Discussion:
|Re: CPS News from Texas
(too old to reply)
kane
2004-10-13 21:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Looks like the Legislature is castigating DFPS for its abysmal
outcomes in
Adult Protective, also.
How can DFPS justify more staff when their counterpart in California
stated
that one-half of the children did NOT DESERVE OR MERIT BEING IN
FOSTER CARE?

More workers would speed cases and investigations and return childen
sooner. No rocket science required.

Children stay in the system while their case is processed. Processing
takes time....and more caseworkers means fewer cases per worker, hence
faster more efficient processing. Follow?
How can you justify this, except on your own selfish agenda?
Talking to yourself again, Log?
That is: you derive money (income) from fostering children.
Oh, you were addressing Sherman.

Funny that Sherman pays out more, and provides more financial support
to the children in her home than the state pays for their care. In
fact that's pretty much the rule across the country. Foster parents,
according to reputable sources...like the feds...spend about 10% more
on the child than the foster stipend.

While we'd be anxious about your safety if you quite lying, I'm sure
we could get used to it, and feel refreshed by you telling the truth
from time to time....but then, what would you have to say?

Kane
She Man contributes.
Subject: CPS News from Texas
Date: 10/13/2004 2:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2844854
The agency is asking for 365 new employees.
"When the culture is tax cuts, that inevitably leads to budget cuts,
which
means no caseworker is there for children," ~ quote from article.
Sherman
bobb
2004-10-15 13:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by kane
Looks like the Legislature is castigating DFPS for its abysmal
outcomes in
Adult Protective, also.
How can DFPS justify more staff when their counterpart in California
stated
that one-half of the children did NOT DESERVE OR MERIT BEING IN
FOSTER CARE?
More workers would speed cases and investigations and return childen
sooner. No rocket science required.
Let's see now. Hire more people to speed up the process to return children
to their parents.
Post by kane
Children stay in the system while their case is processed. Processing
takes time....and more caseworkers means fewer cases per worker, hence
faster more efficient processing. Follow?
With all that efficiency....and all the extra workers... and fewer
cases... it sure does sound like rocket science.
NASA spent billions of dollars to get into space ... a private agency did it
for a few millions. Is there a clue here, Watson?
Post by kane
How can you justify this, except on your own selfish agenda?
Who has a selfish agenda here? Who is protecting the status quo?

bobb
Post by kane
Talking to yourself again, Log?
That is: you derive money (income) from fostering children.
Oh, you were addressing Sherman.
Funny that Sherman pays out more, and provides more financial support
to the children in her home than the state pays for their care. In
fact that's pretty much the rule across the country. Foster parents,
according to reputable sources...like the feds...spend about 10% more
on the child than the foster stipend.
While we'd be anxious about your safety if you quite lying, I'm sure
we could get used to it, and feel refreshed by you telling the truth
from time to time....but then, what would you have to say?
Kane
She Man contributes.
Subject: CPS News from Texas
Date: 10/13/2004 2:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2844854
The agency is asking for 365 new employees.
"When the culture is tax cuts, that inevitably leads to budget cuts,
which
means no caseworker is there for children," ~ quote from article.
Sherman
kane
2004-10-15 21:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobb
Post by kane
Looks like the Legislature is castigating DFPS for its abysmal
outcomes in
Adult Protective, also.
How can DFPS justify more staff when their counterpart in
California
Post by bobb
Post by kane
stated
that one-half of the children did NOT DESERVE OR MERIT BEING IN
FOSTER CARE?
More workers would speed cases and investigations and return
childen
Post by bobb
Post by kane
sooner. No rocket science required.
Let's see now. Hire more people to speed up the process to return children
to their parents.
Yes, that's correct. Quality of service is effected by two
things....skill of the worker, and workload.
Post by bobb
Post by kane
Children stay in the system while their case is processed.
Processing
Post by bobb
Post by kane
takes time....and more caseworkers means fewer cases per worker, hence
faster more efficient processing. Follow?
With all that efficiency....and all the extra workers... and fewer
cases... it sure does sound like rocket science.
Not to me. It sounds perfectly reasonable, and I have emperical
experience to support it.
Post by bobb
NASA spent billions of dollars to get into space ... a private agency did it
for a few millions. Is there a clue here, Watson?
Sure, The scale was considerable different, and NASA had to develop
the science and engineering that is only NOW pretty much off the
shelf. You see any new and wonderful inventions or processes come out
of that flight?

Let me know when they reach the moon.
Post by bobb
Post by kane
How can you justify this, except on your own selfish agenda?
Who has a selfish agenda here? Who is protecting the status quo?
Moi? Protect the status quo? How can identifying, as the various think
tanks, social scientists, and myself..being in agreement, equate with
supporting the status quo. They and I identify pretty much the same
problems. Undertrained, over loaded, undereducated staff and
insufficient services both in access and quality.

What is the cure for that, bobber the swift? Less money, fewer staff,
less education, and more workload, less services?
Post by bobb
bobb
No, bobber, if anyone here is an advocate, with the exception of Doug
(though I don't agree with his cure either...to shift to LE methods)
YOU few assholes that constantly lie about CPS want the status quo and
worse...you wish it to prevail and worsen...less money, less staff,
more workload, less education. And fewer services?

That's not going to save children. Nor families. Many families have
benefited by services from CPS. People that might have gone on to much
worse fates and more damage to self and others got their shit together
and won their kids back by cleaining up, going to work, and back to
school.
Post by bobb
Post by kane
Talking to yourself again, Log?
That is: you derive money (income) from fostering children.
Oh, you were addressing Sherman.
Funny that Sherman pays out more, and provides more financial
support
Post by bobb
Post by kane
to the children in her home than the state pays for their care. In
fact that's pretty much the rule across the country. Foster
parents,
Post by bobb
Post by kane
according to reputable sources...like the feds...spend about 10% more
on the child than the foster stipend.
Oh yes...and I forgot. Cutting budgets would further burden the foster
care system. Not everyone can afford to do what Sherman has done.
Post by bobb
Post by kane
While we'd be anxious about your safety if you quite lying, I'm sure
we could get used to it, and feel refreshed by you telling the truth
from time to time....but then, what would you have to say?
Why is it when your collegues here lie you do nothing but watch?

Kane
Post by bobb
Post by kane
Kane
She Man contributes.
Subject: CPS News from Texas
Date: 10/13/2004 2:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2844854
The agency is asking for 365 new employees.
"When the culture is tax cuts, that inevitably leads to budget cuts,
which
means no caseworker is there for children," ~ quote from article.
Sherman
bobb
2004-10-16 12:01:53 UTC
Permalink
If more than half of the children do not belong in foster care the
reasonable solution to improve CPS is to cut the work load and related
costs by.... how?

a.Hire more social workers
b. increase training
c. increase services

bobb
kane
2004-10-16 18:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobb
If more than half of the children do not belong in foster care the
reasonable solution to improve CPS is to cut the work load and
related
Post by bobb
costs by.... how?
a.Hire more social workers
b. increase training
c. increase services
Yes. a. b. c.

Very much what I, and the Pew Commission and other pundits claim. Much
of the slop that hurts is due to an incapacity to give enough
attention to a case to resolve it more quickly. If a worker hasn't the
time or training and the family can't ACCESS services because of
budget shortfalls, then the process slows and wobbles and the worker
is left putting out brushfires, instead of doing what they can do
under better circumstances, and I've witnessed.

Of the list you offer, which can be done with out money?

Or would get children out of foster care quicker of reduced?

Should CPS reduce the numbers of workers, reduce their training,
reduce family services?

Explain how that will work?
Post by bobb
bobb
a.Hire more social workers
[[[[ so that casework can be completed sooner with better accuracy.
]]]]
Post by bobb
b. increase training
[[[[[ so that workers make fewer good practice errors and understand
their job more fully ]]]]]
Post by bobb
c. increase services
[[[[ So that families do not have to wait in a long queue for slots to
open in the services delivery system...it isn't a infinite thing,
after all. ]]]]

Get the picture?

Now, what do YOU believe is the best way to get children out of foster
care sooner...and please, not that old saw, "don't put them in foster
care."

You KNOW why they are there...and that number isn't going to diminish.
The fools experiment in Florida should show you how THAT doesn't work.

LE investigations did not change the level of abuses ONE POINT in two
of the three counties, and in the third, under sheriff's department
abuse investigations.....ABUSE WENT UP.

I'd rather reduce the kinds of experiments that end that way. I KNOW
what makes CPS work properly. Money, and talent, just like all other
endeavors. The hard work part, that has to be there, usually comes
with the former. People work for wages, among other things, and more
talent they have them more dollars they can command.

Training is a constant, as laws, and interpretations of laws, and
practice and policy are impacted. Changing demographics in a
community, as happened in the 70's 80's, and 90's with immigration
requires more training. And know for a fact in my area, training
dollars disappeared. A worker reported to me that in a 500 worker
area, with five branch offices of CPS they had about $700 training
dollars per quarter to for the entire region's 500 workers. That's not
much over a dollar a worker.

It's not going to happen with that kind of budget cuts, but people ARE
going to keep abusing their children...and cutting funding isn't going
to impact that at all, except to free them to do it more, and more
severely before they are caught.

I have, it seems, two motivations on this. I do NOT want children in
pain, and I do not want them later as adults bringing the injuries
they've suffered to my house and neighborhood, or YOURS for that
matter.

Though I do hope the "messicans" and "blacks" are a moving in on yah!
R R R

Kane
bobb
2004-10-16 22:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
If more than half of the children do not belong in foster care the
reasonable solution to improve CPS is to cut the work load and
related
Post by bobb
costs by.... how?
a.Hire more social workers
b. increase training
c. increase services
Yes. a. b. c.
Very much what I, and the Pew Commission and other pundits claim. Much
of the slop that hurts is due to an incapacity to give enough
attention to a case to resolve it more quickly. If a worker hasn't the
time or training and the family can't ACCESS services because of
budget shortfalls, then the process slows and wobbles and the worker
is left putting out brushfires, instead of doing what they can do
under better circumstances, and I've witnessed.
Of the list you offer, which can be done with out money?
Do you mean just money.... or more money? Reduce the unnecessary work load
by returning 50 percent of the kids that do not belong in the system. That
translates into a budget increase of 100 precent, reduces the work load by
50 percent., and provides the opportunity to rid the system of worthless
employees.

bobb
Post by bobb
Or would get children out of foster care quicker of reduced?
Should CPS reduce the numbers of workers, reduce their training,
reduce family services?
Explain how that will work?
Post by bobb
bobb
a.Hire more social workers
[[[[ so that casework can be completed sooner with better accuracy.
]]]]
Post by bobb
b. increase training
[[[[[ so that workers make fewer good practice errors and understand
their job more fully ]]]]]
Post by bobb
c. increase services
[[[[ So that families do not have to wait in a long queue for slots to
open in the services delivery system...it isn't a infinite thing,
after all. ]]]]
Get the picture?
Now, what do YOU believe is the best way to get children out of foster
care sooner...and please, not that old saw, "don't put them in foster
care."
You KNOW why they are there...and that number isn't going to diminish.
The fools experiment in Florida should show you how THAT doesn't work.
LE investigations did not change the level of abuses ONE POINT in two
of the three counties, and in the third, under sheriff's department
abuse investigations.....ABUSE WENT UP.
I'd rather reduce the kinds of experiments that end that way. I KNOW
what makes CPS work properly. Money, and talent, just like all other
endeavors. The hard work part, that has to be there, usually comes
with the former. People work for wages, among other things, and more
talent they have them more dollars they can command.
Training is a constant, as laws, and interpretations of laws, and
practice and policy are impacted. Changing demographics in a
community, as happened in the 70's 80's, and 90's with immigration
requires more training. And know for a fact in my area, training
dollars disappeared. A worker reported to me that in a 500 worker
area, with five branch offices of CPS they had about $700 training
dollars per quarter to for the entire region's 500 workers. That's not
much over a dollar a worker.
It's not going to happen with that kind of budget cuts, but people ARE
going to keep abusing their children...and cutting funding isn't going
to impact that at all, except to free them to do it more, and more
severely before they are caught.
I have, it seems, two motivations on this. I do NOT want children in
pain, and I do not want them later as adults bringing the injuries
they've suffered to my house and neighborhood, or YOURS for that
matter.
Though I do hope the "messicans" and "blacks" are a moving in on yah!
R R R
Kane
kane
2004-10-17 05:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
If more than half of the children do not belong in foster care the
reasonable solution to improve CPS is to cut the work load and
related
Post by bobb
costs by.... how?
a.Hire more social workers
b. increase training
c. increase services
Yes. a. b. c.
Very much what I, and the Pew Commission and other pundits claim. Much
of the slop that hurts is due to an incapacity to give enough
attention to a case to resolve it more quickly. If a worker hasn't the
time or training and the family can't ACCESS services because of
budget shortfalls, then the process slows and wobbles and the
worker
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
is left putting out brushfires, instead of doing what they can do
under better circumstances, and I've witnessed.
Of the list you offer, which can be done with out money?
Do you mean just money.... or more money? Reduce the unnecessary work load
by returning 50 percent of the kids that do not belong in the system.
That
Post by bobb
translates into a budget increase of 100 precent, reduces the work load by
50 percent., and provides the opportunity to rid the system of
worthless
Post by bobb
employees.
While it may allow for some of the latter, the other two do not
follow. For one thing I believe the estimate are based on a faulty
understanding of what "unsubstantiated" actually means. It does NOT
mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA. FAr
too many children under that kind of counting are retuned home, and
reenter the system. In fact I think in some places as much or more
than 5%. As high as 15%. That kicks the hell out of the idea that 50%
should not be in out of home care. And it says ZERO about the other
alternative that may very well be needed....more children in IN home
care with services to the family.

Believe it or not, those childern ARE in temporary custody of the
state, and they require caseworkers.

The 50% is the wildest of guesses. Didjah ever think about it enough
to wonder where that figure came from? Could it have been politically
motivated by the fact CA administrators (where this came from as I
recall) must now buy into the "CPS has failed" bullshit if they want
to keep their jobs and have a chance to convince the legislators to
not strip the agency more bare than it is?

But say your solution is instituted:

This would allow the situation to then, after dumping half the
workforce or returning to previous staffing levels, recycle back to
too many children languishing in the system? The number coming IN is
not going to automatically reduce. Get real.

The point is there aren't enough employees. Those they have lack the
experience and training because of high turnover, lack of training
monies, the lousy pay scale that doesn't attract those with more
education and experience, accompanied by the miserable working
conditions.

You can't imagine how many MSWs new to child protection work, that are
biding their time waiting for an opening in private proctice or in
some jollier social work field with higher pay. A few...bless'em, get
hooked by helping kids and families and stay on, but many do not...and
it's not the claim here...that they can't stomach the system. That's
bullshit propaganda based on a few incidences.

Do you think it's fun to deal with abused children and their abusers?
For low pay? Greatly reduced training opportunities? After going to
school for years to obtain a Master's degree?

Also I notice you did NOT address the training issue, nor the services
to families issue. Don't ask a question again that has a full response
and NOT respond to each of the points. It's ugly, stupid, and shows
lack of ethical standards, bobb.
Post by bobb
bobb
Try the real world, bbbbbobber the swift. For once.

Kane
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
Or would get children out of foster care quicker of reduced?
Should CPS reduce the numbers of workers, reduce their training,
reduce family services?
Explain how that will work?
Post by bobb
bobb
a.Hire more social workers
[[[[ so that casework can be completed sooner with better accuracy.
]]]]
Post by bobb
b. increase training
[[[[[ so that workers make fewer good practice errors and
understand
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
their job more fully ]]]]]
Post by bobb
c. increase services
[[[[ So that families do not have to wait in a long queue for slots to
open in the services delivery system...it isn't a infinite thing,
after all. ]]]]
Get the picture?
Now, what do YOU believe is the best way to get children out of foster
care sooner...and please, not that old saw, "don't put them in foster
care."
You KNOW why they are there...and that number isn't going to
diminish.
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
The fools experiment in Florida should show you how THAT doesn't work.
LE investigations did not change the level of abuses ONE POINT in two
of the three counties, and in the third, under sheriff's department
abuse investigations.....ABUSE WENT UP.
I'd rather reduce the kinds of experiments that end that way. I KNOW
what makes CPS work properly. Money, and talent, just like all other
endeavors. The hard work part, that has to be there, usually comes
with the former. People work for wages, among other things, and more
talent they have them more dollars they can command.
Training is a constant, as laws, and interpretations of laws, and
practice and policy are impacted. Changing demographics in a
community, as happened in the 70's 80's, and 90's with immigration
requires more training. And know for a fact in my area, training
dollars disappeared. A worker reported to me that in a 500 worker
area, with five branch offices of CPS they had about $700 training
dollars per quarter to for the entire region's 500 workers. That's not
much over a dollar a worker.
It's not going to happen with that kind of budget cuts, but people ARE
going to keep abusing their children...and cutting funding isn't going
to impact that at all, except to free them to do it more, and more
severely before they are caught.
I have, it seems, two motivations on this. I do NOT want children in
pain, and I do not want them later as adults bringing the injuries
they've suffered to my house and neighborhood, or YOURS for that
matter.
Though I do hope the "messicans" and "blacks" are a moving in on yah!
R R R
Kane
bobb
2004-10-17 13:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by kane
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
If more than half of the children do not belong in foster care the
reasonable solution to improve CPS is to cut the work load and
related
Post by bobb
costs by.... how?
a.Hire more social workers
b. increase training
c. increase services
Yes. a. b. c.
Very much what I, and the Pew Commission and other pundits claim.
Much
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
of the slop that hurts is due to an incapacity to give enough
attention to a case to resolve it more quickly. If a worker hasn't
the
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
time or training and the family can't ACCESS services because of
budget shortfalls, then the process slows and wobbles and the
worker
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
is left putting out brushfires, instead of doing what they can do
under better circumstances, and I've witnessed.
Of the list you offer, which can be done with out money?
Do you mean just money.... or more money? Reduce the unnecessary
work load
Post by bobb
by returning 50 percent of the kids that do not belong in the system.
That
Post by bobb
translates into a budget increase of 100 precent, reduces the work
load by
Post by bobb
50 percent., and provides the opportunity to rid the system of
worthless
Post by bobb
employees.
While it may allow for some of the latter, the other two do not
follow. For one thing I believe the estimate are based on a faulty
understanding of what "unsubstantiated" actually means. It does NOT
mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA. FAr
too many children under that kind of counting are retuned home, and
reenter the system. In fact I think in some places as much or more
than 5%. As high as 15%. That kicks the hell out of the idea that 50%
should not be in out of home care. And it says ZERO about the other
alternative that may very well be needed....more children in IN home
care with services to the family.
Believe it or not, those childern ARE in temporary custody of the
state, and they require caseworkers.
The 50% is the wildest of guesses. Didjah ever think about it enough
to wonder where that figure came from? Could it have been politically
motivated by the fact CA administrators (where this came from as I
recall) must now buy into the "CPS has failed" bullshit if they want
to keep their jobs and have a chance to convince the legislators to
not strip the agency more bare than it is?
This would allow the situation to then, after dumping half the
workforce or returning to previous staffing levels, recycle back to
too many children languishing in the system? The number coming IN is
not going to automatically reduce. Get real.
The point is there aren't enough employees. Those they have lack the
experience and training because of high turnover, lack of training
monies, the lousy pay scale that doesn't attract those with more
education and experience, accompanied by the miserable working
conditions.
You can't imagine how many MSWs new to child protection work, that are
biding their time waiting for an opening in private proctice or in
some jollier social work field with higher pay. A few...bless'em, get
hooked by helping kids and families and stay on, but many do not...and
it's not the claim here...that they can't stomach the system. That's
bullshit propaganda based on a few incidences.
Do you think it's fun to deal with abused children and their abusers?
For low pay? Greatly reduced training opportunities? After going to
school for years to obtain a Master's degree?
Seems to me it's those with the Master's degree that do the training. How
much training does one need?

Training is a joke anyway. Training does not equate to education. We
potty train, and we train dogs. No matter, the scope of training is
tanatamount to brain washing. Recyling the same old beliefs, failed
programs, propaganda, and abuses inherent to the system.

The federal government has latched onto failed beliefs, promoted by social
workers, and made them law. They also passed laws to protect social workers
from their own faulty behaviors. Rather cushy, don't ya think?

Low pay? What you're really talking about is greed. If the pay of social
workers were doubled do you really think they would do a better job? Nope.
All you'd do is attract a whole host of more incompentents seeking a cushy
job at high pay... justified on the backs of otherwise deserving children.
Not unlike teachers these days. Now, I really have to wonder who exploits
children.

bobb


And you wanna talk about ethical standands. Hahahaha


bobb
Post by kane
Also I notice you did NOT address the training issue, nor the services
to families issue. Don't ask a question again that has a full response
and NOT respond to each of the points. It's ugly, stupid, and shows
lack of ethical standards, bobb.
Post by bobb
bobb
Try the real world, bbbbbobber the swift. For once.
Kane
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
Or would get children out of foster care quicker of reduced?
Should CPS reduce the numbers of workers, reduce their training,
reduce family services?
Explain how that will work?
Post by bobb
bobb
a.Hire more social workers
[[[[ so that casework can be completed sooner with better accuracy.
]]]]
Post by bobb
b. increase training
[[[[[ so that workers make fewer good practice errors and
understand
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
their job more fully ]]]]]
Post by bobb
c. increase services
[[[[ So that families do not have to wait in a long queue for slots
to
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
open in the services delivery system...it isn't a infinite thing,
after all. ]]]]
Get the picture?
Now, what do YOU believe is the best way to get children out of
foster
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
care sooner...and please, not that old saw, "don't put them in
foster
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
care."
You KNOW why they are there...and that number isn't going to
diminish.
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
The fools experiment in Florida should show you how THAT doesn't
work.
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
LE investigations did not change the level of abuses ONE POINT in
two
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
of the three counties, and in the third, under sheriff's department
abuse investigations.....ABUSE WENT UP.
I'd rather reduce the kinds of experiments that end that way. I
KNOW
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
what makes CPS work properly. Money, and talent, just like all
other
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
endeavors. The hard work part, that has to be there, usually comes
with the former. People work for wages, among other things, and
more
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
talent they have them more dollars they can command.
Training is a constant, as laws, and interpretations of laws, and
practice and policy are impacted. Changing demographics in a
community, as happened in the 70's 80's, and 90's with immigration
requires more training. And know for a fact in my area, training
dollars disappeared. A worker reported to me that in a 500 worker
area, with five branch offices of CPS they had about $700 training
dollars per quarter to for the entire region's 500 workers. That's
not
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
much over a dollar a worker.
It's not going to happen with that kind of budget cuts, but people
ARE
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
going to keep abusing their children...and cutting funding isn't
going
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
to impact that at all, except to free them to do it more, and more
severely before they are caught.
I have, it seems, two motivations on this. I do NOT want children
in
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
pain, and I do not want them later as adults bringing the injuries
they've suffered to my house and neighborhood, or YOURS for that
matter.
Though I do hope the "messicans" and "blacks" are a moving in on
yah!
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
R R R
Kane
kane
2004-10-17 20:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobb
Post by kane
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
If more than half of the children do not belong in foster care the
reasonable solution to improve CPS is to cut the work load and
related
Post by bobb
costs by.... how?
a.Hire more social workers
b. increase training
c. increase services
Yes. a. b. c.
Very much what I, and the Pew Commission and other pundits claim.
Much
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
of the slop that hurts is due to an incapacity to give enough
attention to a case to resolve it more quickly. If a worker
hasn't
Post by bobb
Post by kane
the
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
time or training and the family can't ACCESS services because of
budget shortfalls, then the process slows and wobbles and the
worker
Post by bobb
Post by bobb
is left putting out brushfires, instead of doing what they can do
under better circumstances, and I've witnessed.
Of the list you offer, which can be done with out money?
Do you mean just money.... or more money? Reduce the unnecessary
work load
Post by bobb
by returning 50 percent of the kids that do not belong in the
system.
Post by bobb
Post by kane
That
Post by bobb
translates into a budget increase of 100 precent, reduces the work
load by
Post by bobb
50 percent., and provides the opportunity to rid the system of
worthless
Post by bobb
employees.
While it may allow for some of the latter, the other two do not
follow. For one thing I believe the estimate are based on a faulty
understanding of what "unsubstantiated" actually means. It does NOT
mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA. FAr
too many children under that kind of counting are retuned home, and
reenter the system. In fact I think in some places as much or more
than 5%. As high as 15%. That kicks the hell out of the idea that 50%
should not be in out of home care. And it says ZERO about the other
alternative that may very well be needed....more children in IN home
care with services to the family.
Believe it or not, those childern ARE in temporary custody of the
state, and they require caseworkers.
The 50% is the wildest of guesses. Didjah ever think about it
enough
Post by bobb
Post by kane
to wonder where that figure came from? Could it have been
politically
Post by bobb
Post by kane
motivated by the fact CA administrators (where this came from as I
recall) must now buy into the "CPS has failed" bullshit if they want
to keep their jobs and have a chance to convince the legislators to
not strip the agency more bare than it is?
This would allow the situation to then, after dumping half the
workforce or returning to previous staffing levels, recycle back to
too many children languishing in the system? The number coming IN is
not going to automatically reduce. Get real.
The point is there aren't enough employees. Those they have lack the
experience and training because of high turnover, lack of training
monies, the lousy pay scale that doesn't attract those with more
education and experience, accompanied by the miserable working
conditions.
You can't imagine how many MSWs new to child protection work, that are
biding their time waiting for an opening in private proctice or in
some jollier social work field with higher pay. A few...bless'em, get
hooked by helping kids and families and stay on, but many do
not...and
Post by bobb
Post by kane
it's not the claim here...that they can't stomach the system.
That's
Post by bobb
Post by kane
bullshit propaganda based on a few incidences.
Do you think it's fun to deal with abused children and their
abusers?
Post by bobb
Post by kane
For low pay? Greatly reduced training opportunities? After going to
school for years to obtain a Master's degree?
Seems to me it's those with the Master's degree that do the training.
I fail to follow the significance or relevence to the discussion.
Post by bobb
How
much training does one need?
Well, I'd say if one is making life and death decisions, and whether
to preserve or dissolve a parent child relationship, it should be a
lifelong learning.

Many professions now recognize that need. Do you think that a MD
should end her training after residency? And that she will be a good
doctor for the rest of her life?
Post by bobb
Training is a joke anyway. Training does not equate to education.
We
Post by bobb
potty train, and we train dogs. No matter, the scope of training is
tanatamount to brain washing. Recyling the same old beliefs, failed
programs, propaganda, and abuses inherent to the system.
Spoken by a truly stupid untrained man. Would you extend that
stupidity to all trades and professions? How about when plastics
replaced metals in plumbing systems? No training needed?

How about when new discoveries in medicine and health are made. Do the
doctors ignore getting trained in the new skills needed? Look at
radioly alone. Huge changes in technology in the past 20 years, and
hell, the past ten has seen even more. Should the technicians and
Radiologists suspend becoming trained in their application and use?

You haven't the faintest idea what the word "training" means, do you?

It's major use, dummy, is to disrupt and replace the things YOU claim
it just recycles.

Prove your claim, swifty.
Post by bobb
The federal government has latched onto failed beliefs, promoted by social
workers, and made them law. They also passed laws to protect social workers
from their own faulty behaviors. Rather cushy, don't ya think?
Nope. Obviously you have no concept of cause and effect. You must have
taken a hit in the head before you were 7 years old. Or your mother
drank or did drugs with you in utero. You may be developmentally
disabled. A good occupational therapist could provide some training so
you could learn some new compensatory coping skills and expand your
horizons a bit.

Please provide a list of failed beliefs that are expressed in
law...the laws too please.

And proof the "beliefs" are failed beliefs.

Then I'll point out how we humans as a society have always gone from
less and less accurate information to more and more accurate
information. Had we not, you and I would be sitting in skins around a
little fire...not ot even skins and a fire, and grunting.

In fact you DO appear to be grunting.
Post by bobb
Low pay? What you're really talking about is greed. If the pay of social
workers were doubled do you really think they would do a better job?
Nope, but more better trained and experience people would be attracted
to child welfare work...which I presume you are referring to, as I
was. These would replace the less well trained less experienced, and
thus less skilled.

It's that old "cause and effect" for you, isn't it, bobber the swift?
Post by bobb
Nope.
All you'd do is attract a whole host of more incompentents seeking a cushy
job at high pay... justified on the backs of otherwise deserving children.
Let me see then. By that logic we should keep the workers we have,
never send them to training and education, and cut their pay. That'll
lower child abuse, right?
Post by bobb
Not unlike teachers these days. Now, I really have to wonder who exploits
children.
Teachers are the victims of system that was totally corrupt at it's
inception, the modern day system of public schooling, that we got in
the 1800's that destroyed the parent derived schooling of prior days.

Our independence, and that of teachers was stolen. Young people that
go into teaching don't know that. Some continue their entire career
never getting it either. THOSE are the ones you insult.

Some get it....and get out, move on to other things. Some get it and
stay and fight. Some get it and move out and fight it from the
outside, like John Gatto did and does to this day.

You read anything I pointed you at of his yet?

I thought not.
Post by bobb
bobb
And you wanna talk about ethical standands. Hahahaha
Interestingly bobb, that IS the entire reason for my being here.
Ethics to me are what makes us tic. Or the ticking stop.

Ethical standards in child welfare has been my focus since 1976 when I
helped my first person fight CPS...a young single mother, a family
friend. And unbeknownst to the county old biddies that came after here
(that used to be who did child welfare back then....old ladies with a
bitch to pitch about young women getting their freedom), she was a
former child welfare worker from Missouri. Kid with an MSW in fact.

They never knew and neither she or I told them, and we whipped butt,
and in three weeks I was on the social services advisory committee to
the county commission, and in another year, it's chair, and called and
chaired public meetings on federal funding, and program development
for all social services in that county.

I got to be in and part of the transfer from county to state system in
child protection services.

And from that time to the present my favorite bitch is a failure to
codify, outside of colleges and universities, a standard of child
welfare practices for the nation.

In fact, I've never succeeded in getting a single state I've
interacted with to create and publish a manual of CPS caseworker
practice standards.

But my push has resulted in other good things happening. I've written
about some of them here before.
Post by bobb
bobb
b-b-b-b-bobber, you are way out of your depth. Go back to checkers.

And bad mouthin' blacks and "messicans," scientists and scholars.

And please...ask the attendent to change your Depends. You stink.


Kane
bobb
2004-10-18 13:00:56 UTC
Permalink
You missed the point, Kane.... training means I teach you my way... right
or wrong.

Being educated suggests the ability to explore, discover, and apply
different methods and ideas. The less educated are trained to apply new
founded knowledge.

Training, in and of itself, can be dangerous. Those unqualified all too
often set themselves up as experts and pass along wrong information. To
merely, and off-handly, say more training is necessary obviates the value of
said training.

Although learning can be a life-long experience, training is self-limiting.
We really need to look at the educators... a fact that can no longer be
over-looked in the public school, for intance.

bobb
kane
2004-10-19 02:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobb
You missed the point, Kane.... training means I teach you my way... right
or wrong.
You failed to make the point until now. Don't try to fob resonsibility
for your obtuse writing off on me, bobber.

And by the way, YOU miss the point. "Training" is not defined that way
by anyone except YOU, after your previous lame and pointless post.

