Lib calls police on 9 year old for commenting about brownies

[WillowTree]

I love it when people who don't know jack shit about the system call the person who does know an idiot. Jeeeazzzzzus.

 

[koshergrl]

What they do is tell the parents to split and they will allow the children to remain with the non abusive parent. But they most definitely put a halt to the contact between the abusive parent and the children.

If the abusive parent won't leave the home, then they take the children.

Either way, the contact between the kids and their abuser is halted.

And they do not see them until such time as there is a court date, and sometimes not even then. I've heard child welfare workers bragging about stopping visitations based on PHONE CALLS between kids and their parents.

No shit stupid. Thanks for admitting that the ONLY way a state can FORCE abusive parents to stay away from their victims is to take the kids away from the home. Or at a minimum threaten the other parent with removal if they don't comply.

Now, how often do you think couples split up because otherwise the kids will be put in foster care? My bet is not very fucking often.

That's because you don't work with this population, which is why you should probably shut the hell up about these issues.

Yes, they split up ALL THE TIME for exactly this reason. I've worked their cases, and there are a LOT of them.

then if that's true most kids wouldn't be getting removed from their homes, and I have to wonder what the fuck it is you are bitching about exactly?


LULZ ideologues are so fun to slap around.

What a perfect example of fuzzy thinking and logical fallacy.

How would the truthfulness of my comment keep kids from being removed from their homes? You realize there are all sorts of different types of child abuse, and MANY reasons for child welfare to remove children?

What logical fallacy you idiot. You yourself conceded that if one parent is so abusive the system wants them away from children and that the other parent is suitable and wants to leave the abuser for the sake of the children that those kids will stay with that parent rather than being removed from the home.

So, unless a lot of parents are also deemed unfit and or are unwilling to leave the unfit parent children won't be removed from the home. Ipso facto, if as you claim that happens most of the time, very few children should be being removed from their homes and thus you shouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Er..more logical fallacy. I didn't concede any of that, what a lying sack you are lol.

Let's play. You show me the post where I conceded anything.

And most kids aren't removed from 2 parent homes in the first place, dumbass. Most are removed from SINGLE parent homes. So your retarded and juvenile *argument* fails no matter which way you cut it. Like I said, this is only one of MANY scenarios that allows dumbass workers to break up families. You act like the only time a kid gets removed is when there are two parents and only one of them is allegedly *unfit*. That's asinine, and just so not true lololol. You maintain that because there are parents who are forbidden to see their children (which there are) then there should be no children in foster care, because (you seem to think) all children removed are removed only because parents refuse to split when only one is alleged to be a danger.

Or something like that. What a loon, cripes how do you wipe your ass without directions?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No shit stupid. Thanks for admitting that the ONLY way a state can FORCE abusive parents to stay away from their victims is to take the kids away from the home. Or at a minimum threaten the other parent with removal if they don't comply.

Now, how often do you think couples split up because otherwise the kids will be put in foster care? My bet is not very fucking often.

That's because you don't work with this population, which is why you should probably shut the hell up about these issues.

Yes, they split up ALL THE TIME for exactly this reason. I've worked their cases, and there are a LOT of them.

then if that's true most kids wouldn't be getting removed from their homes, and I have to wonder what the fuck it is you are bitching about exactly?


LULZ ideologues are so fun to slap around.

What a perfect example of fuzzy thinking and logical fallacy.

How would the truthfulness of my comment keep kids from being removed from their homes? You realize there are all sorts of different types of child abuse, and MANY reasons for child welfare to remove children?

What logical fallacy you idiot. You yourself conceded that if one parent is so abusive the system wants them away from children and that the other parent is suitable and wants to leave the abuser for the sake of the children that those kids will stay with that parent rather than being removed from the home.

So, unless a lot of parents are also deemed unfit and or are unwilling to leave the unfit parent children won't be removed from the home. Ipso facto, if as you claim that happens most of the time, very few children should be being removed from their homes and thus you shouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Er..more logical fallacy. I didn't concede any of that, what a lying sack you are lol.

Let's play. You show me the post where I conceded anything.

