Idiot parents

[snafu]

http://robtshepherd.tripod.com/robin.html

Big Brother wants your children.

You ****stick! You’re making me look wishy washy. Your statement of disbanding CPS was absurd. We need to protect our kids. But if it’s broke you don’t have to throw it away. You can try and fix it. There’s always room for misuse or mishandling. She is standing up and trying to fix it. Perfect!

"Don't get me wrong, we need CPS, there are children who are really abused," she said. "But there are also a lot of abuses in the system that need to be addressed."

 

[hugo]

But if it

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I have yet to hear of firsthand of ANY family or child who's life was made "Better" by the intervention of CPS. Not one.

However, I have heard many stories of the terror and abuses of the so called "social workers" of CPS.

I'm with Hugo on this one. Scrap it. It's total B.S.

 

[Outlaw2747]

Most people should not be allowed to reproduce. Ever.

 

[snafu]

I have yet to hear of firsthand of ANY family or child who's life was made "Better" by the intervention of CPS. Not one.

However, I have heard many stories of the terror and abuses of the so called "social workers" of CPS.

I'm with Hugo on this one. Scrap it. It's total B.S.

I know you’re smarter than this CES. Aren’t you? Because that was a pretty lame statement. Just because you’ve never heard a case that didn’t help a child it should be **** canned?
CPS, child protection service (it’s in the name). If you take a child out of a suspected abusive situation, isn’t that better than doing nothing? I understand they **** up and pull children from families that might be detrimental. FIX IT DON’THROUGH IT AWAY!! I’ve said this a few times lately.

 

[Lethalfind]

I think we have all heard of many cases where CPS didn't do its job well enough...

However I have heard of many cases where children were permanently removed from an abusive lifestyle and I think the children are better off away from drug addiced parents. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

I think a child has a right to a safe secure life more then the parent has a right to raise their own child. Unfortunately the courts don't always look at it that way. They often make every effort to give a child back to a formerly abusive, drug addicted parent in order to preserve that bond, I disagree with that move.

It was here in Florida that a CPS worker faked visitation documents and a child was completely LOST, as in no one knew where this child was...

 

[hugo]

Listening Only to Christian Music Considered Child Abuse?


At the end of January, in Port Huron, Michigan, the Millings family were minding their own business, homeschooling their children. Suddenly a social worker knocked at the door demanding entry. When the mother refused to let her in, and handed her a piece of paper describing her rights, the social worker crumpled up the paper and said, “I’m not dealing with it.” Then she stated that if she couldn’t come in to examine the children she would get the police. She yelled over the mom’s objections that she wanted to “come in now” and do a strip search of one of the children.

The allegations by the anonymous tipster were absurd. The family was accused of “only allowing their two boys to listen to Christian music.” The tipster said that the children “ate their cheerios dry” and received nearly all their “socialization through their church.” The tipster asserted the children were not in school. Furthermore, the anonymous tipster said the “fourteen- and ten-year-old were seen outside playing without adult supervision” and the mother “pinched and hit her kids in church to keep them quiet.” The last allegation was the reason why the social worker wanted to strip search one of the children.

Chris Klicka of Home School Legal Defense Association immediately sent a letter to the social worker indicating the rudeness and unprofessionalism of her visit. He also indicated that she obviously didn’t receive her social worker training in the Fourth Amendment. HSLDA, a year and a half earlier, drafted and helped persuade legislators to pass a law requiring all social workers in Michigan to receive training in their “duty to protect both statutory and constitutional rights of those being investigated.”

The Millings were able to get a statement from a local doctor indicating that the children were not abused, and letters from various individuals who vouched for them being good parents.

Unfortunately, the anonymous tipster struck again and made another call. When the social worker renewed her efforts to personally interview and strip search the children, she indicated to Klicka that if she was not allowed to get into the home to do this, she would seek a court order.

Klicka responded with, “You can’t get a court order, because there is no probable cause.” He explained that an anonymous tip does not rise to the level of probable cause and that a court order could not be issued because there was not credible evidence. The social worker closed by saying she would seek a court order by Friday.

By Monday, the social contacted the family and said that they were going to be dropping the investigation.

We praise God for this victory, and the courage of the Millings family.

