Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


GOV/MIL While Everybody Slept, Congress Did Something Extraordinary for Vulnerable Children
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 34 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    America, The Beautiful
    Posts
    25,538

    2 While Everybody Slept, Congress Did Something Extraordinary for Vulnerable Children

    This is a huge step in the right direction. The amount of money child welfare/foster care organizations receive is staggering.


    Links at the source


    https://theintercept.com/2018/02/11/...able-children/

    While Everybody Slept, Congress Did Something Extraordinary for Vulnerable Children

    Aída Chávez, Ryan Grim
    February 11 2018, 10:39 a.m.

    Tucked quietly into the most recent congressional measure to keep the government open was the most sweeping and ambitious piece of child welfare legislation passed in at least a decade. It’s an attempt to reshape the entrenched foster care system as a raging opioid epidemic swells the population of children in need.

    The measure overcame the opposition of group homes, which pocket thousands of dollars per month for each child warehoused in their custody. [That figure is grossly understated.] The Family First Prevention Services Act upends the funding structure for the child welfare system by allowing states to use federal matching funds for programs addressing mental health, substance abuse, family counseling, and parent skills training — to keep at-risk children from entering the foster care system in the first place. It’s meant to help families stay together.

    Most new programs are funded by specific amounts of money, which makes them vulnerable to cuts or expiration in the future, but the new law amends the Social Security Act to open up funding for families at risk of entering the foster care system. That means major funding will be available in states willing to take advantage of the new federal money.

    The law is also designed to deter the use of group homes, which profit from the children they take in and shuffle through, by limiting federal funding for congregate care and reducing the number of kids going into the system at all. At a Senate HELP committee hearing on Thursday, William Bell, president of Casey Family Programs, noted that for every $7 spent on foster care, there is only $1 spent on intervention.

    The law seeks to rebalance a particularly difficult dynamic at play in the foster care system. Imagine the situation from the perspective of a caseworker: You see a parent struggling with her housing situation, holding down several low-paying jobs, and perhaps you suspect some substance abuse issues. There are pamphlets you can hand out, organizations like food pantries or diaper banks you can recommend for some elementary services, but beyond that, what can you do?

    The sole significant action available is to break the family up and put the child in foster care, stuffing them in a group home. If you don’t and something goes wrong, it’s on you. If you do put the child in a group home and something goes wrong, well, that’s the fault of the group home.

    As the law was drafted in Congress, lawmakers heard testimony about how the lack of options for caseworkers is one of the great stressors associated with the job — one that has, not coincidentally, extraordinary turnover. It sets up a system where all incentives lead toward breaking up the family, even though studies show doing so produces far worse outcomes.

    The new law balances that incentive by giving caseworkers some meaningful things they can actually do. Now they’ll be able to offer addiction treatment and counseling, parenting support services or moving the child in with close family. The latter option — allowing the child to live for a time with grandparents or aunts and uncles — has long been the most common sense approach, but has never been truly supported or encouraged by public policy. Now, with the Family First law, it is.

    The law also takes some practical steps not to set up new disincentives. Much of government action on the ground level is driven by how it influences funding flows. In order for a state to recoup federal money for foster care services, for instance, there are income thresholds involved. (Not many rich children wind up in foster care, but it’s part of the law nonetheless.) The new law says that if a child’s relatives attempt to take the child in and for whatever reason it doesn’t work, the child is still eligible for federal support. If that weren’t made clear, caseworkers might be reluctant to let a grandparent try to take a child in, for fear that the time spent with a relative with a higher income would make them ineligible for federal help down the road. Those are the kinds of backward incentives that had long been a blight on the country’s foster care system, but are finally being addressed.

    Sen. Orrin Hatch, Republican chairman of the Finance Committee, who co-sponsored the legislation with ranking Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden, said on the Senate floor on Thursday the legislation would “help keep more children safely with their families.”

    In 2016, Hatch and Wyden tried to push nearly identical legislation but it failed to move through the Senate after a Baptist group home network in North Carolina pressured its Senate delegation to go against it. The Baptist Children’s Home of North Carolina, along with other providers across the country, voiced objections this time around too. Most of the resistance to foster care reform came from group home networks — the legislation would reduce the number of kids entering the system, therefore interfering with their revenue model of stowing away children. But there was also opposition from California and New York, where the child welfare community says the federal solution will undermine state-based solutions they embarked on years ago.