And most kids aren't removed from 2 parent homes in the first place, dumbass. Most are removed from SINGLE parent homes. So your retarded and juvenile *argument* fails no matter which way you cut it. Like I said, this is only one of MANY scenarios that allows dumbass workers to break up families. You act like the only time a kid gets removed is when there are two parents and only one of them is allegedly *unfit*. That's asinine, and just so not true lololol. You maintain that because there are parents who are forbidden to see their children (which there are) then there should be no children in foster care, because (you seem to think) all children removed are removed only because parents refuse to split when only one is alleged to be a danger.

Or something like that. What a loon, cripes how do you wipe your ass without directions?

ALL children have two parents loon. Whether they are together or not. And don't you suppose that if the custodial parents proves to be unfit that the non custodial parent is probably the first place the state looks to place them?

But oh you keep pretending that there are hordes of federal agents out there just ripping kids away from families and placing them with strangers for no good fucking reason.

What an idiot you are.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, you can order a child's abusers to stay away from them. Child welfare does it all the time. And you can order an abuser to stay away from his kids based on the fact that he abused their mother.

Absolutely.

Wrong. Child services can NOT order married parents to live apart if oneparent is abusing the children, and in moist cases it is in fact suspected that at a minimum the non abusing parent was aware of the abuse and did NOTHING to stop it.

Protecting children is and always will be my PRIMARY concern in any discussion. Sometimes removing children from the home IS the right choice.

What they do is tell the parents to split and they will allow the children to remain with the non abusive parent. But they most definitely put a halt to the contact between the abusive parent and the children.

If the abusive parent won't leave the home, then they take the children.

Either way, the contact between the kids and their abuser is halted.

And they do not see them until such time as there is a court date, and sometimes not even then. I've heard child welfare workers bragging about stopping visitations based on PHONE CALLS between kids and their parents.

No shit stupid. Thanks for admitting that the ONLY way a state can FORCE abusive parents to stay away from their victims is to take the kids away from the home. Or at a minimum threaten the other parent with removal if they don't comply.

Now, how often do you think couples split up because otherwise the kids will be put in foster care? My bet is not very fucking often.

That's because you don't work with this population, which is why you should probably shut the hell up about these issues.

Yes, they split up ALL THE TIME for exactly this reason. I've worked their cases, and there are a LOT of them.

then if that's true most kids wouldn't be getting removed from their homes, and I have to wonder what the fuck it is you are bitching about exactly?


LULZ ideologues are so fun to slap around.

Again. Yes, children are removed often from families who refuse to do as they're told by child welfare...including refusing to stop contact with a partner who has been deemed, for whatever reason, to be a "danger" to the safety of the children.

Of course, the definition of "danger" can get pretty fuzzy, and child welfare workers LOVE to nail women for daring to have even telephone contact with their partners, and for allowing their children to have telephone contact that hasn't been "approved" by their dumbass workers.

Also you are operating under the false impression that there's always a good *reason* to bring a family under this crushing child welfare censure. Generally, the *reason* is that somebody the child welfare knows personally has an ax to grind.

 

[koshergrl]

That's because you don't work with this population, which is why you should probably shut the hell up about these issues.

Yes, they split up ALL THE TIME for exactly this reason. I've worked their cases, and there are a LOT of them.

then if that's true most kids wouldn't be getting removed from their homes, and I have to wonder what the fuck it is you are bitching about exactly?


LULZ ideologues are so fun to slap around.

What a perfect example of fuzzy thinking and logical fallacy.

How would the truthfulness of my comment keep kids from being removed from their homes? You realize there are all sorts of different types of child abuse, and MANY reasons for child welfare to remove children?

What logical fallacy you idiot. You yourself conceded that if one parent is so abusive the system wants them away from children and that the other parent is suitable and wants to leave the abuser for the sake of the children that those kids will stay with that parent rather than being removed from the home.

So, unless a lot of parents are also deemed unfit and or are unwilling to leave the unfit parent children won't be removed from the home. Ipso facto, if as you claim that happens most of the time, very few children should be being removed from their homes and thus you shouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Er..more logical fallacy. I didn't concede any of that, what a lying sack you are lol.

Let's play. You show me the post where I conceded anything.