After the case was closed, the Millings wrote this encouraging note:

“Thank you so very much for all of your help during the recent investigation and threats by a social worker from the Child Protective Services section of the Department of Human Services here. We are so thankful for HSLDA! We had considered not renewing last year, as we’d never needed any services, but we are glad we did renew, and will be doing so again before our year is up next month. We are telling every homeschool family we know who has not joined, that they should. During this time, our children were very frightened, as were we, and if not for HSLDA, we might not have had the strength to stand firm on our fourth amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. Thank you again, so much!”

Shut it down. Remember the laws that govern government agencies.

The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I know you’re smarter than this CES. Aren’t you? Because that was a pretty lame statement. Just because you’ve never heard a case that didn’t help a child it should be **** canned?
CPS, child protection service (it’s in the name). If you take a child out of a suspected abusive situation, isn’t that better than doing nothing? I understand they **** up and pull children from families that might be detrimental. FIX IT DON’THROUGH IT AWAY!! I’ve said this a few times lately.

When CPS takes a child, that child is thrust into the Foster Care System and I feel that is like taking them from the frying pan and tossing them into the fire. I really don't believe that CPS does any good. Sorry.

I would prefer intervention without removal of the child unless there was no other option available. No family, no friends, nothing else.

 

[Komrade Vostok Hazard]

I don't see how being passed from home to home will better the situation. One would think that it will confuse the HELL out of the kid (for obvious reasons) and not to mention the glut of foster homes that pack in a boatload of kids just for the ca$h that the social services give them for being foster parents.

Once the kids turn 18, I heard that social services just boot them out of the system -- right onto the streets, or they put them in some independant living program where they give them the cheapest rundown boarding house they can find. I've heard of one kid in this situation witness a person OD'ing, a stabbing and a beating in the first night.

And let's not forget how many social workers and foster parents turn out to be closet kid****ers.

 

[snafu]

When CPS takes a child, that child is thrust into the Foster Care System and I feel that is like taking them from the frying pan and tossing them into the fire. I really don't believe that CPS does any good. Sorry.

I would prefer intervention without removal of the child unless there was no other option available. No family, no friends, nothing else.

Well that's the usually course of action. You first have police intervention. Next you have court intervention. Then comes the slap on the wrist. Next time they go through the same thing but they get a case worker and probably parenting classes. If the child survives this and there is another incident they take the child. Now this is obviously case by case. I think if you did something to deserve your kids taken right away it was in the child's best interest.

 

[snafu]

When CPS takes a child, that child is thrust into the Foster Care System and I feel that is like taking them from the frying pan and tossing them into the fire. I really don't believe that CPS does any good. Sorry.

I would prefer intervention without removal of the child unless there was no other option available. No family, no friends, nothing else.

Well intervention is usually the course of action. You first have police intervention. Next you have court intervention. Then comes the slap on the wrist. Next time they go through the same thing but they get a case worker and probably parenting classes. If the child survives this and there is another incident they take the child. Now this is obviously case by case. I think if you did something to deserve your kids taken right away it was in the child's best interest.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Well intervention is usually the course of action. You first have police intervention. Next you have court intervention. Then comes the slap on the wrist. Next time they go through the same thing but they get a case worker and probably parenting classes. If the child survives this and there is another incident they take the child. Now this is obviously case by case. I think if you did something to deserve your kids taken right away it was in the child's best interest.

Nice theory snafu...

Except it never works that way. Ever. At least what I have heard, read and seen.

I assume you weren't referencing me because my kids have never been taken away. SOmetimes I wish they'd go away for a day or two, but only lightheartedly.

 

[snafu]

Well intervention is usually the course of action. You first have police intervention. Next you have court intervention. Then comes the slap on the wrist. Next time they go through the same thing but they get a case worker and probably parenting classes. If the child survives this and there is another incident they take the child. Now this is obviously case by case. I think if you did something to deserve your kids taken right away it was in the child's best interest.

Crap-ol-a all the way. I think the whole gamut of child welfare laws have cause more harm then good, nothing is perfect and that is what has been attempted by the mass of child welfare/abuse laws created in the past two decades. Sure some of the really bad off abused children have been possibly saved, but at the expense of the larger population of children et al... as bad as it may be, it is better to lose a few then to lose whole generations.
.
.
.

