On Oct 17, 5:35=A0pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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: =A0The 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?
I've got serious doubts about that.
As the 'placing' agency, they would be just as liable, if not more.
And if it's true, then eventually a lawsuit will come along that will
smack the 'less accountable' right out of them.
>
>
>
> > There are already complaints that social services takes children for
th=
e 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
ca=
seworkers, 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. =A0I 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?
Prove it.
>
> > Just a little side note on this...workers do not, for the most part,
> > make the decisions in their cases. =A0Decisions are left to
supervisors
> > and district managers. =A0(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!
That statement doesn't make any sense in response to mine.
Wanna try again?
>
> > 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? =A0They aren't managing their own system of foster care very
well,
> > so why would their management of an outside agency make an impact?
=A0I=
t
> > wouldn't. =A0It 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. =A0Only 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. =A0I think a review
committee
> > could put an end to the secretive nature of DFS. =A0I 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.
Want to bring that up again?
You admitted to abusing Lisa's daughter.
I've seen the posts myself.
Do you have to have a trial for me to know that?
>
> > =A0One 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.
I said it was 'one of the best examples'.
> 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.
>
> > =A0They 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 said 'one of the best examples'. Who's pretending that it's the
only rule they've broken?
I said 'ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES'. ONE.
>
> > I wonder, sometimes, at the way the laws were thought out when set
> > into motion as well. =A0For example, the father's registry in Missouri
> > is a huge joke. =A0Technicalities. =A0The law was created to prevent
> > children from langui****ng in foster care when no father could be
> > found. =A0Ok, that's a good thing, right? =A0What we don't generally
kn=
ow
> > about the law is this: =A0If a man is named father of a child in DFS
> > custody, his name is placed on the registry. =A0If 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! =A0If a woman claims five hundred men
a=
s
> > 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. =A0If 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. =A0After that termination, they are ALL
considere=
d
> > unfit to parent. =A0Each 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
That's your OPINION Greg.
and do all men such a huge favor
> by pointing out yet another way that men are
> getting ripped off on an ongoing basis.
I actually know quite a bit about this law because I helped a
'potential/supposed' father stop rights termination that could have
caused him to lose his own actual biological children. It's a crock
of ****. You want to know the worst part of it? The guy, MONTHS
before being placed on this registry, had already had a DNA test with
the child in question that showed him to be an impossibility as the
father. Now, why would they put his name on the registry in the first
place if he had already proven that he was not the child's father?
This registry is supposed to be comprised of 'potential/suppose'
fathers, not ALREADY PROVEN NOT TO BE fathers.
>
> > States should be, first and foremost, concerned with reevaluating
> > their laws and strictly enforcing them. =A0 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!
Yep.
>
> 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.
Ummmmm....what 'ruse', exactly, would you be talking about, Greg?
I've written quite a lengthy post her, that you've replied to, in
which I point out several short comings of DFS, and motivation for
privatization, etc.
So where is the 'ruse'?
All in your head?
>
> You know very well they are corrupt as hell,
> UNIONIZED, and very ORGANIZED in their corruption.
Don't know anything about unions in DFS.
I know SOCIAL WORKERS have unions, but specifically STATE SOCIAL
WORKERS? No.
>
> Your fake naivety is utter BS.
Can you point out the exact 'fake' that you are talking about?
Or is that all in your head too?
>
> > 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. =A0I 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. =A0 Family Rights
> groups of various kinds have had
> caseworkers INFORM on the actual
> inner workings of the Child Protection
> agencies.
Hm. Funny, I don't mention it being 'news'.
It came up in the conversation and I made my comments.
I hardly presented it as 'news'.
Again...all in your head?
>
> 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!
No, Greg, really, you ARE hysterical.
Honest.
>
> Remember that news story where a hispanic
> caseworker illegally returned the kids
> to their parents and sent them back
> to Mexico? =A0 He got charged, but many
> have said the case was GARBAGE from the
> beginning and he developed a concience.
What's your point?
>
> Hell, Betty, even some NAZI's GENERALS
> turned to the Allied cause!
>
> > =A0But that's about it. =A0It would serve no other purpose.
>
> MONEY is their PRIMARY purpose.
> They have a UNION and a UNION HALL!
> Getting a clue?
What did I just say, Greg?
>
> 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. =A0Kent Wills =A0Wed, 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. =A0Dragon's Girl =A0 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 =A0inconsistencies
> 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?
No, That's reference to your pride in having bought that child a pair
of shoes because it was more than her daddy had done for her.
>
> 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. =A0In 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!
OMG.
You said something I can actually believe.
>
> 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?
Yeah, where the hell did that 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?
If they weren't public, how would you know about them?
>
> RON?
|
