Abuse I suffered still happens to other kids

[Henry W. Moritz]

Opinion piece published in July 1, 2003 paper issue of Des Moines Register
only. It is not available on-line.

Abuse I suffered still happens to other kids

by Shelly Terpstra (Member of Register's Young Adult Contributors Board*)


I was born in 1970. My parents were alcoholics and drug addicts, and
neither had the common sense to take care of a dog, let alone a child. By
the time I was born, my mother had two other children by different fathers,
neither of whom she had married. Our mother hated my father, so I was the
child she ended up hating the most.

The state human-services agency was involved with our family from before I
was born. Social workers were first called about our mother when neighbors
suspected neglect. The report read that when the social workers arrived at
the home, a young boy about 2½ years old had gangrene on his head and face.
Our mother's response was that she didn't think it serious, but my brother
was hospitalized. Thereafter, the human-services agency was involved with
our family with the idea of keeping the core family together at all costs.

There were, however, times when the human-services agency moved us to foster
homes. When social workers decided my mother's home was "suitable," we were
sent back. I was taken from the home more oten than my older siblings.
Once when a judge was about to send me home, my mother told him, "If you
give her back to me, I will hurt her." So they waited. Eventually they
gave me back.

Finally, my mother abandoned me at the age of 4, and I went to another
foster home.

The human-services agency allowed my birth mother unsupervised visitations
with me for a number of months, when she was verbally abusive and neglected
my physical and emothional needs. Eventually, my mother must have grown
tired of the entire process. She took my older siblings and left the state.

It wasn't until I was nearly 10 that the state terminated the parental
rights of my birth mother and father. I was then able to be legally adopted
by my foster parents, which literally saved my life.

Shelby Duis died after suffering brutal abuse along with severe neglect.
The Iowa Department of Human Services had received more than 20 reports of
suspicion of abuse and neglect from neighbors and others concerned with what
they were seeing. Reports as of this year have shown an increase in child
abuse in this state of 22 percent over the last two years. In the case of
Jonathan Waller in 1992, his mother's boyfriend broke his arm, scratched and
brusied him, and beat his head severely enough to put him into a coma. When
he regained consciousness, he could not walk, talk, breath or eat on his
own.

What happened to me 30 years ago is still happening to children now.

Gov. Tom Vilsack has publicly spoken of his own childhood abuse. I want to
know what he is going to do about this deadly trend in the failure to
protect this state's children. Abuse is an outrage and a disgrace to Iowa
and to the parents who do care for and protect their children.

The innocent should not die because the government programs, policies and
legislation do not have the time, money or workers to protect children.

*Thirty-five Iowans were selected to serve on the board to offer diversity
of opinions from writers who range in age from mid-teens to mid-30s.

[helicon]

Top: This is appalling. Is it possible that there is less of it going on
now, and that such children are more likely to be picked up by social
services? Am I deluding myself?

Helen

"Henry W. Moritz" <moc.ishcm@ztiromwh> wrote in message
news:yLrMa.12965$Xm3.2625@sccrnsc02...

Opinion piece published in July 1, 2003 paper issue of Des Moines Register only. It is not available on-line. Abuse I suffered still happens to other kids by Shelly Terpstra (Member of Register's Young Adult Contributors Board*) I was born in 1970. My parents were alcoholics and drug addicts, and neither had the common sense to take care of a dog, let alone a child. By the time I was born, my mother had two other children by different

fathers,

neither of whom she had married. Our mother hated my father, so I was the child she ended up hating the most. The state human-services agency was involved with our family from before I was born. Social workers were first called about our mother when

neighbors

suspected neglect. The report read that when the social workers arrived

at

the home, a young boy about 2½ years old had gangrene on his head and

face.

Our mother's response was that she didn't think it serious, but my brother was hospitalized. Thereafter, the human-services agency was involved with our family with the idea of keeping the core family together at all costs. There were, however, times when the human-services agency moved us to

foster

homes. When social workers decided my mother's home was "suitable," we

were

sent back. I was taken from the home more oten than my older siblings. Once when a judge was about to send me home, my mother told him, "If you give her back to me, I will hurt her." So they waited. Eventually they gave me back. Finally, my mother abandoned me at the age of 4, and I went to another foster home. The human-services agency allowed my birth mother unsupervised visitations with me for a number of months, when she was verbally abusive and

neglected

my physical and emothional needs. Eventually, my mother must have grown tired of the entire process. She took my older siblings and left the

state.

It wasn't until I was nearly 10 that the state terminated the parental rights of my birth mother and father. I was then able to be legally

adopted

by my foster parents, which literally saved my life. Shelby Duis died after suffering brutal abuse along with severe neglect. The Iowa Department of Human Services had received more than 20 reports of suspicion of abuse and neglect from neighbors and others concerned with

what

they were seeing. Reports as of this year have shown an increase in child abuse in this state of 22 percent over the last two years. In the case of Jonathan Waller in 1992, his mother's boyfriend broke his arm, scratched

and

brusied him, and beat his head severely enough to put him into a coma.

When

he regained consciousness, he could not walk, talk, breath or eat on his own. What happened to me 30 years ago is still happening to children now. Gov. Tom Vilsack has publicly spoken of his own childhood abuse. I want

to

know what he is going to do about this deadly trend in the failure to protect this state's children. Abuse is an outrage and a disgrace to Iowa and to the parents who do care for and protect their children. The innocent should not die because the government programs, policies and legislation do not have the time, money or workers to protect children. *Thirty-five Iowans were selected to serve on the board to offer diversity of opinions from writers who range in age from mid-teens to mid-30s.

[Henry W. Moritz]

"Destroycps!" <Destroycps@email.com> wrote in message
news:EMJMa.75505$Io.7073207@newsread2.prod.itd.ear thlink.net...

Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!!

Henery posted: an opinion piece published in July 1, 2003 paper issue

of Des Moines Register only. It is not available on-line. Destroycps! Adoptadad reposted this to news:alt.support.child-protective-services . It's better to crosspost because then both threads (or most of each) are visible to subscribers of both groups. I realize Adoptadad may have an AOL account that doesn't permit crossposting, but there are ways around that limitation, Google Groups, for example. Shelly Abuse I suffered still happens to other kids by Shelly Terpstra (Member of Register's Young Adult Contributors Board; Thirty-five Iowans were selected to serve on the board to offer diversity of opinions from writers who range in age from mid-teens to mid-30s.) I was born in 1970. My parents were alcoholics and drug addicts, and neither had the common sense to take care of a dog, let alone a child. By the time I was born, my mother had two other children by different fathers, neither of whom she had married. Our mother hated my father, so I was the child she ended up hating the most. Destroycps! Shelly is referring to her life before she was ten and mostly before four. I wonder how much is real memory and how much was planted or constructed after those years.

Or maybe it was real memory of truly horrific circumstances. We have no
reason to doubt her word. Heck, I personally remember a great deal
accurately from when I was a child.

Shelly The state human-services agency was involved with our family from before I was born. Destroycps! Where did she find out about this?

Who knows? She doesn't say. Maybe it was from other biological family.
Maybe it was from some other sort of subsequent contact with her bparents or
bsiblings.

Shelly Social workers were first called about our mother when neighbors suspected neglect. The report read that when the social workers arrived at the home, a young boy about 2½ years old had gangrene on his head and face. Destroycps! This was the diagnosis from a medical examination? Or was it just something in a caseworker's report?

She doesn't say specifically, but it says later on that the brother was
hospitalized, so it seems likely that it was a medical diagnosis. You seem
singularly intent on trying to cast doubt on her statement. Why is that?
Isn't it possible that this could have happened?

Shelly Our mother's response was that she didn't think it serious, but my brother was hospitalized. Thereafter, the human-services agency was involved with our family with the idea of keeping the core family together at all costs. Destroycps! "The idea of keeping the core family together at all costs" is certainly is not the policy of "human-services agency[s]" today. The CPSs often claim that this philosophy, shall we call it, is an impediment to their ability to protect kids, but in reality, this philosophy is not policy. If Shelly's purpose is to argue against this philosophy it's not necessary because this philosophy isn't implemented in policy.

Perhaps not at all costs, but it was clear that keeping the bio family
together was a major objective with the DHS workers we dealt with. I don't
doubt that there are mistakes and abuses by DHS folks, but in our particular
experience, the state went to a great deal of effort to return the children
we were caring for back to their mother.