    Despite California’s back-home ambivalence, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was a leading advocate of the bill in the House and pushed to have it included in the spending bill. The approach, by elevating families and promoting individual development, was also attractive to conservatives. “Speaker Ryan and House Republicans have consistently pushed for improvements to our welfare system, and are pleased that the budget bill included reforms to our child welfare system,” said AshLee Strong, a spokesperson for House Speaker Paul Ryan, in a statement to The Intercept. “We will continue working to improve our welfare system and pursue workforce development reforms that get people the skills and training they need to find employment.”

    In a fortunate political twist for foster children, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr’s opposition may have created the conditions that made ultimate passage possible. Media coverage of his lonely stand on behalf of home-state group homes made the issue understandable for the first time for the popular press. Even Teen Vogue, then at the beginning of its run as the organ of the woke resistance, weighed in against Burr. That helped Democrats decide which side of the bill they wanted to be on, and unified the caucus in favor of reform — even Democrats from balking states like California and New York. Without that consensus, the bill couldn’t have made it into the spending package.

    “The Family First Prevention Services Act will usher in the most significant improvements to the child welfare system in decades and provide real help to families to fight the opioid epidemic,” Wyden said in a statement. “We owe our most vulnerable children the best chance to stay with their families when it’s safe to keep them at home and the highest standards of care to protect children who are already in foster care.”

    Children are taken from their families in cases of abuse but more often than not, Sandy Santana, executive director for Children’s Rights, said, kids enter the foster care system because of neglect that stems primarily from issues of poverty or substance abuse.

    “With the opioid epidemic, more and more kids are coming into the system because their parents are dependent on opioids,” Santana said. “For the government now to redirect funding for substance abuse and preventative services to keep those kids that are at risk of entering foster care with their families is a big, big deal.”

    In 2012, there were 397,000 children in foster care, but by 2015, the number rose to 428,000, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The 8 percent increase was largely due to the opioid epidemic, and states hit harder by the growing abuse of opioids report the crisis is straining their foster care system and getting worse, but exact data is not available yet.

    The idea behind this is to help families early on before costlier interventions are needed, Santana said, adding that “if you look at the foster care system for some kids, it’s worked well, but there are many broken foster care systems in the country and kids are moved from place to place, sometimes they’re abused and neglected in the very system meant to protect them.”

    The Family First law also incorporates rigorous assessments to make sure that a child actually has a continuing need to be in a group facility, and if not, the child is sent back to a family foster home so they don’t languish in group care.

    In October, the Senate Finance Committee released its investigation into one of the largest for-profit providers of foster care services and found the children in its care had been dying at alarming rates over the past decade, with no one investigating the deaths. The committee found that 86 children had died in the company’s care over a 10-year period, and the firm had conducted internal investigations in only 13 cases. The committee found the MENTOR Network did not investigate fatalities; the vast majority of children who died were not the subject of internal investigations even when the death was unexpected, and pending autopsy reports were excluded from files.

    The company told the committee it serves “significantly more children and youth with heightened risk factors relative to others in foster care, and sustains child mortality rates that are comparable with national norms.” But the panel noted its death rate among foster children was found to be 42 percent higher than the national average.

    Now, under the new reforms, group homes will be required to more fully document the steps they take to track and prevent child maltreatment deaths, as well as explain how they are implementing a plan to deal with this problem.

    Governing by stopgap funding measure has been a rough ride for children the past several months, but they have finally started to see programs aimed their direction re-authorized, along with billions for the military and disaster relief.

    The government partially shut down and reopened hours later when President Donald Trump signed the massive budget deal into law early Friday morning. The budget deal includes a $160 billion military spending boost, a long-awaited $89 billion in disaster relief, and funding for lapsed health programs that until this week, were scraping by with leftover funds. The Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting program won’t have to worry about money for the next five years and the Special Diabetes Program for two. The Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers 9 million kids, went from unprecedented crisis to being funded for the next 10 years.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    54,564
    Some 'families' are a danger to children - even more than the state might be.
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  3. #3
    There are roughly 9 million single mothers in the USA and their children are at much higher rates of poverty disease crime etc.
    Interestingly enough, there are 2.5 million single fathers and their children do as well as married couples with children.

    Roughly 80 to 90 percent of marriages are broken up by WOMEN mostly because they decided they are unnnnhhhhaaaaappppyyy.

