mans BS is another's belief's.  You called
Lanette's blogs BS, but I see nothing in them that is incorrect or
really all that controversial.  For sure nothing even approachint he
level of BS that you seem to think.

>> Look at our buddy gregg.  He gets it every day from 90% of the
>> participants here, yet he continues to post.  I'd say he has a pretty
>> thick skin wouldnt you?
>>
> Well, if you're anti-cps and a pussy at the same time, you're not going to
> go very far.

Yes gregg, that was a compliment of sorts.

Being anti-CPS and stupid isnt really any better, is it?  I admire his
tenacity, but his method and means only serve to give ammo to those who
oppose his point of view.

>>> I don't know why...  All we were doing was calling him on his bullshit.
>> If indeed it is bullshit.  Arguing a subject is one thing, but providing
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
> It's a moral argument, not a technical one Ron.

And that makes an unfounded position better?  Morality?  Does morality
allow one to ignore the facts?  Does taking a position that one
considers to the be the moral high ground allow one to ignore reality
with impunity?

No, not here and not in real life.

>>>>>>> However Ron.  Even you yourself admit this to be wrong in the case of
>>>>>>> calls to the child abuse hotline with your own words, later in this
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>> Does an unjustified removal mean that the family is destroyed?
> The harm would be done.

Harm yes.  Destroyed?  Not hardly.  If a family is so poorly knitted as
to have something such as an HHS intervention destroy the very fabric of
the family then I'd say that the family in question was headed towards
the crapper anyway.

>> If that were true then there would be far more people supporting your
>> position than there are.
>>
> You and eric seem to be the only ones who don't.

Hmmm.  Thats a leap of faith to be sure.

> Remove a kid based on nothing more then a phone call.

I thought we had that erroneous conclusion of yours cleared up.  Need we
revisit it again?

>>>>>>> It is better to check into it, determine if there is sufficient
>>>>>>> evidence to warant a removal, and if and only if there is enough REAL
[quoted text clipped - 237 lines]
>>
> Try.

In another thread.

>>>>>>>> If not then how in the world could you know what the mentality of a
>>>>>>>> foster parent is?
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
>>
> Experience Ron.

Experience.  You must elaborate on that.  Privately if you wish, but
just the term experience gives little credibility to your position.
More is needed.  I have posted my experience and background quite openly
here, it gives credibility to my statements.

>>>>>>>>>>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame
>>>>>>>>>>>> for that.
[quoted text clipped - 106 lines]
>>>>>>>>>>> Learn more about foster care at
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com

FYI, if this thread continues I am going to begin snipping some of the
resolved issues.  I believe we are over 1000 lines as it is, and it
seems like we are not anywhere near the end.

Ron
Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 19 Nov 2007 21:05 GMT
<Snip Snip Here, and Snip Snip there with a scalple that's just like Jaws!
That's how we take it all away when we neuter that friend of ours!>

>> Ron, you force me to bring in more of Lanette's bullshit here.
>> http://foster-care.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/adopting-through-foster-care-1
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> could we do to foster their attachment to others (parents) or to deal with
> the world?  Little.

Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me hooked.  I
got her in my Google Reader.  If you read enough of it, you'd understand.

What really got me with her, when I first found her blog was this.  She was
talking about bonding with children who she knew were only going to be short
term placements.  She found it to be a good thing, I left a comment on her
blog saying that was detramental to the child.  Because if she knew it was
to be a short term thing, and the child grew attatched to her it could have
a lasting effect when the child was removed from her care.

> I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view, she
> sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster parent.

Wouldn't expect you to.  But for those of us who would accept an argument
against the system, I suppose it would be helpful.

>> That's just one of her posts. Here's another.
>> http://foster-care.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/national-adoption-month-f
oster-care-adop

[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> note.  Obviously you have concern with them, please let me in on whatever
> it is that you find so objectionable about them.

In following the case in Oregon, the grandmother wants the child.  She
should have a right to the child.  The fosters also want the child, they are
pleading to the government to keep him.  The grandmother lives in Mexico.
If she is capible to care for the child, then she should have the right to
care for the child.  I posted a link to this last night.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november172007/neal_dhs_111707.php

"Far too many people become foster parents not to provide safe temporary
homes for the kids placed in their charge but in a deranged form of meat
market as they seek kids to steal for themselves."

"Such fosters routinely undermine reunification and drag separation out as
long as they can so that they can claim to have 'bonded' with the kids and
to put forth this claim as justification to terminate the rights of the real
parents so that the fosters can then adopt."

Please don't take this personally as a claim against you as a parent.  Just
for the sake of arguement.  I'm not claiming that you do this, but I had a
sense that Lanette does from day one of reading her blog.

>> I know, I know.  It's adoption blogs.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> attitudes, I dont need to read anyone else's for additional information or
> insight.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's a facination/revulsion thing
with me.

Predatorial Adoption - the intentional thwarting of reunification efforts by
a foster parent in an effort to adopt someone elses child.

>>>>> No one I know is totally satisfied with how things work.
>>>> What about you Ron?  Are you totally satisfied with the way things
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> These are just examples.  And of course the pay rarely ever equals the
> amounts of work or education required.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DA1E3AF930A2575BC0A96795826
0&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/H/Human%20Resources%20Administrat
ion


"The estimated average cost of providing preventive services is $8,000 a
year per family. The average cost of keeping a child in foster care:
$20,000. Similar programs are now being instituted in 10 states."

Then there's this little factor.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_38_36/ai_66935274

You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public service.
You get your student loans paid off that way too.  Thousands of dollars
simply for fulfilling a contract.

>>> Despite the best wishes of all those who work within the system money is
>>> what makes it work.  Money is what provides the services, therapists,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Thats another thread all by itself.  I have a feeling that we would agree
> more on this issue than any other.

Ya think?

>>> No one makes their fortune working with the nations HHS systems, the
>>> best they can hope for is to break even (FP's and the like) or to make a
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> protecting and helping the children."?  I'm certainly not wise enough to
> put that mark on the sheet, and I know of no one who is.

But you also claim that you want what's best for the children.  Wouldn't you
agree that what's best for the children is worth the investment?  I also
admit wholeheartedly that 100% of children would not be saved from foster
care.  But the numbers of children are driven down when this sort of
attitude is implemented.  As are overall costs.

>> We've been through this before Ron.
>
> Certainly.  But there is always such great conversation on this topic that
> I feel that it can be revisited as often as we like.  Opinions and demands
> vary by such a degree that I don't think we can ever exhaust the
> possibilities.

And I will continue to argue my point.

>>>>>>>> But since you insist.  We will analyze his statement to death.  Why
>>>>>>>> I bother, I don't know.  I guess even I believe that there is hope
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> I'm not sure that gregg was.  Not really all that interested either.

I thought we were talking about Eric here.  That's who I was refering to.

>> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling them on
>> their bullshit.
>
> Only if it IS BS.
It is.

> One mans BS is another's belief's.
Beliefs are often misguided Ron.

> You called Lanette's blogs BS, but I see nothing in them that is incorrect
> or really all that controversial.  For sure nothing even approachint he
> level of BS that you seem to think.

We'll work on that Ron.

>>> Look at our buddy gregg.  He gets it every day from 90% of the
>>> participants here, yet he continues to post.  I'd say he has a pretty
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> tenacity, but his method and means only serve to give ammo to those who
> oppose his point of view.

I'll leave that between you and Greg.

>>>> I don't know why...  All we were doing was calling him on his bullshit.
>>> If indeed it is bullshit.  Arguing a subject is one thing, but providing
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> And that makes an unfounded position better?  Morality?  Does morality
> allow one to ignore the facts?
How is morality ignoring the facts?

Taking a kid based on a phone call?  Lets see.  How moral is that?

The facts state that a removal it is harmful to the child, how harmful is
irrelevent to the point, we'll agree that the removal causes some level of
harm.

Facts state that there are false alegations of abuse or neglect made to the
hotline.  How many of these is irrelevent to the point.  The relevency
should be saved for another arguement.

Taking a child based on founded abuse or neglect is a whole different
arguement as well.  That's not what we've been talking about.  It all fits
in somewhere but we're analyzing a piece of the puzzle here, not the
completed project.

Facts state that the harm caused by the removal may be less, in some cases,
then the harm caused by the abuse.  Facts also state that a removal may be
more harmful to the child, then the harm caused by the aledged abuse that
didn't actually happen but was reported anyway.  In which case, under Eric's
claim that "We should remove the child based on a phone call and then
investigate," would be more harmful to the child in the case where the
alegations of abuse or neglect are unsubstantiated.  Facts state that
workers unsubstantiate many of these alegations that are investigated.
We're also talking about a removal here, not an investigation.  There is a
difference.  Nobody is claiming that we should not investigate allegations
of abuse or neglect where a child could possibly be harmed when such cases
of abuse or neglect exist.  We investigate then substantiate if it's
warranted.

In other words, in some situations the worker may be saving a life, for
example.  If that is the case, and I stress, IF THAT IS THE CASE, then the
removal is less harmful then the abuse.  Take the child to safety.  It would
become a morality issue not to.  There may be other end results than death
which may also be more traumatic to the overall life of the child in cases
such as sexual abuse etc.

The numbers become an irrelevent point.  We're not talking about it
happening to one 1 out of 100 unsubstantiated alegations, we're talkning
about it happening to 100 out of 100.

I think it's a morality issue.  Completely respectful of and in full
consideration of all the facts Ron.  Wouldn't you agree?

> Does taking a position that one considers to the be the moral high ground
> allow one to ignore reality with impunity?

As I've stated above not at all.
> No, not here and not in real life.

But we are talking about real life.

>>>>>>>> However Ron.  Even you yourself admit this to be wrong in the case
>>>>>>>> of calls to the child abuse hotline with your own words, later in
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> family then I'd say that the family in question was headed towards the
> crapper anyway.

But when the child is removed based on a phone call to the hotline that
claimed abuse from an anonymous caller, and that abuse didn't happen the
family unit is broken, the damage is done and often times the family is
destroyed.

>>> If that were true then there would be far more people supporting your
>>> position than there are.

So far everybody but you and eric has agreed with me.

>> You and eric seem to be the only ones who don't.
>
> Hmmm.  Thats a leap of faith to be sure.

I ask everybody.  Should we remove a child based on nothing more then a
phone call to the child abuse hotline that aledges abuse and then
investigate or should we investigate claims of abuse called in to the
hotline and then remove?

>> Remove a kid based on nothing more then a phone call.
>
> I thought we had that erroneous conclusion of yours cleared up.  Need we
> revisit it again?

until you admit that I'm right.

>>>>>>>> It is better to check into it, determine if there is sufficient
>>>>>>>> evidence to warant a removal, and if and only if there is enough
[quoted text clipped - 322 lines]
> needed.  I have posted my experience and background quite openly here, it
> gives credibility to my statements.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you have only yourself and others of your beliefs to blame
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for that.
[quoted text clipped - 110 lines]
> resolved issues.  I believe we are over 1000 lines as it is, and it seems
> like we are not anywhere near the end.

Please do.  It's getting confusing.
> Ron
Ron - 20 Nov 2007 17:50 GMT
> <Snip Snip Here, and Snip Snip there with a scalple that's just like Jaws!
> That's how we take it all away when we neuter that friend of ours!>

:)

>>> Ron, you force me to bring in more of Lanette's bullshit here.
>>> http://foster-care.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/adopting-through-foster-care-1
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> to be a short term thing, and the child grew attatched to her it could have
> a lasting effect when the child was removed from her care.

I have done a lot of short term care over the years.  Does it do harm?
No, not in my opinion.  Imagine if you will being a kid and being placed
into a home where there is no emotion, no sense of love or even kindness
for you, only a warehouse type of feel.

Kids attach for the most part quite easily.  Its never bad unless the
initial relationship itself is unhealthy.  By that I mean abuse filled,
neglectful, or non-caring.  Friends come and go in a child's world.
Even adult friends.  Does having one friend move to another town harm a
child?  Even a best friend?

Having not read her blogs as in-depth as you have I cant really have an
opinion of her reasons or motivations.  From what you have shown me it
seems that she is pretty much the standard foster parent, one with an
open agenda of adoption if the opportunity presents itself.  Its not a
bad thing really.  It takes all kinds, and this is just one more example.

>> I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view, she
>> sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster parent.
>>
> Wouldn't expect you to.  But for those of us who would accept an argument
> against the system, I suppose it would be helpful.

With additional information, maybe.

>>> That's just one of her posts. Here's another.
>>> http://foster-care.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/national-adoption-month-f
oster-care-adop

[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> care for the child.  I posted a link to this last night.
> http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november172007/neal_dhs_111707.php

Hmmm, I dont know the laws concerning international adoptions going from
the US to Mexico.  I imagine that they are a bit more stringent than the
other way around as we here in the US generally have a better standard
of living than those in Mexico.

Is that all that should be considered?  Standard of living?  No, but the
laws must be.

> "Far too many people become foster parents not to provide safe temporary
> homes for the kids placed in their charge but in a deranged form of meat
> market as they seek kids to steal for themselves."

An interesting, biased, and one sided comment.

> "Such fosters routinely undermine reunification and drag separation out as
> long as they can so that they can claim to have 'bonded' with the kids and
> to put forth this claim as justification to terminate the rights of the real
> parents so that the fosters can then adopt."

Oh, figures.  kneal feldman.  I cant believe that they let him out of
jail.  He was a constant here in this news group a few years back.  A
bigger spastic anti-cps nut case there is not.

Be very careful quoting anything from this "source".  He is very much
like kenny in many ways, and far worse in more than one.  More than
willing to spew rhetoric, misinformation, and lies than even kenny is.
I'd rather have kenny here that kneal, at least kenny does not admit to
abusing his own children.

> Please don't take this personally as a claim against you as a parent.  Just
> for the sake of arguement.  I'm not claiming that you do this, but I had a
> sense that Lanette does from day one of reading her blog.

feldman is PNG.  Only gregg would not automatically and immediately
discount anything kneal had to say on any subject.

>>> I know, I know.  It's adoption blogs.
>> Generally I am not a blog type person.  I dont have a personal blog, nor
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's a facination/revulsion thing
> with me.

Like a horror movie?  Or the "Faces of Death" films?  I understand the
concept.

> Predatorial Adoption - the intentional thwarting of reunification efforts by
> a foster parent in an effort to adopt someone elses child.

I'm sure that there are some such people out there somewhere.  Just as
there are people out there who enjoy drinking their own urine.  Few and
far between.

>>>>>> No one I know is totally satisfied with how things work.
>>>>> What about you Ron?  Are you totally satisfied with the way things
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> Then there's this little factor.
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2889/is_38_36/ai_66935274

I did the math.  $434.78 per child adopted.  I get more than that in a
clothing voucher for the kids that come to my home without their own.

> You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public service.
> You get your student loans paid off that way too.  Thousands of dollars
> simply for fulfilling a contract.

Never heard of that one.  I did my college in the military and therefore
paid for it all myself along with the 75% that the military kicks in.

>>>> Despite the best wishes of all those who work within the system money is
>>>> what makes it work.  Money is what provides the services, therapists,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
> Ya think?

Yes, I do.

>>>> No one makes their fortune working with the nations HHS systems, the
>>>> best they can hope for is to break even (FP's and the like) or to make a
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> care.  But the numbers of children are driven down when this sort of
> attitude is implemented.  As are overall costs.

There is always going to be a certain percentage of children who cannot
live in the home.  Can that percentage be reduced?  I think so, but
closing our minds to the fact that some are just never going to be able
to go home or remain there is foolishness (not that I am saying you
believe this).  As the system improves the percentage is going to get
smaller, but those that remain in the situation will be in greater need
of the states support than ever before.

>>> We've been through this before Ron.
>> Certainly.  But there is always such great conversation on this topic that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> And I will continue to argue my point.