Unless of course you were trying to invoke in the reader a vision of
plant training, as in to train a vine up a wall, or to, by repeated
wetting and application of heat or chemicals, to train hair to curl
for a time, or to not curl if that is the goal.

Lovely analogy, and bright of you to use it, but too obtuse for anyone
to pick up on from simply the use of the verb, "training" in the
context we were using it; arguing the difference between education and
training.
Post by bobb
Being educated suggests the ability to explore, discover, and apply
different methods and ideas. The less educated are trained to apply new
founded knowledge.
And this makes the latter somehow suspect? As in, if they aren't
encouraged to expore, discover, and apply different methods and ideas,
it's nothing but brainwashing?

I've done a lot of training in my day, and nothing I did would stop or
discourage people from doing any of those things. In fact I designed
curriculum for exactly that outcome in mind. I consider simply
funneling of facts as pointless. Too much training is that, I'll grant
you.

But then you might want to call me a teacher instead.

Some have.
Post by bobb
Training, in and of itself, can be dangerous.
And you think "education" can't be by comparison?
Post by bobb
Those unqualified all too
often set themselves up as experts and pass along wrong information.
To
Post by bobb
merely, and off-handly, say more training is necessary obviates the value of
said training.
Ah, good old "obviates." I haven't bee obviated in over a week. I'll
have to speak to the wife about that.
Post by bobb
Although learning can be a life-long experience, training is
self-limiting.
Post by bobb
We really need to look at the educators... a fact that can no longer be
over-looked in the public school, for intance.
Do you really really want to go here bobber?

I'll be happy to if you'll go to the Gato page and start working your
way through his history of public education. You sound ready.
Post by bobb
bobb
YOU miss the point, bobber. I'm not interested in your opinions. You
have more than enough of them to distract you from belly button link
picking for some time to come.

I'm interested in your thinking. And if you aren't looking at new
information, where I can be pretty sure your responses will have to
include those criteria you claim go to education, then what's to
discuss...you'll just be spouting old platitudes, that you may have
been "trained" to spout in response to a quiz by the teacher.

In fact, there's a lot of that going on around here. I've suspected
you have potential to escape it. Let's see.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

Kane
Doug
2004-10-18 23:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by kane
While it may allow for some of the latter, the other two do not
follow. For one thing I believe the estimate are based on a faulty
understanding of what "unsubstantiated" actually means. It does NOT
mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA.
Hi, Kane!

Substantiated or unsubstantiated findings are made solely by the CPS
caseworker and supervisor and do not involve local DA's, courts, or any
other decision makers.

Doug
kane
2004-10-20 04:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by kane
While it may allow for some of the latter, the other two do not
follow. For one thing I believe the estimate are based on a faulty
understanding of what "unsubstantiated" actually means. It does NOT
mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA.
Hi, Kane!
Substantiated or unsubstantiated findings are made solely by the CPS
caseworker and supervisor and do not involve local DA's, courts, or any
other decision makers.
Do not involve? Oh dear. And me with my poor grasp of case worker
field practice...what will I ever do now?

I didn't say they were decision makers...but I did claim they are
involved alrighty. And influecing in exactly the way I claim above.

What I did say was this:

"....... It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a form that would satisfy the local DA.
"

From just prior to your statement above shifting to something not
quite but slightly related. You have practiced that about as long as
I'm going to let you get away with Doug.

When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the DA
is trying to determine whether or not to pursue criminal charges, they
ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of time?" If
they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
"unsubstantiated."

If they have not, then they must, my point and only my point, close
the out on that question by making a finding of "unsubstanciated." I
posted the proof of this to you some time back from a statement by a
federal official.

And if you want to try and prove that STILL there's no court
involvement and no requirement pressing the worker to find, try these:

http://www.masskids.org/cta/cta_iii_ch06.html

[The setting]

"In the present system, when a report falls within the state's
definition of child abuse or neglect, referral to an investigation
unit is made to determine if the child is at substantial risk of
imminent harm. The Massachusetts law states that the Department of
Social Services must carry out the following protocol:"

[The required response from CPS, and I would presume, the worker]

"
Notify the District Attorney within 45 days of the service plan, if
any, developed for such child and his family. In all cases in which
the Department determines that a report of abuse or neglect is not
substantiated, the Department shall notify in writing any and all
sources or recipients of information in connection with the
investigation that the report has not been substantiated.[131]
"

Or possibly this, referring to the actual statement I did make, not
your attempt to insert a claim I did NOT make, the follow public
document FAQ from the state of Oregon:

http://www.dhs.state.or.us/abuse/children/child_protect/report.htm

"
Q. When are juvenile court hearings necessary?

Juvenile court hearings are held when children are removed from their
parent's custody and when DHS supervision of abused or neglected
children in their own homes is ordered. The court ensures that the
parents' and the child's rights will be protected. The parents have a
right to legal counsel and, if they cannot afford an attorney, parents
can request that one be appointed by the court. The juvenile court
holds a "shelter hearing" within 24 judicial hours of an emergency
protective custody situation when a child has been removed from
parents' care. **** subsequent hearing is held to consider the facts
of the child abuse/neglect assessment.**** [[emphasis Kane's]]
Additional hearings are held if the court determines that the child
needs its protection. At each hearing, the court reviews the efforts
of the parents to remedy problems and determines whether DHS has
reasonable efforts to assist the family.
"

What's a "child abuse/neglect assessment," Doug?

And:

"A juvenile court hearing is held within 24 judicial hours to review
the need for continued protection of the child while the assessment
continues."

Seems the court does have some interest in the outcome of the
assessment, as per substantiation or not. Wouldn't you say?

And what did I claim again?

"It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for[m] that would satisfy the local DA.
"

YOU were dumb enough to bring up the courts. And I know what the
courts want. And I didn't claim either "made the substantiation" now
did I?

But, you are correct sir. I am in error. I continue the naive
assumption that people are basically honest, and those who have a
greater claim to ethics are especially bound not to mislead from the
point under actual discussion to attempt to score "points" against the
other's credibility, unless they plainly state they are going off
topic for some reason. Or there is a reasonable break from the
original topic. You failed to do either.

I was correct in that that the DA does have an involvement. And IS
involved in the time factor when contemplating a crimal charge. And on
the issue of the court, you introcuded, they too can tell the worker
to make a finding, NOW, if time is running out...my ONLY claim.

Now, changing the subject, just a bit:

Care to discuss NCIC and separate workers jobs? Let's start with the
latter, just for the hell of it.

Take a look at my recent post to Fern on MO and the silliness of
pointing out the the number of substantiated cases was less than the
number of workers. Not how MO refers, as so many other states I've
supplied quotes and links for, to investigators separately from
ongoing workers.

She claimed, and it made me roar with mirth, that there were "only"
18,000 "investigations." Not getting it that early in the article she
cited, that the number of referals was 56,000.

Nor, unlike someone that actually DOES research field practice in CPS,
that MO had long ago, 1994 in fact, instituted a two track intry for
clients. One called "assessment" for those that voluteered to accept
services, those that either were involved in a crime serious enough to
warrant police and CPS investigation at the same time OR refused to
volunteer (that should make you grin..but please stay on topic for a
bit).

Do you know what they do with the clients that are "assessment"
tracked? Why the initial worker becomes their ongoing worker.

Do you know what they do in the founded cases that the "investigator"
(We calls'em 'PS workers' here'bouts) investigates...the pass the to
an "ongoing caseworker." Honest. I provided the link the quote and the
whole shebang.

I make a rough estimate that about 9 THOUSAND times in MO, that year,
I was right, and you, well Doug eggs'r tasty. You can eat it off or
wipe it off.

Or you can play word games and claim you didn't quite say that I lied,
or made things up. I'm becoming a bit calloused to your abusive ways,
disguised as polite "I just love a lively debate" bullshit.
Post by Doug
Doug
Tell everyone again I don't know casework field practice, Doug. Some
might not have been following our exchanges recently, and not having
seen the evidence I've provided, actually believe you.

NCIC? Your claim disproven.

PS worker? Your claim disprove.

Providing what I asked for and I believe you agreed to supply, the
contextual statements of the researchers, and a reasonable enough
amount of their methodology, to support your claim and theirs, posted
here or where they can be accessed by link, that, other factors being
accounted for, "8 times more likely to abuse" comparing fosters v bio
parents in the general population? Nothing from you so far.

Then there was that dangerous to families claim, that a Guardianship
would protect against CPS removal of a child during an investigation
of an abuse allegation if said guardianship was entered into before
CPS began the investigation? Shot down as the nonsense it obviously
is. Might? Vaguely possible. YOu offered ONE case for support. Will
work? BS

Coupled with your methods of argument (I won't dignify by calling them
debate methods) you have very little claim to credibility.

I wonder if you have the capacity to place yourself in the readers
point of view. I doubt it, but try.

You could get the shock of your life.

So tell us, how are you blocking from you consciousness the evidence I
provided to the claims I made (not your rehash and reframe of what I
said)?

It's been swell chatting with you.

Kane
Doug
2004-10-24 23:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by kane
Post by kane
While it may allow for some of the latter, the other two do not
Post by kane
follow. For one thing I believe the estimate are based on a faulty
understanding of what "unsubstantiated" actually means. It does NOT
mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA.
Substantiated or unsubstantiated findings are made solely by the CPS
caseworker and supervisor and do not involve local DA's, courts, or
any
Post by kane
other decision makers.
I didn't say they were decision makers...but I did claim they are
involved alrighty. And influecing in exactly the way I claim above.
I know you didn't say DA's were decision makers. Neither did my argument
hinge on DA's being decision makers. What I did say was CPS substantiations
of a case do not involve local DA's AT ALL.
Post by kane
"....... It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a form that would satisfy the local DA.
Yes, I know you said that. And I am saying you are wrong. CPS does not
need information to "satisfy" the DA, so there is no such dynamic between
CPS and the DA concerning substantiations.
Post by kane
From just prior to your statement above shifting to something not
quite but slightly related. You have practiced that about as long as
I'm going to let you get away with Doug.
I categorically stated that local DA's have NOTHING to do with CPS
substantiations. You statement that there is a time pressure on CPS to get
information to "satisfy" local DA's is hogwash. CPS does not need to
satisfy local DA's. CPS substantiates all by themselves, thank you. And
local DA's prosecute, criminally, using evidence gathered by POLICE
regardless of whether CPS substantiates or not.
Post by kane
When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the DA
is trying to determine whether or not to pursue criminal charges, they
ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of time?" If
they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
"unsubstantiated."
Nope. Whether a prosecutor persues criminal charges for child abuse has
nothing to do with whether CPS substantiates their civil allegations or not.
In fact, in the vast majority of cases, CPS substantiates and the local DA
refuses to consider prosecuting criminally. Neither the court or the DA
calls CPS to help them make their decisions.
Post by kane
If they have not, then they must, my point and only my point, close
the out on that question by making a finding of "unsubstanciated." I
posted the proof of this to you some time back from a statement by a
federal official.
Nope. The finding of "unsubstantiated" is a exclusive finding (not the lack
of a finding) and is made within 30 days in most states. CPS will wait for
the end of that statutory limit of time before notifying the parents of
either a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding. They do not :"close out"
cases or make a false finding of "unsubstantiated" due to time pressure
exerted by a local DA considering criminal charges. There is NO such time
limitation on bringing criminal charges.

Have a nice day.

Doug
kane
2004-10-25 04:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by kane
While it may allow for some of the latter, the other two do not
Post by kane
follow. For one thing I believe the estimate are based on a faulty
understanding of what "unsubstantiated" actually means. It does NOT
mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA.
Substantiated or unsubstantiated findings are made solely by the CPS
caseworker and supervisor and do not involve local DA's, courts,
or
Post by Doug
Post by kane
any
Post by kane
other decision makers.
I didn't say they were decision makers...but I did claim they are
involved alrighty. And influecing in exactly the way I claim above.
I know you didn't say DA's were decision makers. Neither did my
argument
Post by Doug
hinge on DA's being decision makers.
For a word hack and "researcher" you are sure sloppy with the
language.

"do not involve local DA's, courts, or any other decision makers."

"ANY other" makes them all inclusive. Clean up your act. Drop "any."
Post by Doug
What I did say was CPS substantiations
of a case do not involve local DA's AT ALL.
R R R....yes, I saw that too, and you are full of balony. EVERY day
the DA in some county in this country does exactly that. They get
involved with substantiations as one of the pieces of evidence in
TPRs, just as I said.

Stay tuned, sucker.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
"....... It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a form that would satisfy the local DA.
Yes, I know you said that. And I am saying you are wrong.
And I'm saying you are giving us the Lower Slobbovia view of CPS. Must
be strange there....as in all the rest of the country the DA is
heavily involved. Well, nearly all...I might have missed some Upper
Slobbovia state.
Post by Doug
CPS does not
need information to "satisfy" the DA,
R R R R ..........yer killing me. I've been doing this 28 years, Doug.
I KNOW what the DA does. And when I'm not sippin' coffee with CPS
people from state admins to line workers, and aides, I'm yakkin' it up
with ADAs. Doug, I've trained DA staffs in certain skills....which are
none of your business and definately my own.
Post by Doug
so there is no such dynamic between
CPS and the DA concerning substantiations.
R R R R ........<cough wheeze> Stop, oh please stop. Yer killin' me
and making the biggest fool of yourself so far....your "there's no
such thing as non-casecarrying PS workers, and states CPS can't access
the data in NCIC.

You would be seriously wrong in this Doug. Try rewording it, weasel.
NOT responding to what I say or claim is your favorite trick. Expect
to be called on it. I made NO claim the DA or anyone else MADE the
decision, only influenced the timeliness. Yer losing your cool, old
man.

So, tell me, is what I said true or not....

When the DA says the case is running out of time and the worker must
find or not is that true or something I just made up?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
From just prior to your statement above shifting to something not
quite but slightly related. You have practiced that about as long
as
Post by Doug
Post by kane
I'm going to let you get away with Doug.
I categorically stated that local DA's have NOTHING to do with CPS
substantiations.
You better go back and tame that "catagor," it's about to eat you
alive.
Post by Doug
You statement that there is a time pressure on CPS to get
information to "satisfy" local DA's is hogwash.
Would you care to claim the DA has no interest in the substantiation
of a case if CPS is considering a request for a petition for TPR? Go
ahead, think about it first though, carefully.
Post by Doug
CPS does not need to
satisfy local DA's.
R R R R.................WHAT A LAME DIMWIT. All I mentioned was TPR
cases, and the DA responsibilities are obvious, as you'll soon find
out, and their interaction with CPS to get with it, or close the case.
Post by Doug
CPS substantiates all by themselves, thank you.
I made no claim otherwise. Show me where I said others substantiate.

The DA has no input as far as I know. Well, they might have an
investigator share the criminal evidence they've found. I really
wouldn't know about that. But an open case without a finding by CPS is
NOT liked by the DA if the case is going to TPR.
Post by Doug
And
local DA's prosecute, criminally, using evidence gathered by POLICE
regardless of whether CPS substantiates or not.
Sure they do, and far be it for me to have a falling out with the DAs
office and claim otherwise.

BUT Doug, before you read further on I want you to say to yourself
realllllll loud..."DA's aren't involved in family court proceedings,
even TRP." Because Doug, that is what you appear to be saying.

Who vet's CPS intent to request a TPR petition before they can be
filed with the court by the DA (the case in many states I've heard)?

Here it's the county DA. Well, of course an ADA in the office that
specializes in child protection cases.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the
DA
Post by Doug
Post by kane
is trying to determine whether or not to pursue criminal charges,
they
Post by Doug
Post by kane
ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of time?"
If
Post by Doug
Post by kane
they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
"unsubstantiated."
Nope. Whether a prosecutor persues criminal charges for child abuse
Ah, where did you see me say "criminal charges?" I didn't. You are
making assumptions that you wish people to swallow instead of sticking
to the actual claim as stated.

Still up to your old tricks of trying to put words in someone else's
keyboard. Silly boy. YOu are one champion equivocator.
Post by Doug
has
nothing to do with whether CPS substantiates their civil allegations
or not.
Post by Doug
In fact, in the vast majority of cases,
It does in TPR petitions. The DA is in the loop here. They may not be
in your area, but I assure you I've been involved and KNOW they
routinely are here.....CPS cannot file a petition for TRP without it
here. The DA does the filing.

In fact CPS assigns special workers (you know, the kind you like to
deny and claim I'm making up that I show you citations from states
that clearly establish such separation of duties and positions) that
are called "LAR writers." LAS, as in Legal Review Specialists,I
believe LAR stands for Legal Assistance Review. I get behind on the
jargon sometimes. I have about 15 single spaced pages of them for five
differet states, triple column.

And the LAR will come back red-penciled if there is not a clear
indication of having substantiated the allegation(s). TPRs don't
happen without. Reliquishments do of course.
Post by Doug
CPS substantiates and the local DA
refuses to consider prosecuting criminally.
R R R ...you are NOT really saying that the DA's office is NOT
involved in the civil cases we call TPR are you? Please, don't do this
to yourself.

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you...especially as you've
gotten so caught up in winning you cannot admit when you erred, even
when I give you the easiest out...you were WRONG on work assigments,
and you were WRONG on NCIC, and you've done nothing but weasel and
make some declarations about as convincing as the child with cookie
crumbs down his shirt front, a broken cookie jar on the kitchen floor
would claims, "Dah kiddy did id."

And the same old begging the question for-eeeever.
Post by Doug
Neither the court or the DA
calls CPS to help them make their decisions.
R R R ....what cutely careful wording. Where did I say the DA did
that; "help?" They motivate to come to case closure. and that's ALL I
claimed. And they sure as hell "help" in TPR, as the DA does the
actual filing based on the case evidence CPS provides...including that
important little "substantiation."

Maybe YOURS doesn't involve the DA but in other states they certainly
do.

Yah know Doug, you certainly exhibit a great deal of ignorance outside
your own little world for a 'researcher' and child protection
caseworker. 7 states you say, eh? R R R R R ....sure.

I hope the hell you aren't being paid. An amateur like myself can run
circles around you without even leaving the comfort of his computer
chair.

http://tinyurl.com/6bjqk This is the entire hitlist for a google
search:

I'll only cite and quote from a few of the more obvious, out of about
1,590 for the googel [DA "district attorney" "termination of parental
rights"];

WI: http://www.co.saint-croix.wi.us/Departments/DA/DA/
"[duties] as well as St. Croix County ordinance violations, children
in need of protective services cases and termination of parental
rights cases, and represents the interests of the public in matters
brought under the Juvenile Code, including attending juvenile
proceedings in Juvenile Court.
"
So you have to assume they DO have some influence over CPS, no?

OR: http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dss/budget/99BIF/99DAbrf.htm
"Department Services
The District Attorney's Office provides:
....
Multidisciplinary Child Abuse Team
.....
Juvenile Dependency cases
.................
Additionally, the court added two new judicial officers to the family
court. To properly address these pressures will require an additional
Deputy in the DV unit, a Deputy and half time clerk at the juvenile
court, and a Deputy at the Child Abuse Team.
........
Violence Against Women and Children. Increased attention to the
problem of domestic violence has resulted in staffing pressures on the
Domestic Violence (DV) and Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)
units."

[[[[[ Notice the level of involvement? There is a high degree of
contact between all parties to child abuse issues....and the DA does
influence the closing of cases one way or another, on time, so they
can know what to plan for on their docket...or rather, the court
docket. ]]]]]

Further, at this Co DA's office (It encompasses Oregon's largest city,
Portand and a few small towns around it) you will find the following
at:
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/FREDS/records/retention/%20DA/daj1.shtml

"Termination Of Parental Rights Case Records (DAJ1-003): Documents
juvenile court hearings to terminate the parental rights of one or
both parents of a child(ren). This process is governed by ORS
419B.500-524 and is heard by the Juvenile Court judge and may
involve the State District Attorney's office and State Services to
Children and Families as well as the County District Attorney's
office. Records include case logs (showing all case actions by
date), juvenile court motions and orders, case records from
various jurisdictions used as evidence to support the case,
guardianship studies, intake report, SCF report to the court,

[[[[[ This is likely the LAR I mentioned before. Or I should say, the
product of it....as the LAR is just a letter filled with everything
CPS has done to date they feel they can recommend a TPR for that an
ADA red pencils for more evidence, if needed, and DAM SURE sends it
back of the case isn't substantiated. LAS folks HATE it when the
letter comes back all red pencilled. I'ts like their old 8th grade
english papers coming back....R R R R. You really don't believe I have
contacts with CPS, do you? Yah kill me. ]]]]

planning hearing records, custody petitions, summons, termination
orders, rehearing records, and related information.
Retention: Retain 10 years after termination of parental rights of
both parents. (2000-0009/001)
"

And guess what, Douggie...here's the OR policy for it:

http://www.dhs.state.or.us/policy/childwelfare/manual_1/i-f32.htm
"
PROCEDURES

Referrals for Legal Assistance

(1) Branches shall restrict requests for consultation to legal issues
pursuant to potential termination of parental rights. Each branch
shall designate a contact person who is responsible for scheduling
consultation sessions with the assigned LAP attorney and the Legal
Assistance Specialist (LAS).
"

I've known LAS. Tough job. usually they have NO time to do a caseload,
but they are mostly MSWs with considerable experience in TPR and case
closure issues.

Utah, Nevada, Oklahoma, and the list goes on.

Or on the other hand, Doug, I probably just make this stuff up as I go
along, including the creation of phony state webpages, just to
confound you and unfairly win our debates. Right? 0;->

Yer unbelievable. Really.

State after state that DOES involve their DA's in family court on NON
CRIMINAL CHARGE CASES...civil cases.

Here's another, dummy:

Kansas: http://www.douglas-county.com/District_Attorney/dafaqs.asp
...........

"It is the duty of the District Attorney to prepare and file the
petition alleging a child to be a CINC and to appear at all hearings
on the petition and in aid to the court. A CINC case may be resolved
by a range of possible dispositions, up to and including, termination
of parental rights.

Another WI county...states it's involvement in TPR and child
protection at:

http://www.co.barron.wi.us/da.htm
Post by Doug
Post by kane
If they have not, then they must, my point and only my point, close
the out on that question by making a finding of "unsubstanciated."
I
Post by Doug
Post by kane
posted the proof of this to you some time back from a statement by
a
Post by Doug
Post by kane
federal official.
Nope. The finding of "unsubstantiated" is a exclusive finding (not
the lack
Post by Doug
of a finding) and is made within 30 days in most states.
They may NOT close a case without finding. It's either substantiated
or unsubstantiated, just like the english language works. If they were
unable to substantiate, what would YOU call it...."forstenblescher?
Post by Doug
CPS will wait for
the end of that statutory limit of time before notifying the parents
of
Post by Doug
either a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding.
Yep, I didn't say they did otherwise. What has the "notification of
parents" got to do with it? You are referring to either the point the
child will be returned, or the case goes to TPR, or request for
voluntary relinquishment.
Post by Doug
They do not :"close out"
cases
Yes they do.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=CPS+%2Bclosing+child+abuse+cases

Unless you aren't talking about workers. And if you meant DA's, then I
have to ask, have you lost your mind completely? Why would I say DA's
close CPS cases?

You are just fogging.
Post by Doug
or make a false finding of "unsubstantiated"
R R R ............GOTTA HAND IT TO YAH, BALLS.

Nothing I said could possibly lead anyone but a died in the wool full
blown manic anti CPS basher to that conclusion.

All I said was they put pressure on, and I made it very clear, to make
a finding so the case can move on to petion or not.
Post by Doug
due to time pressure
exerted by a local DA considering criminal charges.
Did I say that? I missed that "criminal charges" piece. If I said that
then I have to immediately withdraw it as a claim. I know better than
that. I would have said considering CPS desire to terminate PRs. My
apologies for the error if it was mine. And a serious one it would be
too.

But then, you are wrong, big time about the aplication of the finding,
"unsubstantiated." If they can't substantiate it's an automatic
"unsubstantiated." The english language is funny that way. The feds
quote you gave is not correct. I've written them about it.

Closed cases without a finding, I do beleive, gets a gig on audit.
Just as they would for other imcompleted sections of the caserecord.
Either they had the evidence to find or they didn't. If they didn't,
it's them unsubstantiated...and you have used words to the effect.
Post by Doug
There is NO such time
limitation on bringing criminal charges.
You are correct. I DID in fact slip and use the term, Criminal
Charges. That is incorrect and I hereby direct you to what I had
intended to say. Must have had a hard day. I'm usually more careful.

Here are my words, and my mea culpa:

"When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the DA
is trying to determine whether or not to pursue criminal charges, they
ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of time?" If
they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
"unsubstantiated."

I should confined myself more carefully and correctly to TPR .. and
the pressure to clear cases...a common thing in many states...as the
federal audit gigs them for having cases open without
cause...especially after the 15 out of the previous 24 rule is
exceeded, you are full of bull, as usual.

Hope this gives you a nice comfy satin lined bolt hole, but it sure
doesn't absolve you of your claim that the DA is not involved with CPS
producing a finding. The DA of course cares not at all if it's
unsubstantiated. Just so they do NOT have a lot of cases pending that
might come up for a TPR petition.

These days of even more limited budgets put DAs on notice by the court
to damn well do thorough planning and projections of the pending
docket.

And I've just posted state after state that involves DAs in family
court TPR cases so you are kind of left with that shit of yours
dribbling down your chin, again, phony.
Post by Doug
Have a nice day.
The days are going to get far far nicer. Trust me.

It won't be long now.
Post by Doug
Doug
Kane
Doug
2004-10-26 01:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by kane
R R R....yes, I saw that too, and you are full of balony. EVERY day
the DA in some county in this country does exactly that. They get
involved with substantiations as one of the pieces of evidence in
TPRs, just as I said.
Hi, Kane!

The state's attorney petitioning for TPR may use information in a CPS report
months or years after a substantiated finding, yes. But surely you are not
saying that DA's find themselves petitioning for TPR less than 30 days after
a family has been hotlined for allegations of child maltreatment and prior
to the completion of an investigation? Surely you are not saying that the
DA is pressuring CPS to make a substantiated finding in shorter than 30 days
because it is moving for TPR in that length of time?
Post by kane
And I'm saying you are giving us the Lower Slobbovia view of CPS. Must
be strange there....as in all the rest of the country the DA is
heavily involved. Well, nearly all...I might have missed some Upper
Slobbovia state.
In the United States, the DA is usually not involved in CPS civil
investigations of child maltreatment. And the state certainly does not
petition for Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) in less than 30 days after
a investigation or assessment is started.
Post by kane
R R R R ..........yer killing me. I've been doing this 28 years, Doug.
I KNOW what the DA does. And when I'm not sippin' coffee with CPS
people from state admins to line workers, and aides, I'm yakkin' it up
with ADAs. Doug, I've trained DA staffs in certain skills....which are
none of your business and definately my own.
Cool. A new one. You've trained DA staffs, too, in between your coffee
breaks with CPS workers and trips to the bathroom with cops who need to
vomit. A busy man and vivid imagination.
Post by kane
You would be seriously wrong in this Doug. Try rewording it, weasel.
NOT responding to what I say or claim is your favorite trick. Expect
to be called on it. I made NO claim the DA or anyone else MADE the
decision, only influenced the timeliness. Yer losing your cool, old
man.
Timeliness would not be an issue because TPR's are not brought within the
very brief time frame of an assessment or investigation. You added TPR's to
your post this time around to try to cover yourself, but it doesn't work.
TPR's generally are not sought in the this time frame.

If so, the public and the legislatures have to be informed that the state is
moving to terminate parental rights before CPS even substantiates a case.
And that, furthermore, the DA is putting time pressure on CPS to make the
finding even faster than 30 days!
Post by kane
So, tell me, is what I said true or not....
When the DA says the case is running out of time and the worker must
find or not is that true or something I just made up?
It is not true.

I have no way of knowing if you just made it up or one of the cops told you
that or you think you learned it in Air Force Intelligence.
Post by kane
Would you care to claim the DA has no interest in the substantiation
of a case if CPS is considering a request for a petition for TPR? Go
ahead, think about it first though, carefully.
I have no trouble claiming that the state's attorney will not be petitioning
for a TPR within 30 days of unproven allegations of child maltreatment or
pressuring CPS to make a finding before the statutory time limit for
investigations because the attorney is moving for TPR.

Would you care to claim that District Attorney's in a given state are
considering filing a petition for TPR in the short, 30-day time frame of a
CPS assessment or investigation and want to move it up even shorter?
Post by kane
Post by Doug
CPS does not need to
satisfy local DA's.
R R R R.................WHAT A LAME DIMWIT. All I mentioned was TPR
cases, and the DA responsibilities are obvious, as you'll soon find
out, and their interaction with CPS to get with it, or close the case.
You mention TPR cases NOW, in this post. But it still does not apply, since
the time frame until a finding is announced to the parents is only 30 days.
Most CPS investigations or assessments are completed in a day, but agencies
generally wait the full 30 days before informing parties of their finding.
At the end of the 30 days, CPS will notify the parents and referring party
if the case has been substantiated or unsubstantiated. The case may be open
or closed regardless of either finding. (Many families unsubstantiated for
risk of or actual maltreatment become an open case with a safety plan and
services. Many substantiated cases are closed.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
CPS substantiates all by themselves, thank you.
I made no claim otherwise. Show me where I said others substantiate.
The DA has no input as far as I know. Well, they might have an
investigator share the criminal evidence they've found. I really
wouldn't know about that. But an open case without a finding by CPS is
NOT liked by the DA if the case is going to TPR.
After the statutory time limit for a finding, there is no such thing as an
open case without a finding. There are plenty of open cases, of course,
that began as either unsubstantiated or substantiated cases.
Post by kane
BUT Doug, before you read further on I want you to say to yourself
realllllll loud..."DA's aren't involved in family court proceedings,
even TRP." Because Doug, that is what you appear to be saying.
Nope. Never said anything close to DA's not being involved in family court
proceedings or DA's not being involved in Termination of Parental Rights
hearings. You brought up TPR.