    Allowing these women to 'parent' their children is like asking one child to raise another - so no, all this reads to me is yet another
    handout from Big Daddy Govt to allow single moms to destroy their families. Everything the govt does has unintended consequences,
    or maybe not so unintended after all ?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    22,722
    Quote Originally Posted by kochevnik View Post
    There are roughly 9 million single mothers in the USA and their children are at much higher rates of poverty disease crime etc.
    Interestingly enough, there are 2.5 million single fathers and their children do as well as married couples with children.

    Roughly 80 to 90 percent of marriages are broken up by WOMEN mostly because they decided they are unnnnhhhhaaaaappppyyy.

    Allowing these women to 'parent' their children is like asking one child to raise another - so no, all this reads to me is yet another
    handout from Big Daddy Govt to allow single moms to destroy their families. Everything the govt does has unintended consequences,
    or maybe not so unintended after all ?
    Very well said.
    Yep, the government is frequently an enabler of bad outcomes.
    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself." -DH Lawrence

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,282

    Exactly correct...

    Quote Originally Posted by kochevnik View Post
    There are roughly 9 million single mothers in the USA and their children are at much higher rates of poverty disease crime etc.
    Interestingly enough, there are 2.5 million single fathers and their children do as well as married couples with children.

    Roughly 80 to 90 percent of marriages are broken up by WOMEN mostly because they decided they are unnnnhhhhaaaaappppyyy.

    Allowing these women to 'parent' their children is like asking one child to raise another - so no, all this reads to me is yet another
    handout from Big Daddy Govt to allow single moms to destroy their families. Everything the govt does has unintended consequences,
    or maybe not so unintended after all ?
    If woman-filed frivorce and woman-determined bastard birthing were cut out, that'd knock out easily 75% of child abuse and neglect in this country. If, further, the stupid, the unemployed, and those who can't speak unaccented standard English (e.g. most blacks and wetbacks) didn't reproduce either, then child A/N would become a rarity.

    If someone isn't self-supporting, either directly or via their family, they really don't need to reproduce or engage in political activity (not just voting, anything remotely political, such as demonstrating).
    Proud member Alt-Right group "Scientists For Trump". (Smart Americans know he's right.)
    A man should only take a wife whose Bible includes Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Colossians, Malachi, Isaiah, Ephesians, Corinthians, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus, Proverbs, Mark, Peter & Revelation. Ecclesiastes 7:28 (NIV) tells him the odds.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    America, The Beautiful
    Posts
    25,538
    Take the woman bashing to another thread. That's not the focus of this article.

    Thanks.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,282
    Quote Originally Posted by thompson View Post
    Take the woman bashing to another thread. That's not the focus of this article.

    Thanks.
    FYI, the primary sources of child neglect and abuse are precisely on topic on this thread. It was about a proposed apparent partial solution to those horrid crimes, and noting that it wouldn't touch the root causes (mentioning what they actually were to demonstrate this) was as topical as could be imagined.
    Proud member Alt-Right group "Scientists For Trump". (Smart Americans know he's right.)
    A man should only take a wife whose Bible includes Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Colossians, Malachi, Isaiah, Ephesians, Corinthians, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus, Proverbs, Mark, Peter & Revelation. Ecclesiastes 7:28 (NIV) tells him the odds.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    America, The Beautiful
    Posts
    25,538
    Quote Originally Posted by MinnesotaSmith View Post
    FYI, the primary sources of child neglect and abuse are precisely on topic on this thread. It was about a proposed apparent partial solution to those horrid crimes, and noting that it wouldn't touch the root causes (mentioning what they actually were to demonstrate this) was as topical as could be imagined.
    That is not the focus of the ARTICLE.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    America, The Beautiful
    Posts
    25,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    Some 'families' are a danger to children - even more than the state might be.
    That can certainly be true, but the key word is "some".

    Child welfare/foster care is an industry. A multi-million dollar industry.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur

  10. #10
    Not sure exactly who decided its better to keep the kids with mothers who are drug addicts - but I'm not buying it.

    If I am reading this correctly now the SS is going to have to come up with the funds for the drug addicted mothers.

    How many of you believe that drug addicts ever quit? What's the percentage 12% ?18% ? So now kids that were removed from the drug addicts house get to stay with the drug addicts and somebody calls this a step in the right direction? What a sick evil world we live in.