At least until I convince you otherwise.  :)

>>>>>>>>> But since you insist.  We will analyze his statement to death.  Why
>>>>>>>>> I bother, I don't know.  I guess even I believe that there is hope
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>>
> I thought we were talking about Eric here.  That's who I was refering to.

Ahh, somehow that got lost.  I have taken to not reading erics posts.
Dont know why, just not interested I suppose.

>>> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling them on
>>> their bullshit.
>> Only if it IS BS.
> It is.

Once again that is opinion.

>> One mans BS is another's belief's.
> Beliefs are often misguided Ron.

Sometimes, sometimes not.

>> You called Lanette's blogs BS, but I see nothing in them that is incorrect
>> or really all that controversial.  For sure nothing even approachint he
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>
> I'll leave that between you and Greg.

The point was that you seem to share many of his views.  You present
them better, more cogently, but to me they are the same in that the
points are the same.  IMO gregg has it wrong.  And thereby you do as well.

>>>>> I don't know why...  All we were doing was calling him on his bullshit.
>>>> If indeed it is bullshit.  Arguing a subject is one thing, but providing
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> allow one to ignore the facts?
> How is morality ignoring the facts?

Morality ignores the facts every single day.  I could give you several
arguments on that but they would be more for a political forum than a
CPS one.

> Taking a kid based on a phone call?  Lets see.  How moral is that?

Depends.  Is it the first call?  The 10th?  Has the family just been
reunited after a long service intervention?  Can screaming be heard in
the background?  Is it an LEO or MD initiated intervention?

> The facts state that a removal it is harmful to the child, how harmful is
> irrelevent to the point, we'll agree that the removal causes some level of
> harm.

We can agree that removal is harmful.  But how harmful IS the point.
"The lesser of two evils".

> Facts state that there are false alegations of abuse or neglect made to the
> hotline.  How many of these is irrelevent to the point.  The relevency
> should be saved for another arguement.

Yes, some are intentionally false.  0.1% according to the latest NCANDS
data
(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/chaptertwo.htm#investigate).
 How many I believe is quite relevant.

> Taking a child based on founded abuse or neglect is a whole different
> arguement as well.  That's not what we've been talking about.  It all fits
> in somewhere but we're analyzing a piece of the puzzle here, not the
> completed project.

But to reach the point where the disposition of a report is available
may take weeks, or even months.  Do we leave a child in a pottentionaly
(sp) dangerous situation just because we cannot be sure that abuse or
neglect is actually happening?  Remember that of those calls that are
"screened in" nearly one third are found to have been victims of abuse
or neglect of some kind.  Thats a fairly high percentage.

> Facts state that the harm caused by the removal may be less, in some cases,
> then the harm caused by the abuse.  Facts also state that a removal may be
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> of abuse or neglect exist.  We investigate then substantiate if it's
> warranted.

Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with Eric's position.  I
understand it, and am somewhat familiar with it, but I also believe that
it is born from a lack of knowledge of both the system and human nature.

> In other words, in some situations the worker may be saving a life, for
> example.  If that is the case, and I stress, IF THAT IS THE CASE, then the
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
> family unit is broken, the damage is done and often times the family is
> destroyed.

Sorry, the facts don't support that belief.

>>>> If that were true then there would be far more people supporting your
>>>> position than there are.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> investigate or should we investigate claims of abuse called in to the
> hotline and then remove?

One point we may have missed here.  Most removals are not done at the
behest of CPS.  In most states CPS does not have the authority unless
specifically granted such by a court.  Most emergency removals are done
by a law enforcement officer or an MD.

>>> Remove a kid based on nothing more then a phone call.
>> I thought we had that erroneous conclusion of yours cleared up.  Need we
>> revisit it again?
>>
> until you admit that I'm right.

lol.  Sorry, to many variables to make such a definitive statement.

(snip)
>> FYI, if this thread continues I am going to begin snipping some of the
>> resolved issues.  I believe we are over 1000 lines as it is, and it seems
>> like we are not anywhere near the end.
>>
> Please do.  It's getting confusing.

Not to mention LONG!

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 21 Nov 2007 05:31 GMT
>> Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me hooked.
>> I
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> I have done a lot of short term care over the years.  Does it do harm?
Yes.  Bouncing a kid around does harm.

> No, not in my opinion.
Your opinion is biased.

> Imagine if you will being a kid and being placed into a home where there
> is no emotion, no sense of love or even kindness for you, only a warehouse
> type of feel.

Imagine being a kid, riped out of your bed in the middle of the night.  You
see your mother screaming while being held back by the police.  You reach
out for her but your quickly taken out the door and put into the back of a
car.

> Kids attach for the most part quite easily.  Its never bad unless the
> initial relationship itself is unhealthy.
Ron, if a child gets used to living with you, and comfortable in the
environment that you provide, and attatched to you and your wife, you can't
tell me that it's healthy to rip them away from that and place then with a
whole new strange family.  There they get comfortable, they get used to the
place then they are moved again.  That's really sad.

> By that I mean abuse filled, neglectful, or non-caring.
Of course you do.

> Friends come and go in a child's world. Even adult friends.  Does having
> one friend move to another town harm a child?  Even a best friend?

That is minimizing the harm.  There is no comparison.  Blood is thicker then
LK - 21 Nov 2007 05:31 GMT
>> Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me hooked.
>> I
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> I have done a lot of short term care over the years.  Does it do harm?
Yes.  Bouncing a kid around does harm.

> No, not in my opinion.
Your opinion is biased.

> Imagine if you will being a kid and being placed into a home where there
> is no emotion, no sense of love or even kindness for you, only a warehouse
> type of feel.

Imagine being a kid, riped out of your bed in the middle of the night.  You
see your mother screaming while being held back by the police.  You reach
out for her but your quickly taken out the door and put into the back of a
car.

> Kids attach for the most part quite easily.  Its never bad unless the
> initial relationship itself is unhealthy.
Ron, if a child gets used to living with you, and comfortable in the
environment that you provide, and attatched to you and your wife, you can't
tell me that it's healthy to rip them away from that and place then with a
whole new strange family.  There they get comfortable, they get used to the
place then they are moved again.  That's really sad.

> By that I mean abuse filled, neglectful, or non-caring.
Of course you do.

> Friends come and go in a child's world. Even adult friends.  Does having
> one friend move to another town harm a child?  Even a best friend?

That is minimizing the harm.  There is no comparison.  Blood is thicker then
water.

> Having not read her blogs as in-depth as you have I cant really have an
> opinion of her reasons or motivations.  From what you have shown me it
> seems that she is pretty much the standard foster parent, one with an open
> agenda of adoption if the opportunity presents itself.  Its not a bad
> thing really.  It takes all kinds, and this is just one more example.

It is a bad thing when a foster parents adoption agenda interferes with the
reufification efforts of the family.

>>> I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view, she
>>> sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster parent.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> With additional information, maybe.

If it becomes necessary.
----
>> "Far too many people become foster parents not to provide safe temporary
>> homes for the kids placed in their charge but in a deranged form of meat
>> market as they seek kids to steal for themselves."
>
> An interesting, biased, and one sided comment.

You're saying that it doesn't happen?  You're saying that some foster
parents don't fall in love with the children and want to keep them for
themselves?

>> "Such fosters routinely undermine reunification and drag separation out
>> as long as they can so that they can claim to have 'bonded' with the kids
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> jail.  He was a constant here in this news group a few years back.  A
> bigger spastic anti-cps nut case there is not.

It was a good article Ron.  Right to the point.  Right on.

You can't let your personal opinion of someone get into the way of the
validity of the comments that they make.  It only shows your love of the
status quo.

> Be very careful quoting anything from this "source".  He is very much like
> kenny in many ways, and far worse in more than one.  More than willing to
> spew rhetoric, misinformation, and lies than even kenny is. I'd rather
> have kenny here that kneal, at least kenny does not admit to abusing his
> own children.

Any valid point should be considered no matter who says it.

>> Please don't take this personally as a claim against you as a parent.
>> Just for the sake of arguement.  I'm not claiming that you do this, but I
>> had a sense that Lanette does from day one of reading her blog.
>
> feldman is PNG.  Only gregg would not automatically and immediately
> discount anything kneal had to say on any subject.

You just can't get over this obsession of yours with Ken and Greg, can you?
My god Ron!
----
>> I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's a facination/revulsion
>> thing with me.
>
> Like a horror movie?  Or the "Faces of Death" films?  I understand the
> concept.

yup

>> Predatorial Adoption - the intentional thwarting of reunification efforts
>> by a foster parent in an effort to adopt someone elses child.
>
> I'm sure that there are some such people out there somewhere.  Just as
> there are people out there who enjoy drinking their own urine.  Few and
> far between.

All too common.
----
>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DA1E3AF930A2575BC0A96795826
0&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/H/Human%20Resources%20Administrat
ion

>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I did the math.  $434.78 per child adopted.  I get more than that in a
> clothing voucher for the kids that come to my home without their own.

How much more?

>> You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public
>> service. You get your student loans paid off that way too.  Thousands of
>> dollars simply for fulfilling a contract.
>
> Never heard of that one.  I did my college in the military and therefore
> paid for it all myself along with the 75% that the military kicks in.

It's similar.
----
>>>>> Despite the best wishes of all those who work within the system money
>>>>> is what makes it work.  Money is what provides the services,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Yes, I do.

How many pills a day do you give out on average?
----
>>> More.  Hmmm.  Where is the dividing line?  Where do we say "This
>>> percentage for supporting dysfunctional families, this percentage for
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> go home or remain there is foolishness (not that I am saying you believe
> this).
I never claimed to.  But if foster care can be cut by ten percent then it's
worth it.  Some, myself included that this number would be actually much
higher.

> As the system improves the percentage is going to get smaller, but those
> that remain in the situation will be in greater need of the states support
> than ever before.

It's still cheaper and better for the kids.

>>>> We've been through this before Ron.
>>> Certainly.  But there is always such great conversation on this topic
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> At least until I convince you otherwise.  :)
You'll eventually admit I'm right.
----
>>>> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling them on
>>>>  >>>> their bullshit.
>>> Only if it IS BS.
>> It is.
> Once again that is opinion.
No, it's common sense.

>>> One mans BS is another's belief's.
>> Beliefs are often misguided Ron.
> Sometimes, sometimes not.
Beliefs are not facts.  Therefore they are subject to being misguided.
Especially when there is an opposing opinion on the subject.  Just because
it's the way it is, doesn't mean it's the way it should be.
----
>>>>> Look at our buddy gregg.  He gets it every day from 90% of the
>>>>> participants here, yet he continues to post.  I'd say he has a pretty
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> better, more cogently, but to me they are the same in that the points are
> the same.  IMO gregg has it wrong.  And thereby you do as well.

Most people here would share at least some of his views if stated by
another.  It's only because of who they come from that they all disagree
with everything he says.  I hardly think that everybody would share all of
his views.  If they did, nothing would be up for debate.  The human mind is
a miraculous thing.  It has the ability to interpret what information it
gets and formulate an opinion based on that.

Then on the opposite end of the stick is you.  You're the only one who is
going to show this extremist pro-CPS view.  Even the rest of the group
claims to be at least somewhat critical of the system.  Interesting.  The
point is that your extremest view gives no sense that you believe a change
in the status quo is necessary, outside of probably a raise in the rates
given to foster parents.  While Greg believes just the opposite.  And you
don't like him for that.

I suppose that you're not going to give creedence to anything anybody says
if it's critical of your precious system.  You can't, can you?  Your just as
caught up in the system as the kids who get hooked in.
----
>>>> It's a moral argument, not a technical one Ron.
>>> And that makes an unfounded position better?  Morality?  Does morality
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> arguments on that but they would be more for a political forum than a CPS
> one.
Unless it's the morality of cps that we're discussing.

>> Taking a kid based on a phone call?  Lets see.  How moral is that?
>
> Depends.
Wrong.

> Is it the first call?
Doesn't matter.  It should still be investigated prior to removal.

> The 10th?
Doesn't matter.  It should still be investigated prior to removal.

> Has the family just been reunited after a long service intervention?
Would certainly be investigated prior to removal.  Just quicker.

> Can screaming be heard in the background?
Even happy healthy non abused children scream Ron.  I suppose if you have
them medicated enough they don't.  But

> Is it an LEO or MD initiated intervention?

That's usually based on a little more then a phone call.  It is more likely
to tip off an investigation.

>> The facts state that a removal it is harmful to the child, how harmful is
>> irrelevent to the point, we'll agree that the removal causes some level
>> of harm.
>
> We can agree that removal is harmful.  But how harmful IS the point. "The
> lesser of two evils".
And that can only be decided after an investigation takes place.  Not prior
to one.  Taking a kid prior to an investigation is more harmful to the kid
then the aledged abuse that will eventually be unsubstantiated.  The harm is
done unnecessarily.  How much harm is not the point as any harm to a child
that was based on jumping the gun and that is.

More children would be harmed.

>> Facts state that there are false alegations of abuse or neglect made to
>> the hotline.  How many of these is irrelevent to the point.  The
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/chaptertwo.htm#investigate).
> How many I believe is quite relevant.

Not every false alegation is intentional.

>> Taking a child based on founded abuse or neglect is a whole different
>> arguement as well.  That's not what we've been talking about.  It all
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> dangerous situation just because we cannot be sure that abuse or neglect
> is actually happening?
So you're saying that we just take them anyway?  I think that the abuse or
neglect should be provable before the child is removed.  If they can't prove
that abuse happened then it's quite possible that the abuse didn't happen.

> Remember that of those calls that are "screened in" nearly one third are
> found to have been victims of abuse or neglect of some kind.  Thats a
> fairly high percentage.

And an even higher percentage that are not.  You're obviously a "glass half
empty" type of person.

>> Facts state that the harm caused by the removal may be less, in some
>> cases, then the harm caused by the abuse.  Facts also state that a
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> it, and am somewhat familiar with it, but I also believe that it is born
> from a lack of knowledge of both the system and human nature.

Can't argue with your conclusion.
> it is born from a lack of knowledge of both the system and human nature.
----
>> But when the child is removed based on a phone call to the hotline that
>> claimed abuse from an anonymous caller, and that abuse didn't happen the
>> family unit is broken, the damage is done and often times the family is
>> destroyed.
>
> Sorry, the facts don't support that belief.
What silly facts would support such an assumption?

If you can't even admit that a removal causes a great deal of harm to a
child, then your extremest facts are hardly worth considering.  A removal
can cause harm that would manifest on the deepest of levels of the child's
psyche, quite possibly for life depending on the age of the child, and the
facts support that conclusion.  When the child who although it was reported,
yet was never abused in the first place, but is removed anyway, the harm is
done.

The family unit is also broken, the innocent mother would probably not be
able to handle the removal well.  Even if it's only for a few weeks or
months.  In fact, when you're ripping the unabused child out of the innocent
mothers arms, the attachment that the child has to it's mother is disrupted.
Nothing will ever be the same again.
----
>> I ask everybody.  Should we remove a child based on nothing more then a
>> phone call to the child abuse hotline that aledges abuse and then
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> specifically granted such by a court.  Most emergency removals are done by
> a law enforcement officer or an MD.
But it's also different when there is some merit to the alegation.

>>> revisit it again?
>>>
>> until you admit that I'm right.
>
> lol.  Sorry, to many variables to make such a definitive statement.
And we've covered enough of them.

> (snip)
>>> FYI, if this thread continues I am going to begin snipping some of the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Ron
LK - 21 Nov 2007 05:31 GMT
>> Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me hooked.
>> I
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> I have done a lot of short term care over the years.  Does it do harm?
Yes.  Bouncing a kid around does harm.

> No, not in my opinion.
Your opinion is biased.

> Imagine if you will being a kid and being placed into a home where there
> is no emotion, no sense of love or even kindness for you, only a warehouse
> type of feel.

