On Sep 28, 9:47=A0pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:43 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3D.=
...
>
> > This is crazy.
>
> > People in rural areas have ANIMALS...some are potential food sources,
> > and some are guard dogs and the likes. =A0They serve a purpose.
=A0They
> > are not pampered 'pets'. =A0Pigs are allowed to wallow in crap because
> > that's what pigs do. =A0Dogs have fleas because that's what dogs have.
> > Cats breed out of control on the hills because that's what cats do.
>
> > The next thing you know they'll be saying that because you don't let
> > the chickens in the house in the winter you're more likely to commit
> > murder.
>
> Betty, We have already discussed this.
> It was brought up that most states use a
> "risk *****sment instrument" (form!) to
> decide whether parents were guilty of
> child abuse.
We did?
I went back all the way to when I first started posting here, four
years ago, and cannot find what you are referring to.
I did find a series of posts in which you TRY to claim that risk
*****sment forms are used to make determinations in a case, using a
fictional single mom as your poster child, but it really didn't pan
out the way you present it.
Come to think of it, didn't I send you a copy of a MO risk *****sment
form not so awful long ago that showed, very clearly, what the risks
are?
I don't recall the criteria that you have brought up being part of it.
>
> The form is not supposed to be used to make
> that decision, but in fact it IS use for that.
The form does not contain the long list of criteria that you have
mentioned in the past.
It's not even written in the context that you mention, is it?
If it's not written as you present it, how could it be used as you
present it?
>
> One consortium of states that created such
> a form was called "Structured Decision Making"
> but had a disclaimer that their form
> was not to be used for "decision making"! =A0LOL
I saw that, and I do think it is absurd to hand employees a form that
is designed to emphasize how to make decisions, and claim that the
form is not to be used for that purpose.
>
> Having obtained some of these forms, it was
> brought up that a single mom living in the
> country and butchering livestock would
> automatically qualify as a very high risk
> for abuse before the agency nitwits even
> showed up at her door!
I'd like to see the forms in which you refer to.
Looking at the form from my own state, no mention is made of
'butchering livestock'.
There are many things on the form, including (if I'm not mistaken, I
haven't looked at it in a while so I'm going on memory alone) Lack of
sup****t from family, this would apply to any single parent, someone
living distant from relatives with no friends and no access to
resources in the community, Lack of financial resources, including low
wage jobs, etc., and much more.
In each case, the score is high to low, and the appropriate resources
are recommended to the client...for example, a parent with low income
would be directed to seek medical and food stamp assistance to help
boost the family income, they may be given information regarding 'safe
houses' where children can be dropped off, free of charge, while
parents take care of shopping, medical appointments, etc.
They are not used to determine guilt, as you suggest. They are used
to determine what services the family may need, and can be directed
to.
>
> Points against her on the scoring:
> single mom
> rural
> butchering or owning firearms
I'd like to hear why it is that owning firearms, or butchering
livestock would put a person in a risk category.
Let me rephrase that, I can understand why owning firearms would be
considered a risk factor, as children often get ahold of guns and
accidents happen. Now, tell me why it is that you presume someone
would be considered at risk for butchering.
>
> Those are enough to make her guilty
> before the investigation even starts!
It seems in your eyes.
>
> Yet you are just NOW discovering that
> this kind of crap is absurd??
First of all, this case came out of New Zealand.
This is not a US case, and although we all seem to know a bit about US
social services policy, we probably don't know much about that of
other countries.
Second, if I'm not mistaken, those who are abusive to domesticated
animals, such as dogs and cats, are often abusive to humans as well,
including their own children.
I just don't think it is a 'given' that those who abuse animals also
abuse humans.
>
> Ya see now why I think a lot of caseworkers
> are vegetarian city living kook liberals?
No, actually I don't.
You often make claims that you offer little, or no verifiable facts to
back it up.
You've made this claim about 'several states' risk *****sment forms,
and yet, you've never provided even one copy to prove your point.
A risk *****sment form may, very well, be used in every state, but
they are used to determine the needs of a family, not guilt. Further,
services are OFTEN offered WITHOUT there being any demand for
participation, nor any kind of substantiation.
|