    The title of the OP is misleading IMO.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    Some 'families' are a danger to children - even more than the state might be.
    And some children are a danger to families. There should be a way to get those types of kids out of the home, especially if adopted through the state foster system, and into residential homes. If not, then at 18 or so they'll just end up in the county 'residential' house (jail).

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by thompson View Post
    That can certainly be true, but the key word is "some".

    Child welfare/foster care is an industry. A multi-million dollar industry.
    This is true because their are millions of worthless parents.

    Trying to blame it on the child welfare / foster care is absurd.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    America, The Beautiful
    Posts
    25,538
    My husband and I were foster parents and have done an extensive amount of research in this area. Unless a person is intimately familiar with how things actually work in this industry, some of these comments come across as ignorant.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by thompson View Post
    My husband and I were foster parents and have done an extensive amount of research in this area. Unless a person is intimately familiar with how things actually work in this industry, some of these comments come across as ignorant.
    I am intimately familiar with the process and how far the state bends over backwards not to take the kids.

    The kids suffer because the state tries to keep them with CLEARLY absolutely worthless parents.

    Most of the ignorant comments IMO are from the OP to start with.

    Don't get me wrong - if one doesn't have a clue - the OP does sound good.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    America, The Beautiful
    Posts
    25,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Coulter View Post
    I am intimately familiar with the process and how far the state bends over backwards not to take the kids.

    The kids suffer because the state tries to keep them with CLEARLY absolutely worthless parents.

    Most of the ignorant comments IMO are from the OP to start with.

    Don't get me wrong - if one doesn't have a clue - the OP does sound good.
    I'd wager quite a bit I know more about this than you do.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by thompson View Post
    I'd wager quite a bit I know more about this than you do.
    If in reality you do - then you know I'm right.

    A lawyer that deals in this area recently told me the state would give a child to a D --- biological over an non biological A + EVERYDAY.

    That was clearly my observation prior to him telling me that.

    Strengthening that position is not a step in right direction - for that child - no matter how many books you may have read.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    'murKKa - FEMA region IV
    Posts
    4,809
    Quote Originally Posted by thompson View Post
    My husband and I were foster parents and have done an extensive amount of research in this area. Unless a person is intimately familiar with how things actually work in this industry, some of these comments come across as ignorant.
    I will agree with that observation - as I have known INCREDIBLY LOVING foster parents - I - and many others here - have also run across those who were essentially running "foster child mills". there needs to be a better solution - hopefully LESS gooo-burr-munt involvement will be a step in the right direction
    “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” REV 3:16

    Raging Deplorable - we do NOT forget; we do NOT forgive; we are LEGION

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    'murKKa - FEMA region IV
    Posts
    4,809
    Quote Originally Posted by thompson View Post
    Take the woman bashing to another thread. That's not the focus of this article.

    Thanks.
    not intending to contribute to the "bashing" of women here - BUT - who ever it was that made sure it was literally

    "CARVED IN STONE"

    that children are essentially ALWAYS parented by the mother in 99.99% of divorce obviously did so back in the far distant past - WAY BACK - when women were COMMONLY known for nurturing beings desirous of being MOTHERS and not CEO's of fortune 500 companies.

    lest it be misunderstood - that statement is NOT to be interpreted as saying that women are incapable of being EXCELLENT CEO's of fortune 500 companies - quite the opposite - it is simply to say that MOST women simply CAN NOT BE BOTH a good mother AND the CEO of a fortune 500 company

    at the SAME TIME

    quite a bit different than what Ms magazine, Helen Gurley Brown and Cosmo, MOST professors of Women and gender studies, and perhaps most of todays "MODERN" women would have us believe.

    that children are UNIVERSALLY "better off" with mom rather than dad in essentially EVERY CASE of divorce is

    PATENT BULLSHIT
    “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” REV 3:16

    Raging Deplorable - we do NOT forget; we do NOT forgive; we are LEGION

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    'murKKa - FEMA region IV
    Posts
    4,809
    Quote Originally Posted by MinnesotaSmith View Post
    If woman-filed frivorce and woman-determined bastard birthing were cut out, that'd knock out easily 75% of child abuse and neglect in this country. If, further, the stupid, the unemployed, and those who can't speak unaccented standard English (e.g. most blacks and wetbacks) didn't reproduce either, then child A/N would become a rarity.