Imagine being a kid, riped out of your bed in the middle of the night.  You
see your mother screaming while being held back by the police.  You reach
out for her but your quickly taken out the door and put into the back of a
car.

> Kids attach for the most part quite easily.  Its never bad unless the
> initial relationship itself is unhealthy.
Ron, if a child gets used to living with you, and comfortable in the
environment that you provide, and attatched to you and your wife, you can't
tell me that it's healthy to rip them away from that and place then with a
whole new strange family.  There they get comfortable, they get used to the
place then they are moved again.  That's really sad.

> By that I mean abuse filled, neglectful, or non-caring.
Of course you do.

> Friends come and go in a child's world. Even adult friends.  Does having
> one friend move to another town harm a child?  Even a best friend?

That is minimizing the harm.  There is no comparison.  Blood is thicker then
water.

> Having not read her blogs as in-depth as you have I cant really have an
> opinion of her reasons or motivations.  From what you have shown me it
> seems that she is pretty much the standard foster parent, one with an open
> agenda of adoption if the opportunity presents itself.  Its not a bad
> thing really.  It takes all kinds, and this is just one more example.

It is a bad thing when a foster parents adoption agenda interferes with the
reufification efforts of the family.

>>> I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view, she
>>> sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster parent.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> With additional information, maybe.

If it becomes necessary.
----
>> "Far too many people become foster parents not to provide safe temporary
>> homes for the kids placed in their charge but in a deranged form of meat
>> market as they seek kids to steal for themselves."
>
> An interesting, biased, and one sided comment.

You're saying that it doesn't happen?  You're saying that some foster
parents don't fall in love with the children and want to keep them for
themselves?

>> "Such fosters routinely undermine reunification and drag separation out
>> as long as they can so that they can claim to have 'bonded' with the kids
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> jail.  He was a constant here in this news group a few years back.  A
> bigger spastic anti-cps nut case there is not.

It was a good article Ron.  Right to the point.  Right on.

You can't let your personal opinion of someone get into the way of the
validity of the comments that they make.  It only shows your love of the
status quo.

> Be very careful quoting anything from this "source".  He is very much like
> kenny in many ways, and far worse in more than one.  More than willing to
> spew rhetoric, misinformation, and lies than even kenny is. I'd rather
> have kenny here that kneal, at least kenny does not admit to abusing his
> own children.

Any valid point should be considered no matter who says it.

>> Please don't take this personally as a claim against you as a parent.
>> Just for the sake of arguement.  I'm not claiming that you do this, but I
>> had a sense that Lanette does from day one of reading her blog.
>
> feldman is PNG.  Only gregg would not automatically and immediately
> discount anything kneal had to say on any subject.

You just can't get over this obsession of yours with Ken and Greg, can you?
My god Ron!
----
>> I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's a facination/revulsion
>> thing with me.
>
> Like a horror movie?  Or the "Faces of Death" films?  I understand the
> concept.

yup

>> Predatorial Adoption - the intentional thwarting of reunification efforts
>> by a foster parent in an effort to adopt someone elses child.
>
> I'm sure that there are some such people out there somewhere.  Just as
> there are people out there who enjoy drinking their own urine.  Few and
> far between.

All too common.
----
>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DA1E3AF930A2575BC0A96795826
0&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/H/Human%20Resources%20Administrat
ion

>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I did the math.  $434.78 per child adopted.  I get more than that in a
> clothing voucher for the kids that come to my home without their own.

How much more?

>> You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public
>> service. You get your student loans paid off that way too.  Thousands of
>> dollars simply for fulfilling a contract.
>
> Never heard of that one.  I did my college in the military and therefore
> paid for it all myself along with the 75% that the military kicks in.

It's similar.
----
>>>>> Despite the best wishes of all those who work within the system money
>>>>> is what makes it work.  Money is what provides the services,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Yes, I do.

How many pills a day do you give out on average?
----
>>> More.  Hmmm.  Where is the dividing line?  Where do we say "This
>>> percentage for supporting dysfunctional families, this percentage for
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> go home or remain there is foolishness (not that I am saying you believe
> this).
I never claimed to.  But if foster care can be cut by ten percent then it's
worth it.  Some, myself included that this number would be actually much
higher.

> As the system improves the percentage is going to get smaller, but those
> that remain in the situation will be in greater need of the states support
> than ever before.

It's still cheaper and better for the kids.

>>>> We've been through this before Ron.
>>> Certainly.  But there is always such great conversation on this topic
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> At least until I convince you otherwise.  :)
You'll eventually admit I'm right.
----
>>>> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling them on
>>>>  >>>> their bullshit.
>>> Only if it IS BS.
>> It is.
> Once again that is opinion.
No, it's common sense.

>>> One mans BS is another's belief's.
>> Beliefs are often misguided Ron.
> Sometimes, sometimes not.
Beliefs are not facts.  Therefore they are subject to being misguided.
Especially when there is an opposing opinion on the subject.  Just because
it's the way it is, doesn't mean it's the way it should be.
----
>>>>> Look at our buddy gregg.  He gets it every day from 90% of the
>>>>> participants here, yet he continues to post.  I'd say he has a pretty
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> better, more cogently, but to me they are the same in that the points are
> the same.  IMO gregg has it wrong.  And thereby you do as well.

Most people here would share at least some of his views if stated by
another.  It's only because of who they come from that they all disagree
with everything he says.  I hardly think that everybody would share all of
his views.  If they did, nothing would be up for debate.  The human mind is
a miraculous thing.  It has the ability to interpret what information it
gets and formulate an opinion based on that.

Then on the opposite end of the stick is you.  You're the only one who is
going to show this extremist pro-CPS view.  Even the rest of the group
claims to be at least somewhat critical of the system.  Interesting.  The
point is that your extremest view gives no sense that you believe a change
in the status quo is necessary, outside of probably a raise in the rates
given to foster parents.  While Greg believes just the opposite.  And you
don't like him for that.

I suppose that you're not going to give creedence to anything anybody says
if it's critical of your precious system.  You can't, can you?  Your just as
caught up in the system as the kids who get hooked in.
----
>>>> It's a moral argument, not a technical one Ron.
>>> And that makes an unfounded position better?  Morality?  Does morality
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> arguments on that but they would be more for a political forum than a CPS
> one.
Unless it's the morality of cps that we're discussing.

>> Taking a kid based on a phone call?  Lets see.  How moral is that?
>
> Depends.
Wrong.

> Is it the first call?
Doesn't matter.  It should still be investigated prior to removal.

> The 10th?
Doesn't matter.  It should still be investigated prior to removal.

> Has the family just been reunited after a long service intervention?
Would certainly be investigated prior to removal.  Just quicker.

> Can screaming be heard in the background?
Even happy healthy non abused children scream Ron.  I suppose if you have
them medicated enough they don't.  But

> Is it an LEO or MD initiated intervention?

That's usually based on a little more then a phone call.  It is more likely
to tip off an investigation.

>> The facts state that a removal it is harmful to the child, how harmful is
>> irrelevent to the point, we'll agree that the removal causes some level
>> of harm.
>
> We can agree that removal is harmful.  But how harmful IS the point. "The
> lesser of two evils".
Ron - 21 Nov 2007 16:01 GMT
>>> Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me hooked.
>>> I
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> No, not in my opinion.
> Your opinion is biased.

Educated, experienced, and maybe just a tad biased.  I try and keep that
to a minimum.  The point being that finding out for sure is better than
not knowing at all.

>> Imagine if you will being a kid and being placed into a home where there
>> is no emotion, no sense of love or even kindness for you, only a warehouse
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> out for her but your quickly taken out the door and put into the back of a
> car.

Nice.  Unrealistic.  Most CPS interventions come in the middle of the
day, usually at school, without the parents being present.  Only LEO
interventions come in the middle of the night, and usually for criminal
activity or welfare checks.  If mom is screaming its because she is in
handcuffs.

>> Kids attach for the most part quite easily.  Its never bad unless the
>> initial relationship itself is unhealthy.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> whole new strange family.  There they get comfortable, they get used to the
> place then they are moved again.  That's really sad.

Healthy?  It can be, with the proper preparation.  Even those who attach
to a foster parent and come from an abusive family WANT to go home.
Back to the very same family that abused them in the first place.
Moving them from foster home to foster home though can cause problems.
Its not an ideal situation, but it is often a realistic one.

BTW, the melodramatic terms you are using show more than a bit of ...
bias shall we say?  "rip them away", "riped out of your bed".

>> By that I mean abuse filled, neglectful, or non-caring.
> Of course you do.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> That is minimizing the harm.  There is no comparison.  Blood is thicker then
> water.

Your waffeling.  First you talk about moving from one foster family to
another, then you focus on the affect of removing from family.  Make up
your mind.

None of it is healthy.  Not the interventions, not the time in care, not
the abuse or neglect that precipitated the events.  None of it.  Is it
survivable?  Yes, all of it.  Many things in life are needlessly
harmful, smoking, drinking, pregnancy, even the sports we all love so
much, but still we do them.  Risk is everywhere, as are rewards.

>> Having not read her blogs as in-depth as you have I cant really have an
>> opinion of her reasons or motivations.  From what you have shown me it
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> It is a bad thing when a foster parents adoption agenda interferes with the
> reufification efforts of the family.

Sure it is.  And I have even known a few foster parents who
intentionally worked against reunification with the intent of adoption.
 Its wrong.  But no matter how much we as foster parents may do to
subvert the reunification process eventually it comes down to the
control of others.  Case Managers, Judges, Attorney's, and parents.
Mostly judges and parents.  Those are the two that make the final
decisions, not foster parents.

>>>> I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view, she
>>>> sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster parent.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
> If it becomes necessary.

I dont think it will honestly.

> ----
>>> "Far too many people become foster parents not to provide safe temporary
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> parents don't fall in love with the children and want to keep them for
> themselves?

Thats not what feldman said.

>>> "Such fosters routinely undermine reunification and drag separation out
>>> as long as they can so that they can claim to have 'bonded' with the kids
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
> It was a good article Ron.  Right to the point.  Right on.

No, its not.  Its filled with rhetoric, lies, misinformation, and
sensationalism.  Fear mongering.  All things that kneal feldman is well
known for in this forum.  While I choose to verify the things that kenny
has to say, I completely discount anything that kneal feldman says, from
the git-go.  feldman is the lowest common denominator. He represents the
worst of what these discussions in this forum are.  My experience with
him is extensive, very extensive.

> You can't let your personal opinion of someone get into the way of the
> validity of the comments that they make.  It only shows your love of the
> status quo.

If it were just my opinion I might agree with you, but its not.  This is
the most common opinion of feldman to be found across Usenet.  Do some
google research on his posts.

>> Be very careful quoting anything from this "source".  He is very much like
>> kenny in many ways, and far worse in more than one.  More than willing to
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> You just can't get over this obsession of yours with Ken and Greg, can you?
> My god Ron!

Obsession?  No.  Experience.  Like I have said, I have been hanging
around this news group for a very long time.  My experience with gregg
is extensive, less so with kenny but with him it doesn't take much.

feldman is PNG, Persona-non-Grata.

> ----
>>> I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's a facination/revulsion
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>
> All too common.

Can you support that belief?

> ----
>>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DA1E3AF930A2575BC0A96795826
0&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/H/Human%20Resources%20Administrat
ion

[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>
> How much more?

It varies by kid, their needs, age, and what they came to me with.  Sure
would be nice to be able to know a firm amount, but that will never happen.

>>> You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public
>>> service. You get your student loans paid off that way too.  Thousands of
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>
> How many pills a day do you give out on average?

I'd have to sit and count.  More than 20 thats for sure.

> ----
>>>> More.  Hmmm.  Where is the dividing line?  Where do we say "This
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> worth it.  Some, myself included that this number would be actually much
> higher.

10% is a possibility.  More?  I dont see it happening, not until human
nature changes or the advertisement campaign's become far more effective.

>> As the system improves the percentage is going to get smaller, but those
>> that remain in the situation will be in greater need of the states support
>> than ever before.
>>
> It's still cheaper and better for the kids.

Better maybe.  Cheaper?  Not likely.  As you reduce the number of kids
in the system those that are left are the ones that require far more
services.  More cost to us the tax payers, more intensive treatment and
medical needs.

>>>>> We've been through this before Ron.
>>>> Certainly.  But there is always such great conversation on this topic
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> At least until I convince you otherwise.  :)
> You'll eventually admit I'm right.

I might, but I think it more likely that you will fall into the hole
that you dig.  After all, I have hard data to support my position, and
we have seen little of that from you.

> ----
>>>>> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling them on
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> Once again that is opinion.
> No, it's common sense.

I'm going to have to ask you to prove that.

>>>> One mans BS is another's belief's.
>>> Beliefs are often misguided Ron.
>> Sometimes, sometimes not.
> Beliefs are not facts.  Therefore they are subject to being misguided.
> Especially when there is an opposing opinion on the subject.  Just because
> it's the way it is, doesn't mean it's the way it should be.

Belief's are often supported by facts.  At least mine are.  And who are
we to say that one individuals belief's are wrong when all to often we
hold our own belief's that are in error or cannot be supported?

>  ----
>>>>>> Look at our buddy gregg.  He gets it every day from 90% of the
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> if it's critical of your precious system.  You can't, can you?  Your just as
> caught up in the system as the kids who get hooked in.

"extremist pro-CPS view"?  Wow, you really have not read my posts.  I am
as critical of the system as possible, and still admit that it is a
necessary part of our nations social agenda.  Sure, I'm pro-CPS, but I'm
not blind.

I know where the faults of the system lye, mainly because I work within
the system.  I dont have the comfort of being outside the system and
able to scream about everything in it.  I get a more intimate view of
the systems faults than you ever could unless you became a part of it.
Being on the outside looking in is a very comfortable place in this, but
I get as an insider a view of not only the actions of the system but the
thought processes and all of the background data of the cases I support,
and I more often than not do not agree with the process that causes the
decisions.  But also as an insider I am forced to deal with the dictates
of those in charge and figure a way to make those dictates work for the
clients that I have.  Not an easy task, and rarely enjoyable.

> ----
>>>>> It's a moral argument, not a technical one Ron.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> one.
> Unless it's the morality of cps that we're discussing.

But you seem to be of the opinion that CPS has no morals.  Hmmm, when we
stop to think about it though, removing children from abusive or
neglectful situations is a moral exercise and a a rational decision.

>>> Taking a kid based on a phone call?  Lets see.  How moral is that?
>> Depends.
> Wrong.
>
>> Is it the first call?
> Doesn't matter.  It should still be investigated prior to removal.

It is, always. Even if its nothing more than a 30 minute visit or interview.

>> The 10th?
> Doesn't matter.  It should still be investigated prior to removal.

It is, always. Even if its nothing more than a 30 minute visit or interview.

>> Has the family just been reunited after a long service intervention?
> Would certainly be investigated prior to removal.  Just quicker.

It is, always. Even if its nothing more than a 30 minute visit or interview.

>> Can screaming be heard in the background?
> Even happy healthy non abused children scream Ron.  I suppose if you have
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> That's usually based on a little more then a phone call.  It is more likely
> to tip off an investigation.

Yes, but a police officer actually has to personally observe the
situation to make the removal decision.  As does an MD, they must
actually interview and examine a child before they can order a removal.
   None are done just upon the basis of a phone call.  None.

>>> The facts state that a removal it is harmful to the child, how harmful is
>>> irrelevent to the point, we'll agree that the removal causes some level
>>> of harm.
>> We can agree that removal is harmful.  But how harmful IS the point. "The
>> lesser of two evils".

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 24 Nov 2007 05:08 GMT
>>>> Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me
>>>> hooked. I
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Educated, experienced, and maybe just a tad biased.
Just a tad?

> I try and keep that to a minimum.
uh huh.

> The point being that finding out for sure is better than not knowing at
> all.
Agreed.