And most kids aren't removed from 2 parent homes in the first place, dumbass. Most are removed from SINGLE parent homes. So your retarded and juvenile *argument* fails no matter which way you cut it. Like I said, this is only one of MANY scenarios that allows dumbass workers to break up families. You act like the only time a kid gets removed is when there are two parents and only one of them is allegedly *unfit*. That's asinine, and just so not true lololol. You maintain that because there are parents who are forbidden to see their children (which there are) then there should be no children in foster care, because (you seem to think) all children removed are removed only because parents refuse to split when only one is alleged to be a danger.

Or something like that. What a loon, cripes how do you wipe your ass without directions?

ALL children have two parents loon. Whether they are together or not. And don't you suppose that if the custodial parents proves to be unfit that the non custodial parent is probably the first place the state looks to place them?

But oh you keep pretending that there are hordes of federal agents out there just ripping kids away from families and placing them with strangers for no good fucking reason.

What an idiot you are.

I didn't say children didn't have two parents, you sad imbecile. I said they didn't all come from two parent homes.

Sad, obviously you have limited capacity.

 

[bodecea]

Again, this is why I send my son to private school and not public. You have a lot more control what goes on there

Yeah, clearly this indicts the entire public education system in america.

The entire public education system in America is in shambles. We spend the most money per student and have some of the lowest results of all industrialized nations.

While I agree our public ed system needs work...don't forget that when tested, the U.S. tests ALL students while other countries only test their college bound...usually only the top 30%.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Wrong. Child services can NOT order married parents to live apart if oneparent is abusing the children, and in moist cases it is in fact suspected that at a minimum the non abusing parent was aware of the abuse and did NOTHING to stop it.

Protecting children is and always will be my PRIMARY concern in any discussion. Sometimes removing children from the home IS the right choice.

What they do is tell the parents to split and they will allow the children to remain with the non abusive parent. But they most definitely put a halt to the contact between the abusive parent and the children.

If the abusive parent won't leave the home, then they take the children.

Either way, the contact between the kids and their abuser is halted.

And they do not see them until such time as there is a court date, and sometimes not even then. I've heard child welfare workers bragging about stopping visitations based on PHONE CALLS between kids and their parents.

No shit stupid. Thanks for admitting that the ONLY way a state can FORCE abusive parents to stay away from their victims is to take the kids away from the home. Or at a minimum threaten the other parent with removal if they don't comply.

Now, how often do you think couples split up because otherwise the kids will be put in foster care? My bet is not very fucking often.

That's because you don't work with this population, which is why you should probably shut the hell up about these issues.

Yes, they split up ALL THE TIME for exactly this reason. I've worked their cases, and there are a LOT of them.

then if that's true most kids wouldn't be getting removed from their homes, and I have to wonder what the fuck it is you are bitching about exactly?


LULZ ideologues are so fun to slap around.

Again. Yes, children are removed often from families who refuse to do as they're told by child welfare...including refusing to stop contact with a partner who has been deemed, for whatever reason, to be a "danger" to the safety of the children.

Of course, the definition of "danger" can get pretty fuzzy, and child welfare workers LOVE to nail women for daring to have even telephone contact with their partners, and for allowing their children to have telephone contact that hasn't been "approved" by their dumbass workers.

Also you are operating under the false impression that there's always a good *reason* to bring a family under this crushing child welfare censure. Generally, the *reason* is that somebody the child welfare knows personally has an ax to grind.

You're "generally" statements don't persuade me. I'm sorry your children were removed from your home and now you are angery at CPS but that doesn't translate to all, or even a large portion of , all CPS agents are out removing kids from homes for no reason.

In fact it's actually a given that CPS agents are SO overwhelmed with cases that there are a lot of kids who are being mistreated and it doesn't get investigated because there simply isn't enough manpower.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Again, this is why I send my son to private school and not public. You have a lot more control what goes on there

Yeah, clearly this indicts the entire public education system in america.

The entire public education system in America is in shambles. We spend the most money per student and have some of the lowest results of all industrialized nations.

While I agree our public ed system needs work...don't forget that when tested, the U.S. tests ALL students while other countries only test their college bound...usually only the top 30%.

That is absolutely true. That is also why private schools test better than public schools, In private schools , poor students are told to hit the road, in public schools they are allowed to suck up resources and their test results count just the same as the good students.

 

[WillowTree]

then if that's true most kids wouldn't be getting removed from their homes, and I have to wonder what the fuck it is you are bitching about exactly?