    If someone isn't self-supporting, either directly or via their family, they really don't need to reproduce or engage in political activity (not just voting, anything remotely political, such as demonstrating).
    well stated - and I will second all of that as "intolerant, unloving, and racist" as it might seem
    Last edited by Raggedyman; 02-14-2018 at 02:36 PM.
    “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” REV 3:16

    Raging Deplorable - we do NOT forget; we do NOT forgive; we are LEGION

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sandhills North Carolina
    Posts
    31,239
    And yes once again Big Gov is providing a one size fits all solution to something so complex and convoluted that I have to say I sincerely agree with all previous 18 posters

    HonestlyThe problem starts with FATHERLESS HOMES and government SUBSIDIZED BASTARD BIRTHS
    And it gets worse as we now have generations of industrially raised day care kids who have lost all maternal nurturing abilities
    Attached Images

  21. #21
    Follow the money, follow the government dept that benefits from legislation and money. I believe close to a hundred thousand dollars is spent within the system for each child they can remove from the family. Attorneys make out well. Those who work with DFS do well, they get their checks... Like cops who make money by confiscating personal property......it's a racket. The government runs it, that should be enough of a heads up.

  22. #22
    . . . and clearly missing, thus far in this discussion, is the role that organized religion once played in the raising of children, the moral guidance of the parents, the encouragement of extended families and like-minded, decent, adult surrogate "family," and the de facto conscious of a community.


    intothegoodnight
    "Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

    — Dylan Thomas, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    'murKKa - FEMA region IV
    Posts
    4,809
    NC susan:
    HonestlyThe problem starts with FATHERLESS HOMES and government SUBSIDIZED BASTARD BIRTHS


    THANK YOU LBJ
    for introducing us to the WELFARE SOW and her multitude of BABY DADDIES!!!
    “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” REV 3:16

    Raging Deplorable - we do NOT forget; we do NOT forgive; we are LEGION

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    'murKKa - FEMA region IV
    Posts
    4,809
    Quote Originally Posted by intothatgoodnight View Post
    . . . and clearly missing, thus far in this discussion, is the role that organized religion once played in the raising of children, the moral guidance of the parents, the encouragement of extended families and like-minded, decent, adult surrogate "family," and the de facto conscious of a community.

    intothegoodnight
    exceeding well stated ITGN
    “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” REV 3:16

    Raging Deplorable - we do NOT forget; we do NOT forgive; we are LEGION

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    54,564
    What gets subsidized, increases.
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  26. #26
    The problem in this whole mess is they're damned if they do (remove kids) and damned if they don't. I'd LOVE to see some accurate statistics (I'm betting they don't exist) showing the number of children abused and/or killed by their natural parents after at least one CPS intervention (the Indian couple in Texas come to mind), compared to the number abused or killed by foster parents.

    For sure, they would vary by jurisdiction.. some are very strict in terms of background checks, etc before ever allowing anyone to be a foster parent, some seem to allow anyone with a pulse to sign up.

    And any way you look at it, all but a tiny percentage of kids are SO screwed up by the circumstances- whether taken from their parents (kids love their parents no matter HOW neglectful or abusive they are- it generally isn't until they reach their mid teens that they have any ability to look at the situation more objectively, and there is STILL a huge amount of guilt involved) or left in the home.

    Absolutely, some jurisdictions have some very ugly, unethical and illegal stuff going on, with pretty much any accusation (at least, of any parent who appears to be too resource poor to hire an attorney or attract the attention of the media) of "abuse", no matter how fact free and unfounded by evidence, resulting in the kids being seized.

    And almost all have badly overworked caseworkers who couldn't do the job the way we'd wish it was done if they were Superman.

    But there are more and more truly horrific "parents" out there, for whom the kids were just a welfare check and an increase in their benefits. And they allow boyfriends to come in and out of the house, and the proven abuse rate by unrelated males is skyhigh.

    Hubby and I were just talking about this (the whole foster care system) the other night. He was reminscing about a neighbor family who had NINE natural children... in a tiny (couldn't have been more than 900 square foot), 3 bedroom house. And they often had as many as FIVE more foster kids!! The mother was one of those women who simply loved children, and was able to keep them clean, in clean clothes, well fed and with all of them having daily chores that helped keep the household running, and taught them all the value of work, etc. AFAIK, every one of them graduated high school, and they went on to have productive, useful lives (Haven't heard of any of them being divorced, either)

    These days, the state would have tried to take away their biological kids!! Three bedrooms, for 11 people! Horrors!! (the parents had one bedroom, which they generally shared with any infant or toddler age child. There was one room for the girls and one for the boys. Bunkbeds stacked to the ceiling, of course. But they all had their own bed)

    But their results were better than many these days, who have 5 bedrooms for 6 people, 2800 square feet, etc, etc...