>>> Imagine if you will being a kid and being placed into a home where there
>>> is no emotion, no sense of love or even kindness for you, only a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Nice.  Unrealistic.
Really?

> Most CPS interventions come in the middle of the day, usually at school,
> without the parents being present.
Some, and at daycare centers too.

> Only LEO interventions come in the middle of the night, and usually for
> criminal activity or welfare checks.  If mom is screaming its because she
> is in handcuffs.
So a mom wouldn't scream because her kid was being snatched?  Interesting.
That couldn't have anything to do with it?

>>> Kids attach for the most part quite easily.  Its never bad unless the
>>> initial relationship itself is unhealthy.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Healthy?  It can be, with the proper preparation.
That's really sad Ron.

> Even those who attach to a foster parent and come from an abusive family
> WANT to go home.
How does that make you feel Ron?

> Back to the very same family that abused them in the first place.
Why do you think that is Ron?

> Moving them from foster home to foster home though can cause problems.
Agreed.

> Its not an ideal situation, but it is often a realistic one.
Right, those who claim to care for them so much and stand by them, actually
can't handle them so they pass them onto the next one.

> BTW, the melodramatic terms you are using show more than a bit of ... bias
> shall we say?  "rip them away", "riped out of your bed".
I am totally biased.  Who ever claimed I wasn't?

>>> By that I mean abuse filled, neglectful, or non-caring.
>> Of course you do.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> another, then you focus on the affect of removing from family.  Make up
> your mind.
This thread has gotten long, and certain parts of it have been cut out.  The
conversation has spread out aparantly.

> None of it is healthy.  Not the interventions, not the time in care, not
> the abuse or neglect that precipitated the events.  None of it.  Is it
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Sure it is.  And I have even known a few foster parents who intentionally
> worked against reunification with the intent of adoption.
shameful.

>  Its wrong.  But no matter how much we as foster parents may do to subvert
> the reunification process eventually it comes down to the control of
> others.  Case Managers, Judges, Attorney's, and parents. Mostly judges and
> parents.  Those are the two that make the final decisions, not foster
> parents.
You seem to think that parents have more control then they actually do.

>>>>> I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view, she
>>>>> sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster parent.
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> No, its not.  Its filled with rhetoric, lies, misinformation, and
> sensationalism.
Just like the system.  Interesting.

> Fear mongering.
Just like the system.

> All things that kneal feldman is well known for in this forum.  While I
> choose to verify the things that kenny has to say, I completely discount
> anything that kneal feldman says, from the git-go.  feldman is the lowest
> common denominator. He represents the worst of what these discussions in
> this forum are.  My experience with him is extensive, very extensive.
I don't know the guy personally.  I get things coming to me in my email from
Google Alerts.  I tend to believe that all sides of an issue should be
considered.  I've even considered your side.    There was a time when I
would have agreed with you all the way.  It's amazing what a little
education and experience will do.

>> You can't let your personal opinion of someone get into the way of the
>> validity of the comments that they make.  It only shows your love of the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the most common opinion of feldman to be found across Usenet.  Do some
> google research on his posts.
Maybe I will.  But aren't you worried that I might agree with him?

>>> Be very careful quoting anything from this "source".  He is very much
>>> like kenny in many ways, and far worse in more than one.  More than
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> this news group for a very long time.  My experience with gregg is
> extensive, less so with kenny but with him it doesn't take much.
Obsession.

> feldman is PNG, Persona-non-Grata.
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Can you support that belief?

Well if you scroll up, you did say....

> "Sure it is.  And I have even known a few foster parents who intentionally
> worked against reunification with the intent of adoption."

How many was that Ron?  Out of how many foster parents?  What is "a few" in
your mind, comparatively speaking?

>> ----
>>>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DA1E3AF930A2575BC0A96795826
0&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/H/Human%20Resources%20Administrat
ion

[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> would be nice to be able to know a firm amount, but that will never
> happen.
Ballpark it.

>>>> You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public
>>>> service. You get your student loans paid off that way too.  Thousands
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> I'd have to sit and count.  More than 20 thats for sure.
That's sad.

>> ----
>>>>> More.  Hmmm.  Where is the dividing line?  Where do we say "This
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> you dig.  After all, I have hard data to support my position, and we have
> seen little of that from you.
Your hard data is misinterpreted.  You leave no room for statistical
analysis.

>> ----
>>>>>> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling them
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I'm going to have to ask you to prove that.
Review the thread.

>>>>> One mans BS is another's belief's.
>>>> Beliefs are often misguided Ron.
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> "extremist pro-CPS view"?  Wow, you really have not read my posts.
I get that idea from reading your posts.

> I am as critical of the system as possible, and still admit that it is a
> necessary part of our nations social agenda.  Sure, I'm pro-CPS, but I'm
> not blind.
Then why are you constantly arguing for a Pro-CPS view.  A necessary evil it
is.  But it has been corrupted.

People like you don't want to bother to fix it.

> I know where the faults of the system lye, mainly because I work within
> the system.  I dont have the comfort of being outside the system and able
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> It is, always. Even if its nothing more than a 30 minute visit or
> interview.
As it should be.

>>> The 10th?
>> Doesn't matter.  It should still be investigated prior to removal.
>
> It is, always. Even if its nothing more than a 30 minute visit or
> interview.
As it should be.

>>> Has the family just been reunited after a long service intervention?
>> Would certainly be investigated prior to removal.  Just quicker.
>
> It is, always. Even if its nothing more than a 30 minute visit or
> interview.
As it should be.

>>> Can screaming be heard in the background?
>> Even happy healthy non abused children scream Ron.  I suppose if you have
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> to make the removal decision.  As does an MD, they must actually interview
> and examine a child before they can order a removal.
Not in my state.  A police officer does not have the right to remove a kid.
They must contact CPS and have them do it.  If a parent is being arrested, a
worker will enter the home and take the kid as soon as the police have
everything else under control.

An MD can't take a kid either.  They can call a CPS worker into the
emergency room.  There is one on call 24-7.  But they can't do anything more
then that outside of having a security guard or a cop to prevent anyone from
leaving.

>    None are done just upon the basis of a phone call.  None.
See, I knew you could see reason.  We still have a few more things to work
on, but we'll get there.
Ron - 24 Nov 2007 17:49 GMT
>>>>> Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me
>>>>> hooked. I
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>> Educated, experienced, and maybe just a tad biased.
> Just a tad?

Yes, just a tad.  After all, I am a parent also.

>> I try and keep that to a minimum.
> uh huh.

At least I try, how many others here can claim that, yourself included?

>> The point being that finding out for sure is better than not knowing at
>> all.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> Nice.  Unrealistic.
> Really?

Totally.  I have been there, I have been the officer ordering the
removal.  No one else here can make that claim.

>> Most CPS interventions come in the middle of the day, usually at school,
>> without the parents being present.
> Some, and at daycare centers too.

Hmm

>> Only LEO interventions come in the middle of the night, and usually for
>> criminal activity or welfare checks.  If mom is screaming its because she
>> is in handcuffs.
> So a mom wouldn't scream because her kid was being snatched?  Interesting.
> That couldn't have anything to do with it?

More likely she did not consider the cost of her actions on her family.
 Criminals rarely think they are going to get caught, and most react
quite badly when they do.

>>>> Kids attach for the most part quite easily.  Its never bad unless the
>>>> initial relationship itself is unhealthy.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> Healthy?  It can be, with the proper preparation.
> That's really sad Ron.

Yep.

>> Even those who attach to a foster parent and come from an abusive family
>> WANT to go home.
> How does that make you feel Ron?

It dosent.  Its expected.  I'm trained, experienced, knowledgeable.  Its
just a part of the overall foster parent experience, not better and not
worse than any other.

But, when I was not experienced, knowledgeable, it made me sad.  To
think that a kid actually WANTS to go back into that environment, from
one that is safe and caring, back to one that is abusive.  How would it
make you feel?

>> Back to the very same family that abused them in the first place.
> Why do you think that is Ron?

I'm not a psychologist, I dont have the education to answer that.

>> Moving them from foster home to foster home though can cause problems.
> Agreed.
>
>> Its not an ideal situation, but it is often a realistic one.
> Right, those who claim to care for them so much and stand by them, actually
> can't handle them so they pass them onto the next one.

Rarely the case.  Other considerations are usually the reason.  I cant
tell you how many times I have had a kid in my home claim that I did
something to them, only to have them recant or the investigation turn up
nothing.  But they get moved anyway, because the kids wants it or the
parents, or the judge, or anyone of a number of reasons.

>> BTW, the melodramatic terms you are using show more than a bit of ... bias
>> shall we say?  "rip them away", "riped out of your bed".
> I am totally biased.  Who ever claimed I wasn't?

So, you are not against using emotionally charged verbiage to try and
make your point more emotionally appealing (or horrific) to the general
public, even when it is in error?  Interesting.

>>>> By that I mean abuse filled, neglectful, or non-caring.
>>> Of course you do.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>> parents.
> You seem to think that parents have more control then they actually do.

No, they have far more control than they think.  I know exactly how much
control a parent has.  I know that they more often than not give it up,
toss it in the trash, because they "think" they are right and refuse to
work with the system to reach the most logical conclusion of having
their children returned to them.

I see it on a weekly basis.  Like gregg, who thinks that he did nothing
wrong and that he can fight the system and MAKE them bow to his wishes.
 He tries to exercise some form of control, but its the wrong type.
And he will never get that, as do most of the parents I see that fight
the system.  Its not control they are exercising but stupidity.

>>>>>> I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view, she
>>>>>> sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster parent.
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>> sensationalism.
> Just like the system.  Interesting.

Nice.  Not supported, but cute anyway.  Interesting.

>> Fear mongering.
> Just like the system.

Nice.  Not supported, but cute anyway.  Interesting.

>> All things that kneal feldman is well known for in this forum.  While I
>> choose to verify the things that kenny has to say, I completely discount
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> would have agreed with you all the way.  It's amazing what a little
> education and experience will do.

feldmans record is available in the google archives.

Try the following search:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/search?group=alt.suppo
rt.foster-parents&q=feldman&qt_g=Search+this+group


>>> You can't let your personal opinion of someone get into the way of the
>>> validity of the comments that they make.  It only shows your love of the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> google research on his posts.
> Maybe I will.  But aren't you worried that I might agree with him?

Worried?  Not hardly.  If you choose to stick your hand into a bee's
nest thats your problem.

>>>> Be very careful quoting anything from this "source".  He is very much
>>>> like kenny in many ways, and far worse in more than one.  More than
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> How many was that Ron?  Out of how many foster parents?  What is "a few" in
> your mind, comparatively speaking?

1 in 100, maybe.  Never thought to give it a number, but then again one
must remember that of all the individuals involved in a foster childs
life, the foster parents have the least control.

>>> ----
>>>>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DA1E3AF930A2575BC0A96795826
0&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/H/Human%20Resources%20Administrat
ion

[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>> happen.
> Ballpark it.

From $100 to $1500.

>>>>> You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public
>>>>> service. You get your student loans paid off that way too.  Thousands
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>> I'd have to sit and count.  More than 20 thats for sure.
> That's sad.

No, its not.  It helps the kids.  How can that be sad?  Leave them
without and watch them struggle in school, with friends, with life in
general?  No, not sad.

>>> ----
>>>>>> More.  Hmmm.  Where is the dividing line?  Where do we say "This
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> Your hard data is misinterpreted.  You leave no room for statistical
> analysis.

HAHAHAHAHA, funny.  From he who has provided no hard data.

Sorry, your record here is a bit shy or average in the area of
supporting data.  You can claim that it is "misinterpreted", but until
you can show how and why it is nothing more than a claim.

>>> ----
>>>>>>> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling them
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> I'm going to have to ask you to prove that.
> Review the thread.

Did that, no proof there.  Care to try again?

>>>>>> One mans BS is another's belief's.
>>>>> Beliefs are often misguided Ron.
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>> "extremist pro-CPS view"?  Wow, you really have not read my posts.
> I get that idea from reading your posts.

Wow, amazing.  So, you are on one side of the discussion and I the
other, and much like the pundits on the current political arena you cant
see anything but absolute good or bad, black or white, left or right.
Now THATS sad.

>> I am as critical of the system as possible, and still admit that it is a
>> necessary part of our nations social agenda.  Sure, I'm pro-CPS, but I'm
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> People like you don't want to bother to fix it.

Really?  Hmmm, so all the things I have done over the years to improve
the system I haven't really done?  Wow, you cant imagine how much I hate
wasting my time on this.

>> I know where the faults of the system lye, mainly because I work within
>> the system.  I dont have the comfort of being outside the system and able
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> See, I knew you could see reason.  We still have a few more things to work
> on, but we'll get there.

Thats not reason, its a fact.  You have not "brought" me to your side of
the discussion, only pointed out that which is already a fact.

Eric was the one that wanted it done based on nothing more, not I.  I
know the system, its legal requirements, and how it works.  I dont
always agree with how things are done, but then again I have seen few
removals that were unjustified.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 24 Nov 2007 22:17 GMT
>>>>>> Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me
>>>>>> hooked. I
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> Totally.  I have been there, I have been the officer ordering the removal.
> No one else here can make that claim.
So you're a cop too?  Wow.  Tell me something.  How did it make you feel
when you made such a call.  And how many kids that you ordered removed ended
up at your house?

>>> Most CPS interventions come in the middle of the day, usually at school,
>>> without the parents being present.
>> Some, and at daycare centers too.
>
> Hmm
Well we pay these people to keep our kids safe, right Ron?

>>> Only LEO interventions come in the middle of the night, and usually for
>>> criminal activity or welfare checks.  If mom is screaming its because
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> More likely she did not consider the cost of her actions on her family.
Well of course not.  Who would think that the state would make the kids pay
for her crime?

>  Criminals rarely think they are going to get caught, and most react quite
> badly when they do.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> It dosent.
Shame on you.

> Its expected.
Well of course it is Ron.  Many of these kids know that their home lives
weren't all that bad.  The ones whose lives were as horrible as it is
claimed by the adults would be terrified to go back, I would think.

> I'm trained, experienced, knowledgeable.
And paid.

Trained not to listen to or care about what the kids want?  Experienced in
that you've heard so many of these cries that it just has no effect on you
any more?   Knowledgable in that you know what the worker tells you?

> Its just a part of the overall foster parent experience, not better and
> not worse than any other.
So you get no heartwarming feeling knowing that deep down you are helping
these kids?

> But, when I was not experienced, knowledgeable, it made me sad.
Instead, experience and knowledge made you cold hearted.

> To think that a kid actually WANTS to go back into that environment, from
> one that is safe and caring, back to one that is abusive.  How would it
> make you feel?
Disgusted.  Like somebody was lying to me.  You see, I'd think that if a
childs home life was so horrible, they would be terrified of going back.
But all you have to do is remind them of the horrors that they went through
over and over again and they'll start to see things your way sooner or
later.  Right?

>>> Back to the very same family that abused them in the first place.
>> Why do you think that is Ron?
>
> I'm not a psychologist, I dont have the education to answer that.
What would the workers tell you?

>>> Moving them from foster home to foster home though can cause problems.
>> Agreed.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Rarely the case.
But sometimes, right?

> Other considerations are usually the reason.  I cant tell you how many
> times I have had a kid in my home claim that I did something to them, only
> to have them recant or the investigation turn up nothing.
A ballpark estimate would do.  It would give me some sort of idea where to
go with this.  That number should be somewhere between 1 and 230.

> But they get moved anyway, because the kids wants it or the parents, or
> the judge, or anyone of a number of reasons.
But you are such a nice guy Ron.  Why would any kid want to leave?  I don't
get it.

>>> BTW, the melodramatic terms you are using show more than a bit of ...
>>> bias shall we say?  "rip them away", "riped out of your bed".
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> your point more emotionally appealing (or horrific) to the general public,
> even when it is in error?  Interesting.
First of all Ron, you are bringing up a whole new issue.  Let me explain
this to you as best I can.  But the short answer to your question is since
you are the only one having this conversation who believes that my opinion
is in error, I am not at all against using emotionally charged verbiage.

