The article also discusses overworked employees who are more likely to make mistakes.  Instead of railing against CPS, why not vote for better CPS funding that would allow for better educated CPS workers with lower caseloads? The Child Protection Industry is already costing the USA well over 41 BILLION dollars a year, counting all of the contract Social Workers, contract services, gratuitous psych evaluations and multiple lawyers. The caseworkers are zealots on a political/social crusade. They seem to think the imagined ends justify bad means. That's why HALF of all kids in Foster Care should not be. Even experts within the Social Work Field have said that the agency subculture is corrupt, and suggested that the subculture is actually incapable of making meaningful change from within. Perhaps THIS explains why several processes for safeguarding the civil rights of families against unwarranted caseworker intrusions/removals etc. though required TEN YEARS ago, are still not in place. Iowa for example, does NOT have the Federally Required Citizens Review Boards over Child Protection.  They have them for Foster Care, but they are also required to have Citizens Review Boards over Child Protection actions like removals, to prevent caseworker abuses of families. Iowa also does not seem to actually have this process for Grievances about Services Problems. (Or is in noncompliance for denying it improperly.) We tried, and the response was that since we were not denied any services, we could be denied this process. Of course, this completely overlooked the fact that we had in fact asserted SEVERAL denials of services. AND, if you read 45 CFR 205.10 it prohibits denial of access to this process in this way. Think about it, Iowa's response pretends that a person can only complain if they were denied a service.   That means citizens can't complain about QUALITY of service?   Or Services applied NEEDLESSLY? Or complain about the Service Plan being formed illegally, without allowing the Family Active Participation in Formation of the Services Plan? _base_less, Overbearing, contaminated or RIGGED services apparently can not be addressed through this required GRIEVANCE PROCESS in Iowa. Even our stated complaints about denied services were overlooked in the rush to deny us this process. Families are supposed to be actively involved in the FORMATION of Services Plans.  That is part of the contract bargain when the Feds hand the state millions of dollars in Grant money to run the state Child Protection agency. (Very much as with highway money, the state gets the money with strings attached, and this is one of the obligations.) Please look for the year 83 at the bottom of this PIQ directive to the states requiring grievance process. It should be pointed out that when we sought this grievance process the caseworker made some very vulgar comments and said it was insane so this certainly leads us to believe the process is not implemented at all in Iowa. 45 CFR 205.10 quoted below the PIQ Directive/FAQ sheet. FAQ Sheet www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm click on        -Policy                 -Child Welfare Policy Manual                 -_title_ IV-B (also notice SACWIS info)                 -Programmatic requirements                 -Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair hearings... or just enter the following URL or web _link_ http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=17... [ verbatim, but some text converted to capital letters for EMPHASIS ] 2. Question: Do the regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 require fair hearings for appeals related to services as well as financial claims? Answer: Yes. The regulations at 1355.30 (p)(2) provide that the procedures for hearings found in 45 CFR 205.10 shall apply to all programs funded under _title_s IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. Fair hearings in relation to services as well as financial claims are therefore covered under this regulation. The Department believes that the close programmatic and fiscal relationship between _title_s IV-E and IV-B makes a fair hearings requirement appropriate. The process for fair hearings under section 205.10 is ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FOR SERVICES HEARINGS AS FOR FINANCIAL HEARINGS. However, because the substantive portion of the regulations provides no examples of service issues, the State has the option of modifying the context of the hearing to ACCOMODATE SERVICES PROGRAM COMPLAINTS. The hearing process under either situation requires that recipients be advised of their RIGHT TO A HEARING, that they may be represented by an authorized representative, and that there be a timely notice of the date and place of the hearing. The following paragraphs, excerpted from the now obsolete section 1392.11, may be used as guidance for the hearings related to services issues. The State must have a provision for a fair hearing, under which applicants and recipients may appeal DENIAL OF OR EXCLUSION FROM A SERVICE PROGRAM, FAILURE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF RECIPIENT CHOICE OF SERVICE or a DETERMINATION THAT THE INDIVIDUALS MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE SERVICE PROGRAM. The results of appeals must be formally recorded and all applicants and recipients must be advised of their right to appeal and the procedures for such appeal. THERE MUST BE A