    I've said it before in regards to other subjects- SOCIETY is broken. And given the fact that foster parents ARE NOT ALLOWED to "push their religion" on foster kids- up to and including requiring them to attend church with the family, or sitting respectfully while the family prays before a meal- I don't see any chance of repair.

    (oh... I should mention that 'pushing your religion" ALSO includes (at least in NY state) teaching morality, such as abstinence before marriage, etc. You can teach them all about birth control, and where to get an abortion.. but mention abstinence or God's plan for marriage and families... nope, NOT good foster parent material!)

    Summerthyme

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    America, The Beautiful
    Posts
    25,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Ractivist View Post
    Follow the money, follow the government dept that benefits from legislation and money. I believe close to a hundred thousand dollars is spent within the system for each child they can remove from the family. Attorneys make out well. Those who work with DFS do well, they get their checks... Like cops who make money by confiscating personal property......it's a racket. The government runs it, that should be enough of a heads up.
    The dollar figure you quoted is on the low side. Yes, it's a racket, and a huge one. The amount of money spent on "child welfare" is unbelievably staggering.

    Quote Originally Posted by intothatgoodnight View Post
    . . . and clearly missing, thus far in this discussion, is the role that organized religion once played in the raising of children, the moral guidance of the parents, the encouragement of extended families and like-minded, decent, adult surrogate "family," and the de facto conscious of a community.


    intothegoodnight
    Could not agree more.

    Summerthyme said:

    "And almost all have badly overworked caseworkers who couldn't do the job the way we'd wish it was done if they were Superman."

    I once thought the very same thing, because that's the common complaint/excuse from CPS/DFPS, et al. I no longer believe that after our experience as foster parents and hearing the same from other foster parents. Make no mistake, there are some quality caseworkers who give it their all, but certainly not the majority. It's a myth that's promulgated by the child welfare agencies, and one that serves them very, very well. I had a caseworker supervisor with years of experience come right out and admit to me that working for "child welfare" was a great place for lazy and unmotivated people.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Coulter View Post
    I am intimately familiar with the process and how far the state bends over backwards not to take the kids.

    The kids suffer because the state tries to keep them with CLEARLY absolutely worthless parents.

    Most of the ignorant comments IMO are from the OP to start with.

    Don't get me wrong - if one doesn't have a clue - the OP does sound good.
    Agree...the original article was quite the propaganda piece.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Susan View Post
    And yes once again Big Gov is providing a one size fits all solution to something so complex and convoluted that I have to say I sincerely agree with all previous 18 posters

    HonestlyThe problem starts with FATHERLESS HOMES and government SUBSIDIZED BASTARD BIRTHS
    And it gets worse as we now have generations of industrially raised day care kids who have lost all maternal nurturing abilities
    The government sees the father's role as the payer of child support...and unfortunately many fathers have settled for that role or less.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    54,564
    The government sees the father's role as the payer of child support

    Only the ones who actually bothered to get married to the maternal unit at some point... and were subsequently divorced.

    Sperm donors usually skate....
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    America, The Beautiful
    Posts
    25,538
    It's disheartening to see the amount of abject ignorance regarding this subject being shown on this thread.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by thompson View Post
    I once thought the very same thing, because that's the common complaint/excuse from CPS/DFPS, et al. I no longer believe that after our experience as foster parents and hearing the same from other foster parents. Make no mistake, there are some quality caseworkers who give it their all, but certainly not the majority. It's a myth that's promulgated by the child welfare agencies, and one that serves them very, very well. I had a caseworker supervisor with years of experience come right out and admit to me that working for "child welfare" was a great place for lazy and unmotivated people.
    I know in my state that caseload numbers have jumped over 50% in recent years due to the opioid crisis with no increase in the number of CPS workers while turnover rates remain through the roof. When 1 out of 10 babies leaves the womb addicted to drugs, it doesn't take long to overwhelm the system.