What I did say was that DA's are not involved in putting time pressure on
CPS to come up with a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding.
Post by kane
Here it's the county DA. Well, of course an ADA in the office that
specializes in child protection cases.
Here it is the "county attorney." Roughly the same as an Assistant District
Attorney in those jurisdictions that use the term. Or you can consider a
county attorney as being somewhere in between the "city attorney's" and the
Assistant District Attorney's in California.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the
DA
Post by Doug
Post by kane
is trying to determine whether or not to pursue criminal charges,
they
Post by Doug
Post by kane
ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of time?"
If
Post by Doug
Post by kane
they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
"unsubstantiated."
Now, the above is what you said in your first post, Kane. Nothing about
TPR.
Post by kane
Nope. Whether a prosecutor persues criminal charges for child abuse
Ah, where did you see me say "criminal charges?" I didn't. You are
making assumptions that you wish people to swallow instead of sticking
to the actual claim as stated.
Look at your own quote, above, Kane. Where did I see you say, criminal
charges?. I will cut and paste again, with emphasis.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the
DA
Post by Doug
Post by kane
is trying to determine whether or not to PURSUE CRIMINAL CHARGES,
they > >> ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of
time?"
Post by kane
If> >> they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
Post by Doug
Post by kane
"unsubstantiated."
Still up to your old tricks of trying to put words in someone else's
keyboard. Silly boy. YOu are one champion equivocator.
Nope. They were YOUR words, as I have shown above.
Post by kane
It does in TPR petitions. The DA is in the loop here. They may not be
in your area, but I assure you I've been involved and KNOW they
routinely are here.....CPS cannot file a petition for TRP without it
here. The DA does the filing.
The state files the TPR petition here, too. But not within 30 days of
unsubstantiated allegations made in a hotline call.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
CPS substantiates and the local DA
refuses to consider prosecuting criminally.
R R R ...you are NOT really saying that the DA's office is NOT
involved in the civil cases we call TPR are you? Please, don't do this
to yourself.
No, you're right, I am NOT saying that the DA is not involved in TPR cases.
I said nothing about TPR at all in my first post. What I DID say was that
DA's make the decision whether to prosecute child abuse criminally.
Post by kane
I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you...especially as you've
gotten so caught up in winning you cannot admit when you erred, even
when I give you the easiest out...you were WRONG on work assigments,
and you were WRONG on NCIC, and you've done nothing but weasel and
make some declarations about as convincing as the child with cookie
crumbs down his shirt front, a broken cookie jar on the kitchen floor
would claims, "Dah kiddy did id."
And the same old begging the question for-eeeever.
Post by Doug
Neither the court or the DA
calls CPS to help them make their decisions.
R R R ....what cutely careful wording. Where did I say the DA did
that; "help?" They motivate to come to case closure. and that's ALL I
claimed. And they sure as hell "help" in TPR, as the DA does the
actual filing based on the case evidence CPS provides...including that
important little "substantiation."
What I will do know is cut and paste the portion of your first post that I
responded to. Let's look and see if, in that post, there is any mention of
TPR.
Post by kane
Maybe YOURS doesn't involve the DA but in other states they certainly
do.
"Our" county attorneys do file petitions for TPR based upon information in
reports CPS substantiated months or usually years beforehand. They do not
put pressure on CPS to make a finding from an investigation/assessment
before 30 days has elapsed.
Post by kane
Yah know Doug, you certainly exhibit a great deal of ignorance outside
your own little world for a 'researcher' and child protection
caseworker. 7 states you say, eh? R R R R R ....sure.
It is quite clear what you posted and what I responded with. There is
nothiing ignorant in my reponse.

BTW, what 7 states? You've lost me there with the 7 states.

Anyway, here is your first post.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
While it may allow for some of the latter, the other two do not
follow. For one thing I believe the estimate are based on a faulty
understanding of what "unsubstantiated" actually means. It does NOT
mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA.
Hi, Kane!
Substantiated or unsubstantiated findings are made solely by the CPS
caseworker and supervisor and do not involve local DA's, courts, or any
other decision makers.
Do not involve? Oh dear. And me with my poor grasp of case worker
field practice...what will I ever do now?

I didn't say they were decision makers...but I did claim they are
involved alrighty. And influecing in exactly the way I claim above.

What I did say was this:

"....... It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a form that would satisfy the local DA.
"

From just prior to your statement above shifting to something not
quite but slightly related. You have practiced that about as long as
I'm going to let you get away with Doug.

When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the DA
is trying to determine whether or not to pursue criminal charges, they
ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of time?" If
they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
"unsubstantiated."

If they have not, then they must, my point and only my point, close
the out on that question by making a finding of "unsubstanciated." I
posted the proof of this to you some time back from a statement by a
federal official.

-------------

Have a great evening!

Doug
kane
2004-10-26 19:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by kane
R R R....yes, I saw that too, and you are full of balony. EVERY day
the DA in some county in this country does exactly that. They get
involved with substantiations as one of the pieces of evidence in
TPRs, just as I said.
Hi, Kane!
The state's attorney petitioning for TPR may use information in a CPS report
months or years after a substantiated finding, yes. But surely you are not
saying that DA's find themselves petitioning for TPR less than 30 days after
a family has been hotlined for allegations of child maltreatment and prior
to the completion of an investigation?
No. I said no such thing. Are you trying to insinuate I did?
Post by Doug
Surely you are not saying that the
DA is pressuring CPS to make a substantiated finding in shorter than 30 days
because it is moving for TPR in that length of time?
Surely you missed my mention of the "15 out of the previous 24"
remarks. And unless there are extraordinary circumstances, a TPR would
be highly unlikely to take place that early in the case. They do tend,
as those of us who know are aware, way out toward the end of the time
period mentioned....15 months.

But in those rare instances where a case might go to TPR more quickly,
say a severe abuse case, yes, they might well expect and express to
CPS that substantiation of finds was something they sought. Can you
assure us that would not be so?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
And I'm saying you are giving us the Lower Slobbovia view of CPS. Must
be strange there....as in all the rest of the country the DA is
heavily involved. Well, nearly all...I might have missed some Upper
Slobbovia state.
In the United States, the DA is usually not involved in CPS civil
investigations of child maltreatment.
Please explain the various states County DA's offices I cited that
declare they do just that?
Post by Doug
And the state certainly does not
petition for Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) in less than 30 days after
a investigation or assessment is started.
Please point out where I made such a claim? I find your habit of
making a declaration of some, "error" pretending I made it when I've
made no such claim, funny though unethical.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
R R R R ..........yer killing me. I've been doing this 28 years, Doug.
I KNOW what the DA does. And when I'm not sippin' coffee with CPS
people from state admins to line workers, and aides, I'm yakkin' it up
with ADAs. Doug, I've trained DA staffs in certain skills....which are
none of your business and definately my own.
Cool. A new one. You've trained DA staffs, too, in between your coffee
breaks with CPS workers and trips to the bathroom with cops who need to
vomit.
I don't recall taking officers to the bathroom to vomit. They have
gone under their own power. And yes, I've have had a more than a few
cups of coffee with CPS workers, supervisors, managers, and state
administrators. I'm surprised you'd consider it unusual. I presume you
know they take breaks and do so with whomever they please.

As for training, one has to stop and think a bit. What would some of
the areas of interest of a DA staffer be? What training might they
need and seek? You rely on the limited capacities of a few of your
readers to insinuate a narrow simplistic view of jobs, people, and
capacities.

The county, in the instances I'm referring to, contracted with me to
teach people from many professions. In my trainings there were school
teachers and administrators, public health professionals (they were
the hiring body in fact) law enforcement, juvenile and adult justice
staff.
Post by Doug
A busy man and vivid imagination.
Yes to the first, and yet to the second. A good imagination is a
prerequisite for a good researcher. One has to explore the
possibilities.

I think though that you meant you considered me a liar. Is that
correct?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
You would be seriously wrong in this Doug. Try rewording it,
weasel.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
NOT responding to what I say or claim is your favorite trick.
Expect
Post by Doug
Post by kane
to be called on it. I made NO claim the DA or anyone else MADE the
decision, only influenced the timeliness. Yer losing your cool, old
man.
Timeliness would not be an issue because TPR's are not brought within the
very brief time frame of an assessment or investigation. You added TPR's to
your post this time around to try to cover yourself, but it doesn't work.
TPR's generally are not sought in the this time frame.
You have it backwards. You are the one trying to cover your ass by
pretending that assessments and investigations closing mean there will
be no other discoveries until the cases closes. At the time the state
(CPS) decides on a TPR petition, and connects with the DA for
consultation and a letter of request for petition, it is usually
toward the further end of the time frame. 15 months or more. There's
no cutoff on gathering more information on the case, just because the
assessment period is closed.

That would be sort of foolish, don't you think?
Post by Doug
If so, the public and the legislatures have to be informed that the state is
moving to terminate parental rights before CPS even substantiates a case.
Well, since I didn't say that, and it's nothing more than a weasel
dodge, one of your usual patently phony attempts by constructing non
existent "claims" of mine, you would be laughed out of the state house
and the media offices...as you are laughed out of here.
Post by Doug
And that, furthermore, the DA is putting time pressure on CPS to make the
finding even faster than 30 days!
You made rather a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions from my
statements. You build a complexity into your creation that did not
exist in my comments. I did not limit to 30 days, nor is there any
such limit. If a case has not been substantiated in 30 days, are you
claiming it is then closed?

See, how easy this is? If was a morally dysfunctional creep I could
try pulling such nonsense.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
So, tell me, is what I said true or not....
When the DA says the case is running out of time and the worker must
find or not is that true or something I just made up?
It is not true.
It is not true of there is no request for the DA to petion for TPR.
When there is such a request one of the items tic'd off is
"sustantiated or not substantiated." If not, the DA sends the letter
back and says a petition won't fly without it.
Post by Doug
I have no way of knowing if you just made it up or one of the cops told you
that or you think you learned it in Air Force Intelligence.
I know you have no way. You've demonstrated that pretty conclusively.
Are you still too shy to say right out that you think I'm lying?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Would you care to claim the DA has no interest in the
substantiation
Post by Doug
Post by kane
of a case if CPS is considering a request for a petition for TPR? Go
ahead, think about it first though, carefully.
I have no trouble claiming that the state's attorney will not be petitioning
for a TPR within 30 days of unproven allegations of child
maltreatment or
Post by Doug
pressuring CPS to make a finding before the statutory time limit for
investigations because the attorney is moving for TPR.
R R R ...I didn't ask you about any 30 time limit, nor did I mention
one earlier. If the worker is required to close the case, and the
super and worker feel they have a TRP case their next move is to
request the DA file a petition. The DA will NOT do so unless there is
sufficient evidence, in a form that can be coroborated to satisfy a
court of law, and ONE of those things is the assurance that the
findings are in fact "substantiated" by both the early assessment, and
any evidence that has surfaced since.

There's no "30 day" limit, Doug.
Post by Doug
Would you care to claim that District Attorney's in a given state are
considering filing a petition for TPR in the short, 30-day time frame of a
CPS assessment or investigation and want to move it up even shorter?
Will, I didn't claim that. Nor do I now, with the possible exception
of an extraordinary case (I've never heard of one) that was so
horrendous that the outcome is foregone.

YOU created the "30-day time frame" pretending that that would be the
only way a DA could be asking a worker if the case is substantiated.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
CPS does not need to
satisfy local DA's.
R R R R.................WHAT A LAME DIMWIT. All I mentioned was TPR
cases, and the DA responsibilities are obvious, as you'll soon find
out, and their interaction with CPS to get with it, or close the case.
You mention TPR cases NOW, in this post. But it still does not
apply, since
Post by Doug
the time frame until a finding is announced to the parents is only 30 days.
Doug, I posted, some months back that cases go clear out to the limit
of the 15 out of the previous 24 months in our of home care that the
feds place on cases for closure, without a finding one way or the
other. I used a citation from one of your favorite sources.
Post by Doug
Most CPS investigations or assessments are completed in a day, but agencies
generally wait the full 30 days before informing parties of their finding.
At the end of the 30 days, CPS will notify the parents and referring party
if the case has been substantiated or unsubstantiated.
Yet another weasel twist....to start herding any reader away from the
point being debated. When a case is about to go to TPR the DA asks if
the case has been substantiated. He or she cares not WHEN that was
done, only that it was.
Post by Doug
The case may be open
or closed regardless of either finding. (Many families
unsubstantiated for
Post by Doug
risk of or actual maltreatment become an open case with a safety plan and
services. Many substantiated cases are closed.
Yep. And completely off the point.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
CPS substantiates all by themselves, thank you.
I made no claim otherwise. Show me where I said others
substantiate.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
The DA has no input as far as I know. Well, they might have an
investigator share the criminal evidence they've found. I really
wouldn't know about that. But an open case without a finding by CPS is
NOT liked by the DA if the case is going to TPR.
After the statutory time limit for a finding, there is no such thing as an
open case without a finding.
Could you have made my case more for me then?
Post by Doug
There are plenty of open cases, of course,
that began as either unsubstantiated or substantiated cases.
Ho hum. I'm sure this is relevant to some conversation we've had. This
one, however, isn't about that.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
BUT Doug, before you read further on I want you to say to yourself
realllllll loud..."DA's aren't involved in family court
proceedings,
Post by Doug
Post by kane
even TRP." Because Doug, that is what you appear to be saying.
Nope. Never said anything close to DA's not being involved in family court
proceedings or DA's not being involved in Termination of Parental Rights
hearings. You brought up TPR.
That's nice. I'm glad to have contributed to make YOUR statements
clearer.

So tell us. If the DA is involved, how is it you think they have no
influence on the step of substantiation or not?

You established in lines above in this post that some cases go the
whole time without substantiation. All I've said is that if it goes to
TPR (and what does it matter when I brought that up, Doug, since I'm
answering continuing questions of yours?) then the DA will want to
know that there was a substantiation befor they will petition for TPR.
Post by Doug
What I did say was that DA's are not involved in putting time
pressure on
Post by Doug
CPS to come up with a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding.
Then you would be wrong.

If a case is coming down to the wire on the 15 out of 24 months, and
CPS has decided to request a TPR, the DA is heavily involved, and one
of the standard questions, along with many other issues in the case
they want completed, is, "is the case substantiated?"
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Here it's the county DA. Well, of course an ADA in the office that
specializes in child protection cases.
Here it is the "county attorney." Roughly the same as an Assistant District
Attorney in those jurisdictions that use the term. Or you can
consider a
Post by Doug
county attorney as being somewhere in between the "city attorney's" and the
Assistant District Attorney's in California.
That's nice. I posted a number of citations from DA's offices, one I
think was even a city DA. Are we now to be misdirected, more smoke and
mirrors, by an argument over my not know exactly what you know where
you are.......though I never brought up this issue?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the
DA
Post by Doug
Post by kane
is trying to determine whether or not to pursue criminal
charges,
Post by Doug
Post by kane
they
Post by Doug
Post by kane
ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of time?"
If
Post by Doug
Post by kane
they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
"unsubstantiated."
Now, the above is what you said in your first post, Kane. Nothing about
TPR.
It's a funny thing about time, and words, or actions. They tend to
have sequence. And if, for the sake of supporting your argument, and
defeating mine, you require that I discuss all points that could
possibly come up in the debate, then you have me, Doug.

I automatically lose.

May I have and exercise the same privilege with your arguments then?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Nope. Whether a prosecutor persues criminal charges for child abuse
Ah, where did you see me say "criminal charges?" I didn't. You are
making assumptions that you wish people to swallow instead of
sticking
Post by Doug
Post by kane
to the actual claim as stated.
Look at your own quote, above, Kane. Where did I see you say,
criminal
Post by Doug
charges?. I will cut and paste again, with emphasis.
Was it in context with our argument on TRP? Is it possible both could
be true?

Nevertheless, I stand corrected.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the
DA
Post by Doug
Post by kane
is trying to determine whether or not to PURSUE CRIMINAL
CHARGES,
Post by Doug
Post by kane
they > >> ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of
time?"
Post by kane
If> >> they are, the point of my argument about why cases are
sometime
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
"unsubstantiated."
Still up to your old tricks of trying to put words in someone
else's
Post by Doug
Post by kane
keyboard. Silly boy. YOu are one champion equivocator.
Nope. They were YOUR words, as I have shown above.
You are correct. That does not nullify other of my arguments however.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
It does in TPR petitions. The DA is in the loop here. They may not be
in your area, but I assure you I've been involved and KNOW they
routinely are here.....CPS cannot file a petition for TRP without it
here. The DA does the filing.
The state files the TPR petition here, too. But not within 30 days of
unsubstantiated allegations made in a hotline call.
And you've never seen me claim that. I referred to cases were time was
up and CPS was going for TPR.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
CPS substantiates and the local DA
refuses to consider prosecuting criminally.
R R R ...you are NOT really saying that the DA's office is NOT
involved in the civil cases we call TPR are you? Please, don't do this
to yourself.
No, you're right, I am NOT saying that the DA is not involved in TPR cases.
I said nothing about TPR at all in my first post. What I DID say was that
DA's make the decision whether to prosecute child abuse criminally.
Yep....and so?

How does that change my claim that CPS does feel some pressure from
the DA when going for TPR?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you...especially as you've
gotten so caught up in winning you cannot admit when you erred, even
when I give you the easiest out...you were WRONG on work
assigments,
Post by Doug
Post by kane
and you were WRONG on NCIC, and you've done nothing but weasel and
make some declarations about as convincing as the child with cookie
crumbs down his shirt front, a broken cookie jar on the kitchen floor
would claims, "Dah kiddy did id."
And the same old begging the question for-eeeever.
Post by Doug
Neither the court or the DA
calls CPS to help them make their decisions.
R R R ....what cutely careful wording. Where did I say the DA did
that; "help?" They motivate to come to case closure. and that's ALL I
claimed. And they sure as hell "help" in TPR, as the DA does the
actual filing based on the case evidence CPS provides...including that
important little "substantiation."
What I will do know is cut and paste the portion of your first post that I
responded to. Let's look and see if, in that post, there is any mention of
TPR.
Post by kane
Maybe YOURS doesn't involve the DA but in other states they
certainly
Post by Doug
Post by kane
do.
"Our" county attorneys do file petitions for TPR based upon
information in
Post by Doug
reports CPS substantiated months or usually years beforehand. They do not
put pressure on CPS to make a finding from an
investigation/assessment
Post by Doug
before 30 days has elapsed.
Nor do ours, as far as I know. I've never seen it, but then I never
said it. That's just your construct on my words. Something I did not
claim.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Yah know Doug, you certainly exhibit a great deal of ignorance outside
your own little world for a 'researcher' and child protection
caseworker. 7 states you say, eh? R R R R R ....sure.
It is quite clear what you posted and what I responded with. There is
nothiing ignorant in my reponse.
It's quite clear you attempted to put meanings in my words that do not
exist. I did not put a 30 day time limit.
Post by Doug
BTW, what 7 states? You've lost me there with the 7 states.
http://tinyurl.com/5374n

About the half way point in the post. Enjoy.
Post by Doug
Anyway, here is your first post.
Brilliant. The argument goes on for a number of posts, but you wish to
put aside other subjects and responses to go back to the first post
and argue from YOUR later comments WITHOUT mine.

May I point you to a few good reference works on ethics in debate?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
While it may allow for some of the latter, the other two do not
follow. For one thing I believe the estimate are based on a faulty
understanding of what "unsubstantiated" actually means. It does NOT
mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA.
Hi, Kane!
Substantiated or unsubstantiated findings are made solely by the CPS
caseworker and supervisor and do not involve local DA's, courts, or
any
Post by kane
other decision makers.
Do not involve? Oh dear. And me with my poor grasp of case worker
field practice...what will I ever do now?
I didn't say they were decision makers...but I did claim they are
involved alrighty. And influecing in exactly the way I claim above.
"....... It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a form that would satisfy the local DA.
"
From just prior to your statement above shifting to something not
quite but slightly related. You have practiced that about as long as
I'm going to let you get away with Doug.
When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the DA
is trying to determine whether or not to pursue criminal charges, they
ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of time?" If
they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
"unsubstantiated."
If they have not, then they must, my point and only my point, close
the out on that question by making a finding of "unsubstanciated." I
posted the proof of this to you some time back from a statement by a
federal official.
-------------
Thanks. We needed that. I suppose this is supposed to nullify my
arguments in later posts. Please explain how.
Post by Doug
Have a great evening!
Yep. I see you are getting a little weather. Enjoy.
Post by Doug
Doug
Kane
Greg Hanson
2004-10-29 00:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Bobb made some good points about "more training"
and people ""teaching"" who are not qualified.

In regard to various of the programs to
educate parents, it does bear scrutiny
whether the things being taught aren't
a political agenda, like the non-spanking agenda.

Particularly since spanking is legal in all
50 states. Why is it that there are not
any pro-spanking parenting classes?

To teach parents how to spank and when to spank?

My experience was that the non-spanking agenda
was in fact the main thrust of the parent
education that I participated in.

Where does one draw the line between actual
training or education and brainwashing or
"political reeducation"?

What's the difference between true education
and a politically oriented Gulag or "reeducation camp"?
Rocky MoRahn
2004-10-29 01:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Hanson
Bobb made some good points about "more training"
and people ""teaching"" who are not qualified.
In regard to various of the programs to
educate parents, it does bear scrutiny
whether the things being taught aren't
a political agenda, like the non-spanking agenda.
Particularly since spanking is legal in all
50 states. Why is it that there are not
any pro-spanking parenting classes?
To teach parents how to spank and when to spank?
My experience was that the non-spanking agenda
was in fact the main thrust of the parent
education that I participated in.
Where does one draw the line between actual
training or education and brainwashing or
"political reeducation"?
What's the difference between true education
and a politically oriented Gulag or "reeducation camp"?
OK I can see that. If the teaching included when not to spank and alternate
methods of communication rather than spank.Might work out for everyone.Good
idea.
Rocky
Dan Sullivan
2004-10-29 03:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rocky MoRahn
Post by Greg Hanson
Bobb made some good points about "more training"
and people ""teaching"" who are not qualified.
In regard to various of the programs to
educate parents, it does bear scrutiny
whether the things being taught aren't
a political agenda, like the non-spanking agenda.
Particularly since spanking is legal in all
50 states. Why is it that there are not
any pro-spanking parenting classes?
To teach parents how to spank and when to spank?
My experience was that the non-spanking agenda
was in fact the main thrust of the parent
education that I participated in.
Where does one draw the line between actual
training or education and brainwashing or
"political reeducation"?
What's the difference between true education
and a politically oriented Gulag or "reeducation camp"?
OK I can see that. If the teaching included when not to spank and alternate
methods of communication rather than spank.Might work out for
everyone.Good
Post by Rocky MoRahn
idea.
Rocky
A pro-spanking course is gonna teach "when not to spank and other methods of
communication rather than spank?"

Obviously you have no idea what "pro-spanking" means.
Rocky MoRahn
2004-10-29 05:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rocky MoRahn
Post by Rocky MoRahn
Post by Greg Hanson
Bobb made some good points about "more training"
and people ""teaching"" who are not qualified.
In regard to various of the programs to
educate parents, it does bear scrutiny
whether the things being taught aren't
a political agenda, like the non-spanking agenda.
Particularly since spanking is legal in all
50 states. Why is it that there are not
any pro-spanking parenting classes?
To teach parents how to spank and when to spank?
My experience was that the non-spanking agenda
was in fact the main thrust of the parent
education that I participated in.
Where does one draw the line between actual
training or education and brainwashing or
"political reeducation"?
What's the difference between true education
and a politically oriented Gulag or "reeducation camp"?
OK I can see that. If the teaching included when not to spank and
alternate
Post by Rocky MoRahn
methods of communication rather than spank.Might work out for
everyone.Good
Post by Rocky MoRahn
idea.
Rocky
A pro-spanking course is gonna teach "when not to spank and other methods of
communication rather than spank?"
Obviously you have no idea what "pro-spanking" means.
Obviously you got shit fer brains and no nothing about me. Discipline and
it's collectives are legal. Take your head out of your stank ass. Education
= evolution. Have a nice day, ya fuckin Neanderthal.
Rocky
Dan Sullivan
2004-10-29 11:09:52 UTC
Permalink
<<<snip>>>
Post by Rocky MoRahn
Post by Rocky MoRahn
Post by Rocky MoRahn
Post by Greg Hanson
What's the difference between true education
and a politically oriented Gulag or "reeducation camp"?
OK I can see that. If the teaching included when not to spank and
alternate
Post by Rocky MoRahn
methods of communication rather than spank.Might work out for
everyone.Good
Post by Rocky MoRahn
idea.
Rocky
A pro-spanking course is gonna teach "when not to spank and other
methods
Post by Rocky MoRahn
of
Post by Rocky MoRahn
communication rather than spank?"
Obviously you have no idea what "pro-spanking" means.
Obviously you got shit fer brains and no nothing about me.
What is it about you I need to know?
Post by Rocky MoRahn
Discipline and it's collectives are legal.
Why shouldn't they be?
Post by Rocky MoRahn
Education = evolution.
Then the course shouldn't be pro-spanking, right?

Spanking should always be the last resort, right?
Dan Sullivan
2004-10-29 03:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Hanson
Bobb made some good points about "more training"
and people ""teaching"" who are not qualified.
In regard to various of the programs to
educate parents, it does bear scrutiny
whether the things being taught aren't
a political agenda, like the non-spanking agenda.
Particularly since spanking is legal in all
50 states. Why is it that there are not
any pro-spanking parenting classes?
Because, thankfully, idiot pervs like you are few and far between.
Post by Greg Hanson
To teach parents how to spank and when to spank?
What would be your recommendations, Greg?
Post by Greg Hanson
My experience was that the non-spanking agenda
was in fact the main thrust of the parent
education that I participated in.
You didn't participate.

If I'm not mistaken, you claimed that you dispupted the class.
Post by Greg Hanson
Where does one draw the line between actual
training or education and brainwashing or
"political reeducation"?
Where would you draw the line, Greg?
Post by Greg Hanson
What's the difference between true education
and a politically oriented Gulag or "reeducation camp"?
Doug
2004-10-29 20:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Hi, Kane!

The state's attorney petitioning for TPR may use information in a CPS
report months or years after a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding,
yes. But DA's are not going to be petitioning for TPR's during the short
time frame established by law for investigations and reaching a
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding.

So, your statement that DA's would somehow be pressuring CPS for a
substantiated finding during an investigation is absurd.
Post by kane
Surely you missed my mention of the "15 out of the previous 24"
remarks. And unless there are extraordinary circumstances, a TPR would
be highly unlikely to take place that early in the case. They do tend,
as those of us who know are aware, way out toward the end of the time
period mentioned....15 months.
Exactly. So DA's would not be pressuring CPS for a substantiated finding,
forcing CPS to cut the investigation short with an unsubstantiated finding,
as you wrongfully claimed. DA's move for TPR 15 months after the
investigation.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
And the state certainly does not
petition for Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) in less than 30
days after
Post by Doug
a investigation or assessment is started.
Please point out where I made such a claim? I find your habit of
making a declaration of some, "error" pretending I made it when I've
made no such claim, funny though unethical.
You made the claim that many of the unsubstantiated findings are made by CPS
because the DA, petitioning for TPR, pressures them to substantiate a case.
You said that, since they did not have the "time" to substantiate as the DA
wanted, they unsubstantiated. And, somehow, we are supposed to buy this
twisted logic to explain that "unsubstantiated cases" really represent cases
where there is risk of or actual abuse.

Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was no risk
of or actual neglect/abuse.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Timeliness would not be an issue because TPR's are not brought within
the
Post by Doug
very brief time frame of an assessment or investigation. You added
TPR's to
Post by Doug
your post this time around to try to cover yourself, but it doesn't
work.
Post by Doug
TPR's generally are not sought in the this time frame.
You made rather a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions from my
statements. You build a complexity into your creation that did not
exist in my comments. I did not limit to 30 days, nor is there any
such limit. If a case has not been substantiated in 30 days, are you
claiming it is then closed?
In most states, the statutory limit for an investigation or assessment is 30
days. A finding must be made within that time. There is such a limit, by
law. At the end of the thirty days in these states, a finding is made and
sent to the concerned parties. That finding can be substantiated or
unsubstantiated (or also indicated in a few states). A case is opened or
closed regardless of which finding is made. For instance, a case can be
opened when the finding has been unsubstantiated. A case can be closed
immediately after a substantiated finding is made. It is not a question, as
you put it, of a case is going beyond the 30 days without a finding at all.
The assessment or investigation will be substantiated or unsubstantiated at
the end of that 30 days and The MAJORITY of open cases with CPS are cases
where a unsubstantiated finding has been made during the investigation. A
large proportion of closed cases are substantiated during the assessment or
investigation. No cases linger as closed or open cases without a finding
within the statutory time frame for an investigation/assessment.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the DA says the case is running out of time and the worker
must
Post by Doug
Post by kane
find or not is that true or something I just made up?
It is not true.
It is not true of there is no request for the DA to petion for TPR.
When there is such a request one of the items tic'd off is
"sustantiated or not substantiated." If not, the DA sends the letter
back and says a petition won't fly without it.
It is not true that the DA would be pressing for TPR during the 30 days CPS
is investigating or assessing a case and preparing to make a finding.
Hopefully, you are not saying that CPS is going to change a unsubstantiated
finding 15 months after they made it so they can check the right box to
satisfy the DA.
Post by kane
R R R ...I didn't ask you about any 30 time limit, nor did I mention
one earlier. If the worker is required to close the case, and the
super and worker feel they have a TRP case their next move is to
request the DA file a petition. The DA will NOT do so unless there is
sufficient evidence, in a form that can be coroborated to satisfy a
court of law, and ONE of those things is the assurance that the
findings are in fact "substantiated" by both the early assessment, and
any evidence that has surfaced since.
Closing a case or leaving it open has absolutely nothing to do with whether
an assessment or investigation will end in a substantiated or
unsubstantiated finding. So, your contention that the DA would push, 15
months later, for CPS to make a substantiated finding on an assessment or
investigation is absurd.

As you have said, the DA or county attorney is not going to be considering
petitioning for a TPR until 15 months AFTER an assessment or investigation
has been done and the findings made.

You first point that unsubstantiated findings are made in
assessments/investigations because of DA pressure to rush the
investigation/assessment for TPR purposes is absurd.
Post by kane
There's no "30 day" limit, Doug.
There most certainly is a statutory limit to the length of investigations
and assessments. In most states, the legislatures have limited that time to
30 days.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Would you care to claim that District Attorney's in a given state are
considering filing a petition for TPR in the short, 30-day time frame
of a
Post by Doug
CPS assessment or investigation and want to move it up even shorter?
Will, I didn't claim that. Nor do I now, with the possible exception
of an extraordinary case (I've never heard of one) that was so
horrendous that the outcome is foregone.
Nor have I ever heard of such a case. So there would never be a
circumstance where a DA bent on TPR would pressure a CPS worker to make a
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding during an investigation or
assessment. By that time, the assessment or investigation has long since
been completed and the DA would be asking CPS if the finding WAS
substantiated or unsubstantiated 15 months ago.

So, finally we have our answer. Unsubstantiated findings are not made by
CPS workers because they are under pressure from DA's to come up with a
substantiated finding in their investigations and do not have time to do so.
Post by kane
Doug, I posted, some months back that cases go clear out to the limit
of the 15 out of the previous 24 months in our of home care that the
feds place on cases for closure, without a finding one way or the
other. I used a citation from one of your favorite sources.
An assessment or investigation must be completed and a finding made within
the time frame required by state law. Federal law (CAPTA) mandates that
states clearly define this period of time. In almost all the states, that
length of time is 30 days. In some states, it is 60. In some states, it is
30 days with a stipulation that the worker can extend it to sixty with a
written statement of cause. Investigations or assessments do NOT go one for
15 months without a finding. That would be a violation of state and federal
law.

The MAJORITY of open cases involve families who were unsubstantiated at the
conclusion of the assessment/investigation. Many of these cases do go to
TPR fifteen or more months later. County attorney's do need evidence from
CPS to prevail in these cases. CPS provides such evidence, which usually
involves documentation that the parents have not jumped through the hoops
(services) set in front of them by safety plans. In due-process enlightened
states, the state must first prove that the parents abused or abandoned the
child BEFORE they can move on to the second phase of the trial, where they
attempt to establish best interests of the child.

By order of the US Supreme Court, TPR requires that the state produce
evidence that meets the "clear and convincing evidence" threshold -- the
test just one notch down from "beyond a reasonable doubt." That requires a
lot of evidence. But the DA does not come looking for it during an
investigation/assesment, pressuring CPS to make an unsubstantiated finding
in that assessment/investigation.