LULZ ideologues are so fun to slap around.

What a perfect example of fuzzy thinking and logical fallacy.

How would the truthfulness of my comment keep kids from being removed from their homes? You realize there are all sorts of different types of child abuse, and MANY reasons for child welfare to remove children?

What logical fallacy you idiot. You yourself conceded that if one parent is so abusive the system wants them away from children and that the other parent is suitable and wants to leave the abuser for the sake of the children that those kids will stay with that parent rather than being removed from the home.

So, unless a lot of parents are also deemed unfit and or are unwilling to leave the unfit parent children won't be removed from the home. Ipso facto, if as you claim that happens most of the time, very few children should be being removed from their homes and thus you shouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Er..more logical fallacy. I didn't concede any of that, what a lying sack you are lol.

Let's play. You show me the post where I conceded anything.

And most kids aren't removed from 2 parent homes in the first place, dumbass. Most are removed from SINGLE parent homes. So your retarded and juvenile *argument* fails no matter which way you cut it. Like I said, this is only one of MANY scenarios that allows dumbass workers to break up families. You act like the only time a kid gets removed is when there are two parents and only one of them is allegedly *unfit*. That's asinine, and just so not true lololol. You maintain that because there are parents who are forbidden to see their children (which there are) then there should be no children in foster care, because (you seem to think) all children removed are removed only because parents refuse to split when only one is alleged to be a danger.

Or something like that. What a loon, cripes how do you wipe your ass without directions?

ALL children have two parents loon. Whether they are together or not. And don't you suppose that if the custodial parents proves to be unfit that the non custodial parent is probably the first place the state looks to place them?

But oh you keep pretending that there are hordes of federal agents out there just ripping kids away from families and placing them with strangers for no good fucking reason.

What an idiot you are.

I didn't say children didn't have two parents, you sad imbecile. I said they didn't all come from two parent homes.

Sad, obviously you have limited capacity.

Very limited.

 

[koshergrl]

What they do is tell the parents to split and they will allow the children to remain with the non abusive parent. But they most definitely put a halt to the contact between the abusive parent and the children.

If the abusive parent won't leave the home, then they take the children.

Either way, the contact between the kids and their abuser is halted.

And they do not see them until such time as there is a court date, and sometimes not even then. I've heard child welfare workers bragging about stopping visitations based on PHONE CALLS between kids and their parents.

No shit stupid. Thanks for admitting that the ONLY way a state can FORCE abusive parents to stay away from their victims is to take the kids away from the home. Or at a minimum threaten the other parent with removal if they don't comply.

Now, how often do you think couples split up because otherwise the kids will be put in foster care? My bet is not very fucking often.

That's because you don't work with this population, which is why you should probably shut the hell up about these issues.

Yes, they split up ALL THE TIME for exactly this reason. I've worked their cases, and there are a LOT of them.

then if that's true most kids wouldn't be getting removed from their homes, and I have to wonder what the fuck it is you are bitching about exactly?


LULZ ideologues are so fun to slap around.

Again. Yes, children are removed often from families who refuse to do as they're told by child welfare...including refusing to stop contact with a partner who has been deemed, for whatever reason, to be a "danger" to the safety of the children.

Of course, the definition of "danger" can get pretty fuzzy, and child welfare workers LOVE to nail women for daring to have even telephone contact with their partners, and for allowing their children to have telephone contact that hasn't been "approved" by their dumbass workers.

Also you are operating under the false impression that there's always a good *reason* to bring a family under this crushing child welfare censure. Generally, the *reason* is that somebody the child welfare knows personally has an ax to grind.

You're "generally" statements don't persuade me. I'm sorry your children were removed from your home and now you are angery at CPS but that doesn't translate to all, or even a large portion of , all CPS agents are out removing kids from homes for no reason.

In fact it's actually a given that CPS agents are SO overwhelmed with cases that there are a lot of kids who are being mistreated and it doesn't get investigated because there simply isn't enough manpower.

My children have never been removed from my home, lol. I've worked in human services all my life, including residential treatment and detention where this is a common scenario.

 

[Yarddog]

There is absolutely NO information in this stupid article. I have no idea what the kid said or why CPS and the Dad got involved. While it sounds like an interesting story, your article has NOTHING in it. Why do you swallow stuff like this?

doesnt matter really to much, A cop comes to question a 9 year old about Comments in class?? thats all you need
to know. The teacher couldn't handle a situation like that, should be fired on the spot.