    I don't know what the bill talked about in the article does but if it adds more money to the system or adds flexibility in the states coming up with ways to deal with the problem before kids have to enter into foster care, then I'm all for it. I know none of the group homes or emergency shelters in my state are struggling to fill their bed so as long as resources are not directly being diverted from them I'm sure they would support any initiatives that would lower the number of kids in the system.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sandhills North Carolina
    Posts
    31,239
    https://www.nuvo.net/voices/guest_vo...e73b3d7f3.html

    Your kid and my kid are not playing in the pros
    Louis M. Profeta MD Mar 25, 2014


    I don't care if your eight year old can throw a baseball through six inches of plywood. He is not going to the pros. I don't care if your twelve-year-old scored seven touchdowns last week in Pop Warner. He is not going to the pros. I don't care if your sixteen-year-old made first team all-state in basketball. He is not playing in the pros. I don't care if your freshman in college is a varsity scratch golfer, averaging two under par. He isn't playing in the pros. Now tell me again how good he is. I'll lay you two to one odds right now — and I don't even know your kid, I have never even see them play — but I'll put up my pension that your kid is not playing in the pros. It is simply an odds thing. There are far too many variables working against your child. Injury, burnout, others who are better — these things are just a fraction of the barriers preventing your child from becoming "the one."

    So how do we balance being the supportive parent who spends three hours a day driving all over hell's half acre to allow our child to pursue his or her dream without becoming the supportive parent that drives all over hell's half acre to allow our child to pursue OUR dream? When does this pursuit of athletic stardom become something just shy of a gambling habit? From my experience in the ER I've developed some insight in how to identify the latter.

    1. When I inform you as a parent that your child has just ruptured their ACL ligament or Achilles tendon, if the next question out of your mouth is, "How long until he or she will be able to play?" you have a serious problem.


    2. If you child is knocked unconscious during a football game and can't remember your name let alone my name but you feel it is a "vital" piece of medical information to let me know that he is the starting linebacker and that the team will probably lose now because he was taken out of the game, you need to see a counselor.

    3. If I tell you that mononucleosis has caused the spleen to swell and that participation in a contact sport could cause a life threatening rupture and bleeding during the course of the illness and you then ask me, "If we just get some extra padding around the spleen, would it be OK to play?" someone needs to hit you upside the head with a two by four.

    4. If your child comes in with a blood alcohol level of .250 after wrecking your Lexus and you ask if I can hurry up and get them out of the ER before the police arrive so as not to run the risk of her getting kicked off the swim team, YOU need to be put in jail.

    I bet you think I'm kidding about the above patient and parent interactions. I wish I were, but I'm not. These are a fraction of the things I have heard when it comes to children and sports. Every ER doctor in America sees this. How did we get here? How did we go from spending our family times in parks and picnics, at movies and relatives houses to travel baseball and cheerleading competitions? When did we go from being supportive to being subtly abusive?

    Why are we spending our entire weekends schlepping from county to county, town to town, state to state to play in some bullshit regional, junior, mid-west, southeast, invitational, elite, prep, all- state, conference, blah, blah, blah tourney? We decorate our cars with washable paint, streamers, numbers and names. We roll in little carpool caravans trekking down the interstate honking and waiving at each other like Rev. Jim Jones followers in a Kool-Aid line. Greyhounds, Hawks, Panthers, Eagles, Bobcats, Screaming Devils, Scorching Gonads or whatever other mascot adorns their jerseys.

    Somewhere along the line we got distracted, and the practice field became the dinner table of the new millennium. Instead of huddling around a platter of baked chicken, mashed potatoes and fruit salad, we spend our evenings handing off our children like 4 x 200 batons. From baseball practice to cheerleading, from swimming lessons to personal training, we have become the "hour-long" generation of five to six, six to seven, and seven to eight, selling the souls of our family for lacrosse try-outs. But why do we do this?

    It's because, just like everyone else, we're afraid. We are afraid that Emma will make the cheerleading squad instead of Suzy and that Mitch will start at first base instead of my Dillon. But it doesn't stop there. You see, if Mitch starts instead of Dillon then Dillon will feel like a failure, and if Dillon feels like a failure then he will sulk and cower in his room, and he will lose his friends because all his friends are on the baseball team, too, and if he loses his friends then he will start dressing in Goth duds, pierce his testicles, start using drugs and begin listening to headbanging music with his door locked. Then, of course, it's just a matter of time until he's surfing the net for neo-Nazi memorabilia, visiting gun shows and then opening fire in the school cafeteria. That is why so many fathers who bring their injured sons to the ER are so afraid that they won't be able to practice this week, or that he may miss the game this weekend. Miss a game, you become a mass murderer — it's that simple.