Shelly There were, however, times when the human-services agency moved us to foster homes. When social workers decided my mother's home was "suitable," we were sent back. I was taken from the home more oten than my older siblings. Once when a judge was about to send me home, my mother told him, "If you give her back to me, I will hurt her." So they waited. Eventually they gave me back. Finally, my mother abandoned me at the age of 4, and I went to another foster home. The human-services agency allowed my birth mother unsupervised visitations with me for a number of months, when she was verbally abusive and neglected my physical and emothional needs. Eventually, my mother must have grown tired of the entire process. She took my older siblings and left the state. Destroycps! Shelly's mother abandoned her, but then attended visits for several months?

Well, if the state truly was trying to keep the family together, wouldn't
they try to persuade the mother to take the child back, even after
abandonment? And if that was the goal, then wouldn't they schedule visits
between the child and mother in order to facilitate reunification?

Shelly It wasn't until I was nearly 10 that the state terminated the parental rights of my birth mother and father. I was then able to be legally adopted by my foster parents, which literally saved my life. Destroycps! Why was Shelly's life in jeopardy? Her evil mother wasn't in the picture anymore.

She doesn't say.

Were the foster parents going to kill her if the state didn't have her parent's rights terminated?

That seems an unlikely scenario and, IMO, not a particularly robust
hypothesis.

Shelly Shelby Duis died after suffering brutal abuse along with severe neglect. The Iowa Department of Human Services had received more than 20 reports of suspicion of abuse and neglect from neighbors and others concerned with what they were seeing. Destroycps! This is a case Iowa CPS uses to justify expanding and being more aggressive. But it's actually a case that could be used to argue against the current CPS funding system. As long as CPS gets paid per kid, regardless of what circumstances the kid came from, CPS will snatch kids regardless of the circumstances. There's really no incentive for CPS to concentrate on real abuse. It can find fake (but paying) abuse anywhere. Cheryl comments about the case: http://www.cpswatch.com/oldsite/press/030601.htm

The failure of DHS in that incident was one of a simple failure to do their
jobs. That is, simple incompetence. Using it to argue that Shelby Duis
died because DHS was too busy taking away children from innocent parents is
a specious theory at best.

Shelly Reports as of this year have shown an increase in child abuse in this state of 22 percent over the last two years. Destroycps! Does Shelly mean parents have gotten 22 percent meaner it two years? That's a rapid increase for human behavior. And how does she define abuse?

She doesn't cite her sources, thus it's unclear about what she meant.

Shelly In the case of Jonathan Waller in 1992, his mother's boyfriend broke his arm, scratched and brusied him, and beat his head severely enough to put him into a coma. When he regained consciousness, he could not walk, talk, breath or eat on his own. Destroycps! This sounds roughly like what happen to Cheryl's kid in foster custody.

Yeah, except this happened to Jonathan Waller at home. It happens.

Shelly What happened to me 30 years ago is still happening to children now. Destroycps! The '92 Waller story is not similar to what happened to Shelly in the early '70s. And that's twenty years not thirty. And the boyfriend was accused not the parent.

Shelley didn't appear to compare the specifics of Waller's case to her own,
only to suggest that abuse of children is a bad thing. Moreover, your math
is flawed. Since Ms. Terpstra was born in 1970 and this abuse clearly
happened during early childhood and this, after all 2003, then thirty years
would be a reasonable approximate period of time to note. Finally, the
boyfriend was actually convicted and, while I don't know what happened to
the mother, it's clear from other informational sources that she allowed
this abuse to be perpetrated.

Shelly Gov. Tom Vilsack has publicly spoken of his own childhood abuse. I want to know what he is going to do about this deadly trend in the failure to protect this state's children. Abuse is an outrage and a disgrace to Iowa and to the parents who do care for and protect their children. Destroycps! What is the author suggesting should be done about this "deadly trend"? Take more kids and put them in more foster custody?

No, I think it's clear she's suggesting that DHS needs to do a better job of
identifying real abuse cases and making sure that those children are saved
from further peril.

Shelly The innocent should not die because the government programs, policies and legislation do not have the time, money or workers to protect children. Destroycps! This a list of stuff, but the drift is that insufficient support is given to CPS. But CPS has gobs of money, and it's a very, very large part of the government.

The question of whether DHS requires more funds (or needs to spend what they
have more effectively) is a legitimate one for debate. But suggesting DHS
in Iowa as some sort of "for profit" agency is inaccurate. (see
http://www.dmregister.com/news/stori.../19868914.html to see
comments on some of the more recent problems with DHS in Iowa, including
some comments on the Duis case).

[ianf2]

I don't know what cloistered environment *you* live in, but the homeless

and

destitute are on the increase in both the UK and Oz.

Okay, is below supposed to be your proof?

More and more, the

mentally ill are falling through the "safety net".
A recent study showed that in any one night, there was as many as 200 kids (many of them mentally ill) living rough in the city centre of Brisbane. This did not account for the suburbs. Eight years ago there was approx 20

to

30.

Uhm you mention a single study (no names or copies of said study)
I will for the sake of argument accept and believe your posted numbers of
200 kids in the city center of brisbane,
but whats some previous counts? (its bad, but for a city of such population,
in the past wouldn't 200 be a small number? "whats the trend? is it getting
worse, prove it, please"

to go from 20-30 -200 seems a bit too vague,, (what studies are you
referring?)

(anyone heard any KKK activity lately, or skinheads??, been getting better) They are just getting better at escaping the bad publicity. The "right

wing"

is on the rise, going unseen through the "establishment". Think of the politics of those who control the media. They are those who I would call "candy flavoured fascists". They have the "brains" to be able to polish their image but their foot soldiers are waiting in the wings.

Hmmm maybe just the fact that you admit they are better at hiding is a good
thing,, so now the KKK and their ilks have to hide?? that is a sign of some
improvement,,
just the fact that such a tactic change has occured is cool
F#ck'em let them hide in the shadows,
I allow bigots to exist, as long as they don't bother me,,,

Nurses are cool, I like them, a very thankless job,, (I bet they will be more appreciated as the majority of population needs more and more healthcare professionals,,,,,,

Wrong, they will be *less* appreciated. As the health care system comes under more and more pressure from an ageing population and a lack of funding, so then will queues get longer and tempers more frayed (as is already happening).

Maybe, but when ya gotta ask nicely to get someone to empty yer bedpan, or
ya got bedsoars and need to be turned, amazing how polite ya can get!!!

In one respect, I applaud your otimism, in another, I view it as I would view apathy. A failure to see the problems is as harmful as seeing them,

but

doing nothing to address them.

I agree that many problems, exist, I agree I am expressing a rather
optimistic view (corona n marguerita's here) but um I am worried about
alienating a majority and hurting the few groups who currently exist, IMHO
that is why in US Dems, lost presidency and the control they seemed to have
in the US, social issues coming to the front, are good, food shelter the
basic human requirements are being met more and more,,even in the 3rd world,
Africa! is slowly coming into her own without british rule, (ya we all
stumble, but africa may rise to world power,,their is potential) Korea, I
would never have thought the US would be negotiating with N Korea on
anything,,, Vietnam and the word reunification,, the Germans tearing down
the wall,,,,,, (I am in awe)

IMHO "world order" is heading for a "big fall" and we all know how the

likes

of Mussolini and Hitler came to power........on the desire for so-called "order".

I think things are not so dreary, I believe the world is more orderly than
ever, (am I wrong ? the internet has brought us togather from many places,
and become a rather free public forum, eventually all may join for free and
speak, pretty f#ckin cool!, even my grandma email's
intitially I was very ,,,upset with newbies, n lamers, I believed that if ya
could be hacked ya should be, I had a jaded view, stupid people just kept
hooging my bandwith, getting my ISP banned on IRC, and just pissing me off,
but to see the broad range of opinions, the small comunities connecting,,, )

When absolute power is concentrated in the hands of a few then the

potential

for abuse is unlimited.

Too true, but a select few will always be in control.
(Would you assume the responsibility? At what cost?)
I believe if you could do something better prove it,,,,,
If a idea warrants respect others will follow,,,

[Destroycps!]

Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!!

Destroycps!