 

[koshergrl]

There is absolutely NO information in this stupid article. I have no idea what the kid said or why CPS and the Dad got involved. While it sounds like an interesting story, your article has NOTHING in it. Why do you swallow stuff like this?

doesnt matter really to much, A cop comes to question a 9 year old about Comments in class?? thats all you need
to know. The teacher couldn't handle a situation like that, should be fired on the spot.

Except they've been told by the police department and the prosecutor's office that they're supposed to do it.

I agree they shouldn't, this is just yet another example of the egregious and unconstitutional overreach of our government and LEO community...they have fostered a culture where the schools think they have to do anything that anybody with a badge or a government office tells them to, no matter how fucking stupid it is.

 

[WillowTree]

Instead of bullying a nine year old who mentioned brownies they should be out getting the thugs with brass knuckles off the streets.

 

[OldLady]

There is absolutely NO information in this stupid article. I have no idea what the kid said or why CPS and the Dad got involved. While it sounds like an interesting story, your article has NOTHING in it. Why do you swallow stuff like this?

doesnt matter really to much, A cop comes to question a 9 year old about Comments in class?? thats all you need
to know. The teacher couldn't handle a situation like that, should be fired on the spot.

Did you keep reading the thread? Kosher Girl and someone else provided some actual facts here, finally. It was not the teacher's or the school's call. They've got some kind of weird, twisted prosecutor over there that misinterpreted legislation. Sounds like the parents are finally making a stink about it. I agree. I just needed to know what was going on before I was going to be forced to voice an opinion.

 

[koshergrl]

What a perfect example of fuzzy thinking and logical fallacy.

How would the truthfulness of my comment keep kids from being removed from their homes? You realize there are all sorts of different types of child abuse, and MANY reasons for child welfare to remove children?

What logical fallacy you idiot. You yourself conceded that if one parent is so abusive the system wants them away from children and that the other parent is suitable and wants to leave the abuser for the sake of the children that those kids will stay with that parent rather than being removed from the home.

So, unless a lot of parents are also deemed unfit and or are unwilling to leave the unfit parent children won't be removed from the home. Ipso facto, if as you claim that happens most of the time, very few children should be being removed from their homes and thus you shouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Er..more logical fallacy. I didn't concede any of that, what a lying sack you are lol.

Let's play. You show me the post where I conceded anything.

And most kids aren't removed from 2 parent homes in the first place, dumbass. Most are removed from SINGLE parent homes. So your retarded and juvenile *argument* fails no matter which way you cut it. Like I said, this is only one of MANY scenarios that allows dumbass workers to break up families. You act like the only time a kid gets removed is when there are two parents and only one of them is allegedly *unfit*. That's asinine, and just so not true lololol. You maintain that because there are parents who are forbidden to see their children (which there are) then there should be no children in foster care, because (you seem to think) all children removed are removed only because parents refuse to split when only one is alleged to be a danger.

Or something like that. What a loon, cripes how do you wipe your ass without directions?

ALL children have two parents loon. Whether they are together or not. And don't you suppose that if the custodial parents proves to be unfit that the non custodial parent is probably the first place the state looks to place them?

But oh you keep pretending that there are hordes of federal agents out there just ripping kids away from families and placing them with strangers for no good fucking reason.

What an idiot you are.

I didn't say children didn't have two parents, you sad imbecile. I said they didn't all come from two parent homes.

Sad, obviously you have limited capacity.

Very limited.

I deal with limited capacity people a lot and I feel like I need to go and surround myself with them as a BREAK from this retard.

 

[koshergrl]

There is absolutely NO information in this stupid article. I have no idea what the kid said or why CPS and the Dad got involved. While it sounds like an interesting story, your article has NOTHING in it. Why do you swallow stuff like this?

doesnt matter really to much, A cop comes to question a 9 year old about Comments in class?? thats all you need
to know. The teacher couldn't handle a situation like that, should be fired on the spot.

Did you keep reading the thread? Kosher Girl and someone else provided some actual facts here, finally. It was not the teacher's or the school's call. They've got some kind of weird, twisted prosecutor over there that misinterpreted legislation. Sounds like the parents are finally making a stink about it. I agree. I just needed to know what was going on before I was going to be forced to voice an opinion.