SYSTEM THROUGH WHICH RECIPIENTS MAY PRESENT GRIEVANCES ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE SERVICE PROGRAM. Examples of service issues in _title_ IV-B that might result in a grievance or request for a hearing include: Agency failure to offer or provide APPROPRIATE PRE-PLACEMENT PREVENTATIVE SERVICES or REUNIFICATION SERVICES; Agency may not have placed child in the most FAMILY-LIKE setting in close proximity to his parents; Parents were not INFORMED OF THEIR RIGHTS to participate in periodic administrative reviews; Agency failed to provide services AGREED to in case plan; A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC SERVICE IS DENIED or NOT ACTED UPON; and Agency failure to carry out terms of adoption assistance agreements. Source/Date: ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04 (10/26/83)

can you honestly hold parents responsible for all actions taken by their children. Sure, parents shouldn't leave guns around the house, I won't argue that, but when do you expect children to take responsibility for themselves? We can't blame parents forever. Yes, parents need to be responsible and children should be removed from abusive homes, but at what point are you going to hold kids accountable for themselves? This is a VERY VERY good question. I sat in on a lecture for parents by a gang intervention cop.  He railed against the common belief that bad kids only come from bad parents. He pointed out that even kids of undeniably good parents fell into the gang thing. It seems like for teenagers, peer pressure from other teens can be a force so powerful that even the best, most involved parents cannot keep some teens from falling into it. It's even MORE interesting in regard to the liability side, when kids are in the state's care or in a foster care setting. If the kid does BAD things, THEY aren't held responsible the way PARENTS ARE if the kids go out and do BAD THINGS. In other words, there is a DOUBLE STANDARD. Parents are to blame when they are in charge. Parents are to blame when not in charge. And* when parents they are in charge, Child Protection undermines parental authority. Kids OFTEN threaten to call Child Protection on their parents, even just for refusing to buy the little princess some expensive name brand crap. When princess calls in a complaint against Mom's new step dad because of jealousy, CPS people pretend they don't know this is the reason. Then when she falsely accuses the foster contractors, CPS notoriously swept these under the rug.  (Which led to huge problems if the Fosters really WERE abusing kids.) Whereas you might think that her LYING now should be used to suggest that maybe she LIED before, when she accused the stepdad, CPS would NEVER consider that.  In fact they would fight tooth and nail to resist that notion. And if good kids that never ever acted up suddenly turn bad in Foster Care they still try to spin it to make the parents look bad. The BLAME thing is very political when it comes to Child Protection. A kid who pees themself in the middle of the day at school because they hold it so as not to miss any fun stuff?  The child told us the truth about how this took place.  It's not rare either. But CPS and Kane are EAGER to imagine some EVIL and or abusive reason to blame the parents. The kid even told CPS the same story, but the caseworkers don't WANT to believe it. Ordinary parents dealing with CPS get dragged into a miniature version of what the TABLOIDS seem to do with stories.  Caseworkers IMAGINE things, twist and distort, eagerly convinced there are deliberate wrongs being done. The perverse incentives , the money the agency gets is _base_d on the number of bodies they get into their system.  On the adoption side they get incentives for terminating the connection between parents and children forever. Adoption mills used to be considered a racketeering enterprise, but now state agencies do it!

It's amazing how shy you brutes are when it comes to actually standing up for your practice. You know the truth, but you hate the truth. Kane Such OVER THE TOP PATHOS!  (brutes?) Kane is now the ultimate keeper of the light of truth! Nobody need think anymore, 'cause Kane is all knowing! I'll just say it again, Chris S: Kane benefits from the system.  He is totalitarian in his anti-spanking zeal. Kane makes no distinction between constant spankers and occasional or rare spankers, as I said. He is totalitarian about it and would impose laws. In the meantime he only has to LIE, to get a family in trouble for something else, and then they go to a parenting class that will never teach the legal limits to spanking.  While it is legal in Iowa to spank, I actively participated in a parent skills class which was 90% anti-spanking propaganda. (brutes?)   Kane are you gay and heterophobic? That WOULD explain the hatred for bio parents..

A right which incidentlly CAFCASS claims does not even exist! And what do the laws state? How would I know, I asked a lawyer to defend my son's right to see me and he ridiculed the idea. I asked him if I could quote his response as an example of the kind of bigotry a dad encounters in the system and he said he would sue me for defamation. The law should stick to dealing with criminals. We need something better for protecting kids. Right now the media is about al they've got. ... and the occasional over worked under paid CPS worker if they are lucky enough to be in America.

