On Oct 2, 7:01=A0pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
source=
s,
> > > > and some are guard dogs and the likes. =A0They serve a purpose.
=A0=
They
> > > > are not pampered 'pets'. =A0Pigs are allowed to wallow in crap
beca=
use
> > > > that's what pigs do. =A0Dogs have fleas because that's what dogs
ha=
ve.
> > > > 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
le=
t
> > > > the chickens in the house in the winter you're more likely to
commi=
t
> > > > 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.
I'm from Missouri. Surely you know what that means.
>
> > 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?
Greg, you are the one making the claim, back it up.
I sent YOU a copy of a risk *****sment form for my state.
There was nothing remotely like what you are referring to on that
form.
Until you prove otherwise, I will have trouble believing in this
fictional group of states forms that you refer to.
>
> Any kind of insane BS can be rationalized
> by morons calling themselves social workers.
Seems as though any kind of insane BS wrought by squirrely parents can
also be rationalized by those morons who call themselves mommy and
daddy.
>
> > 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!
And if they aren't even checked on a list BECAUSE there are gun safes
and trigger locks and responsible adults in the home who take hunter
safety courses and know the appropriate use of firearms?
I live in the city, Greg, not out in the country, and I, and my
husband, own no less than nine firearms at any given time (we trade
around a bit here and there) and I have never, not once, known DFS to
even make mention of it. I was asked, and I stated that I had
firearms in my home and that they were locked in the gun safe and only
one key to it that stays in my husband's pocket at all times. I
further stated that some of the guns have trigger locks.
Never was another word said about it.
You're full of ****.
>
> > =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.
YOU made the claim. I would like to see YOU back it up.
>
> 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.
I bet you had them shakin' in their boots too, just like Iowa. Right?
>
> 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! =A0 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. =A0But 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.
Greg, your claim was that an *****sment form is used to ascertain
guilt in child abuse and neglect cases.
My claim is that they are used to determine services needed by a
family.
Can you prove your point?
|