You have confused open and closed cases with substantiated and
unsubstantiated findings, Kane. There are two different critters.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Most CPS investigations or assessments are completed in a day, but
agencies
Post by Doug
generally wait the full 30 days before informing parties of their
finding.
Post by Doug
At the end of the 30 days, CPS will notify the parents and referring
party
Post by Doug
if the case has been substantiated or unsubstantiated.
Yet another weasel twist....to start herding any reader away from the
point being debated. When a case is about to go to TPR the DA asks if
the case has been substantiated. He or she cares not WHEN that was
done, only that it was.
Precisely...."the DA has if the case HAS BEEN substantiated." (Some 15
months prior). The DA, therefore, is not pressuring CPS to make
unsubstanitated findings during an investigation because they can't satisfy
the DA.

In your initial post of 10-17, you said that unsubstantiated findings in CPS
investigations/assessments did not mean the parents were innocent, but
instead meant that CPS ran out of time to satisfy the DA. I responded that
the DA was not involved in making findings in CPS investigations. You
replied that, during TPR's, DA's were involved in pressuring CPS for a
"substantiated" finding.

Regarding unsubstantiated findings made in CPS investigations/assessments,
you wrote:

"It does NOT mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process
the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA. FAr
too many children under that kind of counting are retuned home, and
reenter the system."

I wrote that CPS workers doing an investigation/assessment and deciding on a
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding have no burden or interest in
satisfying the local DA. Nor is the DA involved at that point.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
After the statutory time limit for a finding, there is no such thing
as an
Post by Doug
open case without a finding.
Could you have made my case more for me then?
Post by Doug
There are plenty of open cases, of course,
that began as either unsubstantiated or substantiated cases.
Ho hum. I'm sure this is relevant to some conversation we've had. This
one, however, isn't about that.
Of course it is relevent. It says that there is no such thing as a case
that has been open for 15 months without a substantiated or unsubstantiated
finding.
Post by kane
So tell us. If the DA is involved, how is it you think they have no
influence on the step of substantiation or not?
Because, Kane, you say the DA becomes involved at the time of TPR. TPR is
not considered during the time frame where an assessment/investigation is
being done by CPS and a finding considered. So the DA would not be involved
at that point or have any influence on whether CPS will conclude its
investigation with a unsubstantiated or substantiated finding.

You need to learn something about field practice.
Post by kane
You established in lines above in this post that some cases go the
whole time without substantiation. All I've said is that if it goes to
TPR (and what does it matter when I brought that up, Doug, since I'm
answering continuing questions of yours?) then the DA will want to
know that there was a substantiation befor they will petition for TPR.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! To the contrary, I clearly established in lines above that
open cases DO NOT proceed without being either unsubstantiated or
substantiated during the investigation/assessment by CPS. Many open cases
involve families that were unsubstantiated by CPS for risk of or actual
child maltreatment. 15 months later, the county attorney can -- and does --
move for TPR on some of these cases. There was not a substantiated finding
in these cases, but an unsubstantiated one, made many months earlier.

Have a great evening, sir!

Doug
kane
2004-10-30 04:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by kane
The issue isn't as you have tried to make it. It's very simple and
I've posted more than enough evidence to show you have a poor
understanding or knowledge of cps casework field practice.
Hi, Kane!
The issue is, indeed, very simple. You have posted more than enough
evidence that you do not understand how CPS makes a substantiated or
unsubstantiated finding in an assessment or investigation.
Bullshit. I posted exactly, and the any search on the subject will
show you that states regulary state that "unsubstantiated' can mean
proof was found that no abuse occured. AND THAT NO PROOF WAS FOUND
THAT IT DIDN'T. Both are acceptable and official descriptions and it's
included in federal sources as well. You are full of nonsense.
Post by Doug
DA's are hardly
involved in seeking TPR and putting pressure on CPS to make a
substantiated
Post by Doug
finding within the time frame those findings are made. If you
understood
Post by Doug
CPS field practice, you would know about the time frames.
You are in denial about the sources I posted. You refuse to respond to
them, just as you have done on other issues where I've conclusively,
with citations, proven you wrong. I did so on this one. Even state DAs
describe in their own websites their responsibility to be represented
as monitoring child protection cases in court from the get go.
Post by Doug
So, just as simply, your statement that unsubstantiated families are
not
Post by Doug
innocent but subject to investigations/assessments where CPS ran out
of time
Post by Doug
trying to appease prosecutors with a substantiated finding is
disproven.

Well, since I never said that you are obviously trying one of your
slick weasel contortions again. I know what I said, and it was not
that. I've reviewed our entire thread of postings on this subject and
at no point did I claim any such thing. You are making it up as you go
along. No such words as appeasement were used. And DAs damn well do
ask CPS to show if cases were substantiated or not.

You are avoiding the point, and of course, by focusing on this one
issue in that post, ignored all the other points I made to bobb on
operations and reform issues.
Post by Doug
Have a great morning!
Well, if I was big on spectator sports, that is watching you do your
broken field running, it would be. Frankly it's just a bit
disheartening to see someone that boasts of your works in reform stoop
to such tactics. But you do so and have done for as long as I've
posted here.

Anyone that takes a moment and goe back upthread will see exactly what
I mean.

Kane
Post by Doug
Doug
Post by kane
The state's attorney petitioning for TPR may use information in a CPS
report months or years after a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding,
yes. But DA's are not going to be petitioning for TPR's during the short
time frame established by law for investigations and reaching a
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding.
So, your statement that DA's would somehow be pressuring CPS for a
substantiated finding during an investigation is absurd.
Post by kane
Surely you missed my mention of the "15 out of the previous 24"
remarks. And unless there are extraordinary circumstances, a TPR would
be highly unlikely to take place that early in the case. They do tend,
as those of us who know are aware, way out toward the end of the time
period mentioned....15 months.
Exactly. So DA's would not be pressuring CPS for a substantiated finding,
forcing CPS to cut the investigation short with an unsubstantiated
finding,
Post by kane
as you wrongfully claimed. DA's move for TPR 15 months after the
investigation.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
And the state certainly does not
petition for Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) in less than 30
days after
Post by Doug
a investigation or assessment is started.
Please point out where I made such a claim? I find your habit of
making a declaration of some, "error" pretending I made it when I've
made no such claim, funny though unethical.
You made the claim that many of the unsubstantiated findings are
made by
Post by Doug
CPS
Post by kane
because the DA, petitioning for TPR, pressures them to
substantiate a
Post by Doug
case.
Post by kane
You said that, since they did not have the "time" to substantiate
as the
Post by Doug
DA
Post by kane
wanted, they unsubstantiated. And, somehow, we are supposed to buy this
twisted logic to explain that "unsubstantiated cases" really
represent
Post by Doug
cases
Post by kane
where there is risk of or actual abuse.
Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was
no
Post by Doug
risk
Post by kane
of or actual neglect/abuse.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Timeliness would not be an issue because TPR's are not brought within
the
Post by Doug
very brief time frame of an assessment or investigation. You added
TPR's to
Post by Doug
your post this time around to try to cover yourself, but it doesn't
work.
Post by Doug
TPR's generally are not sought in the this time frame.
You made rather a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions from my
statements. You build a complexity into your creation that did not
exist in my comments. I did not limit to 30 days, nor is there any
such limit. If a case has not been substantiated in 30 days, are you
claiming it is then closed?
In most states, the statutory limit for an investigation or
assessment is
Post by Doug
30
Post by kane
days. A finding must be made within that time. There is such a limit, by
law. At the end of the thirty days in these states, a finding is made and
sent to the concerned parties. That finding can be substantiated or
unsubstantiated (or also indicated in a few states). A case is opened or
closed regardless of which finding is made. For instance, a case can be
opened when the finding has been unsubstantiated. A case can be closed
immediately after a substantiated finding is made. It is not a
question,
Post by Doug
as
Post by kane
you put it, of a case is going beyond the 30 days without a finding
at
Post by Doug
all.
Post by kane
The assessment or investigation will be substantiated or
unsubstantiated
Post by Doug
at
Post by kane
the end of that 30 days and The MAJORITY of open cases with CPS
are
Post by Doug
cases
Post by kane
where a unsubstantiated finding has been made during the
investigation. A
Post by Doug
Post by kane
large proportion of closed cases are substantiated during the
assessment
Post by Doug
or
Post by kane
investigation. No cases linger as closed or open cases without a finding
within the statutory time frame for an investigation/assessment.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the DA says the case is running out of time and the
worker
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by kane
must
Post by Doug
Post by kane
find or not is that true or something I just made up?
It is not true.
It is not true of there is no request for the DA to petion for TPR.
When there is such a request one of the items tic'd off is
"sustantiated or not substantiated." If not, the DA sends the letter
back and says a petition won't fly without it.
It is not true that the DA would be pressing for TPR during the 30
days
Post by Doug
CPS
Post by kane
is investigating or assessing a case and preparing to make a
finding.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Hopefully, you are not saying that CPS is going to change a
unsubstantiated
Post by kane
finding 15 months after they made it so they can check the right box to
satisfy the DA.
Post by kane
R R R ...I didn't ask you about any 30 time limit, nor did I mention
one earlier. If the worker is required to close the case, and the
super and worker feel they have a TRP case their next move is to
request the DA file a petition. The DA will NOT do so unless there is
sufficient evidence, in a form that can be coroborated to satisfy a
court of law, and ONE of those things is the assurance that the
findings are in fact "substantiated" by both the early
assessment, and
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by kane
any evidence that has surfaced since.
Closing a case or leaving it open has absolutely nothing to do with
whether
Post by kane
an assessment or investigation will end in a substantiated or
unsubstantiated finding. So, your contention that the DA would push, 15
months later, for CPS to make a substantiated finding on an
assessment or
Post by Doug
Post by kane
investigation is absurd.
As you have said, the DA or county attorney is not going to be considering
petitioning for a TPR until 15 months AFTER an assessment or
investigation
Post by Doug
Post by kane
has been done and the findings made.
You first point that unsubstantiated findings are made in
assessments/investigations because of DA pressure to rush the
investigation/assessment for TPR purposes is absurd.
Post by kane
There's no "30 day" limit, Doug.
There most certainly is a statutory limit to the length of
investigations
Post by Doug
Post by kane
and assessments. In most states, the legislatures have limited
that time
Post by Doug
to
Post by kane
30 days.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Would you care to claim that District Attorney's in a given state are
considering filing a petition for TPR in the short, 30-day time frame
of a
Post by Doug
CPS assessment or investigation and want to move it up even shorter?
Will, I didn't claim that. Nor do I now, with the possible
exception
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by kane
of an extraordinary case (I've never heard of one) that was so
horrendous that the outcome is foregone.
Nor have I ever heard of such a case. So there would never be a
circumstance where a DA bent on TPR would pressure a CPS worker to make a
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding during an investigation or
assessment. By that time, the assessment or investigation has long since
been completed and the DA would be asking CPS if the finding WAS
substantiated or unsubstantiated 15 months ago.
So, finally we have our answer. Unsubstantiated findings are not made by
CPS workers because they are under pressure from DA's to come up with a
substantiated finding in their investigations and do not have time
to do
Post by Doug
so.
Post by kane
Post by kane
Doug, I posted, some months back that cases go clear out to the limit
of the 15 out of the previous 24 months in our of home care that the
feds place on cases for closure, without a finding one way or the
other. I used a citation from one of your favorite sources.
An assessment or investigation must be completed and a finding made within
the time frame required by state law. Federal law (CAPTA) mandates that
states clearly define this period of time. In almost all the
states, that
Post by Doug
Post by kane
length of time is 30 days. In some states, it is 60. In some
states, it
Post by Doug
is
Post by kane
30 days with a stipulation that the worker can extend it to sixty with a
written statement of cause. Investigations or assessments do NOT
go one
Post by Doug
for
Post by kane
15 months without a finding. That would be a violation of state
and
Post by Doug
federal
Post by kane
law.
The MAJORITY of open cases involve families who were
unsubstantiated at
Post by Doug
the
Post by kane
conclusion of the assessment/investigation. Many of these cases do go to
TPR fifteen or more months later. County attorney's do need
evidence from
Post by Doug
Post by kane
CPS to prevail in these cases. CPS provides such evidence, which usually
involves documentation that the parents have not jumped through the hoops
(services) set in front of them by safety plans. In due-process
enlightened
Post by kane
states, the state must first prove that the parents abused or
abandoned
Post by Doug
the
Post by kane
child BEFORE they can move on to the second phase of the trial, where they
attempt to establish best interests of the child.
By order of the US Supreme Court, TPR requires that the state
produce
Post by Doug
Post by kane
evidence that meets the "clear and convincing evidence" threshold -- the
test just one notch down from "beyond a reasonable doubt." That
requires
Post by Doug
a
Post by kane
lot of evidence. But the DA does not come looking for it during an
investigation/assesment, pressuring CPS to make an unsubstantiated finding
in that assessment/investigation.
You have confused open and closed cases with substantiated and
unsubstantiated findings, Kane. There are two different critters.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Most CPS investigations or assessments are completed in a day, but
agencies
Post by Doug
generally wait the full 30 days before informing parties of their
finding.
Post by Doug
At the end of the 30 days, CPS will notify the parents and
referring
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by kane
party
Post by Doug
if the case has been substantiated or unsubstantiated.
Yet another weasel twist....to start herding any reader away from the
point being debated. When a case is about to go to TPR the DA asks if
the case has been substantiated. He or she cares not WHEN that was
done, only that it was.
Precisely...."the DA has if the case HAS BEEN substantiated."
(Some 15
Post by Doug
Post by kane
months prior). The DA, therefore, is not pressuring CPS to make
unsubstanitated findings during an investigation because they can't
satisfy
Post by kane
the DA.
In your initial post of 10-17, you said that unsubstantiated
findings in
Post by Doug
CPS
Post by kane
investigations/assessments did not mean the parents were innocent, but
instead meant that CPS ran out of time to satisfy the DA. I
responded
Post by Doug
that
Post by kane
the DA was not involved in making findings in CPS investigations.
You
Post by Doug
Post by kane
replied that, during TPR's, DA's were involved in pressuring CPS for a
"substantiated" finding.
Regarding unsubstantiated findings made in CPS
investigations/assessments,
Post by Doug
Post by kane
"It does NOT mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process
the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA. FAr
too many children under that kind of counting are retuned home, and
reenter the system."
I wrote that CPS workers doing an investigation/assessment and
deciding on
Post by Doug
a
Post by kane
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding have no burden or interest in
satisfying the local DA. Nor is the DA involved at that point.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
After the statutory time limit for a finding, there is no such thing
as an
Post by Doug
open case without a finding.
Could you have made my case more for me then?
Post by Doug
There are plenty of open cases, of course,
that began as either unsubstantiated or substantiated cases.
Ho hum. I'm sure this is relevant to some conversation we've had. This
one, however, isn't about that.
Of course it is relevent. It says that there is no such thing as a case
that has been open for 15 months without a substantiated or
unsubstantiated
Post by kane
finding.
Post by kane
So tell us. If the DA is involved, how is it you think they have no
influence on the step of substantiation or not?
Because, Kane, you say the DA becomes involved at the time of TPR.
TPR is
Post by Doug
Post by kane
not considered during the time frame where an
assessment/investigation is
Post by Doug
Post by kane
being done by CPS and a finding considered. So the DA would not be
involved
Post by kane
at that point or have any influence on whether CPS will conclude its
investigation with a unsubstantiated or substantiated finding.
You need to learn something about field practice.
Post by kane
You established in lines above in this post that some cases go the
whole time without substantiation. All I've said is that if it goes to
TPR (and what does it matter when I brought that up, Doug, since I'm
answering continuing questions of yours?) then the DA will want to
know that there was a substantiation befor they will petition for TPR.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! To the contrary, I clearly established in lines
above
Post by Doug
that
Post by kane
open cases DO NOT proceed without being either unsubstantiated or
substantiated during the investigation/assessment by CPS. Many open cases
involve families that were unsubstantiated by CPS for risk of or actual
child maltreatment. 15 months later, the county attorney can --
and
Post by Doug
does --
Post by kane
move for TPR on some of these cases. There was not a substantiated
finding
Post by kane
in these cases, but an unsubstantiated one, made many months
earlier.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Have a great evening, sir!
Doug
kane
2004-10-30 18:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Hi, Kane!
The state's attorney petitioning for TPR may use information in a CPS
report months or years after a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding,
yes. But DA's are not going to be petitioning for TPR's during the short
time frame established by law for investigations and reaching a
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding.
R R R R....Doug, what you don't know about casework field practice
would fill a string of boxcars. You have some "official" knowledge
you've gotten by reading some policy, but I doubt very much you are a
long time experienced case worker, or even one at all.

Let me give you the circumstances in which the DA and CPS would be
discussing TPR and preparing for it from day ONE, not 30 days later,
not 15 months later, but right NOW!

Go check it out with real caseworkers you silly twit:

1. Perp has killed another of their children previous to the current
encounter with CPS.

2. Perp has had other children permanently removed by the state and
conditions that prompted the removal have not changed.

3. Perp is encarcerated for an appreciable length of time and is not
getting out.

In each of these circumstance CPS, the judge, and the DA are talkin'
TPR immediately...and the DA want very much to know the outcome of the
investigation. Yer talkin' ignorant baloney as usual.
Post by Doug
So, your statement that DA's would somehow be pressuring CPS for a
substantiated finding during an investigation is absurd.
I made no such claim. I've read the entire thread. At no point did I
say the DA was pressuring for a " 'substantiated' finding," only A
finding. They want an need to know where the case is.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Surely you missed my mention of the "15 out of the previous 24"
remarks. And unless there are extraordinary circumstances, a TPR would
be highly unlikely to take place that early in the case. They do tend,
as those of us who know are aware, way out toward the end of the time
period mentioned....15 months.
Exactly. So DA's would not be pressuring CPS for a substantiated finding,
That's correct, and I never made such a claim.
Post by Doug
forcing CPS to cut the investigation short with an unsubstantiated finding,
as you wrongfully claimed.
R R R ....now THAT is a perfect flight of fancy. You are once again,
<sigh>, Doug pulling one of your make it up as you go pieces of weasel
nonsense.
Post by Doug
DA's move for TPR 15 months after the
investigation.
And that stops them from asking about the progress of the case how, at
any time in that 15 months?

DA's, and the court check every 6 months in some states, and the court
every six months in EVERY state under ASFA. And She Who Watches Over
Us help the worker that has not entered the "finding," and can defend
it to the court and the DA should either ask.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
And the state certainly does not
petition for Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) in less than 30
days after
Post by kane
Post by Doug
a investigation or assessment is started.
Please point out where I made such a claim? I find your habit of
making a declaration of some, "error" pretending I made it when I've
made no such claim, funny though unethical.
You made the claim that many of the unsubstantiated findings are made by CPS
because the DA, petitioning for TPR, pressures them to substantiate a case.
Nope. I said they want A finding. Either way.
Post by Doug
You said that, since they did not have the "time" to substantiate as the DA
wanted, they unsubstantiated. And, somehow, we are supposed to buy this
twisted logic to explain that "unsubstantiated cases" really represent cases
where there is risk of or actual abuse.
Made up nonsense. You are projecting meanings YOU want me to take so
you can point out they are wrong. I never said, nor alluded to any
such thing.
Post by Doug
Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was no risk
of or actual neglect/abuse.
I love how you ignore the old posts where we hashed all this out
before. I established, and you want to "exercise" me by making me take
time to look up and post it all again. That is ONE of the two meanings
of "unsubstantiated." And you know it, but tell you what. I've
archived all that information in folder with YOUR name on it,
Doug...don't you feel specially favored? R R R R

Won't take me a minute to run it down for you and post it here.

http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/focus/decisionmaking.cfm

Here's your statement from above: "Unsubstantiated means that CPS
itself has determined that there was no risk of or actual
neglect/abuse."

Here's what nccanch.acf says at the link above (pay close attention to
what comes after "or," as it looks so very charmingly like my
claim...and I never said YOU were wrong, just that you didn't have the
whole answer, "caseworker."):

" 'Unsubstantiated' means an investigation determined no maltreatment
occurred, or there was insufficient evidence under State law or agency
policy to conclude that the child was maltreated. "

Wanna see a few more? I've got quite a lot of them, yah ignorant twit.

http://www.odis.dhr.state.ga.us/3000_fam/3030_cps/MANUALS/Chapter4/2104_23.doc
"
Unsubstantiated -- an investigation disposition by an abuse
investigator concludes that under state law and CPS procedure
requirements, there is either no evidence of maltreatment or the
allegation of maltreatment was not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence."

And you are NOT going to like this as it blows you out of the water
yet again...my this is getting boring (same source above):

"
Unsubstantiated / High Risk – an investigation disposition by an
abuse investigator concludes that under state law and CPS procedure
requirements, there is either no evidence of maltreatment or the
allegation of maltreatment was not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence; however, risk rates High, and the case will remain open for
services.
"

Notice that the neither description even mentions your claim, that:
"Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was
no risk of or actual neglect."

Yer a joke, Doug. Don't you have any blush capacity at all?

http://www.de.state.az.us/dcyf/cps/outcome.asp
"
When a report is unsubstantiated it means that the information
gathered does not support a finding of child abuse or neglect."

Notice how carefully they word it to NOT say there is a finding of NO
ABUSE, only the failure to find enough evidence to substantiate? I
doesn't say they found evidence there WAS NO abuse.

http://dfsweb.state.wy.us/CHILDSVC/cpspamp.htm
"
If the investigation did not reveal that child abuse or neglect
occurred the report is unsubstantiated." (this is almost word for word
what I claimed.)

And quoting CAPTA:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp104&r_n=sr117.104&sel=TOC_34798&

"
in essence, an `unsubstantiated' report is one that is dismissed after
an investigation finds insufficient evidence on which to proceed. This
does not mean, however, that all unsubstantiated reports are false or
that all have been investigated.
"

Ooo...that one should be raising your temperature just a tad. R R R R
R...

Compare it to your claim:

"Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was
no risk of or actual neglect."

Or to this other line from the CAPTA quote above: "Some
unsubstantiated reports may have been actual cases of abuse or
neglect, but for which the abuse could not be proven."

Doug, I don't know if you are the stupidest caseworker in CPS, but you
must come very very close.

And you, a self proclaimed "researcher." R R R R R

You'll love this one, same source, in regards to your claim it's a
violation of federal and state law if a case continues without a
finding:
"
Cases may also not be substantiated because the caseworker was
transferred, the family moved, the child was unable to talk, or CPS
failed to find medical evidence. Finally, some reports determined to
be unsubstantiated are simply false--that is, there is absolutely no
evidence of any inadequate parental care.
"

But, considering your embarrassment, I thought I'd throw you a bone,
they do also INCLUDE your claim, but it doesn't negate mine, which
yours tries to.

The extent of your ignorance on such things is obviously a sign
something is up with you that stinks. You miss ALL these common
caseworker field practice issues..very strange indeedy. I think you
are a phony.

Now here is a federal source that is definitive..they really tear down
the definition of "substantiated," and "unsubstantiated."

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CPS-status03/state-policy03/chapter4.htm

"
Forty-eight States (94.1%) had definitions for substantiated and
unsubstantiated. The remainder had alternate structures of
classification, which included terms equivalent to substantiated;

...
Two themes concerning the definition of "unsubstantiated" were
identified. Twenty-three States (45.1%) defined "unsubstantiated"
broadly in terms of "insufficient evidence." These States defined
unsubstantiated cases as failing to meet the standard of evidence for
substantiated--"when credible evidence of abuse or neglect has not
been obtained" or "fails evidence standard." Twenty-six States (51.0%)
considered unsubstantiated more narrowly as cases where there is no
evidence that maltreatment occurred--"clearly unfounded, erroneous, or
incorrect," "worker is reasonably sure that child abuse or neglect did
not occur," or "whenever facts obtained during the investigation
provide credible evidence that child abuse or neglect has not
occurred." (Some States had provisions for both types of definition.)
"

I mean if THAT doesn't shoot your bullshit down, I'm not sure what
would in your mind. You just can't admit when you are wrong, now can
yah?

You've refused to answer my requests to respond to all the proof I
showed that both NCIC data is accessible by CPS, and that workers DO
in fact in a number of states have very specialist job descriptions
and duties.

Yah just float on by as though the subject has gone dead...which it
has because YOU won't own up to your own ignorance. I don't expect
much more here, on the substantiation issue.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Timeliness would not be an issue because TPR's are not brought within
the
Post by kane
Post by Doug
very brief time frame of an assessment or investigation. You added
TPR's to
Post by kane
Post by Doug
your post this time around to try to cover yourself, but it doesn't
work.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
TPR's generally are not sought in the this time frame.
You made rather a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions from my
statements. You build a complexity into your creation that did not
exist in my comments. I did not limit to 30 days, nor is there any
such limit. If a case has not been substantiated in 30 days, are you
claiming it is then closed?
In most states, the statutory limit for an investigation or assessment is 30
days. A finding must be made within that time. There is such a limit, by
law. At the end of the thirty days in these states, a finding is made and
sent to the concerned parties. That finding can be substantiated or
unsubstantiated (or also indicated in a few states). A case is opened or
closed regardless of which finding is made. For instance, a case can be
opened when the finding has been unsubstantiated. A case can be closed
immediately after a substantiated finding is made. It is not a question, as
you put it, of a case is going beyond the 30 days without a finding at all.
The assessment or investigation will be substantiated or unsubstantiated at
the end of that 30 days and The MAJORITY of open cases with CPS are cases
where a unsubstantiated finding has been made during the investigation. A
large proportion of closed cases are substantiated during the assessment or
investigation. No cases linger as closed or open cases without a finding
within the statutory time frame for an investigation/assessment.
Actually the times are all over the place. And in some instances you
can't even pin down a state to the actual time. But I'd be interested
in you showing us the federal statute you claim exists that says the
state MUST have that time limit.

Seems odd, given the states tend to give exceptions to workers by a
pleading to their supervisors. Eh?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the DA says the case is running out of time and the worker
must
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
find or not is that true or something I just made up?
It is not true.
It is not true of there is no request for the DA to petion for TPR.
When there is such a request one of the items tic'd off is
"sustantiated or not substantiated." If not, the DA sends the letter
back and says a petition won't fly without it.
It is not true that the DA would be pressing for TPR during the 30 days CPS
is investigating or assessing a case and preparing to make a finding.
Not according to what a CPS worker told me. She claimed, as I said in
the opening of this post, that there ARE circumstance when going for a
TPR is being worked on from day one...and the DA is quite interested
in moving on with it. And Doug, I checked. There is NOTHING in federal
law that stops them.

In fact there are explicit statute that covers those circumstances YOU
say could not possibly be.

Doug, as I said, either you are NOT a child protection state worker,
or you are the dumbest one on record.

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/adopt02/02adpt6.htm

"
ASFA and CAPTA require, subject to exceptions, early filing of
termination of parental rights petitions in certain specific
situations. ASFA requires the filing of termination of parental rights
petitions when parents have committed certain crimes against children
and when infants have been abandoned. [ASFA §302, 42 U.S.C.
§675(5)(E).] CAPTA requires "expedited termination of parental rights"
for abandoned infants. [42 U.S.C. §5106a(b)(2)(a)(xi)(I).]"

In fact, you great researcher you, the feds grant the judge descretion
on timelines. YOU, Douggie, are in it up to your neck, and someone is
makin' waves for yah? R R R R R

Yah see, Douggie, you have made the classic mistake of the phoney. You
assumed something to be true without considering the logic
involved...YOU think that a case cannot proceed against parents until
a certain time has passed....forgetting that that could be, and of
course it IS, AS I KNOW from my work with kin, who have seen their
relatives right terminated in DAYS, douggie.
"
States should also note that Federal law requires initiation of
proceedings to terminate parental rights for children who have been in
foster care for 15 out of the previous 22 months, except in specified
circumstances (such as a compelling reason that termination is not in
the child's best interests). [See 42 U.S.C. §675 (5) (E) and §103 (c)
of ASFA.]
"

Read carefully Douggie, and see what every caseworker, the real ones,
KNOW. That nothing stops them from going for termination before that
15 month deadline IF they have a case. And that IS what the DA is
interested in. And what a good social worker would be for under
certain very explicit circumstances.

If you were the researcher you claim you are you'd surely know of the
fact that some states have a shorter timeline, under some failure to
comply with service plan statutes.

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/adopt02/02adpt6.htm
Read it, top to bottom, researcher. Then get back to me.
Post by Doug
Hopefully, you are not saying that CPS is going to change a unsubstantiated
finding 15 months after they made it so they can check the right box to
satisfy the DA.
R R R R...still at it. You are so obviously grasping at any straw
possible to try and divert from the fact you don't know what the fuck
you are talking about. No, Douggie, I would never say that, but It's
obvious you wish to divert any reader by insinuating, thus distracting
them from the central theme here.....that you are a arrogant but
ignorant putz.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
R R R ...I didn't ask you about any 30 time limit, nor did I mention
one earlier. If the worker is required to close the case, and the
super and worker feel they have a TRP case their next move is to
request the DA file a petition. The DA will NOT do so unless there is
sufficient evidence, in a form that can be coroborated to satisfy a
court of law, and ONE of those things is the assurance that the
findings are in fact "substantiated" by both the early assessment, and
any evidence that has surfaced since.
Closing a case or leaving it open has absolutely nothing to do with whether
an assessment or investigation will end in a substantiated or
unsubstantiated finding.
I guess that flurry of activity I've run into now and then, just
before a inhouse audit(and the federal one) was just faking....it had
everything to do with getting that case closed if it needed to be
closed..and you deliberately stated it backwards. No, Doug...the
closing, and I didn't claim otherwise, didn't depend on the type of
finding, but being damn sure the worker had ONE OR THE OTHER. I always
gave up trying to do any relative business with a worker if they were
caught with a lot of open cases that they did not have the part of the
record caught up.
Post by Doug
So, your contention that the DA would push, 15
months later, for CPS to make a substantiated finding on an assessment or
investigation is absurd.
Nope. Never said that. I said for the DA to move forward they want a
substantation.....OR AN UNSUBSTANTIATED, so they know where they
stand. Lots of states won't move forward if their OTHER evidence is
not strong enough, if the case is marked as "unsubstantiated" so a DA
is very likely to ask, "has anything come up during the course of the
case that would change the finding...like someone gave more
testimony?"

Yah know Doug, the real world, not the phony one you seem to be so
busily constructing.
Post by Doug
As you have said, the DA or county attorney is not going to be considering
petitioning for a TPR until 15 months AFTER an assessment or investigation
has been done and the findings made.
R R R R well, you better tell the feds and a number of states that,
because I just proved you dead wrong, "case worker."
Post by Doug
You first point that unsubstantiated findings are made in
assessments/investigations because of DA pressure to rush the
investigation/assessment for TPR purposes is absurd.
Nope. You are making that up. I said they want A finding. Of course if
they are going for TPR they are very interested in "substantiated" and
discomfited if the finding is "unsubtantiated." Don't you think they
would consider that, say if there's a change a Termination took place
and an appeal was filed?

You don't seem to know much at all, Doug. What's up with that?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
There's no "30 day" limit, Doug.
There most certainly is a statutory limit to the length of investigations
and assessments. In most states, the legislatures have limited that time to
30 days.
R R R R R....well, just give it to us, Doug. States are all over the
place and the downward limit seems to not actually be established,
because of various kinds of circumstances, which I just posted you
from CAPTA.

Yah know, Dougger, a real caseworker wouldn't have missed for a moment
that absent unnamed fathers, or named ones, that do not respond in the
statutory limit to public notice, can be terminated just as fast as
the case can get to court. Varies from state to state. It's an
abandoned child matter. So momma may have parental rights, of course,
while papa's are gone gone gone, in quick fashion.