The burden is always on the affirmative. The article was published in a newspaper and then you posted it to a newsgroup. It's fair game for criticism. It is essentially uncorroborated pity-me testimonial on a personal subject matter that is fraught with inexactness and imagination.

Henry W. Moritz

D-said, she said, eh? OK. Given the choice of believing a story she

has

related based on personal experience versus your left field

speculation,

I'll go with her version.

Destroycps!
Yes, the story relates personal experiences. How does that make it
credible? Lots of people relate personal experiences of flying saucers
and mating with an aliens. You can believe those too if you want. You
can take whatever you want and call it truth, but that doesn't improve
its objective value.

A critical reader has to analyze what he or she reads and determine
veracity. The stamp of someone's "related. personal experience" counts
for little - particularly on this subject. This is not an irresolvable
clash of differing opinions. The burden is on the affirmative.

Henry

I wouldn't [question anybody's recollections about anything that far

back]. I'm > older than Shelly and I remember a number of things from

that point in my life. Moreover, her memories of abuse would hardly

be the

stuff of casual existence, but rather shocking events indelibly

rendered in

her memories.

Destroycps!
Despite your remarkable abilities, childhood perceptions *and* childhood
memories are notoriously unreliable. A four-year-old can't give reliable
testimony even a day after an event let alone after decades. Kids have
trouble distinguishing reality form fantasy, and they are easily
influenced.

But Shelly wasn't primarily working from memory. She was constructing
the story and basing it on what she had heard from other people. She
might have seen a caseworker report too. At least that's how she
presented it.

Destroycps!

In hercase, since her current family is probably adversarial to her

original,

and since her tone is one of someone seeking sympathy, I grant her a

low

level of credibility.

Henry

So because her childhood was to be pitied, she has low credibility?

Destroycps!
It's a factor. People seeking sympathy often exaggerate their cause to
get a better return.

Henry

C'mon. How does one relate such a story without eliciting sympathy? Also, I

don't

shee that her relationship to her "family" has any bearing on

credibility,

either.

Destroycps!
It's very common for an adopter/foster family to talk disparagingly
about the natural family. In court, the foster contractors are always
witnesses _for_ the state and _against_ the parents. CPS pits the
fosters against the parents, and CPS pays the fosters. You think all
these fosters adhere to principles?

And I didn't say anything about Shelley's "relationship" with her
foster/adopter family. I said her current family was probably
adversarial to her natural family.

Henry

Regardless, you don't have any reasons whatsoever to question her relationship with her family.

Destroycps!
I'm having some trouble determining whether you mean her adoptive/foster
family or her natural family when you say "her family". But I didn't
question her relationship with either. I didn't discuss it.

Henry

In her article she seems to view her adoptive family positively. Although she doesn't specifically say, the

language she

uses seems to suggest that she doesn't have contact with her birth

mother.

But there isn't anything in her piece that leads the reader one way or another regarding the rest of her biological relationships.

Destroycps!
Typically, all relationships to the natural family are severed in a CPS
adoption. But what's that have to do with anything? She doesn't mention
any relationship with anybody in her natural family. You're building on
your own tangent.

Destroycps!

I would be more comfortable assessing the value of this story if I

had

also heard from Shelley's mother.

Henry

Well, sure, because it's easier to deny stuff like this happens than actually have to deal with someone that actually experienced it.

Destroycps!
When a story is questionable and includes criticism of one party by
another, it's reasonable to want to hear both sides.

And ease of dealing with something would not be sufficient cause for me
to unjustifiably deny that something. As you can see, I have dealt
extensively with her article.

Destroycps!

Shelly also talks about events before she was ten. That was when her life was "literally saved" by a TPR after apparently six years in

foster

custody. The influence of her abandoning-mother should have been

minimal

at that point.

Henry

But it was clear from the article that the mother had substantial

influence

after she was removed. She mentioned unsupervised visits

(questionable in a

substantiated abuse situation) and efforts to return her.

Destroycps!
First, nothing is "clear form the article". Second, there's nothing to
indicate Shelly's mother had substantial influence post removal. Third,
where does it say there was "substantiated abuse"[1]? You are now
buttressing Shelly's story with exaggerations of your own.

[1]Shelly mentions verbal abuse and also talks of her mother saying to
the court she would hurt Shelly if the court returned Shelly to her
mother. She also claims non-specific neglect. And she implies medical
neglect regarding her brother. That's all.

Destroycps!

But we do know that this subject matter isfull of untruths,

Henry

No we don't [know that this subject matter is full of untruths].

Destroycps!
I suppose it's possible you are so naive or blind that you accept child
abuse/neglect stories as fact when you hear them. That policy would work
most of the time. At least it would work as long as you weren't the
accusee.

Henry

You don't point to any untruths in her story

Destroycps!
I've pointed to a number of things that demerit its acceptability. Some
of those things are untruths.

Henry

and we know that abuse *does* happen.

Destroycps!
I don't understand your argument. We know some balls are red. That
doesn't mean a particular ball is red.

Henry

In fact, her experience was less excruciating than that of several children I know.

Destroycps!
Again, I don't understand what argument you are making.

Henry

[Reports are] only confidential as long as the people involved with

them keep > them

so. We can only speculate how she got the report, but it's easy to

come

with plausible scenarios of how she could.

Destroycps!
If her story is based on a case report, then it's a worthless story.
Case reports are an atypical type of evidence. By sheer volume, and now
by routine, they circumvent cross-examination that testimony would get.
And so as a legal workaround, they are admitted as evidence in court
with restrictions. Then, these restrictions are then subsequently
ignored. What this reduces to is that case reports can lie and get away
with it.

And so they do. There's really no other evidence in other courts like
case reports.

Destroycps!

Questioning the identity of a source is legitimate in analyzing a story for truthfulness.

Henry

True, but you don't have anything other than speculation to question

her

veracity. Hence, since it's she-said, "D" said... like I said...I

feel

she's being truthful.

Destroycps!
Again, the burden is on the affirmative. (Don't you subscribe to that
principle?) I could say there's a green monster behind the moon. Without
something to support that, it's just a declaration. And you could
legitimately contest my veracity on those grounds.

And I don't know how you define "speculation", but having speculation is
not how I'm questioning her veracity. Questioning, doubting, and
pointing out oddities, inconstancies, and garbage stats, mocking
exaggeration, and pointing out her tone are not speculation. Something
like "maybe she found out from a bio relative " is speculation.
Something like assuming there was a "substantiated abuse situation" is
speculation. Something like "the mother had substantial influence after
she was removed" is speculation. Something like "untreated injuries" is
speculation.

By the way, you saying that Shelley said "her life was changed" by the
TPR isn't speculation. It's imagination.

Henry

Isn't it possible that this could have happened?

Destroycps!

It's *possible* that she's the Queen of England.

Henry

Well, no, it's not *possible* that she's the Queen of England. After

all,

we know who the Queen of England is and she's not a young adult living

in

Iowa City.

Destroycps!
From a logical point of view, It's certainly *possible* she's the Queen
of England. You're giving absolute credibility to particularly chosen
attributes that conflict with the Queen possibility. Those attributes
haven't been confirmed.

In any case, my argument was that "possibility" and "believability" are
not the same and shouldn't be. You can show lots of things are possible.

Henry

No, I don't think you are [concerned with higher level of credibility than possibility]. I think you're concerned with discrediting anyone that would bring up the possibility that some children suffer terrible abuse, unless of course it's an evil foster parent doing it.

Destroycps!
Not at all. I discredit what's deserving of discredit. That piece was
riddled with holes. You could go on saying that it's deserving of a
Pulitzer; it doesn't help it.

Next time, find something better; this one was too easy.

Destroycps!

My doubts stem from characteristics I've already mentioned: The nature of the subject matter; the oldness of her memories; the tone of her cry; and her lack of attribution.

Henry

Once again, so if a person was subject to abuse (unreasonable) in her childhood (too old) and she doesn't present copious evidence for

everyone to

pour over and question her about, she *must* be lying...or wrong...or something. After all, it just couldn't have happened? Right?

Destroycps!
It's a poorly written piece that shouldn't be used to influence policy
or opinion. You should have picked something better to post in the first
place. I don't know about your commitment, but I'm moving on.

Destroycps!

And "gangrene on face"? Didn't that strike you as unusual? It

requires a

bit more explanation.

