On Oct 15, 9:06 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:43 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:05 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 14, 10:34 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > Perry, Since your IP resolves to NY NY, Please
> > > > provide some proof that you are not some fiction
> > > > created by the Child Protection INDUSTRY out to
> > > > justify their own INDUSTRY by slamming blood kin.
>
> > > I'm not sure, but he seems to be criticising the proposal
> > > in the title of this thread (on which I concur).
>
> > > Andrew Usher
>
> > I'm torn because I don't for one minute
> > think that a move to privatizing such stuff
> > will help.
>
> > On the other hand, government BUREAUCRATS
> > are such extreme morons that a pack of wild
> > wolves could make better decisions.
>
> > Either way, the morons are part of
> > the greater Child Protection INDUSTRY.
>
> > You KNOW the industry wants to see it
> > remain a government function because
> > the money is better and workers get more
> > legal immunity for their nightmare screwups.
>
> > perry: The way I read your story you
> > think the adoption agency should have
> > investigated the adopter's parents, is
> > that right?
>
> > Were you blood siblings or siblings
> > in the adoptive home?
>
> > Neither adoptive parent would have
> > stopped the abuse had you told them?
>
> > How did the grandfather have so much exposure?
>
> > Was he used as a babysitter?
>
> > Why were you up for adoption and
> > what year was this?
>
> > Actually this is not a case of the
> > blood parents doing the abuse either..
>
> I agree with you Greg.
> I don't think privatizing would help either.
>
> *if*, as it's often been said, social services drive is monetary, then
> wouldn't that drive be even stronger for a private company that
> completely depends on funds generated by state contracts?
It depends on their legal LIABILITY, as I mentioned.
Ken says they are even LESS accountable if it's private.
Can you explain that better, Ken?
>
> There are already complaints that social services takes children for the
funding.
It's more than complaints, Betty!
INSIDERS have re****ted it!
Law Suits have revealed it!
State Legislatures have designed systems around that goal.
When Iowa's governor appointed Kevin W. Concannon as our
DHS director, MORE FUNDING was STATED AS THE REASON!
> This may be true on an upper level, but at the lower levels, as with
caseworkers, that can't be any kind of incentive.
It's like a cult or religious mindset Betty!
Most of their training is INDOCTRINATION
not actual training.
Their UNION HALL resounds with their group agenda.
> Everything we know about DFS contradicts this.
> Workers at the county level are over worked, their offices are
> understaffed, and they do not receive any incentives in relation to
> how many children are in the system at any given time.
> I cannot attest to the truth of incentive in regard to county
> supervisors, district managers, etc. I have no idea if they are paid
> by salary, have bonuses, etc.
> I am only certain that workers do not have any reason for their
> actions that is monetarily driven.
And you are wrong.
They are UNION MEMBERS.
What part of that don't you understand?
> Just a little side note on this...workers do not, for the most part,
> make the decisions in their cases. Decisions are left to supervisors
> and district managers. (at least, in my state, anyway.)
>
> Now, if foster care is privatized, then the whole income of the
> company becomes an incentive.
Private or government, funding is urged by supervisors!
> If the company fails to meet the requirements of their contract, the
> contract is canceled and they lose what would be, most likely, huge
> amounts of money.
>
> Sounds to me like 'good' reason to lie, sweep things under the rug,
> connive, etc.
>
> Who would be responsible for monitoring the company and it's actions?
> DFS? They aren't managing their own system of foster care very well,
> so why would their management of an outside agency make an impact? It
> wouldn't. It may start out nice and running smooth, but eventually
> the same manipulations and corruption would surface.
>
> I think most DFS issues could be cleared up readily by two things:
> Laws passed that require DFS to follow the laws already in existence
> to the letter, and review by a committee of impartial citizens who are
> changed every twelve months.
>
> The biggest problem with DFS today is that the agency is not held
> accountable for their actions to the public. Only in the most severe
> cases, and when a child dies, does the public know about the actions
> of DFS and have an op****tunity for input. I think a review committee
> could put an end to the secretive nature of DFS. I know that the
> agency says
> 'confidentiality for minors', but the truth of the matter is that
> confidentiality can be achieved while still notifying the public of
> the workings of DFS.
>
> The second largest problem that faces DFS is that adherence to the law
is almost unheard of.
Remember your recent comments that I don't need a trial.
> One of the best examples I can think of to
> prove this point is that when a child is removed from the care of
> their parents, DFS does NOT seek out 'fit and willing kin', as the law
mandates.
That is only ONE of dozens of ONGOING VIOLATIONS.
They maintain a corrupt cultish culture of corruption.
They violate DOZENS of regulations constantly.
The checks and balances are broken, to their advantage.
They use the demagoguery that anything that troubles
them works to the advantage of child abusers.
> They wait for kin to come forward, however, that's not
> always something that happens in a timely fa****on because kin often
> does not know about the removal of a child.