After all, CPS uses such emotionally charged verbage while blowing
everything out of proportion in an effort to justify half of what they do.
They do it when they leak a story to the media in a PR campaign seeking more
money.  They do it in front of the judge, who would probably send a lot of
these kids home if they knew half of the f.cking story.  They also lie.
They exagerate by leaving things out, for example, anything positive about
the family situation.  So why should anybody not use such verbage in an
effort to expose them for what they are?   After all, you have to capture
the attention of your reader somehow, right?  That is why a newspaper has
big headlines you know.  Attention grabbers.  Headlines are often
emotionally charged, because those who make the newspaper know that emotion
is what sells a news paper.  That's why society is so sold on the bullshit
that child abuse is worse then it actually is or lets say, that foster care
is safer or better option for a child then it actually is because they show
the worst of the worst parents on television and back it up with your hard
data that has had no statistical analysis done on it so that one might have
a more accurate understanding of the issue.  So it keeps society crying out
against a problem of which is has no real understanding.

What you gotta realize Ron is that Society has a way of thinking all on its
own.  The collective thought process is easily manipulated.  How?  By
sparking the emotion.  Society bought into a line of bullshit by simply
leading people to believe that the problem of child abuse is worse then it
actually is by showing nothing but the worst of the worst on television.
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, just not as much as they say.  The
difference between myself and those others is that at least I'm not trying
to blow anything out of proportion because by doing so, it would hurt my
cause.  I'm just telling it like it is from my perspective.  But you can't
say that about your precious CPS without lying unless it's based on total
ignorance.

I think they call it Mass-social opinion manipulation or something and they
use a technique called Propaganda to achieve a shift in what society should
care about.  I know, you won't believe in it.  But I could give you a couple
other practical examples in other areas of life to show you how effective of
a method this is.   America had no lagetimate justification for the war in
Iraq, for example, so the government sold the people a line of bullshit.
They sparked the emotion of fear in the masses by exploiting 9/11, who then
supported the invation of Iraq under the belief that Iraq had WMD's and that
they would be used against us in another, even worse, terrorist attack on
American soil.  It's a fair game too.  Marketers also know this truth.  Look
at how good a Big Mac looks in an advertisement.  Then when you actually get
one, it's dripping with grease.  Quite disgusting in my opinion but lots of
people eat them.

That's how they did it back when I was a kid, when you used to see the "Stop
Child Abuse" commercials durring the Saturday Morning Cartoons.  You know,
the kid getting burned with a cigarette and stuff like that.  How often does
that really happen?  Not as much as you would like us all to believe, right
Ron?  Your perfectly willing to blow the whole problem out of proportion in
an effort to increase your paycheck from the state.

>>>>> By that I mean abuse filled, neglectful, or non-caring.
>>>> Of course you do.
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> work with the system to reach the most logical conclusion of having their
> children returned to them.

And that right there, Ron is bullshit!  There are tons of parents out there
fighting tooth and nail to get their kids back from self-righteous,
profiteering hypocrates like you or who are atleast just as full of sh.t.
Nothing is ever good enough for some of these workers.  Sure,  some kids are
starting to come home, and it's happening more and more because in areas
where certain reforms have taken place, they have finally wised up to the
fact that there is no substitute for a real parent and that a biological
bond is better even in homes that having some levels of that which people
like you would call abuse.

> I see it on a weekly basis.  Like gregg, who thinks that he did nothing
> wrong and that he can fight the system and MAKE them bow to his wishes. He
> tries to exercise some form of control, but its the wrong type. And he
> will never get that, as do most of the parents I see that fight the
> system.  Its not control they are exercising but stupidity.
Well I'm not Greg.  And this isn't about him.  Just part of your obsession
with him.

>>>>>>> I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view,
>>>>>>> she sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster parent.
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> Nice.  Not supported, but cute anyway.  Interesting.
It was wasn't it?

>>> Fear mongering.
>> Just like the system.
>
> Nice.  Not supported, but cute anyway.  Interesting.
Oh come on Ron.  You can't actually believe this.

>>> All things that kneal feldman is well known for in this forum.  While I
>>> choose to verify the things that kenny has to say, I completely discount
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Try the following search:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/search?group=alt.suppo
rt.foster-parents&q=feldman&qt_g=Search+this+group

I will.

>>>> You can't let your personal opinion of someone get into the way of the
>>>> validity of the comments that they make.  It only shows your love of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Worried?  Not hardly.  If you choose to stick your hand into a bee's nest
> thats your problem.
Well I apriciate the concern.

>>>>> Be very careful quoting anything from this "source".  He is very much
>>>>> like kenny in many ways, and far worse in more than one.  More than
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> must remember that of all the individuals involved in a foster childs
> life, the foster parents have the least control.
uh huh

>>>> ----
>>>>>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DA1E3AF930A2575BC0A96795826
0&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/H/Human%20Resources%20Administrat
ion

[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> From $100 to $1500.
wow.

>>>>>> You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public
>>>>>> service. You get your student loans paid off that way too.  Thousands
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> and watch them struggle in school, with friends, with life in general?
> No, not sad.

I know. I know.  Still, many of these kids are over medicated, as are ones
who don't need them.

It makes it easier to care for them.  Taking all the work out of it.

>>>> ----
>>>>>>> More.  Hmmm.  Where is the dividing line?  Where do we say "This
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> data.  You can claim that it is "misinterpreted", but until you can show
> how and why it is nothing more than a claim.
HAHAHAHAHAHA that from he who wouldn't accept anything against his precious
CPS.

>>>> ----
>>>>>>>> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Did that, no proof there.  Care to try again?
Do you?

>>>>>>> One mans BS is another's belief's.
>>>>>> Beliefs are often misguided Ron.
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> anything but absolute good or bad, black or white, left or right. Now
> THATS sad.
No what's sad is the fact that someone who actually works for the system
buys into the bullshit so easily.

>>> I am as critical of the system as possible, and still admit that it is a
>>> necessary part of our nations social agenda.  Sure, I'm pro-CPS, but I'm
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> system I haven't really done?  Wow, you cant imagine how much I hate
> wasting my time on this.
Oh, so you are a reformer then?

>>> I know where the faults of the system lye, mainly because I work within
>>> the system.  I dont have the comfort of being outside the system and
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
> with how things are done, but then again I have seen few removals that
> were unjustified.
How many?  Out of how many?  And what did you do about it specifically?

> Ron
Ron - 25 Nov 2007 18:47 GMT
>>>>>>> Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me
>>>>>>> hooked. I
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> when you made such a call.  And how many kids that you ordered removed ended
> up at your house?

Use to be a cop, no longer.

How did it make me feel?  Sad that parents would put children in that
kind of enviornment intentionally.  Sad that parents would use their own
kids as punching bags.  Sad that the fridge full of beer was more
important to the parents than paying the rest, buying groceries (beer is
NOT food), or washing clothing.

How many at my home?  None.  Conflict of interest.

>>>> Most CPS interventions come in the middle of the day, usually at school,
>>>> without the parents being present.
>>> Some, and at daycare centers too.
>> Hmm
> Well we pay these people to keep our kids safe, right Ron?

Someone does, if not us.  We also pay politicians to be honest, police
to protect, and teachers to teach.  Does it always happen?

>>>> Only LEO interventions come in the middle of the night, and usually for
>>>> criminal activity or welfare checks.  If mom is screaming its because
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Well of course not.  Who would think that the state would make the kids pay
> for her crime?

The state didnt do it, she did.  She makes her own children pay, and
thats pretty sad dont you think?

>>  Criminals rarely think they are going to get caught, and most react quite
>> badly when they do.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> It dosent.
> Shame on you.

Why?  Should it be shameful to find the expected?

>> Its expected.
> Well of course it is Ron.  Many of these kids know that their home lives
> weren't all that bad.  The ones whose lives were as horrible as it is
> claimed by the adults would be terrified to go back, I would think.

Most of these kids dont know that their home lives suck.  Its what they
are use to, they know no different.  And you didnt think.  They want to
go back anyway, no matter how horrible the home life.  Its human nature,
sad as that may be.  Its what they know, all that they know, and humans
prefer the familiar to the strange.

>> I'm trained, experienced, knowledgeable.
> And paid.

You obviously missed that part about the 10% loss that I incur every
month.  Strange way to get paid, loosing money all the time.

> Trained not to listen to or care about what the kids want?

No, trained to provide what the kids need.  Trained to listen to them
and see where the issues are with them and how to find the assistance
they are going to need to deal with those issues.  Knowledgeable in both
experience and training to be able to provide the type of environment
that the child needs and can grow in.  Knowledgeable in how to deal with
a wide variety of issues, problems, and actions by a child.

> Experienced in
> that you've heard so many of these cries that it just has no effect on you
> any more?   Knowledgable in that you know what the worker tells you?

Experienced in dealing with just about every type of issue or problem
that a child can come into the system with.  Knowledgeable in finding
the resources needed to deal with those issues.  Experienced enough to
know when someone is selling me a pound of sand and calling it diamonds.

>> Its just a part of the overall foster parent experience, not better and
>> not worse than any other.
> So you get no heartwarming feeling knowing that deep down you are helping
> these kids?

Should I?  But yes, at a certain level I know and am somewhat satisfied
knowing that I am helping someone who cannot help themselves.  Giving
back to the community that has given so much to me.

>> But, when I was not experienced, knowledgeable, it made me sad.
> Instead, experience and knowledge made you cold hearted.

lol, yeah, right.  Actually it is the knowledge that this is expected.
Before, I didnt know what to expect from a child that comes from an
abusive home.  Now I do.  I can predict within certain limits just how a
child is going to react to something they experience and know the best
way to help them deal with it or how to prevent them from causing either
themselves or others harm.

>> To think that a kid actually WANTS to go back into that environment, from
>> one that is safe and caring, back to one that is abusive.  How would it
>> make you feel?
> Disgusted.  Like somebody was lying to me.  You see, I'd think that if a
> childs home life was so horrible, they would be terrified of going back.

I wish that were true, but its not.  99% want to go back to that,
because its what they know.  Its familiar to them, and we all take
comfort in the familiar.

> But all you have to do is remind them of the horrors that they went through
> over and over again and they'll start to see things your way sooner or
> later.  Right?

I wish it worked that way.  It doesn't.

>>>> Back to the very same family that abused them in the first place.
>>> Why do you think that is Ron?
>> I'm not a psychologist, I dont have the education to answer that.
> What would the workers tell you?

No idea.

>>>> Moving them from foster home to foster home though can cause problems.
>>> Agreed.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> But you are such a nice guy Ron.  Why would any kid want to leave?  I don't
> get it.

Parents often try and subvert placements.  As do kids, case managers,
and occasionally even uninterested parties.

>>>> BTW, the melodramatic terms you are using show more than a bit of ...
>>>> bias shall we say?  "rip them away", "riped out of your bed".
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> you are the only one having this conversation who believes that my opinion
> is in error, I am not at all against using emotionally charged verbiage.

lol, there are only two of us involved in this conversation.  gregg is
sniping, not really involved.

> After all, CPS uses such emotionally charged verbage while blowing
> everything out of proportion in an effort to justify half of what they do.

Nice sentiment, but I have never see this.

> They do it when they leak a story to the media in a PR campaign seeking more
> money.

Interesting claim, but also something that does not happen.

> They do it in front of the judge, who would probably send a lot of
> these kids home if they knew half of the f.cking story.

So, a judge with X number of years working with the law and people is
not educated or experienced enough to see what they are trying to do?

Please.  Try and use some of that "common sense" you claim to be so good at.

> They also lie.

Hmmm.  Claimed often, proven rarely.

> They exagerate by leaving things out, for example, anything positive about
> the family situation.  So why should anybody not use such verbage in an
> effort to expose them for what they are?

How can one exaggerate by not saying something?  A senseless comment.

Using such verbiage in an attempt to exaggerate their case and expose
what they think is happening rather than what is actually happening?
This is what parents do, not case managers.

> After all, you have to capture
> the attention of your reader somehow, right?

I dont have readers.

> That is why a newspaper has
> big headlines you know.  Attention grabbers.  Headlines are often
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> a more accurate understanding of the issue.  So it keeps society crying out
> against a problem of which is has no real understanding.

lol, funny.  Not factual, but humorous all the same.

The cases that hit the news papers or TV shows are the sensational
cases.  Murder, child porn, etc.  Drunk driving, messy houses, drugs,
and an entire plethora of other things never make the news.  Never draw
the reporters because they are just one more example of parents abusing
their kids, and whats so news-worthy about that?

Besides, its illegal for those involved in these cases (in most states)
to release information about them.  To the press or otherwise.

> What you gotta realize Ron is that Society has a way of thinking all on its
> own.  The collective thought process is easily manipulated.  How?  By
> sparking the emotion.  Society bought into a line of bullshit by simply
> leading people to believe that the problem of child abuse is worse then it
> actually is by showing nothing but the worst of the worst on television.

Yes, television shows 1 case in every 500 or so.  Because that case IS
sensational, news-worthy.  The other 499 are routine, and therefore do
not make the news.  So, the public sees 1 case in 500.  Is it worse than
they are being told?  Yeah, I'd think so.

> I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, just not as much as they say.

The facts would prove otherwise.  I deal with cases every day that dont
and never have made the news.  Lots of them.

  The
> difference between myself and those others is that at least I'm not trying
> to blow anything out of proportion because by doing so, it would hurt my
> cause.  I'm just telling it like it is from my perspective.  But you can't
> say that about your precious CPS without lying unless it's based on total
> ignorance.

"For nearly 30 percent of investigations, at least one child was found
to be a victim of maltreatment with one of the following
dispositions—substantiated (25.2%), indicated (3.0%), or alternative
response victim (0.3%)."

"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

899,000 child victims.  How many of those make the news?  1%, maybe?  Is
the problem worse than people know?  Yes.  Far far worse.

> I think they call it Mass-social opinion manipulation or something and they
> use a technique called Propaganda to achieve a shift in what society should
> care about.  I know, you won't believe in it.  But I could give you a couple
> other practical examples in other areas of life to show you how effective of
> a method this is.   America had no lagetimate justification for the war in
> Iraq, for example, so the government sold the people a line of bullshit.

That would be a political argument, one that is not appropriate to this
forum, and one you would loose.

> They sparked the emotion of fear in the masses by exploiting 9/11, who then
> supported the invation of Iraq under the belief that Iraq had WMD's and that
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Ron?  Your perfectly willing to blow the whole problem out of proportion in
> an effort to increase your paycheck from the state.

Facts.

Victims by maltreatment type (2005):

Physical Abuse:  149,319
Neglect:  564,765
Sexual Abuse:  83,810
Psychological Maltreatment:  63,497
Medical Neglect:  17,637  (Not all states report this)
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/table3_6.htm

Those are the facts.  I inflate nothing.  Nor have I.  How often does it
really happen? 899,454 times a year.  74,954 times a month.  2498 times
a day.  104 times an hour.  1.74 times a minute.

Thats how often.

>>>>>> By that I mean abuse filled, neglectful, or non-caring.
>>>>> Of course you do.
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>>
> And that right there, Ron is bullshit!

You have no idea how much I wish it was.  Ask gregg.  He is your proof.
 Have you seen his motion to the Iowa family court?  I can post it for
you if you like.  He made it available here some time back, and has
taken nothing but sh.t for it since.

Or feldman.  I could go on for hours about him, but I'll let you do your
own research.  Here are a few things to search for though.  He puts hot
peppers on the tongue's of his children as a punishment, and refuses to
allow them to have water for a specified period of time.  He advocates
for the wholesale mass murder of all CPS case workers, foster parents,
and judges that work in family courts.