Henry

Yes, but then all abuse is unusual,

Destroycps!
"Gangrene on [the kid's] face" smacks of a CPS concocted abuse. There's
a system wide stylistic regularity with case reports. The authors have
similar neurosis, and they're partial to similar disgusting things. The
insert of a somewhat medical term "gangrene" is also characteristic. For
example, Munchausen by proxy is another condition CPSers like to write
about.

Maybe you could help us a bit and do some searching on "gangrene on
[wild card] face". Report back if you don't mind. It's not similar to
egg on the face, is it?

existence it would be for everyone. But she clearly noted that her
biological parents weren't capable of proper care and she implied severe
neglect, which is a plausible explanation for gangrene on untreated
injuries.

Destroycps!

"Singularly intent" implies I'm being excessive. I'm responding to

what

you are offering as fact and pointing out that it's questionable.

Henry

I never offered it as fact.

Destroycps!
You are staunchly defending Shelley's story as truthful and accurate.
This equates to offering it as fact.

Henry

I reprinted a story related by someone in an opinion piece. As with all opinion pieces, it's up to the reader to

form

their own opinion.

Destroycps!
Shelley's piece should not be allowed to escape scrutiny simply because
the news organization that published it elected to place it in the
opinion section.

Henry

I think this is a plausible story and more likely true than false. You obviously have formed your opinion also. I just

think your

reasoning is biased.

Destroycps!
Nothing moves forward if you say I have an opinion and you have an
opinion. You offered a story because it tried to persuade in a direction
you like. I think you like the anti-parent pro-adopter slant. For
reasons previously mentioned, it's a lousy story. Although you've given
it a commendable effort, you have failed to make the story objectively
acceptable.

Indeed, by digging in to defend, you're digging yourself in a deeper
hole. Refusing to yield on the obvious problems with the story gives you
the appearance of "my story right or wrong". You would be better off
starting over with something else.

Destroycps!

Did the kids go back to their mother?

Henry

No. They did not. It was tragic, but she would not explain the

severe

abuse that occurred to her daughter and she could not complete what, I

felt,

was a reasonable set of criteria to regain custody of her children

Destroycps!
I lack the info to argue specifics about the case of the kids you
fostered. But if CPS wanted the kids to go back, the kids would have
gone back. Are you saying CPS was advocating for the kid to go home, but
some other force, the court perhaps, prevented it? No, that's not what
you are saying. You're saying that in CPS's judgment, CPS shouldn't send
the kids home. And that's what it did.

It's very easy to find cases where the kids didn't go home. Then it's
easy to blame the parents for some omission. Parents themselves often
feel they are failures at the services, but if they can see other cases,
then they see that failure is the routine. Parents are wasting effort
when they try to succeed at services. CPS controls the services and so
can determine whom, if anyone, succeeds.

Destroycps!

Foster contractors often confuse CPS churning of a case with CPS intent of "keeping the bio family together". Cases stretch on for years so that the CPS contractors

can

use it to suck money from the system (that means indirectly from

other

people). There is no real intent by CPS to return kids. There is no monetary incentive whatsoever for CPS to keep families together. CPS

is

there to take families apart.

Henry

Nice diatribe. However, there was no confusion on my part as a foster parent.

Destroycps!
Perhaps you don't recognize your own confusion. At the time in history
when the general wisdom was that the world was flat, people didn't
recognize they were confused then either. It looks as though you're
given to believe what supports you're already-arrived-at conclusions and
you dismiss evidence to the contrary.

Destroycps!

The idea that CPS tires to preserve families is such a grossly false contention, I'm going to subject you to another paragraph here.

Henry

Oh, joy. More demagoguery.

Destroycps!
Demagoguery is a false plea that uses emotion or prejudice of the
audience to persuade. (Perhaps you are using a different definition.)
CPS regularly uses demagoguery. It appeals to people's emotional
instincts to protect the young. It claims it is a white knight saving
kids from brutal parents, and it asks for support on those grounds.
That's demagoguery. Show me where I have used this strategy.

Henry

In Shelly's case they apparently did. In our case, I know they did [make efforts toward reunification].

Destroycps!
Why would CPS try to preserve a family?

CPS operates under an irresolvable conflict of interest. On the one
side: natural law promotes the intactness of the family; instinct favors
the family; certain morals recognize a family should be immune from
interference; and the United States child welfare laws have a underlying
spirit of keeping a family intact. On the other side, CPS gets paid to
take kids, that is, divide a family. That's the side that wins, but CPS
must give lip service to reunification line.

I don't know what went on in the situation of the parents of the kids
you fostered and, I suppose, adopted. But if CPS in that situation
wanted to send the kids home, it would have made it happen. You say the
mother didn't complete criteria, a service I assume. Well CPS always
says that, whether the parents did or not.

Destroycps!

CPS doesn't promote visits.

Henry

They did in Shelly's case.

Destroycps!
I have just pointed out several inadequacies, inconsistencies, and
peculiarities in her story that all make it unreliable. At the very
least, you should recognize that *I* find it unreliable. Now you cite it
as evidence to me?

You can quit using Shelly's case. It's worthless as persuasion. Maybe it
makes you feel better about yourself when you advocate for CPS, but
that's giving yourself a false pat of approval.

Henry

They did with the foster kids in our care.

Destroycps!
Well, okay. I can examine the case of the kids you fostered. Was there a
court order for visits? Do you, by any chance, have any of the
pleadings? (I'm not saying you should, but you might. Usually a case has
mountains of paper on the visits.)

Henry

They have with children in the care of other foster parents we know. So much for preposterous blanket statements.

Destroycps!
I can counter that with my knowledge of numerous cases in Missouri. It's
ludicrous to say CPS promotes visit. It's a primary area of contention.
Maybe that blanket is what you're stuffing your head under to keep
yourself deaf and blind. A motion by DFS or the GAL or the JO to stop
visits is standard procedure. Most of them are even worded the same way
except for changed in names, dates, bla-bla.

Would you at least be willing to admit that *if* there is(are) a CPS
motion(s) to stop or limit visits, then CPS can be termed to oppose
visits?

You're saying that although CPS takes kids, it really doesn't want to
and it tires to send them back, but those **** parents don't make
"reasonable criteria". If that's what you're saying, you are imbuing CPS
with the ability to hold two opposing positions at once.

But that's what they pretend to do legally. Concurrent planning is the
term. It means CPS is adopting a kid out and sending him or her home at
the same time. If you keep your head under that blanket of yours, you'll
believe CPS can miraculously do this.

Destroycps!

In many cases, CPS makes extensive and repetitive court motions to stop or curtail visits.

Henry
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they're wrong. I support efforts to fix
what
leads to improper situations. That said, based on my personal
experience,
on the whole, I believe they're often more right than wrong.

Destroycps!
That doesn't follow. You're not addressing what I said.

Destroycps!

The parents are the ones who want visits, and the general court policy is to grant at-most one hour per week.

Destroycps!

It's an absolute lie by CPS when it says it wants the parents to visit with their kids.

Henry

This is an incorrect blanket statement.

Destroycps!

And it's an absolute lie when CPS claims the "goal" is

reunification.

Henry

Another mistaken blanket statement.

Destroycps!
CPS gives all cases (excluding things like dead-parent situations) in
the beginning a nominal goal of reunification. The true goals are
churning the case legally, implementing "services", and eventual
adoption.

It's a racket.

Henry

She doesn't say [why her life was in jeopardy] .

Destroycps!

I was pointing out it was a stupid remark. Shelly's life wasn't

saved by

the TPR. Her condition actually remained unchanged by it, except

that

she was relabeled from a foster kid to an adopted kid.

Henry

How the heck would you know? She says her life was changed. All you

have

is your tendency to bring up left field attempts to discredit her and

a

rather outlandish proclivity to issue patently false blanket

statements.

I'll go with her version. You can stew in yours.

Destroycps!
She states her foster family adopted her, apparently the one she was
with for years. She also says that her mother had abandoned visiting her
years ago. If there was something that changed when she changed form a
foster to an adopted kid, she doesn't say what it was. That's how I
know, or more correctly, that's how I concluded her condition was
unchanged by the TPR.

Destroycps!

Shelly doesn't know when not to use a cliché exaggeration.

Henry

Perhaps she was gushing. The context of her statements don't explain

this

comment. Given that it was somewhat extreme, she probably should have> provided more information, but she didn't. That said, I believe she

thin>ks

that DHS intervention saved her life, but I wouldn't take it further

than

that.

