Lib calls police on 9 year old for commenting about brownies

[koshergrl]

Yes, it is about the kids. Which is why kidnapping them should be illegal and CPS should be subject to the same lethal force justified against all kidnappers. Why would I care that a supervisor signed off on your kidnapping?

Leave the kids alone!

By your "logic" police who make arrests should be treated as kidnappers too. So I guess you agree with Black Lives Matter. Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon and all that..

I swear some people have no thinking skills whatsoever.

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

 

[koshergrl]

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

Isn't that under state statutes and perhaps variable state to state?

There are no states that have no authority to prevent abusive parents from accessing there children, ding dong. So rethink your strategy of smacking your wife around while telling her that she can't do anything or keep you from seeing your kids.

Perhaps you should make better partner choices.

You're not my partner, so put that right out of your mind, freak.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it's a desire to hijack society that drives it. Totalitarians who can't wait to get a job where they can fucking step all over people, violate their basic civil and human rights, and take their children from them. It isn't a profession, it's an ideology that has seeped into our society via entitlement programs that we should NEVER have established.

There are certainly totalitarian assholes who want to dictate how others live, what they think and what to believe, but we also have a society where too many parents and individuals believe they are more special than everyone else and will use a lawyer when offended.

It's an entitlement mentality. They expect other people to do for them, to cater to them, and they think that if those people don't, they should be put in jail.

The american exceptionalism mentality is an entitlement mentality.

Shut the fuck up, commie.

Poor thing, name calling, reminds me of kindergarten.

Head Start was a failure, you know. And here we see how that plays out.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes, it is about the kids. Which is why kidnapping them should be illegal and CPS should be subject to the same lethal force justified against all kidnappers. Why would I care that a supervisor signed off on your kidnapping?

Leave the kids alone!

By your "logic" police who make arrests should be treated as kidnappers too. So I guess you agree with Black Lives Matter. Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon and all that..

I swear some people have no thinking skills whatsoever.

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

Removing them from the home, perhaps. Removing them from their families, never. Kids do better when they are not uprooted from what they've known their whole lives and solutions are worked out right where they are, even if it means other family members step in. There's never an excuse to kidnap a child.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Yes, it is about the kids. Which is why kidnapping them should be illegal and CPS should be subject to the same lethal force justified against all kidnappers. Why would I care that a supervisor signed off on your kidnapping?

Leave the kids alone!

By your "logic" police who make arrests should be treated as kidnappers too. So I guess you agree with Black Lives Matter. Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon and all that..

I swear some people have no thinking skills whatsoever.

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

Taking criminals off the street is not the same thing as taking children away from their parents, you poor, dumb son of a bitch.

You fucking moron. Removing children from abusive homes is to kidnapping as arresting criminals is.

Meaning, neither are.

Yeah, I mean it's not like when we used to jerk native amercan kids outta their homes and force them into boarding schools away from their families for years.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

By your "logic" police who make arrests should be treated as kidnappers too. So I guess you agree with Black Lives Matter. Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon and all that..

I swear some people have no thinking skills whatsoever.

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

 

[koshergrl]

By your "logic" police who make arrests should be treated as kidnappers too. So I guess you agree with Black Lives Matter. Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon and all that..

I swear some people have no thinking skills whatsoever.

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

Removing them from the home, perhaps. Removing them from their families, never. Kids do better when they are not uprooted from what they've known their whole lives and solutions are worked out right where they are, even if it means other family members step in. There's never an excuse to kidnap a child.

I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I don't advocate for child welfare control of families, I'm just saying that right now they can definitely exert it..and it is going to get worse.

 

[koshergrl]

By your "logic" police who make arrests should be treated as kidnappers too. So I guess you agree with Black Lives Matter. Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon and all that..

I swear some people have no thinking skills whatsoever.

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

Taking criminals off the street is not the same thing as taking children away from their parents, you poor, dumb son of a bitch.

You fucking moron. Removing children from abusive homes is to kidnapping as arresting criminals is.