Here's an interesting recommendation from CAPTA:

"
Extreme Parental Disinterest: We recommend that State law authorize
termination of parental rights based on extreme parental disinterest
in a child.
Commentary State law should authorize termination of parental rights
when a parent has demonstrated extreme disinterest in a child for 6
months if the child is three or older or three months if the child is
less than three.
"

And two states list statutes to that effect, one, interestingly, has
no timeline.

And this is the one I was stunned, absolutely stunned, trusting you to
be truthful and all, that you did not know about:

"Serious Crimes Against Children: We recommend that State law
authorize termination of parental rights based on a parent's serious
crimes against children.

Commentary

Certain crimes toward children are serious enough, in themselves, to
justify termination of parental rights. Accordingly, State law should
authorize termination of parental rights when a parent commits
specified serious crimes against children. This should include, but
not be limited to, crimes specified in Federal law.

Federal law requires that the conviction of certain crimes be grounds
for the termination of parental rights. Specifically, CAPTA requires
as a condition for receiving Federal funds, that State laws include
criminal convictions for certain crimes against children as grounds
for termination of parental rights. Specifically, the law requires
that

…conviction of any one of the [specified felonies] constitute grounds
under State law for the termination of rights of the convicted parent
as to the surviving children (although case-by-case determinations of
whether or not to seek termination of parental rights shall be within
the sole discretion of the State).
"
Doug that can take place even BEFORE the children are found....think
about it, "caseworker." HOW the hell could you be unaware of this?
Hell, I'm not a caseworker and knew it, and have for years. I don't
think there's a caseworker been on the job over six months that
doesn't know about such things.

"
Murder as defined by 18 U.S.C. §1111(a) of another child of the
parent;
Voluntary manslaughter as defined by 18 U.S.C. §1111(a) of another
child of the parent; Aiding or abetting, attempting, conspiring, or
soliciting to commit such murder or voluntary manslaughter; or Felony
assault that results in the serious bodily injury to the surviving
child or another child of such parent. [CAPTA, §107, 42 U.S.C.
§§5106a(b)(2)(A)(xii).] CAPTA also provides that reunification
services are not required for parents convicted of these crimes.
"

You should, researcher, read that section closely because it gives the
states room to have a broader list than the recommendation above.

Now I'm going to slightly change the subject, and point out something
I've been trying to get across to you for over a year, the extreme
danger of moving ALL child protection from civil to criminal court.
There was a nice piece here.....your contention that "abuse is a crime
and should be prosecuted as a crime," would allow the child, even a
severely injured one, to return to the abuser...if one little criteria
required under criminal law was not met.

"Intent."

It has to be proven in criminal court. Do you really want people to
get their kids back simply because, though a civil court would have
found against, a criminal court required a preponderance of evidence?

It would be a death sentence to a child in many instances, or at the
very least further horrendous abuses.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Would you care to claim that District Attorney's in a given state are
considering filing a petition for TPR in the short, 30-day time frame
of a
Post by kane
Post by Doug
CPS assessment or investigation and want to move it up even shorter?
Will, I didn't claim that. Nor do I now, with the possible exception
of an extraordinary case (I've never heard of one) that was so
horrendous that the outcome is foregone.
Nor have I ever heard of such a case. So there would never be a
circumstance where a DA bent on TPR would pressure a CPS worker to make a
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding during an investigation or
assessment.
Oh? Like the circumstances from CAPTA that I just posted for you?

Do you recall that I was around and involved with CPS for both CAPTA
and ASFA, first as a student, then an advocate for relatives, and I
said to you more than once, I was on working committees, I sat in on
federal presentations of ASFA, and reviewed CAPTA as a professional
responsibility?

You just didn't take me serously, now did you?
Post by Doug
By that time, the assessment or investigation has long since
been completed and the DA would be asking CPS if the finding WAS
substantiated or unsubstantiated 15 months ago.
Yep. And you just made my point. All I said was that the DA wants to
know, and the worker damn well wants to be able to tell them one way
or another for the progess of the case. Just how stupid ARE you Doug?
Post by Doug
So, finally we have our answer. Unsubstantiated findings are not made by
CPS workers because they are under pressure from DA's to come up with a
substantiated finding in their investigations and do not have time to do so.
I never claimed either finding was made under pressure...only that A
finding had to be made if it hadn't been. And you've seen evidence
here of why it might not have been in the timelines required...lose as
they can be in some states.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Doug, I posted, some months back that cases go clear out to the limit
of the 15 out of the previous 24 months in our of home care that the
feds place on cases for closure, without a finding one way or the
other. I used a citation from one of your favorite sources.
An assessment or investigation must be completed and a finding made within
the time frame required by state law.
Nonsense. That's clear evidence you are an amateur of somekind. Even
the feds know better...as I pointed out earlier in this post, where
they stated the reasons it might not be done in the timeline.
Post by Doug
Federal law (CAPTA) mandates that
states clearly define this period of time. In almost all the states, that
length of time is 30 days. In some states, it is 60. In some states, it is
30 days with a stipulation that the worker can extend it to sixty with a
written statement of cause. Investigations or assessments do NOT go one for
15 months without a finding. That would be a violation of state and federal
law.
Please post the "mandate." And then I'll drag you back to the facts
that show the mandate isn't all that serious and is frequently
"violated" without consequence. THIS IS THE KIND OF INFORMATION I FED
MY FAMILIES if they were in a fight with CPS....to watch for these and
use them.
Post by Doug
The MAJORITY of open cases involve families who were unsubstantiated at the
conclusion of the assessment/investigation.
Nothing to do with the issue WE are debating.
Post by Doug
Many of these cases do go to
TPR fifteen or more months later.
Or a few sooner, as I've pointed out. So has CAPTA and the states in
the page I just referenced and quoted.
Post by Doug
County attorney's do need evidence from
CPS to prevail in these cases. CPS provides such evidence,
Now here yah go, trying to slide away from the obvious...that you just
found out you were wrong and are trying to weasel away again. Been
doing a little "research" have yah, Douggie?
Post by Doug
which usually
involves documentation that the parents have not jumped through the hoops
(services) set in front of them by safety plans.
Not always, and I'd watch those modifiers if I were you. "usually" is
so quaintly unspecific, now isn't it? I'd call you with a
"occasionally" as in "occasionally you are full of shit on this one."
The state also does cases to closure in shorter time..much.
Post by Doug
In due-process enlightened
states, the state must first prove that the parents abused or abandoned the
child BEFORE they can move on to the second phase of the trial, where they
attempt to establish best interests of the child.
Ah the amateur, the one that doesn't actually KNOW real life casework
field practice, but "studies" it by "researching" it. And how long do
you think that takes in the circumstances I just posted for you from
CAPTA?
Post by Doug
By order of the US Supreme Court, TPR requires that the state produce
evidence that meets the "clear and convincing evidence" threshold -- the
test just one notch down from "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Yep, and they can do that for some circumstances LONG before the 15
out of 24 months deadline. And these days I am hearing rumblings of
more and more of these kinds of cases. If I get any "research" done on
it that would be useful to you, Doug, I'll send it on to you.
Post by Doug
That requires a
lot of evidence.
What the hell does THAT mean? It takes ONE piece of evidence,
sometimes, and only one. An eyewitness to abuse and neglect, with the
child injured.
Post by Doug
But the DA does not come looking for it during an
investigation/assesment, pressuring CPS to make an unsubstantiated finding
in that assessment/investigation.
Then dear boy, what IS that monitor from the DA's office doing in the
family courtroom, pickin' his nose? In some states he's central to the
removal of the child and establishing the "out of home placement"
custody of the state. Oklahoma comes to mind. Look it up.
Post by Doug
You have confused open and closed cases with substantiated and
unsubstantiated findings, Kane. There are two different critters.
Nope. No such confusion occurred. You confused so many things that are
NOT like your research has suggested, when you actually get out into
casework. It doesn't all fit in you ignorant little poorly informed
bucket. The one you wear on your head as you charge up the hill at
those windmills.

You didn't even KNOW about the short timelines for some cases, didjah,
Douggie. You couldn't have or you wouldn't have made the claim the DA
isn't going to ask the worker in under 30days if the case is
substantiated by CPS or not.

And CAPTA recommended shorter timelines, like right the fuck NOW, on
cases with horrendous abuse, and uninterested parents, and missing
parents. Now how COULD you not know that?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Most CPS investigations or assessments are completed in a day, but
agencies
Post by kane
Post by Doug
generally wait the full 30 days before informing parties of their
finding.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
At the end of the 30 days, CPS will notify the parents and referring
party
Post by kane
Post by Doug
if the case has been substantiated or unsubstantiated.
Yet another weasel twist....to start herding any reader away from the
point being debated. When a case is about to go to TPR the DA asks if
the case has been substantiated. He or she cares not WHEN that was
done, only that it was.
Precisely...."the DA has if the case HAS BEEN substantiated." (Some 15
months prior). The DA, therefore, is not pressuring CPS to make
unsubstanitated findings during an investigation because they can't satisfy
the DA.
No, no, no, Douggie. You seem ignorant of CAPTA, very. It can happen
the day the child comes into care...in fact, the day a case is opened
and CPS is LOOKING for the child not yet in physcial custody, if the
circumstances I just posted from CAPTA exist in the case.
Post by Doug
In your initial post of 10-17, you said that unsubstantiated findings in CPS
investigations/assessments did not mean the parents were innocent, but
instead meant that CPS ran out of time to satisfy the DA. I responded that
the DA was not involved in making findings in CPS investigations. You
replied that, during TPR's, DA's were involved in pressuring CPS for a
"substantiated" finding.
Nope. A misreading of what I actually said.
Post by Doug
Regarding unsubstantiated findings made in CPS investigations/assessments,
"It does NOT mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process
the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA. FAr
too many children under that kind of counting are retuned home, and
reenter the system."
I wrote that CPS workers doing an investigation/assessment and deciding on a
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding have no burden or interest in
satisfying the local DA. Nor is the DA involved at that point.
R R R R R...YAH BETTER tell a few county DAs, like the one's I gave
you the links to, about your finding in this matter. Some even have
responsibility to determine placement or not. You think they aren't
asking the worker what's in the case record so far? You ever been in
family court, Douggie?

I have, countless times. I KNOW what takes place in the real world. I
suspect this stand of your, mistaken, is akin to the way in which you
determined that the FBI won't allow state CPS agencies to have NCIC
data....you read a media article and presumed from the general to the
specific. One of the classic thinking errors.

Let's this again, since you've ignored my previous citations on this
subject:

http://www.masskids.org/cta/cta_iii_ch06.html

In MA the DA must be on board within 45 days, Douggie. Yah think they
don't care if the allegations are substantiated or not?
"
The Massachusetts law states that the Department of Social Services
must carry out the following protocol:

Investigate and evaluate the information reported;

Evaluate the household of the child named in the report and make a
written determination of the risk of physical or emotional injury to
any other children in the same household;

Take a child into immediate temporary custody if the Department has
reasonable cause to believe that the removal of the child is necessary
to protect him from further abuse or neglect;

Notify the District Attorney within 45 days of the service plan, if
any, developed for such child and his family. In all cases in which
the Department determines that a report of abuse or neglect is not
substantiated, the Department shall notify in writing any and all
sources or recipients of information in connection with the
investigation that the report has not been substantiated.[131]
"

So contrary to your ignorant blather the DA WILL be pressuring CPS to
come up with a finding, one way or the other in as little as 45 days.

You have ignored my prior posts on this subject, as well as other
subjects under discussion between us. Is THAT how you operate...like
just another fuckin' propagandist? Ignore the rebuttals and they'll go
away?

Well, here's what I posted previously that shoots down you nonsense:

"
http://tinyurl.com/6bjqk This is the entire hitlist for a google
search:

I'll only cite and quote from a few of the more obvious, out of about
1,590 for the googel [DA "district attorney" "termination of parental
rights"];

WI: http://www.co.saint-croix.wi.us/Departments/DA/DA/
"[duties] as well as St. Croix County ordinance violations, children
in need of protective services cases and termination of parental
rights cases, and represents the interests of the public in matters
brought under the Juvenile Code, including attending juvenile
proceedings in Juvenile Court.
"
So you have to assume they DO have some influence over CPS, no?

OR: http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dss/budget/99BIF/99DAbrf.htm
"Department Services
The District Attorney's Office provides:
....
Multidisciplinary Child Abuse Team
.....
Juvenile Dependency cases
.................
Additionally, the court added two new judicial officers to the family
court. To properly address these pressures will require an additional
Deputy in the DV unit, a Deputy and half time clerk at the juvenile
court, and a Deputy at the Child Abuse Team.
........
Violence Against Women and Children. Increased attention to the
problem of domestic violence has resulted in staffing pressures on the
Domestic Violence (DV) and Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)
units."

[[[[[ Notice the level of involvement? There is a high degree of
contact between all parties to child abuse issues....and the DA does
influence the closing of cases one way or another, on time, so they
can know what to plan for on their docket...or rather, the court
docket. ]]]]]

Further, at this Co DA's office (It encompasses Oregon's largest city,
Portand and a few small towns around it) you will find the following
at:
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/FREDS/records/retention/%20DA/daj1.shtml

"Termination Of Parental Rights Case Records (DAJ1-003): Documents
juvenile court hearings to terminate the parental rights of one or
both parents of a child(ren). This process is governed by ORS
419B.500-524 and is heard by the Juvenile Court judge and may
involve the State District Attorney's office and State Services to
Children and Families as well as the County District Attorney's
office. Records include case logs (showing all case actions by
date), juvenile court motions and orders, case records from
various jurisdictions used as evidence to support the case,
guardianship studies, intake report, SCF report to the court,

[[[[[ This is likely the LAR I mentioned before. Or I should say, the
product of it....as the LAR is just a letter filled with everything
CPS has done to date they feel they can recommend a TPR for that an
ADA red pencils for more evidence, if needed, and DAM SURE sends it
back of the case isn't substantiated. LAS folks HATE it when the
letter comes back all red pencilled. I'ts like their old 8th grade
english papers coming back....R R R R. You really don't believe I have
contacts with CPS, do you? Yah kill me. ]]]]

planning hearing records, custody petitions, summons, termination
orders, rehearing records, and related information.
Retention: Retain 10 years after termination of parental rights of
both parents. (2000-0009/001)
"

And guess what, Douggie...here's the OR policy for it:

http://www.dhs.state.or.us/policy/childwelfare/manual_1/i-f32.htm
"
PROCEDURES

Referrals for Legal Assistance

(1) Branches shall restrict requests for consultation to legal issues
pursuant to potential termination of parental rights. Each branch
shall designate a contact person who is responsible for scheduling
consultation sessions with the assigned LAP attorney and the Legal
Assistance Specialist (LAS).
"

I've known LAS. Tough job. usually they have NO time to do a caseload,
but they are mostly MSWs with considerable experience in TPR and case
closure issues.

Utah, Nevada, Oklahoma, and the list goes on.

Or on the other hand, Doug, I probably just make this stuff up as I go
along, including the creation of phony state webpages, just to
confound you and unfairly win our debates. Right? 0;->

Yer unbelievable. Really.

State after state that DOES involve their DA's in family court on NON
CRIMINAL CHARGE CASES...civil cases.

Here's another, dummy:

Kansas: http://www.douglas-county.com/District_Attorney/dafaqs.asp
...........

"It is the duty of the District Attorney to prepare and file the
petition alleging a child to be a CINC and to appear at all hearings
on the petition and in aid to the court. A CINC case may be resolved
by a range of possible dispositions, up to and including, termination
of parental rights.

Another WI county...states it's involvement in TPR and child
protection at:

http://www.co.barron.wi.us/da.htm
Post by Doug
Post by kane
If they have not, then they must, my point and only my point, close
the out on that question by making a finding of "unsubstanciated." I
posted the proof of this to you some time back from a statement by a
federal official.
Nope. The finding of "unsubstantiated" is a exclusive finding (not
the lack
Post by Doug
of a finding) and is made within 30 days in most states.
They may NOT close a case without finding. It's either substantiated
or unsubstantiated, just like the english language works. If they were
unable to substantiate, what would YOU call it...."forstenblescher?
Post by Doug
CPS will wait for
the end of that statutory limit of time before notifying the parents
of
Post by Doug
either a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding.
Yep, I didn't say they did otherwise. What has the "notification of
parents" got to do with it? You are referring to either the point the
child will be returned, or the case goes to TPR, or request for
voluntary relinquishment.
Post by Doug
They do not :"close out"
cases
Yes they do.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=CPS+%2Bclosing+child+abuse+cases

"
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
After the statutory time limit for a finding, there is no such thing
as an
Post by kane
Post by Doug
open case without a finding.
Could you have made my case more for me then?
Post by Doug
There are plenty of open cases, of course,
that began as either unsubstantiated or substantiated cases.
Ho hum. I'm sure this is relevant to some conversation we've had. This
one, however, isn't about that.
Of course it is relevent. It says that there is no such thing as a case
that has been open for 15 months without a substantiated or unsubstantiated
finding.
Post by kane
So tell us. If the DA is involved, how is it you think they have no
influence on the step of substantiation or not?
Because, Kane, you say the DA becomes involved at the time of TPR. TPR is
not considered during the time frame where an assessment/investigation is
being done by CPS and a finding considered. So the DA would not be involved
at that point or have any influence on whether CPS will conclude its
investigation with a unsubstantiated or substantiated finding.
Well, I've shown you in this post, by citation, that you are full of
shit, Doug. Even CAPTA doesn't require a state to wait out the 15
month period. That's not a bottom limit on time, IT'S A TOP LIMIT ON
TIME.

I doubt you've ever done an actual child protection case in your life,
Doug. You are just too out of it information wise. Simple stuff, day
to day stuff, that every junior caseworker knows.

You statement above is a valiant attempt to CLAIM something by
PROCLAIMATION but it founders on fact, as I've posted here and in
previous posts.

The DA DOES in fact have plenty of input, if the case warrants, right
from the getgo, and they WILL and DO ask CPS if the case is going any
further, and an oft used word is, "substantiated," as in: "Have you
substantiated the allegations as true or not?"
Post by Doug
You need to learn something about field practice.
R R R R R.........good one. Yet another proclamation attempt that goes
nowhere. Again and again I've taken a stand against your ignorance
crap, and then gone to the sources and shown you to be wrong. Yet you
have the balls to make such a statement. What a blowhard.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
You established in lines above in this post that some cases go the
whole time without substantiation. All I've said is that if it goes to
TPR (and what does it matter when I brought that up, Doug, since I'm
answering continuing questions of yours?) then the DA will want to
know that there was a substantiation befor they will petition for TPR.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! To the contrary, I clearly established in lines above that
open cases DO NOT proceed without being either unsubstantiated or
substantiated during the investigation/assessment by CPS.
R R R R.....and it's absolute nonsense as quotes from CAPTA and state
sources have shown in this post.
Post by Doug
Many open cases
involve families that were unsubstantiated by CPS for risk of or actual
child maltreatment. 15 months later, the county attorney can -- and does --
move for TPR on some of these cases. There was not a substantiated finding
in these cases, but an unsubstantiated one, made many months earlier.
And this is an argument for the DA not caring? Not asking? And the
caseworker not checking that there was a finding (have you forgotten
the heavy caseloads, and the high turnoverf?)

Just how desperate are you, Doug?

Doug, you are ignorant as Fern, and your clever fakery is good, but
not that good.
Post by Doug
Have a great evening, sir!
Morning here thanks. A little rain, a nice warm fire, that big buck
pushing his little herd of does through the yard to get away from the
roads (It's deer season and the old grey muzzle knows it). And a nice
hot cup of tea.

But best of all, YOU, Doug, once again, revealing yourself. I hardly
have to work at it.
Post by Doug
Doug
You may be a "researcher," but you sure aren't like any caseworker
I've ever seen and I know thousands. The juniors know more practical
information than you.

Have a really nice evening, sir!

Kane
Doug
2004-10-30 22:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was no risk
of or actual neglect/abuse.
I love how you ignore the old posts where we hashed all this out
before. I established, and you want to "exercise" me by making me take
time to look up and post it all again. That is ONE of the two meanings
of "unsubstantiated." And you know it, but tell you what. I've
archived all that information in folder with YOUR name on it,
Doug...don't you feel specially favored? R R R R
Hi, Kane!

...And we will go through them again, seeing that unsubstantiated is,
indeed, a finding by CPS under their definations and threshold of evidence
that maltreatment or risk of maltreatment did not occur. It was not shown
under those standards to have occurred, so therefore it did not. (This is,
of course, the United States of America). In our country, one is not
considered to have abused or neglected a child unless they can prove to CPS
they have not. It works the other way, the child has been maltreated or is
at risk of maltreatment if CPS finds so (substantiated). Otherwise, it is
unsubstantiated.

Would you have it that the parent is guilty either way? Whether the finding
is substantiated or unsubstanited.?

Let's go. I appreciate you proving my point with the following, Kane.
Post by kane
Won't take me a minute to run it down for you and post it here.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/focus/decisionmaking.cfm
Here's your statement from above: "Unsubstantiated means that CPS
itself has determined that there was no risk of or actual
neglect/abuse."
Yep.
Post by kane
Here's what nccanch.acf says at the link above (pay close attention to
what comes after "or," as it looks so very charmingly like my
claim...and I never said YOU were wrong, just that you didn't have the
" 'Unsubstantiated' means an investigation determined no maltreatment
occurred, or there was insufficient evidence under State law or agency
policy to conclude that the child was maltreated. "
...yep, or that insufficient evidence existed to conclude that the child was
maltreated. THAT IS INNOCENCE in the United States of America, Kane. In
civil investigations, it is unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated is a finding,
as I said, that no maltreatment occurred. If it is not shown to have
occurred, it has not occurred. Would you say the converse, that in
unsubstantiated cases, maltreatment has occurred.
Post by kane
Wanna see a few more? I've got quite a lot of them, yah ignorant twit.
I sure do. And they will show once again what I have said. In the United
States one does not have to PROVE A NEGATIVE to have child maltreatment
allegations against them unsubstantiated. At no time, under any
circumstances, ever, has a single unsubstantiated finding been the result of
solid proof that no maltreatment ever occurred. Not a one. Such a finding
would be impossible. However, unsubstantiated findings are made all the
time. Those findings mean that CPS has not determined that maltreatment or
risk of maltreatment has occurred.

Innocent until proven guilty. Or, at least innocent until evidence that
allegations may be true is found. Not substantiated until proven innocent.


http://www.odis.dhr.state.ga.us/3000_fam/3030_cps/MANUALS/Chapter4/2104_23.doc
Post by kane
"
Unsubstantiated -- an investigation disposition by an abuse
investigator concludes that under state law and CPS procedure
requirements, there is either no evidence of maltreatment or the
allegation of maltreatment was not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence."
Preponderance of the evidence is the threshold of evidence required in
Georgia. All states are different. At any rate, yep, this says the same as
I have said...repeatedly.
Post by kane
And you are NOT going to like this as it blows you out of the water
You are not blowing anyone out of the water, Kane. <g> Unless you really
mean to say that it is necessary to prove a negative....to prove with
evidence that no maltreatment or risk of maltreatment existed before making
an unsubstantiated finding. So, if state CPS workers fail to find that a
child was maltreated or at risk of maltreatment, they make a finding of
unsubstantiated. They found that no maltreatment or risk of maltreatment
occurred.
Post by kane
Unsubstantiated / High Risk - an investigation disposition by an
abuse investigator concludes that under state law and CPS procedure
requirements, there is either no evidence of maltreatment or the
allegation of maltreatment was not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence; however, risk rates High, and the case will remain open for
services.
There are findings in these cases in this particular state. The finding is
unsubstantiated. These are not open cases with no finding. There is no
such thing if an investigation or assessment has been done.

These cases are unsubstantainted because the worker did not find any
evidence or sufficient evidence that maltreatment occurred, so he or she
makes a unsubstantiated finding...that he or she found that no maltreatment
occurred.
Post by kane
"Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was
no risk of or actual neglect."
It says the same thing. Wording is different. Remember, this is one
state -- Georgia. In other states, such cases would be substantiated
because of the risk. Georgia is unusual in this way.
Post by kane
Yer a joke, Doug. Don't you have any blush capacity at all?
http://www.de.state.az.us/dcyf/cps/outcome.asp
"
When a report is unsubstantiated it means that the information
gathered does not support a finding of child abuse or neglect."
Precisely. Just as I said. The wording is slightly different, but in the
United States of America and in the context of burden of proof, each
statement says the same thing.
Post by kane
Notice how carefully they word it to NOT say there is a finding of NO
ABUSE, only the failure to find enough evidence to substantiate? I
doesn't say they found evidence there WAS NO abuse.
If they found absolutely no evidence at all....no children in the
home.....no children ever visiting the home.....and evidence that both
parents were in the Cuba at the time of the allegations.....the finding
would be "unsubstantiated." Yet there is no evidence here that the
children were not abused....that would be proving a negative, which cannot
be done. But it would be unsubstantiated and I would have absolutely no
problem at all in saying that it was unsubstantiated because CPS determined
there was no risk of or actual child maltreatment.
Post by kane
http://dfsweb.state.wy.us/CHILDSVC/cpspamp.htm
"
If the investigation did not reveal that child abuse or neglect
occurred the report is unsubstantiated." (this is almost word for word
what I claimed.)
...And what I claimed. In Wyoming, unsubstantiated reports are those where
CPS has found in its investigation that child abuse or neglect did not
occur.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp104&r_n=sr117.104&sel=TOC_34798&
Post by kane
"
in essence, an `unsubstantiated' report is one that is dismissed after
an investigation finds insufficient evidence on which to proceed. This
does not mean, however, that all unsubstantiated reports are false or
that all have been investigated.
In all states I know of "unsubstantiated" is a finding made as the result
of an investigation or assessment. How does one unsubstantiate a case
without investigating it? Flimsy wording, but it says the same thing. The
investigation is, in fact done, and stops with a finding of unsubstantiated
when CPS finds insufficient support for allegations that maltreatment
occurred.
Post by kane
Ooo...that one should be raising your temperature just a tad. R R R R
R...
Not at all.
Post by kane
"Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was
no risk of or actual neglect."
Compares quite favorably, thank you, unless you believe that it is necessary
to prove innocence to be unsubstantiated. Not in the USA.
Post by kane
You'll love this one, same source, in regards to your claim it's a
violation of federal and state law if a case continues without a
"
Cases may also not be substantiated because the caseworker was
transferred, the family moved, the child was unable to talk, or CPS
failed to find medical evidence. Finally, some reports determined to
be unsubstantiated are simply false--that is, there is absolutely no
evidence of any inadequate parental care.
Cases mentioned above that are not substantiated are unsubstantiated.
Unsubstantiated is a finding. They didn't find medical evidence, etc.
Families that move out of the area are obvious not part of an open case, as
you were talking about, but are closed without a finding. Many cases are
closed without a finding. And, the wording reminds us again that
unsubstantiated findings are made when investigations fail to find
sufficient support for the allegations, which can be no evidence whatsoever.
Post by kane
But, considering your embarrassment, I thought I'd throw you a bone,
they do also INCLUDE your claim, but it doesn't negate mine, which
yours tries to.
The extent of your ignorance on such things is obviously a sign
something is up with you that stinks. You miss ALL these common
caseworker field practice issues..very strange indeedy. I think you
are a phony.
I have been sharing information known commonly to caseworkers. It is not
ignorance. Mine does not negate yours or your sources. You play with
wording and call names. Neither advances the discussion or establishes
ignorance. Though it could be argued that it is stupid. <g>
Post by kane
Now here is a federal source that is definitive..they really tear down
the definition of "substantiated," and "unsubstantiated."
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CPS-status03/state-policy03/chapter4.htm
"
Forty-eight States (94.1%) had definitions for substantiated and
unsubstantiated. The remainder had alternate structures of
classification, which included terms equivalent to substantiated;
...
Two themes concerning the definition of "unsubstantiated" were
identified. Twenty-three States (45.1%) defined "unsubstantiated"
broadly in terms of "insufficient evidence." These States defined
unsubstantiated cases as failing to meet the standard of evidence for
substantiated--"when credible evidence of abuse or neglect has not
been obtained" or "fails evidence standard." Twenty-six States (51.0%)
considered unsubstantiated more narrowly as cases where there is no
evidence that maltreatment occurred--"clearly unfounded, erroneous, or
incorrect," "worker is reasonably sure that child abuse or neglect did
not occur," or "whenever facts obtained during the investigation
provide credible evidence that child abuse or neglect has not
occurred." (Some States had provisions for both types of definition.)
You may want to read that again, Kane, carefully. Thanks for posting it.
You may want to call 26 of those states. <g>
Post by kane
I mean if THAT doesn't shoot your bullshit down, I'm not sure what
would in your mind. You just can't admit when you are wrong, now can
yah?
To the contrary, it confirms what I have said...especially 26 of the states.
Post by kane
You've refused to answer my requests to respond to all the proof I
showed that both NCIC data is accessible by CPS, and that workers DO
in fact in a number of states have very specialist job descriptions
and duties.
I have stated that in most CPS jurisdictions other than concentrated urban
areas, CPS workers do both investigations/assessments and casework. None of
your information disputes that. You have talked endlessly about foster
certifiers, adoption workers, foster care investigators, and other
specialities. That does not challenge in any way my contention. (For
instance, I have complained regularly in this newsgroup about child abuse in
foster care being assessed by separate units who are unaccountable to the
public OR the children's CPS caseworkers.
Post by kane
Yah just float on by as though the subject has gone dead...which it
has because YOU won't own up to your own ignorance. I don't expect
much more here, on the substantiation issue.
Read your own cut and pastes again, Kane. They may help. You are getting
picky with words....or you are somehow convinced that parents are still
guilty of child maltreatment even when unsubstantiated by CPS itself after
an investigation/assessment. What does a parent have to do to prove their
innocence? Do you really believe they need to do so to prevent their
children from being forcibly taken into custody???
Post by kane
Post by Doug
In most states, the statutory limit for an investigation or assessment is 30
days. A finding must be made within that time. There is such a limit, by
law. At the end of the thirty days in these states, a finding is made and
sent to the concerned parties. That finding can be substantiated or
unsubstantiated (or also indicated in a few states). A case is opened or
closed regardless of which finding is made. For instance, a case can be
opened when the finding has been unsubstantiated. A case can be closed
immediately after a substantiated finding is made. It is not a question, as
you put it, of a case is going beyond the 30 days without a finding at all.
The assessment or investigation will be substantiated or unsubstantiated at
the end of that 30 days and The MAJORITY of open cases with CPS are cases
where a unsubstantiated finding has been made during the investigation. A
large proportion of closed cases are substantiated during the assessment or
investigation. No cases linger as closed or open cases without a finding
within the statutory time frame for an investigation/assessment.
Actually the times are all over the place. And in some instances you
can't even pin down a state to the actual time. But I'd be interested
in you showing us the federal statute you claim exists that says the
state MUST have that time limit.
Seems odd, given the states tend to give exceptions to workers by a
pleading to their supervisors. Eh?
Yep...to extend from 30 to 60 days. In no circumstances does it extend
further. Certainly not to 15 months.

Have a grand evening, sir!

Doug
bobb
2004-10-31 20:49:12 UTC
Permalink
What kane infers is that CPS fails to complete an investigation if they
cannot substantiate abuse. The failure of discovering evidence, at least in
his mind, leaves the investigation incomplete.