Destroycps!
Nope. She singles out the TPR as a lifesaver. Even if we excuse her for
her hyperbole, we must still recognize she specifically praised the
order of TPR. She was not talking about the "intervention" which
happened many years prior.

Destroycps!

If you want to argue that something is "a specious theory at best",

you

need to say why you think so.

Henry

Well, for one thing, I think its specious because you have

specifically

suggested

Destroycps!
This is kind of irrelevant, but "specifically suggested"? Isn't that
oxy?

Henry

that Shelby Duis died because the DHS folks involved were too busy getting money,

Destroycps!
That isn't a criticism that merits the word "specious". "Specious" comes
from the same root as spectator. Something has to have the false *look*
of genuineness to be specious. But anyhow, I didn't say why Shelby Duis
died. I said the case, and like cases in other states, are erroneously
used to argue for more CPS. I said with a different angle of thought,
the case could be use to support a different point. I said there's no
monetary incentive for DHS, or any CPS, to find genuine abuse. CPS gets
paid for churning cases and taking kids, so that's what it does. I
didn't say, or mean to imply, that a different kind of DHS would have
prevented Duis's murder.

Henry

yet you really didn't support this position with any evidence other than general speculation.

Destroycps!
You're fond of that term "general speculation", but that's not what I've
been providing. My comments aren't generalized and I'm not speculating
on the funding methods of CPS.

Henry

Second, I think it's specious, because your position doesn't really hold water from an economic standpoint. If

DHS's

goal really was to generate money by removing children, then they

would have

removed Shelby Duis.

Destroycps!
Forgive me for drilling you on this, but "specious" is not synonymous
with "wrong". If you want to argue that I'm incorrect, then go ahead,
but don't say "specious" then. We all have to agree to use words in
certain pre-defined ways in order to successfully communicate.

But to respond.
Why bother when DHS can just as easily take any kid? DHS takes lots of
kids. It didn't stop taking kids when it got a report on Duis.

Henry

All of the tips on her abuse would have provided ample cover to justify removing the child.

Destroycps!
"Cover" is not that coveted by DHS. It manufactures cover whenever it
needs it. There's no public inspection of DHS.

Henry

Furthermore, it is unlikely that her mother would have mounted much of an legal challenge.

Destroycps!

DHS might have gotten around to Duis at some time. Meanwhile, the tree had lots of other apples to pick.

Henry

Thus, if revenue was their main focus, why would they ignore an "easy target" like Shelby Duis,

Destroycps!
DHS, or in general, CPS does indeed concentrate on easy targets. This
means the poor, the sick, and the unconnected. That it neglected a
particular easy target doesn't mean anything, except that it doesn't get
around to everybody right away.

And there's more to it than that. I'm not sure about DHS, but DFS over
here avoids going out to people's houses. That's right. It has a refined
strategy in kidnapping. They wait until the kid and the parent are
separated, such as while the kid's in school or at a hospital.

The Duis thing probably involved going out to a house.

Moreover, a case, inviting as it may be, still has to be selected and
acted upon.
This machinery to do this is inefficient. Nobody at DFS really cares
about kids. If they did, they wouldn't be working for DFS.

Henry

a child actually in danger and who could prove embarrassing to them if she was ultimately killed by abuse (which happened).

Destroycps!
CPS simply doesn't care. If a kid gets murdered at home, CPS actually
uses the case to advocate for more CPS. (I've made this point already.)
Over here, DFS uses the Bass case to promote itself. It bears some
similarities to Duis and is presented in the same way. "DFS" has
problems. Bass shows how terrible DFS is.therefore, DFS should get more
authority and DFS should take more kids, etc.

I swear, even though Bass is now long over the horizon, if you hear a
DFS person speak on TV for more than three minutes, they bring up the
Bass case. I can even turn this into a prediction. The next time a DFS
spokesperson does a more-than-three-minute spot on TV, she will bring up
Bass.

Destroycps!

[Duis] is commonly used by Iowa CPS to argue for the taking of kids

on

any pretext. "We can't allow another Shelby Duis," CPS will use as justification.

Henry

There is no doubt that public backlash against DHS' ineptitude in the Duis case resulted in politicians making a lot of statements and promises to cover their hind ends. This has no doubt led to some overzealous investigations and unwarranted interventions.

Destroycps!
I believe the DHS motto in the wake of the Duis was "When in doubt,
remove." Taking a kid is not a harmless state act. It's usually
permanent, and it sets a kid's life downhill path.

Henry

Every state CPS has a pet public case of this nature it uses in propaganda argument. These can be termed "failure to protect" cases,

and

the mentioning of them is often first cast as a criticism of CPS:

The

agency didn't do its job; There was incompetence in the agency. But

then

this criticism turns a bit: The well-meaning caseworkers are

overworked

and underpaid; Stupid laws restrict the authority of the CPS to save abused children; (And there's that ridiculous idea that families

should

be kept together.) In the end, a "failure" of the agency is twisted

into

an argument to give it more authority, freedom, confidentiality, and budget.

Henry

There is some danger of this happening. However, in general, I

believe most

caseworkers are well-initentioned

Destroycps!
*Puke!* Caseworkers, who really are only low-level players, are some of
the most neurotic dishonest people there are.

Henry

and I believe most agencies desire to keep families together.

Destroycps!
And Attila the Hun only wanted peace.

Henry

She doesn't cite her sources, thus it's unclear about what she

meant.

Destroycps!

Thus, it's unsupported junk. In fact, it's wrong.

Henry

Look who's spouting unsupported junk now. You state she's wrong, but you don't support your assertions any more than she does.

Destroycps!
Burden on affirmative.

Henry

Now I don't know if she's wrong, because she didn't cite sources.

Destroycps!
That should be reason enough.

Henry

However, there have been citations in popular press for 22% (e.g.,

http://editorialmatters.lee.net/arti...s/anews138.txt

Destroycps!
That's an article reporting DHS stats about numbers of *reports*. Nobody
knows if DHS is giving accurate numbers; abuse and neglect are
undefined; reports go up in response to promotions like TV ads; and
these are just reports, that is, call-ins. Over here, DFS itself, in its
own admission, is the one who makes a large proportion of those hotline
calls. I'm not kidding.

Henry

and there are other sources for child abuse data in Iowa where you can get that number (e.g.,

http://www.pcaiowa.org/reports/sp01-02newsletter.pdf, see confirmed
cases
rising from 9930 in 2000 to 12117 in 2001.

Indeed, Iowa has seen a dramatic increase in the number of confirmed cases of abuse in the last 3 years. Of course, that doesn't mean there has been a huge change in human behavior.The hjgher numbers could mean, among other things that, there simply more kids moving into Iowa over the last three years, especially at lower income levels.

Destroycps!
Unlikely

Henry

Or it could mean that the definition of abuse has changed (I think abuse now includes things like manufacturing drugs in the presence of children). It could also mean that DHS has gotten more aggressive in determining substantiation, which could in turn either be

overzealousness or

correcting previous incompentence.

Destroycps!
Those points discredit her number.

Henry

Nevertheless, there is nothing positive in the fact that it's going up and going up dramatically. It suggests

that

we have gone wrong in several places and cries out for thorough and thoughtful investigation.

Destroycps!
In reality, _nothing_ can be concluded from a DHS made stat.

Henry

Except that Shelly didn't mention Cheryl's kid's case and nobody was discussing Cheryl's kid's case. You brought it up from left field.

My

point was (and still is) that Jonathan Waller was abused and it

happened.

Moreover, Waller's mother shared in the blame. She should have

prevented

the abuse against her son, but didn't.

Destroycps!

If Shelley included the mention of Waller just "to suggest abuse of children is a bad thing", then it is insufficiently relevant to her argument to support it.

Henry

Waller was abused. It was bad. Thus it's relevant.

Destroycps!
A moment ago you said the case I brought up was irrelevant; "from left
field" I think you said.

Henry

Her statement was, "What happened to me 30 years ago is still

happening to

children now." It was in a separate paragraph. It's a statement that stands on its own. She clearly was not tying it to the Waller or Duis

case.

However, since the Duis death was in 2000, she still could have

reasonably

used a figure of 30 years later. Thus her math was not flawed, you inference is.

