On Sep 29, 8:51=A0am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
=A0Th=
ey
> > > are not pampered 'pets'. =A0Pigs are allowed to wallow in crap
becaus=
e
> > > 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. =A0They 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.
The Michigan Risk *****sment form was partly
typed into the newsgroups and
made available as a scan online for a while.
Call up the CPS a-holes and ask them why.
You are just NOW figuring out that they do
some insane things?
Any kind of insane BS can be rationalized
by morons calling themselves social workers.
> 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.
There is NO WAY to knock off negative points
if they own a gun safe or trigger locks.
Typical ultraliberal veggie kook city slicker moron stuff!
> =A0Now, tell me why it is that you presume someone
> would be considered at risk for butchering.
First look up the Michigan risk *****sment form
that was brought up in ascps before.
Then call up the CPS a-holes and ask them.
I'm sure they think it's highly logical.
But don't look for the web site for
Structured Decision Making (SDM) because
they yanked that shortly after I began
to ridicule the absurd disclaimer.
With a name like that they had to
put on a disclaimer that their BS
paper form was not to be used for
DECISION MAKING! LOL
They got a bit worried
about some legal liability!
And they claimed that CW's who use it
needed to take their expensive TRAINING
on how to use it. But very few if any
agency personnel attend the expensive TRAINING.
> > 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. =A0Further,
> services are OFTEN offered WITHOUT there being any demand for
> participation, nor any kind of substantiation.
|