I strongly disagree. How do you lose a whole generation? And what dose "child welfare" have to do with CPS? Anyway no one came knocking on my door and took my kids. Someone get yours? They

 

[Lethalfind]

I love this thread. It's so interesting.

By the way, blah blah blah blah blah blah...

 

[dshogan1]

I have to say that i ride the fence on this one. The only good thing about CPS at the moment is the name. I beleive we should have a CPS but the whole system should be rebuilt, the current system makes it worse. The foster paretns arent screened enough, along with a long list of other problems. The current system should be thrown out, but the idea should be maintained.

 

[hugo]

I have to say that i ride the fence on this one. The only good thing about CPS at the moment is the name. I beleive we should have a CPS but the whole system should be rebuilt, the current system makes it worse. The foster paretns arent screened enough, along with a long list of other problems. The current system should be thrown out, but the idea should be maintained.

Let me repeat

BARKING CATS

In a recent column (Newsweek Jan 8), I pointed out that approval of drugs by the Food and Drug Administration delays and prevents the introduction of useful as well as harmful drugs. After giving reasons why the adverse effects could be expected to be far more serious than the beneficial effects, I summarized a fascinating study by Prof. Sam Peltzman, of UCLA of experience before and after 1962, when standards were stiffened. His study decisively confirmed the expectation that the bad effects would much outweigh the good.

The column evoked letters from a number of persons in pharmaceutical work offering tales of woe to confirm my allegation that the FDA was indeed "Frustrating Drug Advancement," as I titled the column. But most also said something like, "In contrast to your opinion, I do not believe that the FDA should be abolished, but I do believe that its power should be" changed in such and such a way - to quote from a typical letter.

BIOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL LAWS

I replied as follows: "What would you think of someone who said, " I would like to have a cat, provided it barked"? Yet your statement that you favor an FDA provided it behaves as you believe desirable is precisely equivalent. The biological laws that specify the characteristics of cats are no more rigid than the political laws that specify the behavior of governmental agencies once they are established. The way the FDA now behaves, and the adverse consequences are not an accident, not a result of some easily corrected human mistake, but a consequence of its constitution in precisely the same way that a meow is related to the constitution of a cat. As a natural scientist, you recognize that you cannot assign characteristics at will to chemical and biological entities, cannot demand that cats bark or water burn. Why do you suppose that the situation is different in the "social sciences?"

The error of supposing that the behavior of social organisms can be shaped at will is widespread. It is the fundamental error of most so-called reformers. It explains why they so often believe that the fault lies in the man, not the "system," that the way to solve problems is to "throw the rascals out" and put well-meaning people in charge. It explains why their reforms, when ostensibly achieved, so often go astray.

The harm done by the FDA does not result from defects in the men in charge-unless it be a defect to be human. Most are and have been able, devoted and public-spirited civil servants. What reformers so often fail to recognize is that social, political and economic pressures determine the behavior of the men supposedly in charge of a governmental agency to a far greater extent than they determine its behavior. No doubt there are exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare-about as rare as barking cats.

THE NADER SYNDROME

Ralph Nader is the most prominent current example of such a reformer. In a series of valuable reports, he and his associates have confirmed dramatically what earlier studies had demonstrated less dramatically-that governmental agencies established to regulate an industry in order to protect consumers typically end up as instruments of the industry they are supposed to regulate, enabling the industry to protect monopoly positions and to exploit the consumer more effectively. These effects have probably been documented most fully for the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission), but what is true of the ICC is true also of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and so on through the list of alphabetical monstrosities preying on consumers from their privileged sanctuaries in Washington.

You might expect Nader and his associates to draw the obvious conclusion that there is something innate in the political process that produces this result; that, imperfect as it is, the market does a better job of protecting the consumer than the political process. But no, their conclusion is very different; establish stronger agencies instructed more explicitly and at greater length to do good and put people like us in charge, and all will be well. Cats will bark.

This failure to grasp the inner logic of the political process means that, despite Nader's excellent intentions, despite his admirable singleness of purpose, despite his dedication and despite his high repute, he has done and will continue to do
great harm to the very consumers he seeks to aid.

-Milton Friedman, Published in Newsweek (Feb. 19, 1973)

 

[OmegaManiac]

I think we could toss em all in the ocean without anyone really missing them, think of how happy the fish would be.