You mean before you CHOSE to voice an opinion.

If you had chosen to voice an opinion, that isn't the same as you being forced to voice an opinion.

 

[OldLady]

That's because you don't work with this population, which is why you should probably shut the hell up about these issues.

Yes, they split up ALL THE TIME for exactly this reason. I've worked their cases, and there are a LOT of them.

then if that's true most kids wouldn't be getting removed from their homes, and I have to wonder what the fuck it is you are bitching about exactly?


LULZ ideologues are so fun to slap around.

What a perfect example of fuzzy thinking and logical fallacy.

How would the truthfulness of my comment keep kids from being removed from their homes? You realize there are all sorts of different types of child abuse, and MANY reasons for child welfare to remove children?

What logical fallacy you idiot. You yourself conceded that if one parent is so abusive the system wants them away from children and that the other parent is suitable and wants to leave the abuser for the sake of the children that those kids will stay with that parent rather than being removed from the home.

So, unless a lot of parents are also deemed unfit and or are unwilling to leave the unfit parent children won't be removed from the home. Ipso facto, if as you claim that happens most of the time, very few children should be being removed from their homes and thus you shouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Er..more logical fallacy. I didn't concede any of that, what a lying sack you are lol.

Let's play. You show me the post where I conceded anything.

And most kids aren't removed from 2 parent homes in the first place, dumbass. Most are removed from SINGLE parent homes. So your retarded and juvenile *argument* fails no matter which way you cut it. Like I said, this is only one of MANY scenarios that allows dumbass workers to break up families. You act like the only time a kid gets removed is when there are two parents and only one of them is allegedly *unfit*. That's asinine, and just so not true lololol. You maintain that because there are parents who are forbidden to see their children (which there are) then there should be no children in foster care, because (you seem to think) all children removed are removed only because parents refuse to split when only one is alleged to be a danger.

Or something like that. What a loon, cripes how do you wipe your ass without directions?

ALL children have two parents loon. Whether they are together or not. And don't you suppose that if the custodial parents proves to be unfit that the non custodial parent is probably the first place the state looks to place them?

But oh you keep pretending that there are hordes of federal agents out there just ripping kids away from families and placing them with strangers for no good fucking reason.

What an idiot you are.

Hey, thanks for trying.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

What logical fallacy you idiot. You yourself conceded that if one parent is so abusive the system wants them away from children and that the other parent is suitable and wants to leave the abuser for the sake of the children that those kids will stay with that parent rather than being removed from the home.

So, unless a lot of parents are also deemed unfit and or are unwilling to leave the unfit parent children won't be removed from the home. Ipso facto, if as you claim that happens most of the time, very few children should be being removed from their homes and thus you shouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Er..more logical fallacy. I didn't concede any of that, what a lying sack you are lol.

Let's play. You show me the post where I conceded anything.

And most kids aren't removed from 2 parent homes in the first place, dumbass. Most are removed from SINGLE parent homes. So your retarded and juvenile *argument* fails no matter which way you cut it. Like I said, this is only one of MANY scenarios that allows dumbass workers to break up families. You act like the only time a kid gets removed is when there are two parents and only one of them is allegedly *unfit*. That's asinine, and just so not true lololol. You maintain that because there are parents who are forbidden to see their children (which there are) then there should be no children in foster care, because (you seem to think) all children removed are removed only because parents refuse to split when only one is alleged to be a danger.

Or something like that. What a loon, cripes how do you wipe your ass without directions?

ALL children have two parents loon. Whether they are together or not. And don't you suppose that if the custodial parents proves to be unfit that the non custodial parent is probably the first place the state looks to place them?

But oh you keep pretending that there are hordes of federal agents out there just ripping kids away from families and placing them with strangers for no good fucking reason.

What an idiot you are.

I didn't say children didn't have two parents, you sad imbecile. I said they didn't all come from two parent homes.

Sad, obviously you have limited capacity.

Very limited.

I deal with limited capacity people a lot and I feel like I need to go and surround myself with them as a BREAK from this retard.

You ARE a limited capacity person dear.

Here's your argument

" a lot of time CPS can't find family to take these kids in, why the fuck does CPS not place these kids with family?"