Destroycps!
You are conceding that one of them, the one I complained about, is
significantly short of the thirty-year mark. You can't salvage it by
showing the other is almost thirty. If Shelly were reasonably careful,
she would have worded her representation differently.

Of course since she's perfect to you, you wouldn't agree. You'd rather
give her a break at every turn.

Destroycps!

Although Shelly correctly accuses the boyfriend, she fails to recognize the story is *not* one of parental abuse.

Henry

So what? Abuse is abuse. She's not zeroing in on parental abuse. She's saying all child abuse is bad.

Destroycps!
Where does she say that? And her theme is not simply about all abuse
bing bad.

Destroycps!

And there is a leap of logic if you equate "allowing" with an actual act.

Henry

I didn't equate the acts.

Destroycps!
Good. But CPS *does* equate these two in that CPS causes the same
consequences for either situation: it takes the kid.

As long as CPS has statutory authority to take kids for anything it can
construe as abuse or neglect, CPS will construe as it pleases, even with
indirect responsibility. Actually, ny extended logic, anybody can be
attached to the "allowing" chain.

I should point out here that CPS *doesn't even need* to find abuse or
neglect to take a kid. CPS can simply say the child is in need of "care
custody and support" that the (say) mother can't provide.

Henry
Clearly, the direct abuser is more culpable. But
make no mistake about it, an adult that allows a child to be abused in
such
a brutal fashion and doesn't do anything to stop it is certainly
responsible
to some extent.

Destroycps!
"Brutal fashion"?
The publicized cases are usually the ones with criminal charges
attached. Only a small proportion of CPS cases have collateral criminal
cases, and seldom is brutal abuse even alleged. CPS begins most or its
cases with a statement about some form of neglect. It doesn't need
anything worse for its purposes.

CPS is not out there saving crib-bound babies from club-wielding
parents.

Most "allowing" cases have nothing to do with brutal anything.

Henry
And if that person is the child's parent, then their
actions could very well cast serious doubt on their fitness as a parent.

Destroycps!

"Allowing" and *doing* are two different things. Allowing is open to speculation. What makes you think the mother in that case was

capable of

*not* allowing. Was she even there at the time? Actually, in my

limited

search, I didn't find the mother accused of "allowing". Jonathan was beat very badly, and he was taken to a hospital where he stayed

until he

died (albeit after a while). There wasn't a serious debate on his removal.

Henry

Actually, there was some debate on his removal, but DHS unfortunately decided not to act.

Destroycps!
There was no legal debate. That's what I meant. Legal involvement began
when Jonathan had already been badly beat up.

Destroycps!

"Allowing" is frequently used in CPS arguments to encompass an

innocent

parent into a circle of wrongdoing. Nowadays, anything done by a babysitter, or anybody for that matter, CPS can use to reflect badly

on

the parents. Indeed, current laws penalize the parents for

"allowing"

their kids to be in foster custody for more than fifteen months.

Henry

You have cited some rather extreme positions regarding "allowing" as a culpable factor,

Destroycps!
Actually I was thinking about some real cases.

Henry

but in both the Duis and Waller case, the mothers of those children had reason to believe abuse was being perpatrated and failed to act to protect the child.

Destroycps!
The type of "allowing" cases I'm talking about are vastly more common
than those two Shelly pulled from the archives.

Henry

First, nothing in my experience in dealing with DHS suggested actions motivated by a desire to increase revenues.

Destroycps!
You perceive things that way because you're keeping that blanket over
your head. It's all about money, control, and government's inherent
tendency to get larger.

Henry

I did see behaviors and policies which seemed to be motivated by a desire to save money,

Destroycps!
On what planet was that?

One early realization for someone learning about CPS is that they are
all similar. They all use similar people, they all are funded the same
way, and they use similar laws. The advantage of this for our purposes
is that I can talk about Missouri's DFS and what I say will be
applicable to DHS, with some limitations, of course.

DFS routinely "provides" therapy to parents and kids. The therapies go
by different names: anger management, relationship counseling,
individual therapy, family therapy, drug counseling, and so on. Kids as
young as three get therapy. Authorizations are usually twenty hours per
month but were forty per month in some instances. DFS pays around
$60/hour to the therapy company (which may be one individual or an
organization). Therapists declare travel time, waiting time, and other
non-face-to-face time.

The therapy expenses alone for one small family may exceed $100,000. Do
the multiplying yourself.

But this is small potatoes contrasted with the legal expenses.

Money doesn't work the same way in a government agency with access to
federal funds as it does with a private individual. When DFS spends
fungible money, it means its accomplices *make* money. DFS *wants* to
spend money. It doesn't come from the spenders pockets; it goes into the
spenders pockets.

Henry

which is consistent with DHS current budget woes.

Destroycps!
"Budget woes"? You seem to take on buzz phrases without thinking. DHS,
or any CPS, has a budget that would be the envy of most small countries.
CPSs spend fungible money, that is, money, uncapped money incidently,
that really comes from the fed not the state.

Henry

Second, the issues of budget woes is also not consistent with an organization that is supposedly driving revenues.
If they were a cash cow for the state and the state's objective was to only get money, then there wouldn't be much value to cutting

their

budget, would there?

Destroycps!
What budget cut are you referring to? The general trend is for a larger
and larger proportion of the economy to be allocated to human services.
It doesn't equal defense yet, but give it time.

Henry

Third, I have not seen any opulence associated with DHS.

Destroycps!
Maybe that's because you look at CPS from a foster's perspective.
Although foster/adoption money is significant to foster/adopters, CPS is
really just throwing peanuts in your direction. Owners of service
companies have opulence in their private lives. Alan Archer, of Alter
services in Kansas City regularly goes on gambling junkets, for example.

His company, a DFS contractor, provides therapists and parent aids for
DFS attackees. DFS is his only customer. (He might have recently
branched out to get SRS of Kansas as an additional customer.)

Henry

Their offices are small and cramped.

Destroycps!
Good. The better to contain an explosion.

Henry

None of the workers I knew were raking in any outlandish salaries.

Destroycps!
Workers are only a small part, But that said, if you want to learn what
their start-compensations are, goto the state job-req sites. The
caseworker salaries and benies are excellent for somebody with no real
marketable skills. If they could do better, they would. Private CPS
contractor caseworkers, such as those who work for Critenton
http://www.saint-lukes.org/Crittentonhp.asp
get a good third more than their state counterparts. (Except for the
prison-like architecture and ugly drug-the-kids doc the site featured,
it looks like an innocent web site, huh? .I take that back. It looks
creepy now that I look at it.)

Counselors get (if they are in business for themselves) around $60/hour
as I have said (info three years old).

Urine collectors get $40 per collection and $20 for a no show.

DFS Lawyers and GALs can contract for $135 pre billed hour.

I've got more info on this junk. Is there something in particular you
would like to know?

Henry
Fourth, although I have seen some
financial abuse by government officials to line their own pockets, I
believe
believe it to be the exception rather than the rule.

Destroycps!
Even at the lowest levels there's padding and fraud visible to even
parents. Considering this, and considering CPS is an inherently
dishonest organization, it's reasonable to assume fraud and padding go
up as you go up.

Henry

Finally, although I have seen specific behaviors undertaken in government that are related

to

revenue, such as spending budget to ensure a similar future budget and enacting laws or practices to get access to federal funds, the

decisions to

practice those behaviors were made with the overriding goal to provide better services as opposed to a general goal to somehow enrich DHS

workers.

Destroycps!
Actually, over here, and I assume there's a similar trend over there,
the CPS push is to get the money flowing to the "private sector". Your
focus on workers is a bit misdirected. Workers are crooks alright, but
they have less opportunity to be crooked than many others in other
positions.

Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!!

[Henry W. Moritz]

"Destroycps!" <Destroycps@email.com> wrote in message
news:aexOa.89276$Io.7778485@newsread2.prod.itd.ear thlink.net...

Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!

The burden is always on the affirmative. The article was published in a newspaper and then you posted it to a newsgroup. It's fair game for criticism. It is essentially uncorroborated pity-me testimonial on a personal subject matter that is fraught with inexactness and imagination.

Henry W. Moritz

D-said, she said, eh? OK. Given the choice of believing a story she

has

related based on personal experience versus your left field

speculation,

I'll go with her version.