I can email you greggs motion if you like, its been posted here many
times over the last few years so with a bit of effort you can research
it yourself if you prefer.

> There are tons of parents out there
> fighting tooth and nail to get their kids back from self-righteous,
> profiteering hypocrates like you or who are atleast just as full of sh.t.

Hmmm, I dont take kids from parents.  I care for them after CPS places
them in my home.  So, they are not fighting against me but against the
system and their own inability to act rationally as parents.

> Nothing is ever good enough for some of these workers.  Sure,  some kids are
> starting to come home, and it's happening more and more because in areas
> where certain reforms have taken place, they have finally wised up to the
> fact that there is no substitute for a real parent and that a biological
> bond is better even in homes that having some levels of that which people
> like you would call abuse.

Of the more than 230 kids I have provided care for over the years, all
but 6 have gone home.  And of that 6, one went home after aging out of
the system in my care.

>> I see it on a weekly basis.  Like gregg, who thinks that he did nothing
>> wrong and that he can fight the system and MAKE them bow to his wishes. He
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Well I'm not Greg.  And this isn't about him.  Just part of your obsession
> with him.

No, its not.  He is a representative example of parents (not that gregg
is a parent mind you) associated with the system.  One of many that have
come here over the years.  All pretty much like yourself, complaining
about the system that they find themselves involved with, feeling unable
to make things happen the way they want them to, overburdened by their
own inabilities (not that I am saying that you are this way), and
feeling that the system is designed to abuse abusive parents.

>>>>>>>> I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view,
>>>>>>>> she sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster parent.
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>> Nice.  Not supported, but cute anyway.  Interesting.
> Oh come on Ron.  You can't actually believe this.

I have seen no proof of such from the system.  I can point out many
examples coming from feldman though.

Maybe you can be the one to show me?

>>>> All things that kneal feldman is well known for in this forum.  While I
>>>> choose to verify the things that kenny has to say, I completely discount
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> I will.

I hope you have.  Its educational, and entertaining.

>>>>> You can't let your personal opinion of someone get into the way of the
>>>>> validity of the comments that they make.  It only shows your love of
[quoted text clipped - 77 lines]
>> From $100 to $1500.
> wow.

Yeah.  Thats what it costs to clothe a kid for school now days.  Winter
as well.  Amazing.  Some come with everything they need, but they are
few and far between.

>>>>>>> You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public
>>>>>>> service. You get your student loans paid off that way too.  Thousands
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> It makes it easier to care for them.  Taking all the work out of it.

I'm sure that some are.  But I also know of a few parents that refuse to
medicate children that actually need it.  They are screwing with that
childs future simply because of their own inane belief's, and the hell
with what the kid actually needs.

>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>> More.  Hmmm.  Where is the dividing line?  Where do we say "This
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> HAHAHAHAHAHA that from he who wouldn't accept anything against his precious
> CPS.

I am far more skeptical than you seem to be.  You bring nothing to the
table but belief's, whereas I bring verifiable facts.  Why is all the
beef on my side of the table?  Where's your beef?

>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
>> wasting my time on this.
> Oh, so you are a reformer then?

I always have been.  I have made several calls to governors offices and
lodged complaints about the system.  I know where to grab a caseworker
to get the best response (figuratively speaking that is).  I have forced
several changes to the system by using either the states legal system or
its executive branch.

I have never been happy with some of the things that the system does.
And I affect changes as I am able.  I have even been black-listed once,
but they need me far more than I need them.  I have a strong record here
of advocating for the kids, and sometimes that goes against the agenda
of the system.  Just as often as it goes against the agenda of people
like yourself.

>>>> I know where the faults of the system lye, mainly because I work within
>>>> the system.  I dont have the comfort of being outside the system and
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
>> were unjustified.
> How many?  Out of how many?  And what did you do about it specifically?

4 that I can remember, out of more than 230.

What did I do?  I worked with the parents to get their kids back.  I
spoke with judges, supervisors, and governors offices.  All eventually
were returned to their families.  All of them.  Not as good a record as
Dan has, but still something to be proud of.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 26 Nov 2007 02:34 GMT
>>>>>>>> Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me
>>>>>>>> hooked. I
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> Use to be a cop, no longer.
Why?

> How did it make me feel?  Sad that parents would put children in that kind
> of enviornment intentionally.  Sad that parents would use their own kids
> as punching bags.  Sad that the fridge full of beer was more important to
> the parents than paying the rest, buying groceries (beer is NOT food), or
> washing clothing.

It's sad that some bad apples have to spoil the whole bunch.

> How many at my home?  None.  Conflict of interest.

Now we're getting somewhere here.   I'm very proud of you Ron.

>>>>> Most CPS interventions come in the middle of the day, usually at
>>>>> school, without the parents being present.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Someone does, if not us.  We also pay politicians to be honest, police to
> protect, and teachers to teach.  Does it always happen?
And we pay CPS to protect those whose lives they ultimately destroy.

>>>>> Only LEO interventions come in the middle of the night, and usually
>>>>> for criminal activity or welfare checks.  If mom is screaming its
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> The state didnt do it, she did.  She makes her own children pay, and thats
> pretty sad dont you think?
Absoloutely.  But ultimately when the kids end up in foster care, they're
the ones to pay the ultimate price.  Anything from the point where they are
taken into care, rests upon those caring for them.  And they don't do a very
good job either.  The mother looses control and responsibility for them from
that point on.  Sure her choices may have knocked over that first domino,
but the rest are thanks to CPS workers and Foster Parents, and Judges, and
anyone else involved in the childs life.

I know that some in this group, although I won't point any fingers, would
imediately blame the death of a child in foster care on the mother who
didn't kill them, simply because the child ended up in foster care because
of her choices.  But we know better, right Ron?

>>>  Criminals rarely think they are going to get caught, and most react
>>> quite badly when they do.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Why?  Should it be shameful to find the expected?
It's not shameful to find the expected.  It's shameful that you ignore these
cries for their mommies.

>>> Its expected.
>> Well of course it is Ron.  Many of these kids know that their home lives
>> weren't all that bad.  The ones whose lives were as horrible as it is
>> claimed by the adults would be terrified to go back, I would think.
>
> Most of these kids dont know that their home lives suck.
So they are stupid, or should I say, ignorant of your facts then?

> Its what they are use to, they know no different.
And they get more of the same in foster care.

> And you didnt think.
About what?

> They want to go back anyway, no matter how horrible the home life.  Its
> human nature, sad as that may be.  Its what they know, all that they know,
> and humans prefer the familiar to the strange.
And babies prefer their mommies to foster care, interesting.

>>> I'm trained, experienced, knowledgeable.
>> And paid.
>
> You obviously missed that part about the 10% loss that I incur every
> month.  Strange way to get paid, loosing money all the time.
Oh cut it out Ron or I'm going to have to ask you to prove that claim.  You
can claim 10% losses all you want, I will then ask you why you are not being
more responsible with that money.  I mean, as responsible adults, we do have
to live within our means.

There are also perfectly acceptable ways to cut costs you know.  Parents all
over the country are finding themselves having to do this now a days, what
with gas prices, and cost of housing on the rise, and the price of milk at
almost 5 bucks a gallon in the grocery store now.  Most employers are not
willing to increase the pay scale simply because it costs more to live then
it does to pay a worker.

You could, for example, shop for cloths at Wal Mart instead of The Gap.  Is
there anything wrong with cloths from Wal Mart? Only that they're not
designer brand names, hardly a sacrifice.  You could buy things in bulk
instead of those individual serving sizes.  You could even cut coupons from
the Sunday Newspaper.

>> Trained not to listen to or care about what the kids want?
>
> No, trained to provide what the kids need.
No, trained to provide what what you and your precious CPS claims what the
kids need.

> Trained to listen to them and see where the issues are with them and how
> to find the assistance they are going to need to deal with those issues.
And here we go back to the meds again, which BTW everybody, medicade pays
for.  I know, you're trained to find any little reason to dope a kid up.

> Knowledgeable in both experience and training to be able to provide the
> type of environment that the child needs and can grow in.
For a short time, yes.  Then onto the next foster parent or group home
right?

> Knowledgeable in how to deal with a wide variety of issues, problems, and
> actions by a child.
That's called parenting.

>> Experienced in that you've heard so many of these cries that it just has
>> no effect on you any more?   Knowledgable in that you know what the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> resources needed to deal with those issues.  Experienced enough to know
> when someone is selling me a pound of sand and calling it diamonds.
Ron, are you getting frustrated with me?

>>> Its just a part of the overall foster parent experience, not better and
>>> not worse than any other.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> knowing that I am helping someone who cannot help themselves.  Giving back
> to the community that has given so much to me.
Like a loss of 10%.  Doesn't sound like the community gives you much.

>>> But, when I was not experienced, knowledgeable, it made me sad.
>> Instead, experience and knowledge made you cold hearted.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> to help them deal with it or how to prevent them from causing either
> themselves or others harm.
Interesting.

>>> To think that a kid actually WANTS to go back into that environment,
>>> from one that is safe and caring, back to one that is abusive.  How
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> its what they know.  Its familiar to them, and we all take comfort in the
> familiar.
until we get bored with it.

>> But all you have to do is remind them of the horrors that they went
>> through over and over again and they'll start to see things your way
>> sooner or later.  Right?
>
> I wish it worked that way.  It doesn't.
Sure it does.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-memory_syndrome

>>>>> Back to the very same family that abused them in the first place.
>>>> Why do you think that is Ron?
>>> I'm not a psychologist, I dont have the education to answer that.
>> What would the workers tell you?
>
> No idea.
I don't believe you.

>>>>> Moving them from foster home to foster home though can cause problems.
>>>> Agreed.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Parents often try and subvert placements.  As do kids, case managers, and
> occasionally even uninterested parties.
I know they usually don't listen to a parent who claims that the bruses on
their kid from foster care should warant a removal from that foster home.
http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/2007/11/foster-parents-accused-of-neglectin
g.html

They didn't listen to these parents either.

>>>>> BTW, the melodramatic terms you are using show more than a bit of ...
>>>>> bias shall we say?  "rip them away", "riped out of your bed".
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> lol, there are only two of us involved in this conversation.  gregg is
> sniping, not really involved.
No but if he were, he'd agree with me.

>> After all, CPS uses such emotionally charged verbage while blowing
>> everything out of proportion in an effort to justify half of what they
>> do.
>
> Nice sentiment, but I have never see this.
I don't believe you.

>> They do it when they leak a story to the media in a PR campaign seeking
>> more money.
>
> Interesting claim, but also something that does not happen.
If you say so.

>> They do it in front of the judge, who would probably send a lot of these
>> kids home if they knew half of the f.cking story.
>
> So, a judge with X number of years working with the law and people is not
> educated or experienced enough to see what they are trying to do?
It's been my experience that judges actually take them at their word.  They
are just as much a part of the problem as any other involved party.

> Please.  Try and use some of that "common sense" you claim to be so good
> at.

But I have been Ron.  You just wouldn't understand the concept.

>> They also lie.
>
> Hmmm.  Claimed often, proven rarely.
You're right.  Because the parents are instantly robbed of any creditibility
and seen as vindictive against the system that f.cked them.  It's just like
what you do with Greg, Ken and this Neil Feldman guy.  Rob them of any
credibility simply because they call you on your bullshit.

>> They exagerate by leaving things out, for example, anything positive
>> about the family situation.  So why should anybody not use such verbage
>> in an effort to expose them for what they are?
>
> How can one exaggerate by not saying something?  A senseless comment.
Only when considered by a senseless person.

Not that you'll get it, but I'll explain.  Just for the benefit of others
who may be reading.

One can exaggerate the severity of a situation by blowing everything out of
proportion, like you and CPS do.  One can exaggerate the severity of a
situation by leaving out factors that would otherwise be considered
positives with the end result appearing worse then it actually is.

Either way in making the situation look worse than it is the facts would be
exaggerated.

Lets look at an example.  I will give you 2 statements.  We will assume that
these statements are talking about the same person at the same point in
time.

1. This person suffers from depression.

2. This person suffers from depression, but has been treated for it and is
doing well.

See how the first statement leaves out information that tends to exaggerate
the severity of the current situation?  Work with me here Ron.  I'm giving
you the benefit of the doubt.  Your friends at CPS do sh.t like this all the
time.

> Using such verbiage in an attempt to exaggerate their case and expose what
> they think is happening rather than what is actually happening? This is
> what parents do, not case managers.
Bullshit.

>> After all, you have to capture the attention of your reader somehow,
>> right?
>
> I dont have readers.
Well I do.  I'm maintaining 5 blogs and 4 websites.  So if some of these
techniques I use there spills over to here, I'm sorry.  I have habitual
writing techniques.

I use this technique with LK (http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com),
especially.  When I post an article link, for example, I find either the
most discriptive or emotional paragraph in it and post it under that link.
It's an effective technique for keeping people on the site for longer.  Get
this Ron.  I have an email RSS feed available on it, sign up and you get the
daily digest of whatever I post to it sent to your email.  LK is currently
having between 20 and 40 unique visitors a day at this point, it has more
people signed up for that daily digest email, then my
http://www.VoodooWhoDo.com site, which is currently gets between 150 to 200
visitors a day.

And if you don't like it, too bad.  Stop stealing babies and it will all go
away.

>> That is why a newspaper has big headlines you know.  Attention grabbers.
>> Headlines are often emotionally charged, because those who make the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> lol, funny.  Not factual, but humorous all the same.
Whatever.

> The cases that hit the news papers or TV shows are the sensational cases.
> Murder, child porn, etc.
You got that part of it right.

> Drunk driving, messy houses, drugs,  and an entire plethora of other
> things    > never make the news. Never draw the reporters because they are
> just one more example of parents abusing their kids, and whats so
> news-worthy about that?
Any babystealer removing a kid based on overexaggerated bullshit is
newsworthy wouldn't you think?

> Besides, its illegal for those involved in these cases (in most states) to
> release information about them.  To the press or otherwise.
And that helps them to cover their tracks.

>> What you gotta realize Ron is that Society has a way of thinking all on
>> its own.  The collective thought process is easily manipulated.  How?  By
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> The facts would prove otherwise.  I deal with cases every day that dont
> and never have made the news.  Lots of them.
Your misinterpreted facts provided by your friends at CPS would prove
otherwise until there was a statistical analysis done on it.  But people
have been arguing that fact with you for years and you still refuse to get
it.  So I'm not going to bother with that any more.

>   The
>> difference between myself and those others is that at least I'm not
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> dispositions—substantiated (25.2%), indicated (3.0%), or alternative
> response victim (0.3%)."
Here we go with the glass half empty bullshit again.  Let me restate for you
in the glass half full manner.

> "For nearly 70 percent of investigations, at least zero child(ren) was
> found to be a victim of maltreatment

I'd try to explain the benefits of positive thinking to you, but it would be
a waste of my time.

> "Of the children who received an investigation, approximately one-quarter
> were determined to have been abused or neglected. Based on a victim rate
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> 899,000 child victims.  How many of those make the news?  1%, maybe?  Is >
> the problem worse than people know?  Yes.  Far far worse.

Yes Ron.  You've stated your CPS provided unanalyzed facts.

>> I think they call it Mass-social opinion manipulation or something and
>> they use a technique called Propaganda to achieve a shift in what society
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> That would be a political argument, one that is not appropriate to this
> forum, and one you would loose.
Any time Ron.  I was using this simply as an example.  I should have
realized that you wouldn't get it.

>> They sparked the emotion of fear in the masses by exploiting 9/11, who
>> then supported the invation of Iraq under the belief that Iraq had WMD's
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> really happen? 899,454 times a year.  74,954 times a month.  2498 times a
> day.  104 times an hour.  1.74 times a minute.

Out of how many kids?

This is CPS PROVIDED RAW DATA  Nothing more.  It's surface data.  Stating it
like this blows things out of proportion.
http://www.amstat.org/Careers/index.cfm?fuseaction=whatisstatistics

> Thats how often.