He does not want to recognize that an investigation works both ways. Heck,
look at our judicial system. If a defendant is found not guilty... meaning
there was not enough evidence to convict... the defendant remains guilty in
the eyes of many. I remind you to recall the instances where men have been
released from jail following DNA tests.. they have a hard time gain a
pardon or have the records expunged. The suggestion of guilt follows them
for ever after. Why should we expect CPS to act otherwise. Just ask kane.

bobb
Doug
2004-11-01 00:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobb
What kane infers is that CPS fails to complete an investigation if they
cannot substantiate abuse. The failure of discovering evidence, at least in
his mind, leaves the investigation incomplete.
Hi, bobb!

In our system of jurisprudence -- criminal or civil -- failure to discover
evidence means there is no evidence to hold against the citizen who is
charged. A failure to establish guilt establishes innocence.

I think Kane would have it that we should trust the judgment of our
individual civil servants (CPS Workers) over a system of checks and
balances, due process, and presumption of innocence. "If one of those
honorable, overworked, trustworthy and exceptionally trained bureaucrats
thinks there may be abuse, then there must be." Our Founding Fathers
inherently mistrusted individuals, so they placed all power in systems.
Absolute power, they felt, corrupted absolutely.

If the state cannot prove with evidence that a parent has maltreated their
child, the state should not have the power to override the Constitutional
right of the child to live with her family, apphrehend her and forcibly hold
her in state custody. State legislatures give CPS specific guidelines and
thesholds to substantiate or unsubstantiate allegations in an investigation.
If they follow those guidelines and unsubstantiate a family, they should
leave the child and her family the hell alone.

The burden of proof rests with the state to prove the parents guilty, not
with the child or her family to prove themselves innocent.

If child abuse reaching the level of substantiation were tried in criminal
courts, all parties would be assured due process of law. Guilt would be
determined in a court of law by the accused peers. Nothing would stop the
judge from imposing the same sanctions ("services") currently imposed by
civil courts. Nor is there anything that forces the judge to send a
defendant found guilty to jail. In fact, the vast majority of people
convicted of other crimes in criminal court are not sent to jail.
Post by bobb
He does not want to recognize that an investigation works both ways.
Heck,
Post by bobb
look at our judicial system. If a defendant is found not guilty... meaning
there was not enough evidence to convict... the defendant remains guilty in
the eyes of many.
True. In the eyes of many in the public. But in the eyes of the law and
the system, the citizen is innocent. Her children could not be held hostage
after such a verdict (provided civil courts would not standing by, as they
are now, to summarily order removal or hold children without hearing). If
we switch to a criminal system for child abuse, it would have to replace
entirely the family court system's adjudication of child abuse or neglect.
Post by bobb
I remind you to recall the instances where men have been
released from jail following DNA tests.. they have a hard time gain a
pardon or have the records expunged. The suggestion of guilt follows them
for ever after. Why should we expect CPS to act otherwise. Just ask kane.
Well, unfortunately, now all it takes to condemn a parent as guilty and
forcibly remove her children is the unilateral decision of a CPS caseworker
with the rubber stamp of his supervisor. No court. No judge. No DA. A
CPS investigation is "substantiated" or "unsubstantiated" by the caseworker,
period. Our founding father would never put the freedom of their children
in the hands of a single government employee.

We got into trouble as a nation the moment we set aside our founding
father's insistence of systems based on checks and balances, oversight, and
due process and moved to give unilateral power to bureaucrats. Absolute
power corrupts absolutely.

While state after state is following the reform of opening their family
courts to the public, damage has already been done to hundreds of thousands
of children whose fate was decided in ex parte hearings that neither they or
their parents attended.

But things are changing. Family courts are being opened to the public.
Evidence standards are being changed for "substantiating" cases. CPS
workers are now required to notify parents exactly what the allegations
against them are. CPS workers now have to get training in our Constitution
and the Constitutional rights enjoyed by citizens -- most especially our
younger ones.

It won't be long, now.

Keep up the good work, bobb!

Doug
kane
2004-10-30 02:35:03 UTC
Permalink
"Doug" <***@charter.net> wrote in message news:<***@corp.supernews.com>...

As usual, you pick and choose what you'll respond to, leaving out the
relevant posts scattered along the way that rebutted and refuted your
nonsense.

The issue isn't as you have tried to make it. It's very simple and
I've posted more than enough evidence to show you have a poor
understanding or knowledge of cps casework field practice.

As usual all you do is babble and twist and turn in an attempt to
misdirect and obscure the obvious.

You know very little that's relevant to real world, on the ground,
casework.

Kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
R R R....yes, I saw that too, and you are full of balony. EVERY day
the DA in some county in this country does exactly that. They get
involved with substantiations as one of the pieces of evidence in
TPRs, just as I said.
Hi, Kane!
The state's attorney petitioning for TPR may use information in a CPS report
months or years after a substantiated finding, yes. But surely you are not
saying that DA's find themselves petitioning for TPR less than 30 days after
a family has been hotlined for allegations of child maltreatment and prior
to the completion of an investigation? Surely you are not saying that the
DA is pressuring CPS to make a substantiated finding in shorter than 30 days
because it is moving for TPR in that length of time?
Post by kane
And I'm saying you are giving us the Lower Slobbovia view of CPS. Must
be strange there....as in all the rest of the country the DA is
heavily involved. Well, nearly all...I might have missed some Upper
Slobbovia state.
In the United States, the DA is usually not involved in CPS civil
investigations of child maltreatment. And the state certainly does not
petition for Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) in less than 30 days after
a investigation or assessment is started.
Post by kane
R R R R ..........yer killing me. I've been doing this 28 years, Doug.
I KNOW what the DA does. And when I'm not sippin' coffee with CPS
people from state admins to line workers, and aides, I'm yakkin' it up
with ADAs. Doug, I've trained DA staffs in certain skills....which are
none of your business and definately my own.
Cool. A new one. You've trained DA staffs, too, in between your coffee
breaks with CPS workers and trips to the bathroom with cops who need to
vomit. A busy man and vivid imagination.
Post by kane
You would be seriously wrong in this Doug. Try rewording it, weasel.
NOT responding to what I say or claim is your favorite trick. Expect
to be called on it. I made NO claim the DA or anyone else MADE the
decision, only influenced the timeliness. Yer losing your cool, old
man.
Timeliness would not be an issue because TPR's are not brought within the
very brief time frame of an assessment or investigation. You added TPR's to
your post this time around to try to cover yourself, but it doesn't work.
TPR's generally are not sought in the this time frame.
If so, the public and the legislatures have to be informed that the state is
moving to terminate parental rights before CPS even substantiates a case.
And that, furthermore, the DA is putting time pressure on CPS to make the
finding even faster than 30 days!
Post by kane
So, tell me, is what I said true or not....
When the DA says the case is running out of time and the worker must
find or not is that true or something I just made up?
It is not true.
I have no way of knowing if you just made it up or one of the cops told you
that or you think you learned it in Air Force Intelligence.
Post by kane
Would you care to claim the DA has no interest in the substantiation
of a case if CPS is considering a request for a petition for TPR? Go
ahead, think about it first though, carefully.
I have no trouble claiming that the state's attorney will not be petitioning
for a TPR within 30 days of unproven allegations of child maltreatment or
pressuring CPS to make a finding before the statutory time limit for
investigations because the attorney is moving for TPR.
Would you care to claim that District Attorney's in a given state are
considering filing a petition for TPR in the short, 30-day time frame of a
CPS assessment or investigation and want to move it up even shorter?
Post by kane
Post by Doug
CPS does not need to
satisfy local DA's.
R R R R.................WHAT A LAME DIMWIT. All I mentioned was TPR
cases, and the DA responsibilities are obvious, as you'll soon find
out, and their interaction with CPS to get with it, or close the case.
You mention TPR cases NOW, in this post. But it still does not apply, since
the time frame until a finding is announced to the parents is only 30 days.
Most CPS investigations or assessments are completed in a day, but agencies
generally wait the full 30 days before informing parties of their finding.
At the end of the 30 days, CPS will notify the parents and referring party
if the case has been substantiated or unsubstantiated. The case may be open
or closed regardless of either finding. (Many families unsubstantiated for
risk of or actual maltreatment become an open case with a safety plan and
services. Many substantiated cases are closed.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
CPS substantiates all by themselves, thank you.
I made no claim otherwise. Show me where I said others substantiate.
The DA has no input as far as I know. Well, they might have an
investigator share the criminal evidence they've found. I really
wouldn't know about that. But an open case without a finding by CPS is
NOT liked by the DA if the case is going to TPR.
After the statutory time limit for a finding, there is no such thing as an
open case without a finding. There are plenty of open cases, of course,
that began as either unsubstantiated or substantiated cases.
Post by kane
BUT Doug, before you read further on I want you to say to yourself
realllllll loud..."DA's aren't involved in family court proceedings,
even TRP." Because Doug, that is what you appear to be saying.
Nope. Never said anything close to DA's not being involved in family court
proceedings or DA's not being involved in Termination of Parental Rights
hearings. You brought up TPR.
What I did say was that DA's are not involved in putting time pressure on
CPS to come up with a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding.
Post by kane
Here it's the county DA. Well, of course an ADA in the office that
specializes in child protection cases.
Here it is the "county attorney." Roughly the same as an Assistant District
Attorney in those jurisdictions that use the term. Or you can consider a
county attorney as being somewhere in between the "city attorney's" and the
Assistant District Attorney's in California.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the
DA
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
is trying to determine whether or not to pursue criminal charges,
they
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of time?"
If
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
"unsubstantiated."
Now, the above is what you said in your first post, Kane. Nothing about
TPR.
Post by kane
Nope. Whether a prosecutor persues criminal charges for child abuse
Ah, where did you see me say "criminal charges?" I didn't. You are
making assumptions that you wish people to swallow instead of sticking
to the actual claim as stated.
Look at your own quote, above, Kane. Where did I see you say, criminal
charges?. I will cut and paste again, with emphasis.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the
DA
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
is trying to determine whether or not to PURSUE CRIMINAL CHARGES,
they > >> ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of
time?"
Post by kane
If> >> they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
Post by Doug
Post by kane
"unsubstantiated."
Still up to your old tricks of trying to put words in someone else's
keyboard. Silly boy. YOu are one champion equivocator.
Nope. They were YOUR words, as I have shown above.
Post by kane
It does in TPR petitions. The DA is in the loop here. They may not be
in your area, but I assure you I've been involved and KNOW they
routinely are here.....CPS cannot file a petition for TRP without it
here. The DA does the filing.
The state files the TPR petition here, too. But not within 30 days of
unsubstantiated allegations made in a hotline call.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
CPS substantiates and the local DA
refuses to consider prosecuting criminally.
R R R ...you are NOT really saying that the DA's office is NOT
involved in the civil cases we call TPR are you? Please, don't do this
to yourself.
No, you're right, I am NOT saying that the DA is not involved in TPR cases.
I said nothing about TPR at all in my first post. What I DID say was that
DA's make the decision whether to prosecute child abuse criminally.
Post by kane
I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you...especially as you've
gotten so caught up in winning you cannot admit when you erred, even
when I give you the easiest out...you were WRONG on work assigments,
and you were WRONG on NCIC, and you've done nothing but weasel and
make some declarations about as convincing as the child with cookie
crumbs down his shirt front, a broken cookie jar on the kitchen floor
would claims, "Dah kiddy did id."
And the same old begging the question for-eeeever.
Post by Doug
Neither the court or the DA
calls CPS to help them make their decisions.
R R R ....what cutely careful wording. Where did I say the DA did
that; "help?" They motivate to come to case closure. and that's ALL I
claimed. And they sure as hell "help" in TPR, as the DA does the
actual filing based on the case evidence CPS provides...including that
important little "substantiation."
What I will do know is cut and paste the portion of your first post that I
responded to. Let's look and see if, in that post, there is any mention of
TPR.
Post by kane
Maybe YOURS doesn't involve the DA but in other states they certainly
do.
"Our" county attorneys do file petitions for TPR based upon information in
reports CPS substantiated months or usually years beforehand. They do not
put pressure on CPS to make a finding from an investigation/assessment
before 30 days has elapsed.
Post by kane
Yah know Doug, you certainly exhibit a great deal of ignorance outside
your own little world for a 'researcher' and child protection
caseworker. 7 states you say, eh? R R R R R ....sure.
It is quite clear what you posted and what I responded with. There is
nothiing ignorant in my reponse.
BTW, what 7 states? You've lost me there with the 7 states.
Anyway, here is your first post.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
While it may allow for some of the latter, the other two do not
follow. For one thing I believe the estimate are based on a faulty
understanding of what "unsubstantiated" actually means. It does NOT
mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA.
Hi, Kane!
Substantiated or unsubstantiated findings are made solely by the CPS
caseworker and supervisor and do not involve local DA's, courts, or
any
Post by kane
other decision makers.
Do not involve? Oh dear. And me with my poor grasp of case worker
field practice...what will I ever do now?
I didn't say they were decision makers...but I did claim they are
involved alrighty. And influecing in exactly the way I claim above.
"....... It means the state ran out of time to process the
information they had into a form that would satisfy the local DA.
"
From just prior to your statement above shifting to something not
quite but slightly related. You have practiced that about as long as
I'm going to let you get away with Doug.
When the court calls, and the case is running out of time, and the DA
is trying to determine whether or not to pursue criminal charges, they
ask..."have you substantiated the case, we are nearly out of time?" If
they are, the point of my argument about why cases are sometime
"unsubstantiated."
If they have not, then they must, my point and only my point, close
the out on that question by making a finding of "unsubstanciated." I
posted the proof of this to you some time back from a statement by a
federal official.
-------------
Have a great evening!
Doug
Doug
2004-10-30 03:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by kane
The issue isn't as you have tried to make it. It's very simple and
I've posted more than enough evidence to show you have a poor
understanding or knowledge of cps casework field practice.
Hi, Kane!

The issue is, indeed, very simple. You have posted more than enough
evidence that you do not understand how CPS makes a substantiated or
unsubstantiated finding in an assessment or investigation. DA's are hardly
involved in seeking TPR and putting pressure on CPS to make a substantiated
finding within the time frame those findings are made. If you understood
CPS field practice, you would know about the time frames.

So, just as simply, your statement that unsubstantiated families are not
innocent but subject to investigations/assessments where CPS ran out of time
trying to appease prosecutors with a substantiated finding is disproven.

Have a great morning!

Doug
Post by kane
The state's attorney petitioning for TPR may use information in a CPS
report months or years after a substantiated or unsubstantiated finding,
yes. But DA's are not going to be petitioning for TPR's during the short
time frame established by law for investigations and reaching a
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding.
So, your statement that DA's would somehow be pressuring CPS for a
substantiated finding during an investigation is absurd.
Post by kane
Surely you missed my mention of the "15 out of the previous 24"
remarks. And unless there are extraordinary circumstances, a TPR would
be highly unlikely to take place that early in the case. They do tend,
as those of us who know are aware, way out toward the end of the time
period mentioned....15 months.
Exactly. So DA's would not be pressuring CPS for a substantiated finding,
forcing CPS to cut the investigation short with an unsubstantiated
finding,
Post by kane
as you wrongfully claimed. DA's move for TPR 15 months after the
investigation.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
And the state certainly does not
petition for Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) in less than 30
days after
Post by Doug
a investigation or assessment is started.
Please point out where I made such a claim? I find your habit of
making a declaration of some, "error" pretending I made it when I've
made no such claim, funny though unethical.
You made the claim that many of the unsubstantiated findings are made by
CPS
Post by kane
because the DA, petitioning for TPR, pressures them to substantiate a
case.
Post by kane
You said that, since they did not have the "time" to substantiate as the
DA
Post by kane
wanted, they unsubstantiated. And, somehow, we are supposed to buy this
twisted logic to explain that "unsubstantiated cases" really represent
cases
Post by kane
where there is risk of or actual abuse.
Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was no
risk
Post by kane
of or actual neglect/abuse.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Timeliness would not be an issue because TPR's are not brought within
the
Post by Doug
very brief time frame of an assessment or investigation. You added
TPR's to
Post by Doug
your post this time around to try to cover yourself, but it doesn't
work.
Post by Doug
TPR's generally are not sought in the this time frame.
You made rather a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions from my
statements. You build a complexity into your creation that did not
exist in my comments. I did not limit to 30 days, nor is there any
such limit. If a case has not been substantiated in 30 days, are you
claiming it is then closed?
In most states, the statutory limit for an investigation or assessment is
30
Post by kane
days. A finding must be made within that time. There is such a limit, by
law. At the end of the thirty days in these states, a finding is made and
sent to the concerned parties. That finding can be substantiated or
unsubstantiated (or also indicated in a few states). A case is opened or
closed regardless of which finding is made. For instance, a case can be
opened when the finding has been unsubstantiated. A case can be closed
immediately after a substantiated finding is made. It is not a question,
as
Post by kane
you put it, of a case is going beyond the 30 days without a finding at
all.
Post by kane
The assessment or investigation will be substantiated or unsubstantiated
at
Post by kane
the end of that 30 days and The MAJORITY of open cases with CPS are
cases
Post by kane
where a unsubstantiated finding has been made during the investigation. A
large proportion of closed cases are substantiated during the assessment
or
Post by kane
investigation. No cases linger as closed or open cases without a finding
within the statutory time frame for an investigation/assessment.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
When the DA says the case is running out of time and the worker
must
Post by Doug
Post by kane
find or not is that true or something I just made up?
It is not true.
It is not true of there is no request for the DA to petion for TPR.
When there is such a request one of the items tic'd off is
"sustantiated or not substantiated." If not, the DA sends the letter
back and says a petition won't fly without it.
It is not true that the DA would be pressing for TPR during the 30 days
CPS
Post by kane
is investigating or assessing a case and preparing to make a finding.
Hopefully, you are not saying that CPS is going to change a
unsubstantiated
Post by kane
finding 15 months after they made it so they can check the right box to
satisfy the DA.
Post by kane
R R R ...I didn't ask you about any 30 time limit, nor did I mention
one earlier. If the worker is required to close the case, and the
super and worker feel they have a TRP case their next move is to
request the DA file a petition. The DA will NOT do so unless there is
sufficient evidence, in a form that can be coroborated to satisfy a
court of law, and ONE of those things is the assurance that the
findings are in fact "substantiated" by both the early assessment, and
any evidence that has surfaced since.
Closing a case or leaving it open has absolutely nothing to do with
whether
Post by kane
an assessment or investigation will end in a substantiated or
unsubstantiated finding. So, your contention that the DA would push, 15
months later, for CPS to make a substantiated finding on an assessment or
investigation is absurd.
As you have said, the DA or county attorney is not going to be considering
petitioning for a TPR until 15 months AFTER an assessment or investigation
has been done and the findings made.
You first point that unsubstantiated findings are made in
assessments/investigations because of DA pressure to rush the
investigation/assessment for TPR purposes is absurd.
Post by kane
There's no "30 day" limit, Doug.
There most certainly is a statutory limit to the length of investigations
and assessments. In most states, the legislatures have limited that time
to
Post by kane
30 days.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Would you care to claim that District Attorney's in a given state are
considering filing a petition for TPR in the short, 30-day time frame
of a
Post by Doug
CPS assessment or investigation and want to move it up even shorter?
Will, I didn't claim that. Nor do I now, with the possible exception
of an extraordinary case (I've never heard of one) that was so
horrendous that the outcome is foregone.
Nor have I ever heard of such a case. So there would never be a
circumstance where a DA bent on TPR would pressure a CPS worker to make a
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding during an investigation or
assessment. By that time, the assessment or investigation has long since
been completed and the DA would be asking CPS if the finding WAS
substantiated or unsubstantiated 15 months ago.
So, finally we have our answer. Unsubstantiated findings are not made by
CPS workers because they are under pressure from DA's to come up with a
substantiated finding in their investigations and do not have time to do
so.
Post by kane
Post by kane
Doug, I posted, some months back that cases go clear out to the limit
of the 15 out of the previous 24 months in our of home care that the
feds place on cases for closure, without a finding one way or the
other. I used a citation from one of your favorite sources.
An assessment or investigation must be completed and a finding made within
the time frame required by state law. Federal law (CAPTA) mandates that
states clearly define this period of time. In almost all the states, that
length of time is 30 days. In some states, it is 60. In some states, it
is
Post by kane
30 days with a stipulation that the worker can extend it to sixty with a
written statement of cause. Investigations or assessments do NOT go one
for
Post by kane
15 months without a finding. That would be a violation of state and
federal
Post by kane
law.
The MAJORITY of open cases involve families who were unsubstantiated at
the
Post by kane
conclusion of the assessment/investigation. Many of these cases do go to
TPR fifteen or more months later. County attorney's do need evidence from
CPS to prevail in these cases. CPS provides such evidence, which usually
involves documentation that the parents have not jumped through the hoops
(services) set in front of them by safety plans. In due-process
enlightened
Post by kane
states, the state must first prove that the parents abused or abandoned
the
Post by kane
child BEFORE they can move on to the second phase of the trial, where they
attempt to establish best interests of the child.
By order of the US Supreme Court, TPR requires that the state produce
evidence that meets the "clear and convincing evidence" threshold -- the
test just one notch down from "beyond a reasonable doubt." That requires
a
Post by kane
lot of evidence. But the DA does not come looking for it during an
investigation/assesment, pressuring CPS to make an unsubstantiated finding
in that assessment/investigation.
You have confused open and closed cases with substantiated and
unsubstantiated findings, Kane. There are two different critters.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Most CPS investigations or assessments are completed in a day, but
agencies
Post by Doug
generally wait the full 30 days before informing parties of their
finding.
Post by Doug
At the end of the 30 days, CPS will notify the parents and referring
party
Post by Doug
if the case has been substantiated or unsubstantiated.
Yet another weasel twist....to start herding any reader away from the
point being debated. When a case is about to go to TPR the DA asks if
the case has been substantiated. He or she cares not WHEN that was
done, only that it was.
Precisely...."the DA has if the case HAS BEEN substantiated." (Some 15
months prior). The DA, therefore, is not pressuring CPS to make
unsubstanitated findings during an investigation because they can't
satisfy
Post by kane
the DA.
In your initial post of 10-17, you said that unsubstantiated findings in
CPS
Post by kane
investigations/assessments did not mean the parents were innocent, but
instead meant that CPS ran out of time to satisfy the DA. I responded
that
Post by kane
the DA was not involved in making findings in CPS investigations. You
replied that, during TPR's, DA's were involved in pressuring CPS for a
"substantiated" finding.
Regarding unsubstantiated findings made in CPS investigations/assessments,
"It does NOT mean innocent. It means the state ran out of time to process
the
information they had into a for that would satisfy the local DA. FAr
too many children under that kind of counting are retuned home, and
reenter the system."
I wrote that CPS workers doing an investigation/assessment and deciding on
a
Post by kane
substantiated or unsubstantiated finding have no burden or interest in
satisfying the local DA. Nor is the DA involved at that point.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
After the statutory time limit for a finding, there is no such thing
as an
Post by Doug
open case without a finding.
Could you have made my case more for me then?
Post by Doug
There are plenty of open cases, of course,
that began as either unsubstantiated or substantiated cases.
Ho hum. I'm sure this is relevant to some conversation we've had. This
one, however, isn't about that.
Of course it is relevent. It says that there is no such thing as a case
that has been open for 15 months without a substantiated or
unsubstantiated
Post by kane
finding.
Post by kane
So tell us. If the DA is involved, how is it you think they have no
influence on the step of substantiation or not?
Because, Kane, you say the DA becomes involved at the time of TPR. TPR is
not considered during the time frame where an assessment/investigation is
being done by CPS and a finding considered. So the DA would not be
involved
Post by kane
at that point or have any influence on whether CPS will conclude its
investigation with a unsubstantiated or substantiated finding.
You need to learn something about field practice.
Post by kane
You established in lines above in this post that some cases go the
whole time without substantiation. All I've said is that if it goes to
TPR (and what does it matter when I brought that up, Doug, since I'm
answering continuing questions of yours?) then the DA will want to
know that there was a substantiation befor they will petition for TPR.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! To the contrary, I clearly established in lines above
that
Post by kane
open cases DO NOT proceed without being either unsubstantiated or
substantiated during the investigation/assessment by CPS. Many open cases
involve families that were unsubstantiated by CPS for risk of or actual
child maltreatment. 15 months later, the county attorney can -- and
does --
Post by kane
move for TPR on some of these cases. There was not a substantiated
finding
Post by kane
in these cases, but an unsubstantiated one, made many months earlier.
Have a great evening, sir!
Doug
kane
2004-10-31 03:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was no
risk
Post by kane
Post by Doug
of or actual neglect/abuse.
I love how you ignore the old posts where we hashed all this out
before. I established, and you want to "exercise" me by making me
take
Post by Doug
Post by kane
time to look up and post it all again. That is ONE of the two
meanings
Post by Doug
Post by kane
of "unsubstantiated." And you know it, but tell you what. I've
archived all that information in folder with YOUR name on it,
Doug...don't you feel specially favored? R R R R
Hi, Kane!
...And we will go through them again, seeing that unsubstantiated is,
indeed, a finding by CPS under their definations and threshold of
evidence
Post by Doug
that maltreatment or risk of maltreatment did not occur. It was not
shown
Post by Doug
under those standards to have occurred, so therefore it did not.
(This is,
Post by Doug
of course, the United States of America). In our country, one is not
considered to have abused or neglected a child unless they can prove
to CPS
Post by Doug
they have not. It works the other way, the child has been maltreated
or is
Post by Doug
at risk of maltreatment if CPS finds so (substantiated). Otherwise,
it is
Post by Doug
unsubstantiated.
Would you have it that the parent is guilty either way? Whether the
finding
Post by Doug
is substantiated or unsubstanited.?
Ah, the art of insinuation. No, Doug, not only did I not say that, I
never said there wasn't ALSO a definition of "unsubstantiated" that
included what you claim...that there was proof of no abuse having
happened. It's simply unreasonable to assume that is the rule in the
majority of cases.

It makes sense to accept the second definition in my citations that
"unsubstantiated' also means that no evidence was found one way or the
other....exactly what the citations say. You are such a sore loser.
Post by Doug
Let's go. I appreciate you proving my point with the following,
Kane.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Won't take me a minute to run it down for you and post it here.
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/focus/decisionmaking.cfm
Here's your statement from above: "Unsubstantiated means that CPS
itself has determined that there was no risk of or actual
neglect/abuse."
Yep.
That would require proof of somekind that no abuse happened. It's
virtually impossible to do. That does not assume guilt, which is NOT
the subject of our difference of opinion about the facts of un and
substantiated, Doug.

You are simply pulling one of your fast one's again, trying to weasel
out when your ignorance has been uncovered.

And every citation I posted, as I recall had BOTH definitions...no
confusion between them such as you are vanely trying to establish.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Here's what nccanch.acf says at the link above (pay close attention
to
Post by Doug
Post by kane
what comes after "or," as it looks so very charmingly like my
claim...and I never said YOU were wrong, just that you didn't have
the
Post by Doug
Post by kane
" 'Unsubstantiated' means an investigation determined no
maltreatment
Post by Doug
Post by kane
occurred, or there was insufficient evidence under State law or
agency
Post by Doug
Post by kane
policy to conclude that the child was maltreated. "
...yep, or that insufficient evidence existed to conclude that the
child was
Post by Doug
maltreated. THAT IS INNOCENCE
We were NOT discussing "INNOCENCE," Doug and you know it. I never
brought it up, and neither did YOU. We were discussing what the states
and the feds use as a definition of "unsubstantiated."

You denied MY definition as even exisiting, and I've showed you that
of course it does. Insufficient evidence to conclude an abuse
occured...which one of the citations even mentioned as being NO PROOF
IT DIDN'T OCCUR.
Post by Doug
in the United States of America, Kane. In
civil investigations, it is unsubstantiated.
You may rant and stamp your foot as much as you wish, and you may
weasel word as much as you wish as well, but we are not arguing what
you now wish to move on to.
Post by Doug
Unsubstantiated is a finding,
as I said, that no maltreatment occurred.
No, it is not, and the states AND the feds have said so in every
citation I provided.
Post by Doug
If it is not shown to have
occurred, it has not occurred.
Well, Douggie if such an illogical, stupid statement as that doesn't
prove you are intellectually and thinking challenged I don't know what
would. One cannot, in formal logic, prove a negative.

And logically if I can't hear coins jingling in your pocket I'm NOT
going to conclude you have no money in there. It could be paper, or
you could have but one coin, or you could have a roll of dimes, or a
large hankie stuff in muffling the sound....but I can, logically,
claim from a lack of HEARING coins jingle that you have no coins.

Doug, since I can't imagine that you are a caseworker, at this point,
with the evidence in these exchanges, I'm going to have to treat you
as not one. So I'm going to inform you of something that weighs
heavily in REAL casework practice.

Many a child comes into state TC that is injured....and NO perp is
substantiated. The injury is NOT substantiated with a perp, because
the child isn't he subject of substantiation, nor is the injury the
subject, the PERP is.

In your arrogance you thought you knew what substantiation was and
that you were safe making such a doofus claim as you just did...that
there can't be abuse if the case is found as unsubstantiated.

The cause could be accidental. But if no coroborating evidence exists
the injury is there, it simply isn't SUBSTANTIATED. The word doesn't
mean "happened." In the legal sense it means a particular individual
DID the injury. The cause could be someone outside the family.

In both the latter cases the abuse is NOT sustantiated, that is it
is,"unsubstantiated."

And the feds and the state's citations here should have given you the
clue. They STILL justify keeping the child in out of home or TC with
services IN home, because of the injuries seen....even if
unsubstantiated.

I've watched you make a fool of yourself for some time here with that
"cases of removal take place with unsubstantiated abuse or neglect"
for some time now.
Post by Doug
Would you say the converse, that in
unsubstantiated cases, maltreatment has occurred.
Yep......., if there is actually an injury, done by someone or some
cause other than a family member. Any caseworker employed by CPS for
more than a month knows that.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Wanna see a few more? I've got quite a lot of them, yah ignorant
twit.
Post by Doug
I sure do. And they will show once again what I have said. In the
United
Post by Doug
States one does not have to PROVE A NEGATIVE to have child
maltreatment
Post by Doug
allegations against them unsubstantiated.
R R R R.........where did I claim otherwise? And that is NOT what our
difference was about. I simply claimed that "unsubstantiated" can mean
there was insufficient evidence to prove an abuse occured, but it did
not prove one hadn't.
Post by Doug
At no time, under any
circumstances, ever, has a single unsubstantiated finding been the
result of
Post by Doug
solid proof that no maltreatment ever occurred.
Oh, here we go again...the old weasel dance. YOU said that the
definition was the finding of PROOF that no abuse occurred, Doug.

Here is where the discussion of this issue opened in this thread,
Doug, with your statement:

"Nope. The finding of "unsubstantiated" is a exclusive finding (not
the lack of a finding) and is made within 30 days in most states."

Then in a later post you stated:

"Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was
no risk of or actual neglect/abuse."