Destroycps! Yes, the story relates personal experiences. How does that make it credible? Lots of people relate personal experiences of flying saucers and mating with an aliens. You can believe those too if you want. You can take whatever you want and call it truth, but that doesn't improve its objective value.

I don't believe that Ms. Terpstra's personal story of abuse is on a par with
with UFO's and extraterrestrial intercourse.

A critical reader has to analyze what he or she reads and determine veracity. The stamp of someone's "related. personal experience" counts for little - particularly on this subject. This is not an irresolvable clash of differing opinions. The burden is on the affirmative.

Yet, your criticism of her piece was filled with complete and one-sided
speculation. Most folks are able to read something personally related and
listen critically without going overboard either way.

Henry

I wouldn't [question anybody's recollections about anything that far

back]. I'm > older than Shelly and I remember a number of things from

that point in my life. Moreover, her memories of abuse would hardly

be the

stuff of casual existence, but rather shocking events indelibly

rendered in

her memories.

Destroycps! Despite your remarkable abilities, childhood perceptions *and* childhood memories are notoriously unreliable. A four-year-old can't give reliable testimony even a day after an event let alone after decades. Kids have trouble distinguishing reality form fantasy, and they are easily influenced.

I don't believe my abilities are particularly remarkable. Moreover, Ms.
Terpstra's experience continued from the age of 4 to the age of 10, not just
at 4. Finally, while it obvious that children's memories can be influenced,
that doesn't mean anybody that claims abuse as a child is automatically
suspect for fantastic memories.

But Shelly wasn't primarily working from memory. She was constructing the story and basing it on what she had heard from other people. She might have seen a caseworker report too. At least that's how she presented it. Destroycps!

In hercase, since her current family is probably adversarial to her

original,

and since her tone is one of someone seeking sympathy, I grant her a

low

level of credibility.

Henry

So because her childhood was to be pitied, she has low credibility?

Destroycps! It's a factor. People seeking sympathy often exaggerate their cause to get a better return.

Like you, perhaps?

Henry

C'mon. How does one relate such a story without eliciting sympathy? Also, I

don't

shee that her relationship to her "family" has any bearing on

credibility,

either.

Destroycps! It's very common for an adopter/foster family to talk disparagingly about the natural family. In court, the foster contractors are always witnesses _for_ the state and _against_ the parents. CPS pits the fosters against the parents, and CPS pays the fosters. You think all these fosters adhere to principles?

I think many foster parents adhere to principles. I think your
overgeneralizations are incorrect. But I also think most (not all)
substantied abuse cases are likely genuine cases of severe abuse. Hence,
most of the time foster parents will probably be witnesses for the state, if
indeed they are called as witnesses.

And I didn't say anything about Shelley's "relationship" with her foster/adopter family. I said her current family was probably adversarial to her natural family.

OK, I should have said "original family" or "biological family".
Regardless, what you are suggesting is that because the adoptive family is
probably "adversarial" to the "natural family" that the "natural family" has
somehow poisoned Shelley's mind with false information about her "natural
family". This obviously presupposes that (1) the information about
Shelley's removal must have been false (otherwise it would have supported
her credibility); (2) that all (or the vast majority) of foster/adoptive
families are liars (otherwise, this couldn't have affected her credibility);
and (3) that her main source of information must be from those
foster/adoptive parents or the agency itself (because, after all, if she got
it from other sources, that would mess up this theory). Forgive me, this is
quite a string of suppositions to question the credibility of a personal
account. Of course, this doesn't mean Ms. Terpstra's account is infallible,
it just means that your reasoning is circular and not at all convincing.

Henry

Regardless, you don't have any reasons whatsoever to question her relationship with her family.

Destroycps! I'm having some trouble determining whether you mean her adoptive/foster family or her natural family when you say "her family". But I didn't question her relationship with either. I didn't discuss it.

As noted above, I meant her relationship with her biological family. But I
beg to differ that you questioned her relationship. It has to be for your
theory of credibility to hold water. Shelley is part of her adoptive
family. If her adoptive family has a bad relationship with her biological
family, then that would affect her personal relationship as well.
Otherwise, you would have to assume that if she had a good relationship with
her biological family and your theory that her story is incredible would fly
out the window.

Henry

In her article she seems to view her adoptive family positively. Although she doesn't specifically say, the

language she

uses seems to suggest that she doesn't have contact with her birth

mother.

But there isn't anything in her piece that leads the reader one way or another regarding the rest of her biological relationships.

Destroycps! Typically, all relationships to the natural family are severed in a CPS adoption. But what's that have to do with anything? She doesn't mention any relationship with anybody in her natural family. You're building on your own tangent.

Actually, you brought up the tangent that a probable "adversarial"
relationship between her family and the original family was a reason for
questioning her credibility.

Destroycps!

I would be more comfortable assessing the value of this story if I

had

also heard from Shelley's mother.

Henry

Well, sure, because it's easier to deny stuff like this happens than actually have to deal with someone that actually experienced it.

Destroycps! When a story is questionable and includes criticism of one party by another, it's reasonable to want to hear both sides. And ease of dealing with something would not be sufficient cause for me to unjustifiably deny that something. As you can see, I have dealt extensively with her article.

Yes, you've dealt extensively with trying to destroy her credibility on the
basis of supposition.

Destroycps!

Shelly also talks about events before she was ten. That was when her life was "literally saved" by a TPR after apparently six years in

foster

custody. The influence of her abandoning-mother should have been

minimal

at that point.

Henry

But it was clear from the article that the mother had substantial

influence

after she was removed. She mentioned unsupervised visits

(questionable in a

substantiated abuse situation) and efforts to return her.

Destroycps! First, nothing is "clear form the article". Second, there's nothing to indicate Shelly's mother had substantial influence post removal.

Actually, the article quite clearly notes that she had unsupervised visits
with Shelley until she left the state. These visits typically have a *lot*
of influence on children.

Third, where does it say there was "substantiated abuse"[1]? You are now buttressing Shelly's story with exaggerations of your own. [1]Shelly mentions verbal abuse and also talks of her mother saying to the court she would hurt Shelly if the court returned Shelly to her mother. She also claims non-specific neglect. And she implies medical neglect regarding her brother. That's all.

I agree that there is nothing in the article that specifically states
substantiated abuse, at least as a legal term as it applies in Iowa.
However, you left out that she was abandoned by her mother and that she was
physically removed from her mother's custody several times, which suggested
to me substantied abuse. I suppose it's possible that all of this could
have happened without a finding of substantied abuse, but it seems unlikely.

Destroycps!

But we do know that this subject matter isfull of untruths,

Henry

No we don't [know that this subject matter is full of untruths].

Destroycps! I suppose it's possible you are so naive or blind that you accept child abuse/neglect stories as fact when you hear them.

No, I'm just not so wrapped up in my bitterness and self-pity that I
automatically reject stories of child abuse and neglect when I hear them. I
can rationally evaluate them based on my own experiences and knowledge and
assign a reasonable likelihood to them.

That policy would work most of the time. At least it would work as long as you weren't the accusee.
Henry

You don't point to any untruths in her story

Destroycps! I've pointed to a number of things that demerit its acceptability. Some of those things are untruths.

You have formed some debatable theories regarding her credibility. You have
not identified nor confirmed any untruths.

Henry

and we know that abuse *does* happen.

Destroycps! I don't understand your argument. We know some balls are red. That doesn't mean a particular ball is red.

Then I will elaborate. Your arguments appear to be so one-sided and
contrived as to suggest to me that you may believe that there is no abuse or
that actual cases of it are exceedingly rare. All of your arguments follow
from the presupposition that she must be wrong about the abuse in the first
place. My point was that actual abuse happens enough that this original
supposition that it couldn't have happened is not reasonable.

Henry

In fact, her experience was less excruciating than that of several children I know.

Destroycps! Again, I don't understand what argument you are making.

See above.

Henry

[Reports are] only confidential as long as the people involved with

them keep > them

so. We can only speculate how she got the report, but it's easy to

come

with plausible scenarios of how she could.

Destroycps! If her story is based on a case report, then it's a worthless story. Case reports are an atypical type of evidence. By sheer volume, and now by routine, they circumvent cross-examination that testimony would get. And so as a legal workaround, they are admitted as evidence in court with restrictions. Then, these restrictions are then subsequently ignored. What this reduces to is that case reports can lie and get away with it. And so they do. There's really no other evidence in other courts like case reports.