Meaning, neither are.

Yeah, I mean it's not like when we used to jerk native amercan kids outta their homes and force them into boarding schools away from their families for years.

It's fucking exactly like that.

 

[Fenton Lum]

There are certainly totalitarian assholes who want to dictate how others live, what they think and what to believe, but we also have a society where too many parents and individuals believe they are more special than everyone else and will use a lawyer when offended.

It's an entitlement mentality. They expect other people to do for them, to cater to them, and they think that if those people don't, they should be put in jail.

The american exceptionalism mentality is an entitlement mentality.

Shut the fuck up, commie.

Poor thing, name calling, reminds me of kindergarten.

Head Start was a failure, you know. And here we see how that plays out.

We see how you've turned out, yeah, massive failure. Spittering names and swearing at everyone like a shatty diapered 3 year old.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Prosecutors can lay out recommendations, but they cannot force schools to call the police. The problem is schools are now terrified of children. A lot has changed since I went to school in the 80's and my parents signed permission for the principal to paddle me if necessary. In those days parents and teachers were allies in instilling discipline and respect for authority in children. If I ever got in trouble in school, I got it even worse at home. Now when kids are bad, parents don't scream at them, they show up at school to scream at the principal and threaten a lawsuit. It goes back to the Biblical proverb that those who spare the rod hate their children, and there are a lot of parents who hate their children these days.

You bounce around, but in the end, I think you are agreeing with Koshergrrl and myself; it's the lawyers.

It's fear of litigation that drives this.

No, it's a desire to hijack society that drives it. Totalitarians who can't wait to get a job where they can fucking step all over people, violate their basic civil and human rights, and take their children from them. It isn't a profession, it's an ideology that has seeped into our society via entitlement programs that we should NEVER have established. I mean that retard old lady sure as shit isn't an attorney, she's just a peon who worked for a while sitting in on visitations and shuttling kids all over the place at the behest of her commie masters. I bet she's on benefits right now. It's THOSE people who have landed us here, who are lazy and greedy and take the bribes and then vote for more restrictions, more oversight, more control by dumbass officialdom because that's how they avoid any sort of accountability for their own laziness and stupidity.

Honestly, I liked it better when you had me on ignore, you spiteful, delusional bitch.

Yeah, I could tell by the way you kept mentioning her and goading her to re-engage.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

By your "logic" police who make arrests should be treated as kidnappers too. So I guess you agree with Black Lives Matter. Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon and all that..

I swear some people have no thinking skills whatsoever.

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

Removing them from the home, perhaps. Removing them from their families, never. Kids do better when they are not uprooted from what they've known their whole lives and solutions are worked out right where they are, even if it means other family members step in. There's never an excuse to kidnap a child.

I agree, if there is a suitable relative . Often times, there is not. Or the relative doesn't want the kid, which is beyond sad.

 

[Fenton Lum]

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

Removing them from the home, perhaps. Removing them from their families, never. Kids do better when they are not uprooted from what they've known their whole lives and solutions are worked out right where they are, even if it means other family members step in. There's never an excuse to kidnap a child.

I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I don't advocate for child welfare control of families, I'm just saying that right now they can definitely exert it..and it is going to get worse.

Isn't everything getting worse in your world hon?

 

[koshergrl]

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Prosecutors can lay out recommendations, but they cannot force schools to call the police. The problem is schools are now terrified of children. A lot has changed since I went to school in the 80's and my parents signed permission for the principal to paddle me if necessary. In those days parents and teachers were allies in instilling discipline and respect for authority in children. If I ever got in trouble in school, I got it even worse at home. Now when kids are bad, parents don't scream at them, they show up at school to scream at the principal and threaten a lawsuit. It goes back to the Biblical proverb that those who spare the rod hate their children, and there are a lot of parents who hate their children these days.

You bounce around, but in the end, I think you are agreeing with Koshergrrl and myself; it's the lawyers.

It's fear of litigation that drives this.