All things are relative.

>>>>>>> By that I mean abuse filled, neglectful, or non-caring.
>>>>>> Of course you do.
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> You have no idea how much I wish it was.  Ask gregg.
Ok I will.

Greg
Is what Ron is saying here bullshit?
Also do you believe that he wishes that what he is saying here was bullshit?

>  He is your proof.
Greg?  He's my proof that what you claim is bullshit?  Or is it that parents
have more control then they actually do?

I'll ask him.

Greg,
Do you believe that parents have more control over CPS cases then they
actually do?

>  Have you seen his motion to the Iowa family court?
I saw something once posted by Dan Sullivan, (I think) in reference to such.
Did Greg actually write it?  Was what I saw modified by anybody?

> I can post it for you if you like.
I'd find it more believable if Greg posted it or emailed it to me.

> He made it available here some time back, and has taken nothing but sh.t 
> for it since.
No, he takes sh.t because he won't suck up to obsessives like you.

> Or feldman.
One question here, about him.  Why does he call you MoRon Mitty?  I get the
MoRon part, but what's Mitty mean?

Wait, I'll ask Greg.

NF wrote...
(MoRon Mitty's delusional and dishonest tendency to cavalierly dismiss
anything that does not mesh with his selfserving agenda clearly does not
count as reasonably by any rational and legitimate standard).
http://groups.google.sc/group/misc.kids/tree/browse_frm/month/2001-08/4c5154d8f6
d78c03?rnum=91&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fmisc.kids%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2001-08%3F


> I could go on for hours about him, but I'll let you do your own research.
I'm surprised you would want me to.  He obviously doesn't like you Ron.
Lots of Anti-Ron Ammo there.

> Here are a few things to search for though.  He puts hot peppers on the
> tongue's of his children as a punishment, and refuses to allow them to
> have water for a specified period of time.
Turned up nothing.

> He advocates for the wholesale mass murder of all CPS case workers, foster
> parents, and judges that work in family courts.
Turned up nothing.  I'll advocate for lots of jail time for many of you.

> I can email you greggs motion if you like, its been posted here many times
> over the last few years so with a bit of effort you can research it
> yourself if you prefer.
Greg, did you write it, was it edited?

>> There are tons of parents out there fighting tooth and nail to get their
>> kids back from self-righteous, profiteering hypocrates like you or who
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> them in my home.  So, they are not fighting against me but against the
> system and their own inability to act rationally as parents.
You claim you have made the decision to remove.

>> Nothing is ever good enough for some of these workers.  Sure,  some kids
>> are starting to come home, and it's happening more and more because in
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> 6 have gone home.  And of that 6, one went home after aging out of the
> system in my care.
I'm going to have to ask you to prove that claim.

>>> I see it on a weekly basis.  Like gregg, who thinks that he did nothing
>>> wrong and that he can fight the system and MAKE them bow to his wishes.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No, its not.
Yes, it is.

> He is a representative example of parents (not that gregg is a parent mind
> you) associated with the system.
No he isn't.  Greg is Greg, and that's what makes him special.

You know Ron, I'm beginning to wonder if you secretly like Greg, but won't
admit it to your friends because they don't like him.  You can't even leave
him out of a conversation.

> One of many that have come here over the years.  All pretty much like
> yourself, complaining about the system that they find themselves involved
> with, feeling unable to make things happen the way they want them to,
> overburdened by their own inabilities (not that I am saying that you are
> this way), and feeling that the system is designed to abuse abusive
> parents.

Is Greg like me too?

>>>>>>>>> I'd not consider what she wrote to be BS.  From my point of view,
>>>>>>>>> she sounds like just the right kind of person to be a foster
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> I have seen no proof of such from the system.  I can point out many
> examples coming from feldman though.
Oh come on Ron.  You are a fear mongerer.  Every time you talk about the
horrors of child abuse.

> Maybe you can be the one to show me?
Here's one case previously posted in this group.
http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102407dnmetdeadb
aby.31f8a63.html

But like Feldman says "MoRon Mitty's delusional and dishonest tendency to
cavalierly dismiss anything that does not mesh with his selfserving agenda
clearly does not count as reasonably by any rational and legitimate
standard"

>>>>> All things that kneal feldman is well known for in this forum.  While
>>>>> I choose to verify the things that kenny has to say, I completely
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> I hope you have.  Its educational, and entertaining.
That I agree with.

>>>>>> You can't let your personal opinion of someone get into the way of
>>>>>> the validity of the comments that they make.  It only shows your love
[quoted text clipped - 85 lines]
> well.  Amazing.  Some come with everything they need, but they are few and
> far between.
Can't stuff it all in a trash bag, can you.

>>>>>>>> You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public
>>>>>>>> service. You get your student loans paid off that way too.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> childs future simply because of their own inane belief's, and the hell
> with what the kid actually needs.
Ron, I'm not going to get into it with you on this.  These drugs are
dangerous for children.  The human race survived for thousands of years
without them.

You don't know sh.t about what a kid really needs.  I've posted this before.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3609599239524875493&q=drugging+of+our+c
hildren&total=69&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

In the absence of any objective medical tests to determine who has ADD or
ADHD, doctors rely in part on standardized assessments and the  impressions
of teachers and guardians while the they administer leave little room for
other causes or aggravating factors, such as diet, or environment. Hence,
diagnosing a child or adolescent with ADD or ADHD is often the outcome,
although no organic basis for either disease has yet to be clinically
proven. Psychiatrists may then prescribe psychotropic drugs for the children
without first without making it clear to parents that these medications can
have severe side-effects including insomnia, loss of appetite, headaches,
psychotic symptoms and even potentially fatal adverse reactions, such as
cardiac arrhythmia. And yet, despite these dangers, many school systems
actually work with government agencies to force parents to drug their
children, threatening those who refuse with the prospect of having their
children taken from the home unless they cooperate.

>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>> More.  Hmmm.  Where is the dividing line?  Where do we say "This
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> table but belief's, whereas I bring verifiable facts.  Why is all the beef
> on my side of the table?
like Feldman says "MoRon Mitty's delusional and dishonest tendency to
cavalierly dismiss anything that does not mesh with his selfserving agenda
clearly does not count as reasonably by any rational and legitimate
standard"

> Where's your beef?
Use your imagination Ron.

>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>> And there is a difference between attacking someone and calling
[quoted text clipped - 79 lines]
>
> I always have been.
For the Pro-CPS side, right?

> I have made several calls to governors offices and lodged complaints about
> the system.
For the Pro-CPS side, right?

> I know where to grab a caseworker to get the best response
Where?

> (figuratively speaking that is).
Oh.

>  I have forced several changes to the system by using either the states
> legal system or its executive branch.
Like what?  Raises for Foster Parents?

> I have never been happy with some of the things that the system does.
Obviously.

> And I affect changes as I am able.  I have even been black-listed once,
> but they need me far more than I need them.
So you have a job then?

> I have a strong record here of advocating for the kids, and sometimes that
> goes against the agenda of the system.
Any specific links would be apriciated.

> Just as often as it goes against the agenda of people like yourself.
Now that I'd believe.

>>>>> I know where the faults of the system lye, mainly because I work
>>>>> within the system.  I dont have the comfort of being outside the
[quoted text clipped - 84 lines]
> returned to their families.  All of them.  Not as good a record as Dan
> has, but still something to be proud of.
How many times has Dan been falsly accused by CPS???

> Ron
Ron - 01 Dec 2007 19:14 GMT
>>>>>>>>> Lanette is what I call a predatorial adoptor.  That's what got me
>>>>>>>>> hooked. I
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>> Use to be a cop, no longer.
> Why?

I carried a gun for more than 13 years in different places, and my wife
and I figured that there were better ways to make a living.  Besides,
the dam thing gets quite heavy after a while.

>> How did it make me feel?  Sad that parents would put children in that kind
>> of enviornment intentionally.  Sad that parents would use their own kids
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
> It's sad that some bad apples have to spoil the whole bunch.

Thats life.  Its not really sad, it just is.

>> How many at my home?  None.  Conflict of interest.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> protect, and teachers to teach.  Does it always happen?
> And we pay CPS to protect those whose lives they ultimately destroy.

We pay the police to protect us from criminals, and they cant.  All they
can do is some small preventative actions, education, and deal with
those that they can catch who perpetrate the crimes.

They cant be everywhere, they cant prevent everything.  It is their
reputation that may occasionally prevent crime, as does the reputation
of CPS that may occasionally prevent child abuse.  It gives some
perpetrators a moment of pause, the time necessary to make another and
better decision.

Their jobs are quite similar in that respect.  Neither can actually
"prevent" something, but they can react to the situation.

>>>>>> Only LEO interventions come in the middle of the night, and usually
>>>>>> for criminal activity or welfare checks.  If mom is screaming its
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> the ones to pay the ultimate price.  Anything from the point where they are
> taken into care, rests upon those caring for them.

Sorry, not buying that.  They would not be IN care if the parent had
made a different choice.  Blaming the system for the decisions of the
parent is an easy cop-out, one I dont let people get away with.

> And they don't do a very
> good job either.  The mother looses control and responsibility for them from
> that point on.  Sure her choices may have knocked over that first domino,
> but the rest are thanks to CPS workers and Foster Parents, and Judges, and
> anyone else involved in the childs life.

And mom takes no responsibility for any of it?  Another easy cop-out.
Mom is ULTIMATELY responsible for what happens.  It was HER decision
that placed the children into the situation they are in, not the states,
not the caseworkers, not the foster parents.

Its easy for us to evade responsibility as parents, evade from everyone
but ourselves that is.  Even gregg knows that he is responsible for his
S.O.'s daughters situation, but he will never admit it here.  The same
with kneal, bobby, dennis d, fern, and a few others.

> I know that some in this group, although I won't point any fingers, would
> imediately blame the death of a child in foster care on the mother who
> didn't kill them, simply because the child ended up in foster care because
> of her choices.  But we know better, right Ron?

On the mother that may have killed them.  But in this group that never
happens.  People here will first and foremost blame the system.  No
matter the actual cause, if the child is in care then it MUST be the
system that killed them, or so some here think.

>>>>  Criminals rarely think they are going to get caught, and most react
>>>> quite badly when they do.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> It's not shameful to find the expected.  It's shameful that you ignore these
> cries for their mommies.

lol, funny.  Never said I ignore them, I expect them.  Significant
difference there, dont ya think?

>>>> Its expected.
>>> Well of course it is Ron.  Many of these kids know that their home lives
>>> weren't all that bad.  The ones whose lives were as horrible as it is
>>> claimed by the adults would be terrified to go back, I would think.
>> Most of these kids dont know that their home lives suck.
> So they are stupid, or should I say, ignorant of your facts then?

Not stupid, but their reference point for what is "normal" is
significantly different from what you or I might have.

>> Its what they are use to, they know no different.
> And they get more of the same in foster care.

Really?  And your proof of that is?

>> And you didnt think.
> About what?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> and humans prefer the familiar to the strange.
> And babies prefer their mommies to foster care, interesting.

Sure they do, even if that mommie leaves them in dark rooms, fails to
bathe them, feed them, clean them up, touch them.  They still want
mommie.  If you can ever figure out how to change that please let us know.

>>>> I'm trained, experienced, knowledgeable.
>>> And paid.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> more responsible with that money.  I mean, as responsible adults, we do have
> to live within our means.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2001/health_ss/hss_16_Foster_Care.htm

http://www.window.state.tx.us/forgottenchildren/ch01/s0101.html

https://ocfs.state.ny.us/main/rates/FosterCare/Manual/SOPProgramManual.pdf

This last one is most instructive.

> There are also perfectly acceptable ways to cut costs you know.  Parents all
> over the country are finding themselves having to do this now a days, what
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> instead of those individual serving sizes.  You could even cut coupons from
> the Sunday Newspaper.

And do you tell your granny how to suck eggs?

>>> Trained not to listen to or care about what the kids want?
>> No, trained to provide what the kids need.
> No, trained to provide what what you and your precious CPS claims what the
> kids need.

And your proof of that statement is?  After all, you claim that you have
never been a foster parent, never had the training, how could you
possibly know?

>> Trained to listen to them and see where the issues are with them and how
>> to find the assistance they are going to need to deal with those issues.
> And here we go back to the meds again, which BTW everybody, medicade pays
> for.  I know, you're trained to find any little reason to dope a kid up.

Medications are only one option.  Different types of therapy are most
widely used, as are self-help programs, scouting, volunteer programs,
even HAM radio.  It does not always go first to medications.

>> Knowledgeable in both experience and training to be able to provide the
>> type of environment that the child needs and can grow in.
> For a short time, yes.  Then onto the next foster parent or group home
> right?

Who have the same training I do, or more.

>> Knowledgeable in how to deal with a wide variety of issues, problems, and
>> actions by a child.
> That's called parenting.

Yes, and generally we are pretty good at it.  In most cases far better
than the genetic donors that conceived the child.

>>> Experienced in that you've heard so many of these cries that it just has
>>> no effect on you any more?   Knowledgable in that you know what the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> when someone is selling me a pound of sand and calling it diamonds.
> Ron, are you getting frustrated with me?

Hmmm, interesting question.  Should I?

Here is what I see happening.  You refuse to see the facts for what they
are, being blinded by your past experiences, whatever they may be.  You
feel free to make many claims, but dont seem to be willing to support
them.

How can we have an intelligent and interesting conversation if you
refuse to look at the facts presented or bring your own along to the
discussion?

>>>> Its just a part of the overall foster parent experience, not better and
>>>> not worse than any other.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> to the community that has given so much to me.
> Like a loss of 10%.  Doesn't sound like the community gives you much.

I have done it for far less than 90%.  its not the community that gives,
its me giving to it.  In return for what it has done for me in the past.

>>>> But, when I was not experienced, knowledgeable, it made me sad.
>>> Instead, experience and knowledge made you cold hearted.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> familiar.
> until we get bored with it.

Boredom has nothing to do with it.

>>> But all you have to do is remind them of the horrors that they went
>>> through over and over again and they'll start to see things your way
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> No idea.
> I don't believe you.

OK, how about this?
They are, in fact, made nervous and anxious by foster parents that are
safe, predictable, steady, supportive, and won't hit them...as they have
come to expect at their bio home.

The same issue comes up time and again in court cases...the defense
often trying to use this "return of the child" or "failure of the child
to report in a timely manner," etc. bs etc. bs. See link below.

http://tinyurl.com/yw9ezr

In fact it is far more common for an abused child to wish to return.

One, they have little judgment, especially under age 8 or 9, about the
world and what abuse is or isn't. They simply don't know that a whole
lot of people don't abuse or neglect their children.

In fact the often come from communities where abuse and neglect, AS YET
UNREPORTED, is commonplace.

Secondly, the evidence for trauma bonding syndrome is quite strong.

It's a sick attachment but there nonetheless.

In fact, it can, in a smaller way, be part of a larger more healthy
model. The fact that major trauma can create anything at all is based on
the fact that "stress" can bond people together in good ways.

Families are as bound together by difficult and painful events, and
probably MORE than, by pleasant ones.

That is NORMAL.

There are dozens, possibly hundreds of studies on this phenomena and if
are ignorant of them then you are working really hard to stay that way.

http://books.google.com/books?source=web&q=Trauma+Bonding&btnG=Search+Books

>>>>>> Moving them from foster home to foster home though can cause problems.
>>>>> Agreed.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> I know they usually don't listen to a parent who claims that the bruses on
> their kid from foster care should warant a removal from that foster home.

Sometimes they do, but not often I'd agree.

> http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/2007/11/foster-parents-accused-of-neglectin
g.html

> They didn't listen to these parents either.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>> sniping, not really involved.
> No but if he were, he'd agree with me.

Naturally he would.  Your arguments support his, therefore he would
support yours.