Betty, Yes, they act like ***** on this one point,
but are you trying to pretend that is the only
rule they break on an regular and ongoing basis?
> I wonder, sometimes, at the way the laws were thought out when set
> into motion as well. For example, the father's registry in Missouri
> is a huge joke. Technicalities. The law was created to prevent
> children from langui****ng in foster care when no father could be
> found. Ok, that's a good thing, right? What we don't generally know
> about the law is this: If a man is named father of a child in DFS
> custody, his name is placed on the registry. If he does not come
> forward prior to adoption, then his parental rights are terminated and
> the child is adopted.
>
> That's all fine, but there's a little twist in the saga that is hard
> for me to believe, but is true....this is a termination by force.
> According to our state laws, any parent who has their parental rights
> terminated by force is forever there after considered unfit to parent
> children.
>
> Think of what this could cause! If a woman claims five hundred men as
> possible fathers (yes, I know this is an excessive number, but for the
> sake of making a point, just go with it), each of them are placed on
> the registry. If none of them come forward to prove they are not the
> child's father, they ALL have their parental rights to the child
> terminated...legally. After that termination, they are ALL considered
> unfit to parent. Each of them, no matter how old or how young, would
> then be in line for removal of any children that they currently have
> in their homes, or future children because this technicality of the
> registry makes them unfit parents.
Why, Betty, It's so NICE that you've decided
to forego your inherent loyalty to your
gender and do all men such a huge favor
by pointing out yet another way that men are
getting ripped off on an ongoing basis.
> States should be, first and foremost, concerned with reevaluating
> their laws and strictly enforcing them. They should then be
> concerned about the operation of their agencies, and take a zero
> tolerance stance on misconduct,
Like caseworkers telling LIES to make cases?
Why of course!
But aren't you now telling the MAFIA
to play by the rules?
Underestimating just how truly corrupt
these agencies truly are?
You're a bit too experienced to play
this "babe in the woods" ruse well.
You know very well they are corrupt as hell,
UNIONIZED, and very ORGANIZED in their corruption.
Your fake naivety is utter BS.
> not just in cases where death or
> serious injury occurs to a child in their care.
>
> I don't think that privatizing foster care would benefit the children,
> or the families of those children. I do not believe that privatizing
> foster care would benefit states, except in one area...it MAY save the
> states money.
And?
That is their PRIMARY motivation.
This is no secret.
I know you might pretend it's NEWS,
but really it's not. Family Rights
groups of various kinds have had
caseworkers INFORM on the actual
inner workings of the Child Protection
agencies.
When you write off my invective as mere
hyperbole, you deceive yourself.
It's not just inflammatory blown
up hysteria, it's based on reality
as re****ted from INSIDE the damned agencies!
Remember that news story where a hispanic
caseworker illegally returned the kids
to their parents and sent them back
to Mexico? He got charged, but many
have said the case was GARBAGE from the
beginning and he developed a concience.
Hell, Betty, even some NAZI's GENERALS
turned to the Allied cause!
> But that's about it. It would serve no other purpose.
MONEY is their PRIMARY purpose.
They have a UNION and a UNION HALL!
Getting a clue?
Ken, Please explain how privatizing this
would make them even more immune legally.
I believe you, but I'd like to hear just HOW!
I'll say it again, this CHANGE is
probably because they got kicked in the ass
and had a consent decree, or else US DHHS
got on their ass and made them come up
with something to supposedly improve their act.
19. Kent Wills Wed, Oct 15 2008 5:49 pm
G > Perry, Since your IP resolves to NY NY, Please
G > provide some proof that you are not some fiction
G > created by the Child Protection INDUSTRY out to
G > justify their own INDUSTRY by slamming blood kin.
KW > Perry is very critical of CPS, simpleton,
KW > unless Google somehow altered the post.
KW > Did you read the post?
20. Dragon's Girl Thurs, Oct 16 2008 1:18 am
KW > Perry is very critical of CPS, simpleton,
KW > unless Google somehow altered the post.
KW > Did you read the post?
BW > Kent.
BW > Stop trying to point out the inconsistencies
BW > with Greg's conspiracy theories.
BW > You'll make his brain fry and then Lisa will
BW > have to find another 'pair of shoes' buying daddy for Lisa Jr.
Isn't that what gamblers say when they roll dice?
In keeping with the original subject, I'd like
to point out that states and the DHHS withhold
the nature of almost all Federal CONSENT DECREES
from the public. In addition, when states are
kicked in the ass and TOLD STERNLY to get their
**** together, they typically turn around and
act like they are making the improvements out of
the GOODNESS OF THEIR HEARTS!
This crap ranks right up there with me along
side the thing when the INS used to bust various
companies in my area for m***** of ILLEGALS
but keep the names of the rotten companies who
did it PRIVATE.
Where the hell did THAT right come from?
WHO gave the damned aagencies the right to
get kicked in the ass on a CONSENT DECREE
and keep the fact a secret?
WHY isn't that PUBLIC?
RON?
|