I do not agree with that as I think there are always better alternatives, however I doubt Greg is pro-child abuse, True, Not true. Greg made it a habit to be in the bathroom whenever the 6-7 yo little girl finished showering to hand her a towel. She couldn't pick up a towel herself? Greg physically pushed the little girl back into the shower if he didn't think she rinsed off sufficiently. If she could shower by herself shouldn't she be able to get back in and rinse off the soap she missed without Greg putting his hands on her? And Greg forced the little girl to take cold showers if she wet her pants. Wonder why the little girl wet her pants? Here's the Motion Greg posted that was submitted to the Fam Ct Judge in opposition to the services he wanted them to take. You'll get the picture. From: Greg Hanson ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) Subject: Motion for Relief from Inappropriate Services Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2002-04-09 14:27:36 PST IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY                               JUVENILE DIVISION IN THE INTEREST OF   NO. JVJV-12345 CHILD A. LASTNAME DOB: 00-00-99    MOTION TO CLARIFY MINOR CHILD    MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM      INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES COMES NOW,  Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate and inquisitive services. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service Plan onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan.  We have complained about this for MOST of the last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS and ignored by Juvenile Court.   Greg showed the quote from the US DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the trunk of the car as a work surface.   We have seen no sign that she passed this information to Judas.   Deb characterized this in writing as if it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues.  Judas has been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign of truly understanding their significance.  The Iowa DHS computer blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree. On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge what MORE services would help, but got the stone wall treatment regarding removal of inappropriate services.  It clearly seemed to be a closed issue with the Judge.  Something is wrong with that.  This flies in the face of the concept of Active Participation in the Formation of Service Plan .  Federal Case law says opportunity to _object_ after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan.  This is a Federal regulation and it's in the Iowa caseworker manual too. Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid INPUT.  The words fishing expedition come to mind. Domestic Violence Victim Counseling Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years that Greg has been with us.  Domestic Violence counselor pushed for disclosure of some dark truth that simply doesn't exist.  After Judas's telephonic INPUT, the counselor, Linda Vance, badgered me saying You know that Greg pushed Child's head under water. (Actually it was head under SHOWER SPRAY!  twisted by DHS.)  It was clear after only a few minutes on the phone that she intended to assume the role of Torquemada (Spanish Inquisition) to elicit information about nonexistant domestic abuse. Psychological Evaluation Greg went to see Doctor DHSISGOODFORME for one hour, for a Psychological Evaluation, knowing what had been INPUT was a laundry list of 4 points.  The list was: needs to be the victim domestic violence controlling anger management issues It seemed odd that 10 hours were set aside with the scheduler for anger management before there was even a diagnosis.  The list raised some concerns about violations of 5th amendment rights, but it was small enough that Greg went.  Then after one hour, Dr.DHSISGOODFORME didn't think he had enough to go on and asked for a release to get more documentary background from DHS.  This took 2 or three months, and this INPUT was an inch thick stack of documents, including misstatements, perjury and parroted comments like it is reported presented as de-facto evidence.   We STILL have not gotten the huge number of factual, typographical, non-sequitir and other incorrect statements stricken from the records.  The time will come for this. The laundry list four points were not all present in the STACK of input, and new, more attitudinal and subjective concerns were added.  There are definate problems of EPISTEMOLOGY with this. Greg called up Dr.DHSISGOODFORME and asked about the ethics of using such a large amount of INPUT and the potential for it to TAINT the impartiality of a Psychological Evaluation.   Dr. DHSISGOODFORME could not explain how this INPUT would not creep into the subjective parts of the Psychological Evaluation.  Greg asked about how the hypotheticals about behavior in a family setting posed in the INPUT could be evaluated outside of the family setting.   Not many answers were forthcoming, and Greg clearly felt like he was being railroaded by the stacked Psychological Evaluation.  Several large issues in The Bill of Rights jelled at this point. ( 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14) Sex Abuse Exam Done _base_d only on DHS Perjury Child had already undergone a sex abuse physical and a video tape interview at the CPC, despite the fact that NOBODY, not even the hostile accuser had alleged any sexual abuse.  The only justification for the sex abuse physical was PERJURY by Judas of DHS about Greg's past.   This same PERJURY was used at the top of Judas and Maggie's Affidavit to justify the court removal order after two weeks of extortive Family Preservation used purely as witch hunt. My first idiot attorney supposedly filed a motion for a HEARING about the CPC exam, because justification was _base_d on false and even perjurous information.   The motion was denied by a Juvenile Court Judge with no explanation. The CPC physical reported the grandmothers concerns, and reported an internal bump that had gone away, IF it ever really existed.  The bump was reported as being from a swing set accident.  We never owned a swing set, and this injury was apparently concealed from us IF it really ever existed.  We have concerns that Child may have been brainwashed into not reporting an accident that took place on the grandparents' swing set.  The grandmother was never authorized to intrude into Child's medical care in any way, yet her words are written down there in the physical report, and they are non-sequiturs.  This woman has been on Prozac for 8 (EIGHT) years and does not take her Prozac reliably, which is particularly risky.  Great and reliable witness eh?  A mental case?  (Has Wallis vs. Escondido or Spencer written all over it!) The video tape interview was done by Jennifer Torquemada (Now Jennifer Blah) at the CPC, even though she apparently had NO CERTIFICATION for her job as an Evidenciary Interviewer.   If she did, she would know more about how suggestable a 7 year old is, and how unreliable their testimony is.   This is where head pushed under water began rather than head pushed under shower spray . Jennifer also directed me to cooperate with DHS, and said that I would have to make some tough choices implying that I needed to get rid of Greg to satisfy DHS. She reported a lot of information that SHE did not gather.  Hyperbole like It is reported that (blah blah) is used several times in her report.  This is clearly an artifact of her interaction with the other members of the Child Protection Team , specifically the DHS Child Protective caseworkers.  This contaminates the neutrality, and adds a bogus aire of legitimacy to fictitious and factitious garbage. Maggie Wickedwitch even fed Jennifer questions to ask from the other side of the one way glass. I (Suzy Q. Mother) was denied my right to have legal counsel present at questioning that took place there.   My first idiot attorney said he would not be allowed, which I know was not true.  I went there specifically to hold my 7 year old daughters' hand through the invasive sex abuse physical.   Instead I was fending off an ambush interview by a hostile group during that time. Employment The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment.  There has been no explanation or
... wi?cej »