Doug that is a statement of a positive, not a negative. "determined"
no risk or actual neglect or abuse, would have to include one or the
other of our conflicting (though they aren't really) definitions..that
proof was found NO abuse occurred, or that not enough evidence, as the
feds and the states BOTH state in the citations I provided, to
conclude it had.......or hadn't.
Post by Doug
Not a one. Such a finding
would be impossible.
Why do you think I've been pointing this out to you for the last few
posts, Doug? Because I DIDN'T KNOW IT, or because you didn't seem to?
Post by Doug
However, unsubstantiated findings are made all the
time. Those findings mean that CPS has not determined that
maltreatment or
Post by Doug
risk of maltreatment has occurred.
Yep, and that is what I said, and you denied. You stated "Nope. The
finding of "unsubstantiated" is a exclusive finding (not the lack of a
finding) and is made within 30 days in most states."

and

""Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was
no risk of or actual neglect/abuse."
Post by Doug
Innocent until proven guilty. Or, at least innocent until evidence
that
Post by Doug
allegations may be true is found. Not substantiated until proven
innocent.

That was not the point of our discussion. You simply claimed that
there was proof of no abuse. I claimed the STATES said that lack of
sufficient evidence resulted in an "unsubstantiated" finding with the
caveat that it did not PROVE no abuse had occurred.

And what did the citations say that I provided?
Post by Doug
http://www.odis.dhr.state.ga.us/3000_fam/3030_cps/MANUALS/Chapter4/2104_23.doc
Post by kane
"
Unsubstantiated -- an investigation disposition by an abuse
investigator concludes that under state law and CPS procedure
requirements, there is either no evidence of maltreatment or the
allegation of maltreatment was not supported by a preponderance of
the
Post by Doug
Post by kane
evidence."
Preponderance of the evidence is the threshold of evidence required
in
Post by Doug
Georgia. All states are different. At any rate, yep, this says the
same as
Post by Doug
I have said...repeatedly.
Nope...it does no such thing exclusively. It includes what I claimed,
and I claimed nothing more....did not discuss innocence or guilt, like
you'd love to carry this to and away from your failure to support your
claim.

You seem to miss that "either" and "or" in the statement you respond
to above.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
And you are NOT going to like this as it blows you out of the water
You are not blowing anyone out of the water, Kane. <g> Unless you
really
Post by Doug
mean to say that it is necessary to prove a negative....to prove with
evidence that no maltreatment or risk of maltreatment existed before
making
Post by Doug
an unsubstantiated finding.
Well, you are on the shore rowing like a madman hoping no one notices
or remembers exactly what you did say.

And can't recall the citations I provided that prove the state says
what I say it says.
Post by Doug
So, if state CPS workers fail to find that a
child was maltreated or at risk of maltreatment, they make a finding
of
Post by Doug
unsubstantiated. They found that no maltreatment or risk of
maltreatment
Post by Doug
occurred.
I never said otherwise, now did I? I also included that I had proof,
and then provided it, that the states also say that this does NOT
conclusively prove no abuse occurred.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Unsubstantiated / High Risk - an investigation disposition by an
abuse investigator concludes that under state law and CPS procedure
requirements, there is either no evidence of maltreatment or the
allegation of maltreatment was not supported by a preponderance of
the
Post by Doug
Post by kane
evidence; however, risk rates High, and the case will remain open
for
Post by Doug
Post by kane
services.
There are findings in these cases in this particular state. The
finding is
Post by Doug
unsubstantiated. These are not open cases with no finding. There is
no
Post by Doug
such thing if an investigation or assessment has been done.
You may argue with ME all you wish, but now you are arguing with the
state. I'm simply posting what the states say that I said they say.
Post by Doug
These cases are unsubstantainted because the worker did not find any
evidence or sufficient evidence that maltreatment occurred, so he or
she
Post by Doug
makes a unsubstantiated finding...that he or she found that no
maltreatment
Post by Doug
occurred.
Except for the last statement you are correct. The feds and the states
both disagree with you. I wonder if you snipped my citations and
quotes..I'll see as I read on.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
"Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there
was
Post by Doug
Post by kane
no risk of or actual neglect."
It says the same thing. Wording is different.
R R R R....oh, now that's priceless. What was I arguing Doug? I didn't
argue the right or wrong, or the details, only what the state SAID.
Post by Doug
Remember, this is one
state -- Georgia. In other states, such cases would be substantiated
because of the risk. Georgia is unusual in this way.
That is NOT the point. The point is there is an acceptance that
dispite a finding of "unsubstantiated" the states and the feds both
say it is not a foregone conclusion no abuse happened, only that
sufficient evidence was lacking to substantiate.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Yer a joke, Doug. Don't you have any blush capacity at all?
http://www.de.state.az.us/dcyf/cps/outcome.asp
"
When a report is unsubstantiated it means that the information
gathered does not support a finding of child abuse or neglect."
Precisely. Just as I said. The wording is slightly different, but
in the
Post by Doug
United States of America and in the context of burden of proof, each
statement says the same thing.
R R R ...bring in some apple pie and your mom. I'm sure you can sell
this nonsense to someone that way.

You are sliding, like the little weasel you are, away from the
statement I made. I did not bring up "burden of proof," so that's a
context you brought in NOW. In this post. To weasel.

And no, each statement does NOT say the same thing in context of what
I claimed...that the feds and the state agree that a finding of
"unsubstantiated" does not prove that abuse or neglect didn't happen.

You confuse legal language with lay language.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Notice how carefully they word it to NOT say there is a finding of
NO
Post by Doug
Post by kane
ABUSE, only the failure to find enough evidence to substantiate? I
doesn't say they found evidence there WAS NO abuse.
If they found absolutely no evidence at all....no children in the
home.....no children ever visiting the home.....and evidence that
both
Post by Doug
parents were in the Cuba at the time of the allegations.....the
finding
Post by Doug
would be "unsubstantiated."
That's nice. And what does that have to do with my statement? It would
be ONE such case...that I believe you just got through saying earlier
was an impossibility. That WOULD be conclusive proof of a negative.

Logically they could NOT abuse if they were not present.
Post by Doug
Yet there is no evidence here that the
children were not abused....that would be proving a negative, which
cannot
Post by Doug
be done.
Failure to find injuries would not be proof? Interesting slant on
things, weasel boy.
Post by Doug
But it would be unsubstantiated and I would have absolutely no
problem at all in saying that it was unsubstantiated because CPS
determined
Post by Doug
there was no risk of or actual child maltreatment.
Yer spinning like a top now. Going to catch your tail are yah?.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
http://dfsweb.state.wy.us/CHILDSVC/cpspamp.htm
"
If the investigation did not reveal that child abuse or neglect
occurred the report is unsubstantiated." (this is almost word for
word
Post by Doug
Post by kane
what I claimed.)
...And what I claimed. In Wyoming, unsubstantiated reports are those
where
Post by Doug
CPS has found in its investigation that child abuse or neglect did
not
Post by Doug
occur.
Nope. You claimed no such thing prior to this post.

What ever happened to "can't prove a negative?" You seem to be
actually catching your tail and eating your way up to your asshole.
Post by Doug
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp104&r_n=sr117.104&sel=TOC_34798&
Post by kane
"
in essence, an `unsubstantiated' report is one that is dismissed
after
Post by Doug
Post by kane
an investigation finds insufficient evidence on which to proceed.
This
Post by Doug
Post by kane
does not mean, however, that all unsubstantiated reports are false
or
Post by Doug
Post by kane
that all have been investigated.
In all states I know of "unsubstantiated" is a finding made as the
result
Post by Doug
of an investigation or assessment. How does one unsubstantiate a
case
Post by Doug
without investigating it? Flimsy wording, but it says the same
thing. The
Post by Doug
investigation is, in fact done, and stops with a finding of
unsubstantiated
Post by Doug
when CPS finds insufficient support for allegations that maltreatment
occurred.
Nice try, no cigar. If you want to argue with CAPTA have at it. I
don't have any argument with your or them on that issue, but they
still SAY what they say. I'm not arguing what "substantiated" and
"unsubstantiated" IS, only arguing what the states and the feds SAY
they are.

You seem to be pretty desperate to get away from that.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Ooo...that one should be raising your temperature just a tad. R R R
R
Post by Doug
Post by kane
R...
Not at all.
I have a name for those that lack a sense of conscience.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
"Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there
was
Post by Doug
Post by kane
no risk of or actual neglect."
Compares quite favorably, thank you, unless you believe that it is
necessary
Post by Doug
to prove innocence to be unsubstantiated. Not in the USA.
Nope...not at all. First you rant that a negative can't be proven, now
you produce the very support for your own statement that a negative IS
being proven by CPS.

And no, neither I NOR you, brought up "innocence," "in the USA" Doug.
That's just your dodge to try and get folks confused and misdirected
to some other subject, and forget what we actually were debating.

You claimed the state unsubstantiates on proof of no abuse.
"Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was
no risk of or actual neglect/abuse."

The feds and the states say clearly that does not prove there was no
abuse, only that enough evidence didn't exist to prove it.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
You'll love this one, same source, in regards to your claim it's a
violation of federal and state law if a case continues without a
"
Cases may also not be substantiated because the caseworker was
transferred, the family moved, the child was unable to talk, or CPS
failed to find medical evidence. Finally, some reports determined
to
Post by Doug
Post by kane
be unsubstantiated are simply false--that is, there is absolutely
no
Post by Doug
Post by kane
evidence of any inadequate parental care.
Cases mentioned above that are not substantiated are unsubstantiated.
Unsubstantiated is a finding. They didn't find medical evidence,
etc.

Brilliant...and completely avoids the point. That still, in the real
world you seem to have a very difficult time connecting with, of
casework, does not mean the worker doesn't have an abused or neglected
child on their caseload. It means they can't find out who did it, or
they are unable to disprove that it was accidental or totally innocent
ignorance.
Post by Doug
Families that move out of the area are obvious not part of an open
case, as
Post by Doug
you were talking about, but are closed without a finding.
They are if the state is unaware they have left, and they DO NOT
AUTOMATICALLY CLOSE THE CASE even when they do know the family has
gone missing. Where DO you get such strange ideas?
Post by Doug
Many cases are
closed without a finding. And, the wording reminds us again that
unsubstantiated findings are made when investigations fail to find
sufficient support for the allegations, which can be no evidence
whatsoever.

R R R R R...........This is the trick I love the most. You babble on,
misdirecting, feeding garbage in, playing with logic like a dog
rolling in shit, and sooner or later you feed my OWN claim back to me
as though it was yours to begin with.

You made NO SUCH CLAIM when we opened this discussion.

All I said was that the finding of "unsubstantiated" does not mean
that there was no abuse or neglect that took place.

Doug, how COULD you be a caseworker?
Post by Doug
Post by kane
But, considering your embarrassment, I thought I'd throw you a
bone,
Post by Doug
Post by kane
they do also INCLUDE your claim, but it doesn't negate mine, which
yours tries to.
The extent of your ignorance on such things is obviously a sign
something is up with you that stinks. You miss ALL these common
caseworker field practice issues..very strange indeedy. I think you
are a phony.
I have been sharing information known commonly to caseworkers.
Yep, but not when we opened this discussion. And most caseworkers know
perfectly well they and other workers have cases that they
unsubstantiated...because they cannot nail the perp for lack of
evidence, or they cannot disprove the claim of an accident.

Which goes to the citations, that seem to have gone missing? Hmmm...
I'll keep looking.
Post by Doug
It is not
ignorance.
R R R R....sure, Doug. Whatever you say, NOW.
Post by Doug
Mine does not negate yours or your sources.
Yeah, I know.
Post by Doug
You play with
wording and call names.
Nope on the former, yep on the latter, each with very good reason.
Game playing with words is YOUR game not mine.
Post by Doug
Neither advances the discussion or establishes
ignorance. Though it could be argued that it is stupid. <g>
R R R R....please don't call yourself names on my account.

All I claimed is that the state claims that a finding of
unsubstantiated does NOT show that no abuse occurred, and that is
exactly what I proved. YOU did not come up with YOUR agreement with me
until now.

It's fun to watch you run the maze, though. Very clever maneuvering.

I'm just loving finding that you did NOT snip the central citation I
provided, and that you spent all this post working your way OUT of
what you said at first, so you can deny this refuted your claim.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Now here is a federal source that is definitive..they really tear
down
Post by Doug
Post by kane
the definition of "substantiated," and "unsubstantiated."
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CPS-status03/state-policy03/chapter4.htm
"
Forty-eight States (94.1%) had definitions for substantiated and
unsubstantiated. The remainder had alternate structures of
classification, which included terms equivalent to substantiated;
...
Two themes concerning the definition of "unsubstantiated" were
identified. Twenty-three States (45.1%) defined "unsubstantiated"
broadly in terms of "insufficient evidence." These States defined
unsubstantiated cases as failing to meet the standard of evidence
for
Post by Doug
Post by kane
substantiated--"when credible evidence of abuse or neglect has not
been obtained" or "fails evidence standard." Twenty-six States
(51.0%)
Post by Doug
Post by kane
considered unsubstantiated more narrowly as cases where there is no
evidence that maltreatment occurred--"clearly unfounded, erroneous,
or
Post by Doug
Post by kane
incorrect," "worker is reasonably sure that child abuse or neglect
did
Post by Doug
Post by kane
not occur," or "whenever facts obtained during the investigation
provide credible evidence that child abuse or neglect has not
occurred." (Some States had provisions for both types of
definition.)
Post by Doug
You may want to read that again, Kane, carefully. Thanks for posting
it.
Post by Doug
You may want to call 26 of those states. <g>
Doug, that is NOT what you claimed that I took exception to, and you
have been many days and a couple of three posts still in denial until
now.

And I read it very carefully, and compared it to what you claimed,
until this post, very carefully before I cited it. You claimed they
had proof abuse had NOT occured.

Lack of proof is not proof. They sit in opposition to each other
logically and legally.

No actual abuse/neglect, determined. And the state says, that there
are circumstances, all that I claimed, where this is NOT so. That
unsubstantiated can also mean not enough proof was found to
substantiate. Not enough proof that something occurred, called abuse
or neglect.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
I mean if THAT doesn't shoot your bullshit down, I'm not sure what
would in your mind. You just can't admit when you are wrong, now
can
Post by Doug
Post by kane
yah?
To the contrary, it confirms what I have said...especially 26 of the
states.

Nope. That is NOT what you claimed at first.

"Unsubstantiated means that CPS itself has determined that there was
no risk of or actual neglect/abuse."
Post by Doug
Post by kane
You've refused to answer my requests to respond to all the proof I
showed that both NCIC data is accessible by CPS, and that workers
DO
Post by Doug
Post by kane
in fact in a number of states have very specialist job descriptions
and duties.
I have stated that in most CPS jurisdictions other than concentrated
urban
Post by Doug
areas, CPS workers do both investigations/assessments and casework.
RR R R .... yet another weasel. Aren't your little legs going to get
tired?

All I claimed was that there were areas where this was not true, where
states from border to border, had the separation in place and I posted
the proofs for it in law, from states.
Post by Doug
None of
your information disputes that.
Doug, you ran on and on about how I didn't know casework field
practice. It's NOT about what YOU want it to be about NOW. WE didn't
disagree on what you claim. I NEVER said there were not places where
caseworkers did more than one task, now did I?

I simply said that there were MANY were they had clear separation of
specialties..and you DENIED IT.

What a thread that was.

http://tinyurl.com/4nkah

You went on and on and on trying to argue that I was wrong. That no
such divisions existed AT ALL, until I drove your little weasel ass
into a corner.

All on the claim I didn't know casework practice. R R R ...I loved
that one.

Let me exlain to others, and to you, if you are neurotically blocking
your awareness, of how you manage these little challenges when you are
cornered.

First thing you do is drop out for a week or two or more...then
somehwere down the line you come back, I presume after carefully
studying our exchange.

You know that most people will NOT go back and reread the threads to
see what actually was said when....like how long you were in denial as
I beat your ass bloody with the facts from cited sources....before you
said something that would provide you with a bolt hole, like you are
now using.

And you can count on their memory being poorer the longer you wait.

So they won't read, and they won't remember, and if you are careful
you can pick up at somewhere other than the start of the threaded
subject.

And between us, me being the unpleasant asskicker that I am, refusing
to patronize people when they screw up, and you suckin' up like a $20
whore on a quicky, patronize the shit out of them, who are they more
likely to believe without proof?

Well, I'll tell yah, Douggie. Some, the ones that you count on, will
believe you, even if you were to shit on their heads and call it a
blessing. They NEEEED you and your approval, badly.

Then there are those that just aren't sure, but they think I'm
"unpleasant" so there will be a tendency to go with their gut instead
of their brain (thinking can be such hard work for most humans), then
there will be the few others, Doug.

The ones that think for themselves. That aren't afraid of the work
that goes with thinking, and have a pretty good memory.

You are lying, Doug. Plainly.
Post by Doug
You have talked endlessly about foster
certifiers, adoption workers, foster care investigators, and other
specialities.
Yep! Sure have. You claimed they were all the same person. Rather
univsersally...and the only specialists were restricted to urban or
other crowded areas. I've proven otherwise.
Post by Doug
That does not challenge in any way my contention. (For
instance,
R R R R R.........which "contention" would that be, Douggie?

Here's were we actually started. Back in my thread, "Not without a
Warrant You Don't."

It was discussion of a hypothetical scenario..offered by me..in a case
where caseworkers, had they been on hand and did push hard
enough....and a child died...they might have averted that child's
death. Neither here nor there to our current debate.

And took off with the usual gem of idiocy from you...the stupid
argument that police will do a better job of investigation of abuse
than caseworkers.

(UPenn proved THAT wrong)

Shortly followed by this provocative statement in another post:

"Well-based complaints that CPS caseworkers are poorly trained have
been made
for decades. Child welfare experts and organizations such as the
Casey
Foundation have consistently called for much more training. The
shortcoming
of CPS training should be obvious. It is my opinion that the biggest
shortcoming of that training is in investigative techniques and how to
handle facts. Simple things...like evidence trails, handling
collateral
sources of information, balancing conflicting information, etc. The
cases
reported in this newsgroup often illustrate astounding failure in
handling
facts.

What specific college courses on investigation given CPS workers are
you talking about??

How many people in this newsgroup do you think would agree with your
premise that CPS workers are trained sufficiently in how to conduct an
investigation?
Or is that your premise?
"
Which resulted in my comeback about caseworkers specializing as
investigators, to which you replied:

"Incorrect. With the exception of some densely populated inner-city
jurisdictions, caseworkers in most state child protective agencies are
generalists. They conduct investigations, do intakes, maintain a
caseload of FS (family intact services) cases, some foster children,
and, in some jurisdictions, family preservation services. Go to the
agencies websites -- they brag about their workers being trained for
and working in all of these areas. Generalist practice. This is why
CPS caseworkers are said to have such high caseloads. Caseloads
consist of FS cases, foster children and their families, children in
treatment centers and "group homes," and family preservation cases.
These cases are OPENED after an investigation.
"

You opened with "exception." It's not exceptional, as I have shown
you.

And we went on, with me making the opening statement in this quote:

"
Kane
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Investigators are a special assigned group that ARE specially trained.
Incorrect.
Kane:

Wrong.

We are both right. Some states and some areas of some states, as you
say below. So why would you say I'm incorrect? And those are
exceptions...they are responses to caseload density. In the less
populated areas their simply aren't enough PS allegation calls to
warrant a full time PS investigator position, but that is changing
rapidly.
Post by Doug
With the exception of some densely populated inner-city
jurisdictions,
Nope. Even modestly large rural communities are finding they need
fulltime PS investigators. Yer fullacrap as usual. Only the very
thinly populated areas lack this convenience. And even there, they are
turning to "traveling" investigators who cover larger areas, and go by
4x4, and fly.

Remember, I'm in the west and it's considerably different here than
the east or midwest.
Post by Doug
caseworkers in most state child protective agencies are
generalists.
On the contrary. More and more specialist divisions are made and have
been for the past 20 years.

"
Post by Doug
I have complained regularly in this newsgroup about child abuse in
foster care being assessed by separate units who are unaccountable to
the
Post by Doug
public OR the children's CPS caseworkers.
And you can't see the deliberate removal so that there is a check and
balance factor? You want the CASEWORKER, who you claim is more often
the foster home certifier/supervisor as well, to do the investigation
and assessment. Now I know you are nutso.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Yah just float on by as though the subject has gone dead...which it
has because YOU won't own up to your own ignorance. I don't expect
much more here, on the substantiation issue.
Read your own cut and pastes again, Kane. They may help.
Not only will I read them, I'll cut and paste them for you. Right
here, as I did above.
Post by Doug
You are getting
picky with words....or you are somehow convinced that parents are
still
Post by Doug
guilty of child maltreatment even when unsubstantiated by CPS itself
after
Post by Doug
an investigation/assessment.
Whoops!

Talk about picky with words...I'd rather be "picky" with them than
"tricky" with them as you just did.

What happened to the discussion about separation of specialties?
Post by Doug
What does a parent have to do to prove their
innocence? Do you really believe they need to do so to prevent
their
Post by Doug
children from being forcibly taken into custody???
Nope. never said that. Totally off topic. You refused to pursue the
issue of separation of specialties....AGAIN, Doug.

So let me keep you there for awhile.

This is what it finally came down to after much give and take on this
issue in that other thread:

"
Post by Doug
Almost all CPS
caseworkers are investigators.
"
Wanna guess who made THAT claim, Douggie? Even though that same person
said only in densly populated areas would there be a separation of
specialities?

No, Douggie, for the simple logical reason a real caseworker would
spot instantly.....there are MORE CASEWORKERS IN THIS DENSELY
POPULATED AREAS...carrying many more cases, collectively, that the
entire rest of many states have outside those areas.

In other words, MOST caseworkers are NOT investigators. They are
ongoing workers, foster certification/supervision workers, adoption
workers, and some are investigators that have no other duties.......as
I've proven again and again.

Your claim that almost all CPS caseworkers are investigators is yet
another giveaway you are a phony. Or you are a supremely stupid
caseworker.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
In most states, the statutory limit for an investigation or
assessment
Post by Doug
is 30
Post by kane
Post by Doug
days. A finding must be made within that time. There is such a
limit,
Post by Doug
by
Post by kane
Post by Doug
law. At the end of the thirty days in these states, a finding is
made
Post by Doug
and
Post by kane
Post by Doug
sent to the concerned parties. That finding can be substantiated or
unsubstantiated (or also indicated in a few states). A case is
opened
Post by Doug
or
Post by kane
Post by Doug
closed regardless of which finding is made. For instance, a case can be
opened when the finding has been unsubstantiated. A case can be closed
immediately after a substantiated finding is made. It is not a
question, as
Post by kane
Post by Doug
you put it, of a case is going beyond the 30 days without a
finding at
Post by Doug
all.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
The assessment or investigation will be substantiated or
unsubstantiated
Post by Doug
at
Post by kane
Post by Doug
the end of that 30 days and The MAJORITY of open cases with CPS are
cases
Post by kane
Post by Doug
where a unsubstantiated finding has been made during the
investigation.
Post by Doug
A
Post by kane
Post by Doug
large proportion of closed cases are substantiated during the assessment
or
Post by kane
Post by Doug
investigation. No cases linger as closed or open cases without a
finding
Post by kane
Post by Doug
within the statutory time frame for an investigation/assessment.
Actually the times are all over the place. And in some instances
you
Post by Doug
Post by kane
can't even pin down a state to the actual time. But I'd be
interested
Post by Doug
Post by kane
in you showing us the federal statute you claim exists that says
the
Post by Doug
Post by kane
state MUST have that time limit.
Seems odd, given the states tend to give exceptions to workers by a
pleading to their supervisors. Eh?
Yep...to extend from 30 to 60 days. In no circumstances does it
extend
Post by Doug
further. Certainly not to 15 months.
Nor did I claim that. I do hope you've seem my point posted that there
are a number of reasons to start TPR immediately. After all CAPTA
recommended it and way back some states already had those reasons to
start immediately.
Post by Doug
Have a grand evening, sir!
If it was any better I'd die of bliss.
Post by Doug
Doug
Ponder.

Kane
Doug
2004-11-04 06:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by kane
Doug, since I can't imagine that you are a caseworker, at this point,
with the evidence in these exchanges, I'm going to have to treat you
as not one. So I'm going to inform you of something that weighs
heavily in REAL casework practice.
Hi, Kane!

You have been saying the same thing for two years, Kane. You way of calling
names.

But we can take a look at real CPS casework, using real federal data, to
show that you are not aware of fieldwork practices such as what represents a
substantiated case. We will actually be able to get a count of the victims
(subjects of a substantiated report) that you falsely claim are
unsubstantiated.
Post by kane
Many a child comes into state TC that is injured....and NO perp is
substantiated. The injury is NOT substantiated with a perp, because
the child isn't he subject of substantiation, nor is the injury the
subject, the PERP is.
Nope. Such victims are subjects of a substantiated report. The abuse
causing the injuries is substantiated. Since the perp is not identified in
the type of case you describe, the case would be substantiated with a
finding of unknown perp. More than 19,000 children were subjects of
substantiated reports with unknown perps in 2002.
Post by kane
In your arrogance you thought you knew what substantiation was and
that you were safe making such a doofus claim as you just did...that
there can't be abuse if the case is found as unsubstantiated.
What was it that drove you to think that abused children whose perp could
not be readily identified were unsubstantiated as victims? Was this
arrogance? Ignorance? Lack of understanding of CPS field practice and
investigation/assessment findings?

In fact, children who have been found to be abused but the perp not
identifed are subjects of a report CPS substantiates. A separate category
exists in all states for making a substantiated finding when the perp is
unknown. A CPS worker cannot make a "unsubstantiated" finding if abuse or
neglect is found to have occurred. Instead, a CPS worker makes a
substantiated finding noting that the perp is unknown.
http://tinyurl.com/3tuuu
Post by kane
The cause could be accidental. But if no coroborating evidence exists
the injury is there, it simply isn't SUBSTANTIATED. The word doesn't
mean "happened." In the legal sense it means a particular individual
DID the injury. The cause could be someone outside the family.
No, in the legal sense it means that the abuse/neglect occurred or that risk
of same exists. Naming of a perp is not required for a substantiated
finding. In fact, 19,234 child victims (subjects of a substantiated report)
were found by CPS to be abused by unknown perps. http://tinyurl.com/3tuuu
Post by kane
In both the latter cases the abuse is NOT sustantiated, that is it
is,"unsubstantiated."
Incorrect. Please read up on CPS investigations/assessments and how a
substantiated finding is made.

Thousands upon thousands of cases are substantiated with the specific
finding that the perp is unknown. Substantiated. Substantiated.
Substantiated, perp unknown.
Post by kane
And the feds and the state's citations here should have given you the
clue. They STILL justify keeping the child in out of home or TC with
services IN home, because of the injuries seen....even if
unsubstantiated.
Nope. You are wrong. It is true that close to 100,000 children were
forcibly removed from homes CPS itself unsubstantiated for neglect/abuse or
risk of same during 2002. However, these tragic circumstances did not
involve children who were in fact abused and the perp unknown. Such
children would be subjects of a substantiated report, perp unknown. Here's
your federal cite.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/table3_11.htm
Post by kane
I've watched you make a fool of yourself for some time here with that
"cases of removal take place with unsubstantiated abuse or neglect"
for some time now.
LOL! It's not me who has made a fool out of himself on this issue.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Would you say the converse, that in
unsubstantiated cases, maltreatment has occurred.
Yep......., if there is actually an injury, done by someone or some
cause other than a family member. Any caseworker employed by CPS for
more than a month knows that.
Any CPS caseworker knows that if there is an injury caused by the abuse
inflicted by an unknown perp (which, since they are unknown, could or could
not be a family member) the child is the subject of a substantiated finding
by CPS. The injury as the result of abuse occurred. If the perp who injured
the child is known and is not a family member, the case is usually handled
criminally. Depending on the state, CPS either screens out the case after
referral to law enforcement or substantiates the case and closes it. In no
circumstance, would CPS make an unsubstantiated finding. You may want to
read my defination of an unsubstantiated finding or your own to learn why
such a case would not qualify for a unsubstantiated finding.

Have a great day!

Doug
kane
2004-11-04 18:29:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 01:47:30 -0500, "Doug" <***@charter.net> wrote:

....no, what he actually does here is try to pull the issue away from
the point made to go after something that will appear as related, but
avoids the facts as stated...his usual tactic. If you fall for it
again, then too bad for you. You been suckered..............

I argued that the states have ways of referring to "substantiated"
that is not supported by his claim of what it means. He will, in this
post, expand it into an argument..yet again, about the indefensibility
of their actions, rather than the actual issue..how they define it.

The thread was originally about funding CPS to reduce caseloads and
move children through the system more quickly.

One of the OTHER issues that deserves attention and discussion but IS
AVOIDED BY HIM IN THIS AND PREVIOUS POSTS.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Doug, since I can't imagine that you are a caseworker, at this point,
with the evidence in these exchanges, I'm going to have to treat you
as not one. So I'm going to inform you of something that weighs
heavily in REAL casework practice.
Hi, Kane!
You have been saying the same thing for two years, Kane. You way of calling
names.
And you have called into question my understanding of case work field
practice. Is that your way of calling names for two years, Doug?
Post by Doug
But we can take a look at real CPS casework, using real federal data, to
show that you are not aware of fieldwork practices such as what
represents a
Post by Doug
substantiated case.
Thus avoiding the other questions I've put to you that you refuse to
engage in answering, other than with yet another dodge.
Post by Doug
We will actually be able to get a count of the victims
(subjects of a substantiated report) that you falsely claim are
unsubstantiated.
Nonsense. I didn't make a claim of what was or wasn't a substantiated
case. I posted what the feds and various states said it was and
wasn't, while you simply played word games.

Your claim that unsubstantiated means a positive finding, that is
proof that no abuse occured, is half the story. The other half is
exactly as I posted; that the feds and the states say the insufficient
evidence was found to conclusively prove abuse or neglect occured.

Please point out where I make such a statement...that is I falsely
claim unsustantiated cases are in substantiated. I merely posted what
the authorities that makes such decisions claim is THEIR definition.
If you don't like it, go piss your nonsense at them and stop annoying
people in this ng that are hard at work trying to use practical
information rather than word play to do something about families and
children.

Yer just a common pain the ass with your weaseling by hairsplitting
and dancing about an issue.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Many a child comes into state TC that is injured....and NO perp is
substantiated. The injury is NOT substantiated with a perp, because
the child isn't he subject of substantiation, nor is the injury the
subject, the PERP is.
Nope. Such victims are subjects of a substantiated report. The abuse
causing the injuries is substantiated. Since the perp is not
identified in
Post by Doug
the type of case you describe, the case would be substantiated with a
finding of unknown perp. More than 19,000 children were subjects of
substantiated reports with unknown perps in 2002.
Post by kane
In your arrogance you thought you knew what substantiation was and
that you were safe making such a doofus claim as you just
did...that
Post by Doug
Post by kane
there can't be abuse if the case is found as unsubstantiated.
What was it that drove you to think that abused children whose perp could
not be readily identified were unsubstantiated as victims? Was this
arrogance? Ignorance? Lack of understanding of CPS field practice and
investigation/assessment findings?
In fact, children who have been found to be abused but the perp not
identifed are subjects of a report CPS substantiates. A separate category
exists in all states for making a substantiated finding when the perp is
unknown. A CPS worker cannot make a "unsubstantiated" finding if abuse or
neglect is found to have occurred. Instead, a CPS worker makes a
substantiated finding noting that the perp is unknown.
http://tinyurl.com/3tuuu
Oh, really? Well the URL you provided to back up your claim has zero
to say about whether or not the case is marked as substantiated or
unsubstantiated. Please go back and read the page carefully.