    Suzy is a whole other story, though. You see, if she doesn't make the cheerleading squad she will lose a whole bunch of friends and not be as popular as she should (and she's REAL popular). If she loses some friends, she will be devastated — all the cool kids will talk about her behind her back, so then she'll sit in her room all day, eating Ding Dongs and cutting at her wrists. Then, of course, it is only a matter of time until she is chatting on the Internet with fifty-year-old men and meeting up with them at truck stops. And that is why every mother is so frightened when her daughters have mononucleosis or influenza. Miss cheerleading practice for a week, and your daughter is headed for a career in porn. It's that simple.

    We have become a frightened society that can literally jump from point A to point Z and ignore everything in between. We spend so much time worrying about who might get ahead — and if we're falling behind — that we have simply lost our common sense. Myself included.


    There was a time when sick or injured children were simply sick or injured children. They needed bed rest, fluid, antibiotics and a limitation on activity. They just needed to get better. They didn't NEED to get better.

    I know, I know. Your family is different. You do all these things because your kid loves to compete, he loves the travel basketball, she loves the swim team, it's her life, it's what defines him. Part of that is certainly true but a big part of that isn't. Tens of thousands of families thrive in this setting, but I'm telling you, from what I've seen as a clinician, tens of thousands don't. It is a hidden scourge in society today, taxing and stressing husbands, wives, parents and children. We're denying children the opportunity to explore literally thousands of facets of interests because of the fear of the need to "specialize" in something early, and that by not doing this your child will somehow be just an average kid. How do we learn to rejoice in the average and celebrate as a whole society the exceptional? I'm not sure, but I know that this whole preoccupation is unhealthy, it is dysfunctional and is as bad as alcoholism, tobacco abuse, or any other types of dependency.

    I would love to have a son that is a pro athlete. I'd get season tickets; all the other fathers would point at me and I might get a chance to meet Sandy Koufax. It isn't going to happen, though. But you know what I am certain will happen? I'll raise self-reliant kids, who will hang out with me when I'm older, remember my birthday, care for their mother, take me to lunch and the movies, buy me club level seats at Yankee Stadium on occasion, call me at least four times a week and let me in on all the good things in their life, and turn to me for some comfort and advice for all the bad things. I am convinced that those things just will not happen as much for parents of the "hour-long" generation. You can't create a sense of family only at spring and Christmas break. It just won't happen. Sure, the kids will probably grow up to be adequate adults. They'll reflect on how supportive you were by driving them to all their games and practices and workouts. They'll call the ER from a couple states away to see how mom's doing but in time you'll see that something will be missing, something that was sacrificed for a piano tutor, a pitching coach, a travel soccer tournament. It may take years, but in time, you'll see.

    Dr.Louis M. Profeta is an Emergency Physician practicing in Indianapolis, Indiana. He is the author of the critically acclaimed book, The Patient in Room Nine Says He's God.

    Feedback at louermd@att.net is welcomed.
    Attached Images

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    1,880
    Some observations...

    Remember, DCS doesn't get involved until the child pops up on their radar through truancy, criminal behavior, suspicion by the teacher of illegal activity by the parent(s), or police interaction with either the child or parent(s).

    Most of the kids are taken as the single mom is on drugs. They absolutely need help, but it is unlikely that they will ever break their addiction. The same goes for two parent families. In either case there are a lot of bad people coming through their door. And, a lot of bad things happen to the children.

    The general rule is that under twelve years of age the child needs to be in a safe environment with food and shelter. After that age, it's just food and shelter with the exception of criminal behavior from the child.

    As for placement with grandparents, it's usually a bad idea as it is a generational problem and they didn't raise their children properly. So, now they will raise their grandchildren properly; not likely.

    Does it cost a lot for the child to be out of the home (if you can call it that)? Yes. There is the monthly stipend for the foster parent, for which one of the foster parents should give up their employment as there is so much to contend with. There are weekly counseling trips and coordination meetings with the county and agency social workers. There are monitored family visits and numerous interactions with the school and police.

    All of this is for the hope that the child will be able to break the cycle and not end up as a detriment to society.
    Sub-Zero

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.