LOL you're a moron. I guarantee you that CPS would rather in EVER case 1. Keep nuclear families intact 2. Place children with distant family members and 3. Place children with strangers. whenever feasible. No CPS agent is sitting around in the morning thinking "mehehehehehehe I hope I can rip some woman's kids out of her house and place them with a complete stranger for no fucking reason at all today"

 

[Fenton Lum]

No shit stupid. Thanks for admitting that the ONLY way a state can FORCE abusive parents to stay away from their victims is to take the kids away from the home. Or at a minimum threaten the other parent with removal if they don't comply.

Now, how often do you think couples split up because otherwise the kids will be put in foster care? My bet is not very fucking often.

That's because you don't work with this population, which is why you should probably shut the hell up about these issues.

Yes, they split up ALL THE TIME for exactly this reason. I've worked their cases, and there are a LOT of them.

then if that's true most kids wouldn't be getting removed from their homes, and I have to wonder what the fuck it is you are bitching about exactly?


LULZ ideologues are so fun to slap around.

Again. Yes, children are removed often from families who refuse to do as they're told by child welfare...including refusing to stop contact with a partner who has been deemed, for whatever reason, to be a "danger" to the safety of the children.

Of course, the definition of "danger" can get pretty fuzzy, and child welfare workers LOVE to nail women for daring to have even telephone contact with their partners, and for allowing their children to have telephone contact that hasn't been "approved" by their dumbass workers.

Also you are operating under the false impression that there's always a good *reason* to bring a family under this crushing child welfare censure. Generally, the *reason* is that somebody the child welfare knows personally has an ax to grind.

You're "generally" statements don't persuade me. I'm sorry your children were removed from your home and now you are angery at CPS but that doesn't translate to all, or even a large portion of , all CPS agents are out removing kids from homes for no reason.

In fact it's actually a given that CPS agents are SO overwhelmed with cases that there are a lot of kids who are being mistreated and it doesn't get investigated because there simply isn't enough manpower.

My children have never been removed from my home, lol. I've worked in human services all my life, including residential treatment and detention where this is a common scenario.

Someone with your attitude and outlook on the world in human services. What a laugh.

 

[Fenton Lum]

then if that's true most kids wouldn't be getting removed from their homes, and I have to wonder what the fuck it is you are bitching about exactly?


LULZ ideologues are so fun to slap around.

What a perfect example of fuzzy thinking and logical fallacy.

How would the truthfulness of my comment keep kids from being removed from their homes? You realize there are all sorts of different types of child abuse, and MANY reasons for child welfare to remove children?

What logical fallacy you idiot. You yourself conceded that if one parent is so abusive the system wants them away from children and that the other parent is suitable and wants to leave the abuser for the sake of the children that those kids will stay with that parent rather than being removed from the home.

So, unless a lot of parents are also deemed unfit and or are unwilling to leave the unfit parent children won't be removed from the home. Ipso facto, if as you claim that happens most of the time, very few children should be being removed from their homes and thus you shouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Er..more logical fallacy. I didn't concede any of that, what a lying sack you are lol.

Let's play. You show me the post where I conceded anything.

And most kids aren't removed from 2 parent homes in the first place, dumbass. Most are removed from SINGLE parent homes. So your retarded and juvenile *argument* fails no matter which way you cut it. Like I said, this is only one of MANY scenarios that allows dumbass workers to break up families. You act like the only time a kid gets removed is when there are two parents and only one of them is allegedly *unfit*. That's asinine, and just so not true lololol. You maintain that because there are parents who are forbidden to see their children (which there are) then there should be no children in foster care, because (you seem to think) all children removed are removed only because parents refuse to split when only one is alleged to be a danger.

Or something like that. What a loon, cripes how do you wipe your ass without directions?

ALL children have two parents loon. Whether they are together or not. And don't you suppose that if the custodial parents proves to be unfit that the non custodial parent is probably the first place the state looks to place them?

But oh you keep pretending that there are hordes of federal agents out there just ripping kids away from families and placing them with strangers for no good fucking reason.

What an idiot you are.

Hey, thanks for trying.

Impossible to have a conversation or get a rational thought outta that one. Wondered why she's so bitter and angry for a moment. It's passed.