You are playing with words again, and the one missing at your citation
is "substantiated," and it's less bounded little friend,
"unsubstantiated."

Substantiation, in many states, is a "charge," not just a finding.
Someone has to be named. Now you may be right in some states, but my
point, as it's always been, isn't academic, but what does it mean in
the courtroom.

No parent loses permanent custody of a child for "substantiated" abuse
if no perp is identified. And especially if it's clear, as your chart
shows, that neither parent is KNOWN to be the perp. In fact, I would
assume that the chart couldn't be constructed with a majority of cases
where it's known positively the neither parent is the perp.

Essentially you are a time waster and a fool, Doug.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
The cause could be accidental. But if no coroborating evidence exists
the injury is there, it simply isn't SUBSTANTIATED. The word
doesn't
Post by Doug
Post by kane
mean "happened." In the legal sense it means a particular
individual
Post by Doug
Post by kane
DID the injury. The cause could be someone outside the family.
No, in the legal sense it means that the abuse/neglect occurred or that risk
of same exists. Naming of a perp is not required for a substantiated
finding. In fact, 19,234 child victims (subjects of a substantiated report)
were found by CPS to be abused by unknown perps.
http://tinyurl.com/3tuuu

You just tied, without cited support, the word "substantiated" to
"victim." Neither the chart or any other information on that page
refers to substantiation in any way. Yoru claim of it being "in a
legal sense" is nonsense as usual made up by you as you go along.

You are inventing connections where either none exist or they do not
mean what you claim they do, nor are useful to people fighting CPS.
You're a word jockey, not a strategist. A baloney peddler playing
propagandist.

Here, I'll prove it. Show me the connection between "victim" and
"substantiated" you claim with only this, from the page you cite,
information to support it:


Child Maltreatment 2002
Table 3-11 Distribution of Victims by Perpetrator Status, 2002
Parental Status of Victim's Perpetrator(s) Victims Percent
Maltreated by Mother Only.............................243,320 40.3
Maltreated by Father Only..............................115,375 19.1
Maltreated by Mother and Father..................108,657 18.0
Maltreated by Mother and Other......................32,459 5.4
Maltreated by Father and Other.........................5,827 1.0
Maltreated by Nonparental Perpetrator(s)......78,482 13.0
Unknown.....................................................19,234 3.2
Total 603,354 Percent 100.0

Data source: Child File and SDC.

1 Category includes victims with one parent identified as a
perpetrator and another with an unspecified relationship.
2 Category includes victims with at least one nonparental perpetrator
identified. back

This table illustrates the parental status of a victim's perpetrator.
The first column lists the parental status, the next column lists the
number of victims, and the final column lists the percentage.
Approximately 40 percent of child victims were maltreated by their
mothers acting alone.
Updated on March 22, 2004

Administration for Children and Families • 370 L'Enfant Promenade,
S.W. • Washington, D.C. 20447
"

I'm quite accepting of the concept that the mothers and fathers listed
here were "substantiated," but nothing supports your claim that the
"unknown" where "substantied." You confuse injuries with charges.

Which do you think more important in a parent's fight for their child
in a CPS case? I'd presume that "charges," since a perp is essential
to that process, would be the more important. Families don't suffer
TPR for injuries to their child when perpetrated by others, unless
they were implicated.

Yer a time waster.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
In both the latter cases the abuse is NOT sustantiated, that is it
is,"unsubstantiated."
Incorrect. Please read up on CPS investigations/assessments and how a
substantiated finding is made.
Thousands upon thousands of cases are substantiated with the specific
finding that the perp is unknown. Substantiated. Substantiated.
Substantiated, perp unknown.
R R R R....not according to the feds..in fact in defining methodology
for collecting data they even point out this seeming paradox:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands96/appendixc.htm

"Relationship of Perpetrator to Victim (Item 15)

States that count perpetrators by incident may count fewer perpetrator
relationships than States that use victim-based reporting, because an
incident may include more than one child victim. States that use
victim-based reporting are noted in the column labeled "Data Type"
with a "V." States that collect data on perpetrators by incident are
noted with an "I."

Notice that some states use "victim-based" as you wish to claim all
states do, and "perpetrator" counting, as I have pointed out.

Your confusion on just such issues is what brings, again and again,
your claimed status as a state employed child protection worker, and
researcher, into question.

It's those that work closely with both macro and micro issues of child
protection, as I did for so many years, that can respond to the
nuanced word use, such as "substantiated" with more useful
definition...useful to clients.

You have a bookish awareness, but not a practical one...or you are not
very astute and think what YOU know has to be everything there is to
know on a subject.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/ncands98/record/recorda1.pdf
Notice, for instance, that cases can be closed with no finding at all.
Something that states get gigged for by the feds, by the way.

Are these cases the "unsubstantiated?" According to you they would be.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
And the feds and the state's citations here should have given you the
clue. They STILL justify keeping the child in out of home or TC with
services IN home, because of the injuries seen....even if
unsubstantiated.
Nope. You are wrong. It is true that close to 100,000 children were
forcibly removed from homes CPS itself unsubstantiated for
neglect/abuse or
Post by Doug
risk of same during 2002. However, these tragic circumstances did not
involve children who were in fact abused and the perp unknown. Such
children would be subjects of a substantiated report, perp unknown.
Here's
Post by Doug
your federal cite.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/table3_11.htm
I beg your pardon? That is simply the same chart cited by your tinyurl
offering earlier and it says not a word about forcible removals. It's
a perp and victim relationship chart..not a state TC chart. What ARE
you up to now?

Nor does this chart lend a single bit of evidence to your claims about
what is or isn't the definition of "substantiated."
Post by Doug
Post by kane
I've watched you make a fool of yourself for some time here with that
"cases of removal take place with unsubstantiated abuse or neglect"
for some time now.
LOL! It's not me who has made a fool out of himself on this issue.
Well, I'll have to let other's make that judgement.
Post by Doug
Post by kane
Post by Doug
Would you say the converse, that in
unsubstantiated cases, maltreatment has occurred.
Yep......., if there is actually an injury, done by someone or some
cause other than a family member. Any caseworker employed by CPS for
more than a month knows that.
Any CPS caseworker knows that if there is an injury caused by the abuse
inflicted by an unknown perp (which, since they are unknown, could or could
not be a family member) the child is the subject of a substantiated finding
by CPS. The injury as the result of abuse occurred. If the perp who injured
the child is known and is not a family member, the case is usually handled
criminally. Depending on the state, CPS either screens out the case after
referral to law enforcement or substantiates the case and closes it.
In no
Post by Doug
circumstance, would CPS make an unsubstantiated finding. You may want to
read my defination of an unsubstantiated finding or your own to learn why
such a case would not qualify for a unsubstantiated finding.
Let me show you how easy it is to confound this issue so that your
claim of all these poor children being "removed" with a finding of
unsubstantiated is so much hogwash.

Take those cases were an abuse or neglect is "found" or substantiated
for one sibling, but for another unsubstantiated. In how many
instances do you think it would make sense to take only the one child
and leave others? The other's would at least be at risk of the same
kinds of maltreatment unless they were specifically tied to unique
condition of a child, say a disability that immobilized.

In fact the instance of a single sib being abused or neglect is not
unique or rare. Age range alone can be part of the determination. What
is abuse for a 3 year old may well not be for an 8 or 12 year old.

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/ssa/pdfs/dataprof.pdf

3. For the column labeled "Reports," the data element, "Disposition
of CA/N Reports," is based on upon the highest disposition of any
child who was the subject of an investigation in a particular report.
For example, if a report investigated two children, and one child is
found to be neglected and the other child found not to be maltreated,
the report disposition will be substantiated (Group A).

[[[ And if you read on you'll note, as I so often point out to you
that there is more than ONE category to consider when arguing some
practice issue. ]]]

The disposition for each child is based on the specific finding
related to the maltreatment(s). In other words, of the two children
above, one is a victim and is counted under "substantiated" (Group A)
and the other is not a victim and is counted under "unsubstantiated"
(Group B). In determining the unique counts of children, the highest
finding is given priority. If a child is found to be a victim in one
report (Group A), but not a victim in a second report (Group B), the
unique count of children includes the child only as a victim (Group
A). The
category of "other" (Group C) includes children whose report may have
been "closed without a finding," children for whom the allegation
disposition is "unknown," and other dispositions that a State is
unable to code as substantiated, indicated, alternative response
victim, or unsubstantiated.
"
So what we have Doug, is a number of children for whom abuse is
"unsubstantiated," but in fact were at risk...sibs of children
substantiated, that allows you to perpetrate your lie, that thousands
upon thousands of children are removed without cause, simply because
they individually were not directly victimized and earned an
"unsubstantiated" case rating.

You are a babbling propagandist busy looking for any issue to argue
about except the ones that you have been successfully rebutted on
without acknowledging you were wrong....in other words, you are
weaseling, as usual.

You were wrong on NCIC and you were wrong on job specialties.
And that's the short list.
Post by Doug
Have a great day!
Most likely.
Post by Doug
Doug
Kane
Doug
2004-11-05 00:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by kane
Oh, really? Well the URL you provided to back up your claim has zero
to say about whether or not the case is marked as substantiated or
unsubstantiated. Please go back and read the page carefully.
Hi, Kane!

You should read the page carefully and, while you are at it, move through
Child Maltreatment to see how victims match to child subjects of
substantiated reports and nonvictims match to subjects of unsubstantiated
reports.

The table cited in the URL refers to child subjects of substantiated
reports -- "victims."
Post by kane
You are playing with words again, and the one missing at your citation
is "substantiated," and it's less bounded little friend,
"unsubstantiated."
Child subjects of unsubstantiated reports are not shown as victims. The
table the URL directed you to delt with subjects of substantiated reports
exclusively -- victims.
Post by kane
Substantiation, in many states, is a "charge," not just a finding.
Someone has to be named. Now you may be right in some states, but my
point, as it's always been, isn't academic, but what does it mean in
the courtroom.
Absolutely not. Someone does not need to be named for a case to be
substantiated. Secondly, courts have nothing to do with substantiating a
case, so it has no relevant meaning in a courtroom. But, no, CPS need not
name a perp for a case to be substantiated. The cases are substantiated
with an "unknown perp" listed.
Post by kane
No parent loses permanent custody of a child for "substantiated" abuse
if no perp is identified. And especially if it's clear, as your chart
shows, that neither parent is KNOWN to be the perp. In fact, I would
assume that the chart couldn't be constructed with a majority of cases
where it's known positively the neither parent is the perp.
The state takes custody of children when all the allegations are
unsubstantiated and there are no perps. In 2002, almost a 100,000 children
were removed from homes CPS itself unsubstantiated for risk of or actual
child neglect/abuse.
Post by kane
Essentially you are a time waster and a fool, Doug.
You said cases where children were abused and the perp was unknown were
unsubstantiated. You were wrong.

They are, in fact, substantiated. And the perp is shown as unknown.
Post by kane
Post by Doug
No, in the legal sense it means that the abuse/neglect occurred or
that risk
Post by Doug
of same exists. Naming of a perp is not required for a substantiated
finding. In fact, 19,234 child victims (subjects of a substantiated
report)
Post by Doug
were found by CPS to be abused by unknown perps.
http://tinyurl.com/3tuuu
You just tied, without cited support, the word "substantiated" to
"victim." Neither the chart or any other information on that page
refers to substantiation in any way. Yoru claim of it being "in a
legal sense" is nonsense as usual made up by you as you go along.
Read it carefully. If you still want to make this claim, I will be happy to
point you to the other pages where it is explained over and over again. A
victim is the child subject of a substantiated report. A nonvictim is the
child subject of an unsubstantiated report.
Post by kane
You are inventing connections where either none exist or they do not
mean what you claim they do, nor are useful to people fighting CPS.
You're a word jockey, not a strategist. A baloney peddler playing
propagandist.
The connections specifically exist and were, in fact, created by USDHHS.
Post by kane
Here, I'll prove it. Show me the connection between "victim" and
"substantiated" you claim with only this, from the page you cite,
Look at the number of children subject to substantiated reports in the
tables. Then look at the number of victims in other charts. Then note that
they are the same number. Got it?

Take a look at the defination of "victim" in Child Maltreatment. I'll wait.

Doug
f***@search26.com
2004-12-06 13:52:41 UTC
Permalink
http://www.ardice.com/Regional/North_America/United_States/Government/Executive_Branch/Departments/Health_and_Human_Services/Administration_for_Children_and_Families/
kane
2004-10-31 23:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobb
What kane infers is that CPS fails to complete an investigation if
they
Post by bobb
cannot substantiate abuse. The failure of discovering evidence, at
least in
Post by bobb
his mind, leaves the investigation incomplete.
It would be nice if we could actually see my words, alongside your
accusation.

I didn't come anywhere near your fantasy. You make the same mistake
that Doug tried to use to wiggle out of the debate.

I did NOT attempt to define substantiated, or unsubstantiated...though
from the length of and energy of my worth opponent one might assume
that of me.

My entire argument was how the authorities, CPS and the DHHS, define
it, not how I define it.
Post by bobb
He does not want to recognize that an investigation works both ways.
I'm very aware that Doug was right. I so stated. He was right, and on
argument actually presented, not his fantasy or yours of my argument,
I was right as well. The state has two clearly unamalgamated ways of
defining "unsubstantiated."

One is the total lack of evidence, and the other, actual exsisting
evidence the acts under scrutiny did not happen.

As an illustration, take neglect. If there is a nutritional neglect
case investigated, and the child is evaluated by a qualified doctor
who says, "No the child was not poorly maintained, their metabolism is
such that they do not process food in the normal way," then an
allegation of parental neglect could very likely be " unsubstantiated"
by CPS investigation.

They would be offerred "services" or just a pamphlet and the child
returned. If they were neglegent anything might happen.

On the other hand, should there be no such statement from the doctor,
but one on this order, "I am unable to acertain if this child was
nutritionally deprived to a degree constituting a danger to his life
or health, though he shows some signs of possible nutritional lacks,"
that too could result in a finding of "unsubstantiated."

The former is one definition, according to the federal and state
citations I quoted, and the latter, from the same sources, and most
often right alongside, in the same paragraph with the latter.
Post by bobb
Heck,
look at our judicial system.
Oh dear me, here we go again. Why CAN'T you stick to an argument, or
are you going to surprise me and actually make a point and come back
to the original argument?
Post by bobb
If a defendant is found not guilty... meaning
there was not enough evidence to convict... the defendant remains
guilty in
Post by bobb
the eyes of many.
Yep, they may well nail him or her in civil court. What WERE those
initials again? R R R R R R
Post by bobb
I remind you to recall the instances where men have been
released from jail following DNA tests.. they have a hard time gain
a
Post by bobb
pardon or have the records expunged.
And sometimes they don't. Please, bobber, learn to debate. Read up or
something, or go to your local community college and take a course.

You sound like you are talking into an empty rainbarrel. Hollow stupid
factless babbling. It's embarrassing to watch.
Post by bobb
The suggestion of guilt follows them
for ever after.
Some do and some don't. Is there a preponderance of one or the other
and if so, please provide proof for YOUR contention or we have to
assume you are wrong, the other prevails...that most do NOT have guilt
follow them, and that once the new evidence, the negative DNA test,
shows them to be innocent, it's just paperwork getting out.
Post by bobb
Why should we expect CPS to act otherwise. Just ask kane.
Okay, I'll consider that you asked.

I expect CPS to act other than the criminal courts do for reasons that
are in defiance of Doug's mindless rant on this subject. He tries to
establish, by declaration, by simple fiat, that those that abuse
cannot be rehabilitated generally, so they should be criminally
charged.

He pretends that the line between serious abuse and all that which is
deemed less serious has a clear definition. It does not.

He also appears to rely on an insinuationthat the state does not
prosecute abuse as crime....he doesn't say so, but insinuates only. He
knows better than to try and declare that outright.

So in fact he faults the state for not doing something that in fact
they DO. They do prosecute assault and homicide of children criminally
already. The prosecute risk and the less horrendous abuses in civil
court so that the penalties can be different, and so that
rehabilitation and reunification can be accomplished, with less chance
of a child being injured or killed.

What he avoids, and amounts to the same logic you peddle, is that in a
criminal proceeding, as the law now stands, there would be little to
NO chance the child could be removed for safety reasons, and little to
NO chance the child and the perp who gets out after sentence is
done...which may be nothing more than parole, can be kept apart...as a
matter of constitutional rights.

What the civil courts do, and bid CPS to do, by legislative
rules...called law or statute....is try to make some determination of
where that line is, with everything above it, which tends to be
clearer, go to criminal court, and everything below it, which is a bit
more insubstantial to define, go to civil court.

There are so many risks with doing way entirely with the civil court
handling of child protection cases that I can't begin to ferret them
all out, but it would be an interesting exercise.

For one thing, and these are speculations, we might very well need a
slew of new laws. I am not a fan of new laws...as they often have
abuses that follow after they are in place. That require more new
laws, or amendments to the recent new laws.

I AM a fan of making what we have work. It's the mark of a true
conservative. Not rabid nitwit conservatives that have no idea the
harm they perpetrate by trying for their brand of laws.

I believe we could go back to the child lingering in out of home care,
if the law allowed for a removal for safety, because of years of legal
rangling, and the time it takes to sort them out, that much more
easily accompanies criminal law.

Let me put it this way, guilty or innocent, substantiated or not
substantiated, the case through civil means, family court, and CPS
invoking those dreaded "services," can entail, for a dedicated family,
about 9 months of pure hell, and getting their child back. SOMETIMES
NOT EVER EVEN LOSING THE CHILD AT ALL.

For the criminal court though, with the same status, innocent or
guilty, ALL CASES ARE JUST AS LIKELY TO RESULT IN ERRORS, as in civil
court....but the outcomes? Hmmmm......well, we have jail time, we have
monetary fines, and we have losing the kids anyway.

The perps cannot be given "services" that they must take for one
simple reason.........the one used again and again in criminal
cases..cruel and unusual punishment. Not that it is, but legally it
could be found to be.

You fools don't begin to see the mess you are marching toward. "It
won't be long now" indeed.

Getting real about abuse, about substance abuse, about what children
really need, about human behavior and how it can be changed, and about
the facts of CPS operation, practice, and the current laws, is the way
to go.

It's hard work, but I trust a massive change would have a bit of hard
work involved too.

Slapdash thinking has given us bad laws before...and will again if you
twits aren't careful...and the cost to families and their children
will be higher than before.

So no, bobber the swift. CPS and the criminal justice system are very
different in how they deal with their respective "clients." Yet, the
issue of substantiated or nonsubstantiated hasn't changed.

Doug's claim that nonsubstantiated means no abuse occurred is fiction
in the real world.

BUT BUT BUT, as Doug has taken to formatting these days,

I was NOT arguing that with him...he'd like to have you think I was.
He worked hard to draw me INTO such a debate, later, to move us from
my claim he was wrong about the STATE'S definition being what he
claimed it was. I might have bitten a couple of times. He's very
clever. But it was not my intent ever.

I was arguing the state's definitions, and what the states meant. And
that alone.

Keep up the good work.
Post by bobb
bobb
Kane
kane
2004-11-01 04:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by bobb
What kane infers is that CPS fails to complete an investigation if
they
Post by Doug
Post by bobb
cannot substantiate abuse. The failure of discovering evidence, at
least
Post by Doug
in
Post by bobb
his mind, leaves the investigation incomplete.
Hi, bobb!
In our system of jurisprudence -- criminal or civil -- failure to
discover
Post by Doug
evidence means there is no evidence to hold against the citizen who
is
Post by Doug
charged. A failure to establish guilt establishes innocence.
Nothing I disagreed with here.
Post by Doug
I think Kane would have it that we should trust the judgment of our
individual civil servants (CPS Workers) over a system of checks and
balances, due process, and presumption of innocence.
Nope. Never said that. You have seen me time and again repeat the
mantra, it is our duty to maintain citizen vigilance over all
government agenices.
Post by Doug
"If one of those
honorable, overworked, trustworthy and exceptionally trained
bureaucrats
Post by Doug
thinks there may be abuse, then there must be."
Please point out by producing the message I posted where I said that.
Post by Doug
Our Founding Fathers
inherently mistrusted individuals, so they placed all power in
systems.
Post by Doug
Absolute power, they felt, corrupted absolutely.
And nothing I was discussing would dispute that. You have taken my
actually argument, and reworked it as though I said what you claim,
rather than what I actually said.
Post by Doug
If the state cannot prove with evidence that a parent has maltreated
their
Post by Doug
child, the state should not have the power to override the
Constitutional
Post by Doug
right of the child to live with her family, apphrehend her and
forcibly hold
Post by Doug
her in state custody.
You, like so many other little tin pot phony crusaders, fail not note
what the Constitution actually says in the 4th and 14th amendments,
and how that applies to children. Children too have the right to be
secure in their person, and to have their rights and immunities
perserved.

When the parent fails to do this, the child must resort to, as well
all do failing others helping us, the state for redress and safety.
Post by Doug
State legislatures give CPS specific guidelines and
thesholds to substantiate or unsubstantiate allegations in an
investigation.

Yep, and you misquoted what they are. I corrected you. Now you wish to
drag it to a discussion of what is right and wrong about the issue. I
still maintain that the state definitions I quoted exist and say what
they say. Not that they are right or wrong.
Post by Doug
If they follow those guidelines and unsubstantiate a family, they
should
Post by Doug
leave the child and her family the hell alone.
No, that is not true because it does NOT fully meet the constitutional
rights of the child. It is only ONE thing the state does, or has
responsibility for. You are not answering MY post in reply to bobber,
but just his. And I know why, and so do others watching you weasel.
Post by Doug
The burden of proof rests with the state to prove the parents guilty,
not
Post by Doug
with the child or her family to prove themselves innocent.
That's correct. What is there in a case being unsubstantiated that
requires the state to stop investigating further or keep the child in
TC while the parents sort out their lives?
Post by Doug
If child abuse reaching the level of substantiation were tried in
criminal
Post by Doug
courts, all parties would be assured due process of law.
A process that most assuredly would result again and again in the
failure to protect the constitutional rights of the child to be secure
in their person and to have their rights and immunities protected.

You betray and misconstrue the constitution and the duties of CPS.

The criminal innocence of the perp would not protect the child from
further harm, given the levels required to find the defendent guilty.

One, for instance, is that "child abuse" would have to be, unless you
wish to change the law...and I caution you against it, tried as
criminal assault to varying degrees. And each, under criminal law will
result in a finding of non-guilty if absence of intent is shown and
believed by judge or jury.

Releasing the perp to have the child in their physical custody again,
and immune from prosecution on the original charge. The state would
have to wait around for the next offense. You are an insult to
humanity.
Post by Doug
Guilt would be
determined in a court of law by the accused peers.
Presuming you meant the plural, no, it's not required to have a jury
trial. A defendant can waive jury trial. In fact, for a child abuse
case, let me suggest that would be the best choice for the
defendent...go with the judge, who knows the law and will be more
likely to make LEGAL decisions, rather than decisions based on
feelings, like jury members often do.
Post by Doug
Nothing would stop the
judge from imposing the same sanctions ("services") currently imposed
by
Post by Doug
civil courts.
Except there are no laws to support that. And a child abuse case would
result in far harsher penalties in criminal court that in family
court. As it is NOW, Doug, many child abuse cases as tried as criminal
assualt cases, and in fact the penalties are much harsher, as they
should be.

What YOU are proposing, is obviously and attempt to let off all those
"less than horrendous abuse" cases....and you aren't fooling anyone.
Post by Doug
Nor is there anything that forces the judge to send a
defendant found guilty to jail.
R R R R R..........you been out of reach of the media for the past ten
years have you? Many states have three strikes laws. Many have laws
that give all the power to the Prosecutor, and little or non to the
judge...he becomes a court clerk/overseeer of processes rather than a
"judge" of circumstances and a decision maker. What he or she was
trained for.

Yer a damn fool. Yah yack like a 20 year old college sophmore just
inducted into the Moonie cult...full of your ignorance and emotion
driven nonsense that wipes your mind clean of history, even recent
history.

Child abusers NOW that are tried in criminal court are subject to all
this things I just pointed out.......why would the child abusers of
the future be tried under any less stringent circumstances?

Let me give you a little scenario that I think we will see very
quickly with YOUR system.

Let's take a family typical of the relatives I helped. Most by the way
were black families. Do you know many black families that are riven by
the unfair law enforcement they have to endure? Perfectly respectable
hard working basically law abiding men and women that when they were
young got slammed around again and again by cops who would charge them
with resisting arrest if nothing else, bring them into the station
house bleeding from wounds the cops claimed were inflicted during
their "resistance."

It's very very easy to two of the three strikes that ways. Just ONE
child abuse charge where they are found guilty...but you think the
judge can give lighter sentence, could put the perp away for many
years.

Look up the statutes. Start thinking instead of believing in and
practicing your propaganda as though you lived in some Douggie
paradise were what YOU say goes, and everything else will fall into
place as YOU want it.
Post by Doug
In fact, the vast majority of people
convicted of other crimes in criminal court are not sent to jail.
R R R R..........not child abuse currently charged and tried in
criminal court. And in some states the sentences aren't decided by the
judge..but by the DA. And the third one can put a person away for a
very very long time. Even a juvenile...some of whom ARE parents.
Post by Doug
Post by bobb
He does not want to recognize that an investigation works both
ways.
Post by Doug
Heck,
Post by bobb
look at our judicial system. If a defendant is found not guilty...
meaning
Post by bobb
there was not enough evidence to convict... the defendant remains
guilty
Post by Doug
in
Post by bobb
the eyes of many.
True. In the eyes of many in the public. But in the eyes of the law
and
Post by Doug
the system, the citizen is innocent.
Mine too. I was not arguing innocence or guilt. I was simply arguing
what the wording of the state is and what the meaning of those words
are. You have, as usual, both weaseled on that, AND now are up on your
pulpit bellowing your usual over the top tear drenched bullshit.
Post by Doug
Her children could not be held hostage
after such a verdict (provided civil courts would not standing by, as
they
Post by Doug
are now, to summarily order removal or hold children without
hearing).

Yep. She could be easily get off on the higher level of evidence
needed, and go home and whack her kids some more. Like that, do yah?
Post by Doug
If
we switch to a criminal system for child abuse, it would have to
replace
Post by Doug
entirely the family court system's adjudication of child abuse or
neglect.

Yeah, I can see you drooling now. And forgetting, conveniently, what
that will mean in the real world to real children that feel real
terror and pain with so many parents out there.

The family court system is a way to keep families together and to give
them a chance to shape up, which many do. The rest now mostly DO go
to criminal court, if they appear unredemable.
Post by Doug
Post by bobb
I remind you to recall the instances where men have been
released from jail following DNA tests.. they have a hard time
gain a
Post by Doug
Post by bobb
pardon or have the records expunged. The suggestion of guilt
follows
Post by Doug
them
Post by bobb
for ever after. Why should we expect CPS to act otherwise. Just
ask
Post by Doug
kane.
Well, unfortunately, now all it takes to condemn a parent as guilty
and
Post by Doug
forcibly remove her children is the unilateral decision of a CPS
caseworker
Post by Doug
with the rubber stamp of his supervisor.
Is the parent doing jail time? Is the parent paying monetary fines?

The purpose of the civil court system is to avoid the much greater
level of disruption in the life of the family, and reunite if
possible.
Post by Doug
No court. No judge. No DA. A
CPS investigation is "substantiated" or "unsubstantiated" by the
caseworker,
Post by Doug
period.
You seem to forget the number of cases that are in fact court
supervised. Please tell the audience what a worker has to do within
24, or 48, or 72 (varies with state) when they have removed a child
from the home?

Removal is your claim, prove that the worker can do it without the DA
or the courts?

I even pointed you just yesterday, and I believe even YOU mentioned
that in one state the worker cannot remove the child....ONLY they
police can do that.

You are a peddler of puffery like not other I've seen in a ng,
douggie.
Post by Doug
Our founding father would never put the freedom of their children
in the hands of a single government employee.
So they didn't. A child does not lose their freedom when they go from
one family to another. No more than they would if the parent dropped
them off at the babysitter. Now if the child is taken to jail,
stripped, forced into a uniform, given a number, deloused (by the way,
sometimes it's necessary to do exactly that because the child's civil
rights to safety have been violated by the PARENT) then you migh have
a question of "freedom."
Post by Doug
We got into trouble as a nation the moment we set aside our founding
father's insistence of systems based on checks and balances,
oversight, and
Post by Doug
due process and moved to give unilateral power to bureaucrats.
Absolute
Post by Doug
power corrupts absolutely.
Please demonstrate how a worker works in total secrecy with no
oversight from any source. Show us how they can avoid, if they remove
the child, seeing judge. Show us how they can have a case for 6 months
without a judicial review. How they can avoid a shelter hearing.

How they can force a foster parent to take that child and hide them
from their family.

Go ahead. We'll watch.
Post by Doug
While state after state is following the reform of opening their
family
Post by Doug
courts to the public,
Liar. They are partially opening, which might as well be closing them
to the truth.
Post by Doug
damage has already been done to hundreds of thousands
of children whose fate was decided in ex parte hearings that neither
they or
Post by Doug
their parents attended.
Liar. They have rarely been "damaged." In fact many have been saved
from further damage at the hands of their parents.
Post by Doug
But things are changing. Family courts are being opened to the
public.

Please post, in its entirety those laws that do this. I ask, because
I've read them and think others should before swallowing what is
essentially bullshit from you. I know about the little section that
reads, "at the descretion of the judge."
Post by Doug
Evidence standards are being changed for "substantiating" cases.
Oh? A quote and citation please. Now you might have information I want
and need.
Post by Doug
CPS
workers are now required to notify parents exactly what the
allegations
Post by Doug
against them are. CPS workers now have to get training in our
Constitution
Post by Doug
and the Constitutional rights enjoyed by citizens -- most especially
our
Post by Doug
younger ones.
And it's not what you try to pawn off. They are quite aware, and are
taught, about what I've pointed out to you, and to bobber the swift,
earlier today.

Please go and read the 4th amendment carefully, setting aside the
parents rights for a moment and focusing on the childs. Do so also
with the first paragraph of the 14th amendment.

The child has the right to have the state petition in his or her
behalf to protect the child's rights.
Post by Doug
It won't be long, now.
Yep. Either fools and vicious twits, with their lying and weaseling
dishonest ways will prevail, or they won't. I've a hunch the public is
a tad bit smarter than you give them credit for and they'll nail asses
to the wall. This little exercise in stupidity will cost, before it's
over, some families and their children considerable pain and loss. Too
sad.

It may not be long now at all.

It sure wasn't in Florida, now was it? You seem to be shying away from
responding to the UPenn study on the counties there and what they
found. Now why are you putting it off? Waiting for good news?

At the first mention of it by you, I was not the least shy. I told you
it wouldn't work, and as I recall, what I suggested would happen has
happened.

I think it's eating at you because it points out already that you are
quite capable of being not just wrong, but very seriously wrong and
policy that followed YOUR ideas of what's right have done some harm
already.

Child abuse arrests, as you claimed they would, did not go DOWN, they
have gone UP under police investigations.
Post by Doug
Keep up the good work, bobb!
R R R R ...well, now I KNOW you are desparate.
Post by Doug
Doug
Uncovering slime under rocks isn't fun, but it must be done. You need
more sunshine on yah, Douggie, and you are going to get it here.

Kane
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...