No, it's a desire to hijack society that drives it. Totalitarians who can't wait to get a job where they can fucking step all over people, violate their basic civil and human rights, and take their children from them. It isn't a profession, it's an ideology that has seeped into our society via entitlement programs that we should NEVER have established. I mean that retard old lady sure as shit isn't an attorney, she's just a peon who worked for a while sitting in on visitations and shuttling kids all over the place at the behest of her commie masters. I bet she's on benefits right now. It's THOSE people who have landed us here, who are lazy and greedy and take the bribes and then vote for more restrictions, more oversight, more control by dumbass officialdom because that's how they avoid any sort of accountability for their own laziness and stupidity.

Honestly, I liked it better when you had me on ignore, you spiteful, delusional bitch.

Yeah, I could tell by the way you kept mentioning her and goading her to re-engage.

No goading required with that one..

 

[Fenton Lum]

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

Those poor folk, you were what they had to work with? No wonder they split.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

Removing them from the home, perhaps. Removing them from their families, never. Kids do better when they are not uprooted from what they've known their whole lives and solutions are worked out right where they are, even if it means other family members step in. There's never an excuse to kidnap a child.

I agree, if there is a suitable relative . Often times, there is not. Or the relative doesn't want the kid, which is beyond sad.

There shouldn't be any option to turn away a kid you're related to. But in any case, families are full of aunts, uncles, grandparents, adult siblings, and close family friends. Uprooting a child and putting them with strangers is traumatizing and never necessary.

 

[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.

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?

 

[koshergrl]

of course there is a comparison you dumb fuck.

In BOTH cases we have empowered the government to remove certain rights when people are suspected of or actually DO violate the law. You're just apparently too stupid to understand that , for instance , in the case of domestic abuse the court can make an abusive partner move out of the house and order no contact with the abusee, but when it comes to children, we can't just order their abusers to stay away from them, they must have SOME sort of legal guardian and in comes foster care.

But both are the same fucking thing.

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.

Removing them from the home, perhaps. Removing them from their families, never. Kids do better when they are not uprooted from what they've known their whole lives and solutions are worked out right where they are, even if it means other family members step in. There's never an excuse to kidnap a child.

I agree, if there is a suitable relative . Often times, there is not. Or the relative doesn't want the kid, which is beyond sad.

There shouldn't be any option to turn away a kid you're related to. But in any case, families are full of aunts, uncles, grandparents, adult siblings, and close family friends. Uprooting a child and putting them with strangers is traumatizing and never necessary.

Actually, a lot of families don't have anybody available to take kids in. A lot of the worst families are also the most mobile/transient...child welfare workers try to track down relatives when they remove kids, sometimes there are no relatives to track down, or they're in other states...I've called people to advise them of the removal of kids in a family member's household and to tell them if they're interested in being a resource to the kids (a home) to call..and been told that the family doesn't even know who the hell the kids are.

Another case that I recently dealt with was a family with three kids, they were living in a motel and somehow someone got busted for drugs. I don't think there was even any criminal charges. It was a fucking school teacher who called csd and said child welfare needed to look into this family, the child welfare worker was a new dumbshit worker who isn't even from this area, and she tromped her fat stupid ass over there and immediately yanked all three of these kids, who are well adjusted, well liked kids in the community (regardless of their dumbass parents).

They split them up, took them out of town, plopped them with foster parents in different school districts..these kids who have NEVER been away from their family or their community...I was sitting next to the worker when her supervisor was telling her "we do not do this...you can't just yank kids because their parents do drugs" and the dumbshit worker was arguing.

Despite that, they didn't bring the kids back. They spent six months with strangers, separated from their parents and their sisters, before finally a community member was able to get certified and bring two of the girls back here and get them into her house...where they sat for another year before finally being returned to their parents.

That's how the system works. It's garbage, the dumbasses like old lady and that bitch who took those kids have no idea what the fuck they're doing or how to do it, but they do it anyway,.

 

[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.

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.