Now, I have just sent you a copy of greggs motions to the Iowa court he
has been involved with.  Take the time to read it.  Its quite
entertaining in many particulars.

>>> After all, CPS uses such emotionally charged verbage while blowing
>>> everything out of proportion in an effort to justify half of what they
>>> do.
>> Nice sentiment, but I have never see this.
> I don't believe you.

You dont have to.

>>> They do it when they leak a story to the media in a PR campaign seeking
>>> more money.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> what you do with Greg, Ken and this Neil Feldman guy.  Rob them of any
> credibility simply because they call you on your bullshit.

I use greggs own words against him.  Kenny, has earned his own
reputation, none of my doing there.  As for feldman, well nuf said.

>>> They exagerate by leaving things out, for example, anything positive
>>> about the family situation.  So why should anybody not use such verbage
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> situation by leaving out factors that would otherwise be considered
> positives with the end result appearing worse then it actually is.

Blowing it out of proportion.  Hmmm.  Truth is far more often stranger
than fiction.  Having been in the homes, having to step on the carpets,
having smelled the urine, having had to maneuver around the feces, the
piles of trash, the bugs, and whatever else, I have a real hard time
following that anyone could exaggerate these situations.

Just about every agency in the nation uses cameras now days.  Kind of
hard to exaggerate a picture or video.  This offers the judge and
whoever else the opportunity to view the situations for themselves.

> Either way in making the situation look worse than it is the facts would be
> exaggerated.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>> what parents do, not case managers.
> Bullshit.

No, not really.  I hear it all the time from parents, rarely from case
managers.

>>> After all, you have to capture the attention of your reader somehow,
>>> right?
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> And if you don't like it, too bad.  Stop stealing babies and it will all go
> away.

Funny. I have never stolen a baby, why would you think I had?

>>> That is why a newspaper has big headlines you know.  Attention grabbers.
>>> Headlines are often emotionally charged, because those who make the
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Any babystealer removing a kid based on overexaggerated bullshit is
> newsworthy wouldn't you think?

Interesting way to put it.  Can you provide some examples?  One's that
can be verified?

>> Besides, its illegal for those involved in these cases (in most states) to
>> release information about them.  To the press or otherwise.
> And that helps them to cover their tracks.

Yeah, I have heard that way to many times.  Every time without support.
 What makes you think I am going to buy into it this time?

>>> What you gotta realize Ron is that Society has a way of thinking all on
>>> its own.  The collective thought process is easily manipulated.  How?  By
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> have been arguing that fact with you for years and you still refuse to get
> it.  So I'm not going to bother with that any more.

Have you read the data at the web site I quote?  Seems to be pretty
analyzed to me, but then again I'm not an accountant or a researcher.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/index.htm

>>   The
>>> difference between myself and those others is that at least I'm not
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> "For nearly 70 percent of investigations, at least zero child(ren) was
>> found to be a victim of maltreatment

Sounds like the system is working quite well then, from your point of
view.  CPS does not regulate the number of calls made to them or what is
said, so blaming them for the number of calls made or what they are
being told is like blaming the cops for crime.

> I'd try to explain the benefits of positive thinking to you, but it would be
> a waste of my time.

??  Wow, turn and turn about?  Am I not the more positive of the two of
us?  I see the system as a positive thing in children's lives, you see
it as a horror story waiting to strike at every parent in the nation.

Try thinking about the good things that the system does, instead of all
the not so good stuff.  If you need a list of the good let me know, I'd
be happy to help out.

>> "Of the children who received an investigation, approximately one-quarter
>> were determined to have been abused or neglected. Based on a victim rate
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Yes Ron.  You've stated your CPS provided unanalyzed facts.

They seem pretty analyzed to me.

>>> I think they call it Mass-social opinion manipulation or something and
>>> they use a technique called Propaganda to achieve a shift in what society
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Any time Ron.  I was using this simply as an example.  I should have
> realized that you wouldn't get it.

Still, get it or not, one you would loose.

>>> They sparked the emotion of fear in the masses by exploiting 9/11, who
>>> then supported the invation of Iraq under the belief that Iraq had WMD's
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> like this blows things out of proportion.
> http://www.amstat.org/Careers/index.cfm?fuseaction=whatisstatistics

Show me better, or accept what we have available.

>> Thats how often.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> Is what Ron is saying here bullshit?
> Also do you believe that he wishes that what he is saying here was bullshit?

No, I do.  I wish what I was saying was not factual, but it is.

>>  He is your proof.
> Greg?  He's my proof that what you claim is bullshit?  Or is it that parents
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I saw something once posted by Dan Sullivan, (I think) in reference to such.
> Did Greg actually write it?  Was what I saw modified by anybody?

I sent it to you in email, and as far as I know it has not been altered
by anyone.

>> I can post it for you if you like.
> I'd find it more believable if Greg posted it or emailed it to me.

I'll see if I can find the original link to it.  Would that be
sufficient?  He has never denied that he wrote it and has made many
comments on it.

>> He made it available here some time back, and has taken nothing but sh.t 
>> for it since.
> No, he takes sh.t because he won't suck up to obsessives like you.

Before making assumptions about it, you might want to read it.

>> Or feldman.
> One question here, about him.  Why does he call you MoRon Mitty?  I get the
> MoRon part, but what's Mitty mean?

Because he's an idiot.  Nothing new there.

> Wait, I'll ask Greg.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I'm surprised you would want me to.  He obviously doesn't like you Ron.
> Lots of Anti-Ron Ammo there.

Could be, but then again he no longer haunts this forum.  OTOH, I am
still here.  And I have not been sent to jail for what I have written
here or done.

>> Here are a few things to search for though.  He puts hot peppers on the
>> tongue's of his children as a punishment, and refuses to allow them to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> parents, and judges that work in family courts.
> Turned up nothing.  I'll advocate for lots of jail time for many of you.

One must know "how" to do some research in google.  I'll get you a few
links.

>> I can email you greggs motion if you like, its been posted here many times
>> over the last few years so with a bit of effort you can research it
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> system and their own inability to act rationally as parents.
> You claim you have made the decision to remove.

Yes, I have, as a police officer, not as a foster parent.

>>> Nothing is ever good enough for some of these workers.  Sure,  some kids
>>> are starting to come home, and it's happening more and more because in
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> system in my care.
> I'm going to have to ask you to prove that claim.

Yeah, right.  Care to tell me how?  Either you take my word for what is
my personal experience or you dont.  Either way I'm not really caring
that much.

>>>> I see it on a weekly basis.  Like gregg, who thinks that he did nothing
>>>> wrong and that he can fight the system and MAKE them bow to his wishes.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> you) associated with the system.
> No he isn't.  Greg is Greg, and that's what makes him special.

And he is still a representative example of parents associated with the
system.  But thats not the only think that makes him special.

> You know Ron, I'm beginning to wonder if you secretly like Greg, but won't
> admit it to your friends because they don't like him.  You can't even leave
> him out of a conversation.

Hmmm, seems that neither can you.

>> One of many that have come here over the years.  All pretty much like
>> yourself, complaining about the system that they find themselves involved
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> Oh come on Ron.  You are a fear mongerer.  Every time you talk about the
> horrors of child abuse.

I have actually seen them LK, so its not really mongering, but relating
my experience to others.

>> Maybe you can be the one to show me?
> Here's one case previously posted in this group.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> clearly does not count as reasonably by any rational and legitimate
> standard"

PNG

>>>>>> All things that kneal feldman is well known for in this forum.  While
>>>>>> I choose to verify the things that kenny has to say, I completely
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
>> far between.
> Can't stuff it all in a trash bag, can you.

Wouldnt know, I dont put clothes into a trash bag.  I donate them.

>>>>>>>>> You also seem to forget that child protection is considered public
>>>>>>>>> service. You get your student loans paid off that way too.
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> You don't know sh.t about what a kid really needs.  I've posted this before.

Which of us is a foster parent?  How many children have you provided
24x7 care for?  How much training and education do you have in child
development?

> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3609599239524875493&q=drugging+of+our+c
hildren&total=69&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

> In the absence of any objective medical tests to determine who has ADD or
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> children, threatening those who refuse with the prospect of having their
> children taken from the home unless they cooperate.

Have any support for that last statement?

>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>> More.  Hmmm.  Where is the dividing line?  Where do we say "This
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> clearly does not count as reasonably by any rational and legitimate
> standard"

And still nothing.  Hmmm.

>> Where's your beef?
> Use your imagination Ron.
[quoted text clipped - 82 lines]
>> I always have been.
> For the Pro-CPS side, right?

Reform is good for everyone, so it does not really have sides now does it.

>> I have made several calls to governors offices and lodged complaints about
>> the system.
> For the Pro-CPS side, right?

No, Pro-child side.

>> I know where to grab a caseworker to get the best response
> Where?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> legal system or its executive branch.
> Like what?  Raises for Foster Parents?

Nope.  Notification of serious health conditions to care providers.

>> I have never been happy with some of the things that the system does.
> Obviously.
[quoted text clipped - 99 lines]
>> has, but still something to be proud of.
> How many times has Dan been falsly accused by CPS???

You would need to ask him about that to get a specific answer.  I
believe its more that 5, but I'm not sure.

But that was not my point.  Ask him how many families he has been
directly responsible for reuniting despite the dictates of the system.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 25 Nov 2007 20:13 GMT
R > feldmans record is available in the google archives.
R >
R > Try the following search:
R >
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/search?group=alt.suppo
rt.foster-parents&q=feldman&qt_g=Search+this+group


LK >>>> You can't let your personal opinion of someone get into the way of
the validity of the comments that they make.  It only shows your love of the
status quo.
----
From the second post I read.  (Where have we heard this before?)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_thread/thread/3
65a0b419616df17/0792759abf4bbcd3?lnk=gst&q=feldman#0792759abf4bbcd3


R > This from
R > the one individual who absolutely refuses to provide any form of
R > verification for any post he makes.

NF > Also I use logical analysis of the facts which I present... unlike you
who
NF > merely make claims when you are not ludicrously misquoting and
NF > misrepresenting actual data which in fact supports MY side of the
issue,
NF > and you continue to prove your clear ignorance on this and many other
NF > subjects, such as basic math and statistical analysis, in so doing.
----

From another post...

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_thread/thread/5
f42411425de013c/7134c84d7ad4f05f#7134c84d7ad4f05f


> Let's see if I can make this clear for you, since your having such
> trouble.

> Caseworker John is investigating abuse in family Smith, upon child Jim.
> Abuse by nature is dangerous, so Caseworker John PLACES Child Jim into
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Caseworker John concludes that the Smith's were not abusing Child Jim.
> So, we now have a finding of "unsubstantiated",

This sounds like that Eric's position to me, which Ron argues against in
this very thread.  When did you change your story Ron?

Neal Responds...

> So, by this statement, <censored for unnecessary insult>, you claim it is
> proper to REMOVE  CHILDREN FROM THEIR HOMES,
FAMILIES and PARENTS *solely based* upon an ALLEGATION of  abuse?
-----

Ron, you should be more specific.  All I'm able to figure out from any of
this is why you don't like him (he called you names, and called you on your
bullshit) as well as evidence for your lack of understanding of the hard
data that you use to present and justify any of your arguments.  (Similar to
what I have been trying to explain to you)  Aparantly since atleast 2001 you
have been misquoting raw data in an effort to support your silly pro-cps
position.

If there is something specific that I should be looking for, especially if
you want me to disregard anything said by this person, please share.
LK - 21 Nov 2007 17:23 GMT
Sorry about the tripple post.  The server was having issues last night.
krp - 17 Nov 2007 16:03 GMT
THE CONSUMMATE PROFESSIONAL

>> So it's better to rip 4 unabused children away from their homes in order
>> to save the one that is actually abused?

> Could be.  Depends on the case.  Rarely is a single child of a family
> group the only one being abused or neglected.

PROOF of this claim?
Ron - 17 Nov 2007 18:08 GMT
> THE CONSUMMATE PROFESSIONAL
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> PROOF of this claim?

Suck my balls.

You have no right to require proof kenny, even when provided you claim
it is in error or never existed.  Not to mention that when others
request it of you you ignore that request.  Your own actions have lost
you that right.

So, dont ever demand proof from me.  Even if I have it I will choose
weather or not to post it.  I would certainly NEVER do it for you, but I
might possibly for the edification of others.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 18 Nov 2007 03:36 GMT
>> THE CONSUMMATE PROFESSIONAL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Ron

Would you do it for me Ron?
Ron - 19 Nov 2007 16:51 GMT
>>> THE CONSUMMATE PROFESSIONAL
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Would you do it for me Ron?

If requested.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

krp - 16 Nov 2007 14:39 GMT
> Its called a "Tag Line", a line with goes at the bottom of each and every
> post I make regardless of which Usenet forum I post to.  Tag lines are
> used in many different ways and for many different reasons.  I have my
> reasons for my tag line, and this is the way I choose to use it. Feel free
> to develop your own, its entertaining.

And it shows ALL who read it to see how MATURE and PROFESSIONAL you are
Ronny!

NOT!
Ron - 16 Nov 2007 21:50 GMT
>> Its called a "Tag Line", a line with goes at the bottom of each and every
>> post I make regardless of which Usenet forum I post to.  Tag lines are
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> NOT!

My maturity is not really in question kenny.  I dont come to Usenet and
spam racial crap everywhere as you do.  I don't lie, as you do.  I
support my positions with demonstrateable facts and data, you do not.
There is so much that I do in a mature way that you refuse to try that
its no longer really funny.  Sad, pathetic, boring, yes.

So, bring up the term maturity really does not work in your favor kenny.

As for professionalism, you dont even know the meaning of the word.

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

krp - 17 Nov 2007 16:06 GMT
>> And it shows ALL who read it to see how MATURE and PROFESSIONAL you are
>> Ronny!

>> NOT!

> My maturity is not really in question kenny.  I dont come to Usenet and
> spam racial crap everywhere as you do.

`I do NOT use "racial crap." Ronny that's your  HERO no - - your GOD   Moore
that does that!

> As for professionalism, you dont even know the meaning of the word.

> Ron

SO PROFESSIONAL SO MATURE!'
krp - 15 Nov 2007 15:14 GMT
>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Opinions vary.

 Yes MEIN FUEHRER! <heels click> What country are we in again???  Is this
Germany 1940?
Ron - 15 Nov 2007 17:20 GMT
>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>   Yes MEIN FUEHRER! <heels click> What country are we in again???  Is this
> Germany 1940?

I LOVE THIS!!!!  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

As with any poster to this forum who cannot back their arguments,
support their claims, or even discuss rationally, kenny resorts to
invoking Nazi'ism as his idea of rational discourse.

kenny, that is such a predictable action, one that you have taken so
many times over the last year that I can no longer keep count of them.

Please!  Paint "I am a dork" on your forehead one more time.  If you do
it often enough the stain will be permanent.  Wouldn't it be easier to
just have it tattooed there?

Ron

Signature

Kenneth Pangborn (AKA KRP) is a lying sack of sh.t!

Proof at:

www.aboutkenpangborn.com

LK - 15 Nov 2007 18:18 GMT
>>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> As with any poster to this forum who cannot back their arguments, support
> their claims, or even discuss rationally,

You wouldn't accept any arguement against your precious friends at CPS
anyway.  No matter how accurate or rational the backing of the claim was.

> kenny resorts to invoking Nazi'ism as his idea of rational discourse.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Ron
krp - 16 Nov 2007 14:36 GMT
>>>>>>> Ron, do YOU support this theory that kids should
>>>>>>> be removed based on every report made?
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>>   Yes MEIN FUEHRER! <heels click> What country are we in again???  Is
>> this Germany 1940?

> As with any poster to this forum who cannot back their arguments, support
> their claims, or even discuss rationally, kenny resorts to invoking
> Nazi'ism as his idea of rational discourse.

Sound like a Nazi - argue like a Nazi you get the NAZI LABEL Ron!
 
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.