Okay, so because all case reports are full of deception then any story based
on one would be automatically be false?

Destroycps!

Questioning the identity of a source is legitimate in analyzing a story for truthfulness.

Henry

True, but you don't have anything other than speculation to question

her

veracity. Hence, since it's she-said, "D" said... like I said...I

feel

she's being truthful.

Destroycps! Again, the burden is on the affirmative. (Don't you subscribe to that principle?) I could say there's a green monster behind the moon. Without something to support that, it's just a declaration. And you could legitimately contest my veracity on those grounds.

Actually, since it's personal story relating events that she claims happened
to her, then it is evidence. You are, of course, free to dispute it, but it
is evidence nonetheless. For example, you are forced to invent reasons why
her memories are false. In contrast, your example of a green monster is
indeed just a declaration. Unless, of course, you also stated that you also
saw it personally. After all, all evidence, scientific or otherwise, are
simply observations by others. Then we would have to assess whether we
think you might have some credibility or not. Perhaps you might have
additional evidence (such a spaceship and video evidence) that would lead us
to give you more credibility thant a crackpot, perhaps not. In the end,
alas, we are back to our own to weigh that information provided to us and to
decide what we believe and whether the green monster is actually out there.

And I don't know how you define "speculation", but having speculation is not how I'm questioning her veracity. Questioning, doubting, and pointing out oddities, inconstancies, and garbage stats, mocking exaggeration, and pointing out her tone are not speculation.

It is when you have nothing more than supposition to back up these
questions.

Something like "maybe she found out from a bio relative " is speculation.

Which I freely admited to.

Something like assuming there was a "substantiated abuse situation" is speculation.

Indeed, although I feel a reasonable speculation.

Something like "the mother had substantial influence after she was removed" is speculation.

No, it was stated in the article that she had unsupervised visitation. This
is evidence of influence -- not speculation.

Something like "untreated injuries" is speculation.

This is also a reasonable speculation based on evidence provided that a
child had gangrene on his head.

By the way, you saying that Shelley said "her life was changed" by the TPR isn't speculation. It's imagination.

Nope, she said it "saved her life". Even if we allow for some possible
exaggeration, a TPR is life changing event no matter how you cut it.

Henry

> Isn't it possible that this could have happened?

Destroycps!

It's *possible* that she's the Queen of England.

Henry

Well, no, it's not *possible* that she's the Queen of England. After

all,

we know who the Queen of England is and she's not a young adult living

in

Iowa City.

Destroycps! From a logical point of view, It's certainly *possible* she's the Queen of England. You're giving absolute credibility to particularly chosen attributes that conflict with the Queen possibility. Those attributes haven't been confirmed.

Once again, it's down to what we believe based on available information
evidence, my experience, and my knowledge. The mass of evidence convices me
she's not possible that she's the Queen of England and so I say she's not
the Queen of England, so there. ;-) You, however, have not provided such a
mass of evidence to sufficiently discredit Ms. Terpstra's story.

In any case, my argument was that "possibility" and "believability" are not the same and shouldn't be. You can show lots of things are possible.

And you can believe lots of things that aren't true.

Henry

No, I don't think you are [concerned with higher level of credibility than possibility]. I think you're concerned with discrediting anyone that would bring up the possibility that some children suffer terrible abuse, unless of course it's an evil foster parent doing it.

Destroycps! Not at all. I discredit what's deserving of discredit. That piece was riddled with holes. You could go on saying that it's deserving of a Pulitzer; it doesn't help it.

Okay, now this is imagination. Nowhere do I equate her story with a
Pulitzer. I just think you're terribly biased and nothing you've presented
has yet to dissuade me from that point of view.

Next time, find something better; this one was too easy. Destroycps!

My doubts stem from characteristics I've already mentioned: The nature of the subject matter; the oldness of her memories; the tone of her cry; and her lack of attribution.

Henry

Once again, so if a person was subject to abuse (unreasonable) in her childhood (too old) and she doesn't present copious evidence for

everyone to

pour over and question her about, she *must* be lying...or wrong...or something. After all, it just couldn't have happened? Right?

Destroycps! It's a poorly written piece that shouldn't be used to influence policy or opinion. You should have picked something better to post in the first place. I don't know about your commitment, but I'm moving on.

As well you should, since you've only succeeded in laying bare just how
one-sided and prepossessed you are on child abuse issues.

Destroycps!

And "gangrene on face"? Didn't that strike you as unusual? It

requires a

bit more explanation.

Henry

Yes, but then all abuse is unusual,

Destroycps! "Gangrene on [the kid's] face" smacks of a CPS concocted abuse.

Or it simply could have been a doctor's diagnosis. Something must have been
wrong for the child to have been hospitalized.

There's a system wide stylistic regularity with case reports. The authors have similar neurosis, and they're partial to similar disgusting things. The insert of a somewhat medical term "gangrene" is also characteristic. For example, Munchausen by proxy is another condition CPSers like to write about.

Wouldn't have been a little stupid to put a fake medical diagnosis on a
report that would have been so easily rebutted by doctors reports from the
hospitalization?

Maybe you could help us a bit and do some searching on "gangrene on [wild card] face". Report back if you don't mind. It's not similar to egg on the face, is it?
existence it would be for everyone. But she clearly noted that her biological parents weren't capable of proper care and she implied severe neglect, which is a plausible explanation for gangrene on untreated injuries. Destroycps!

"Singularly intent" implies I'm being excessive. I'm responding to

what

you are offering as fact and pointing out that it's questionable.

Henry

I never offered it as fact.

Destroycps! You are staunchly defending Shelley's story as truthful and accurate. This equates to offering it as fact.

Nope, I'm saying I generally believe her story and I'm staunchly dimissing
your speculative attacks on her credibility. This is not the same as
stating that I belive that there story is inequivocally truthful and
accurate.

Henry

I reprinted a story related by someone in an opinion piece. As with all opinion pieces, it's up to the reader to

form

their own opinion.

Destroycps! Shelley's piece should not be allowed to escape scrutiny simply because the news organization that published it elected to place it in the opinion section.

That's why I said it's up to the reader to form their own opinion.

Henry

I think this is a plausible story and more likely true than false. You obviously have formed your opinion also. I just

think your

reasoning is biased.

Destroycps! Nothing moves forward if you say I have an opinion and you have an opinion. You offered a story because it tried to persuade in a direction you like. I think you like the anti-parent pro-adopter slant.

You're entitled to think what you want. For example, I think you're
obsessed.

For reasons previously mentioned, it's a lousy story. Although you've

given

it a commendable effort, you have failed to make the story objectively acceptable. Indeed, by digging in to defend, you're digging yourself in a deeper hole. Refusing to yield on the obvious problems with the story gives you the appearance of "my story right or wrong". You would be better off starting over with something else.

Interesting. So you're saying since I can't reasonably disagree with your
speculative arguments, then I *must* have a particular set of "anti-parent"
and "pro-adopter" beliefs and intents because of the "appearance" that
you've perceived?

Destroycps!

Did the kids go back to their mother?

Henry

No. They did not. It was tragic, but she would not explain the

severe

abuse that occurred to her daughter and she could not complete what, I

felt,

was a reasonable set of criteria to regain custody of her children

Destroycps! I lack the info to argue specifics about the case of the kids you fostered. But if CPS wanted the kids to go back, the kids would have gone back. Are you saying CPS was advocating for the kid to go home, but some other force, the court perhaps, prevented it? No, that's not what you are saying. You're saying that in CPS's judgment, CPS shouldn't send the kids home. And that's what it did.

You seem very intent on telling me what I'm saying. What I said was that
DHS made an honest effort to return the children, but that the mother's
behavior prevented it. And I'm saying that, in this case, I agreed with
their assessement, which also turned out to be the assessment of all the
involved therapists (both children's and mother's), the children's Guardian
Ad Litem, the extended biological family of the children that elected to get
involved, the mother's attorney, the mother herself, and the court.

It's very easy to find cases where the kids didn't go home. Then it's easy to blame the parents for some omission. Parents themselves often feel they are failures at the services, but if they can see other cases, then they see that failure is the routine. Parents are wasting effort when they try to succeed at services. CPS controls the services and so can determine whom, if anyone, succeeds. Destroycps!

Foster contractors often confuse CPS churning of a case with CPS intent of "keeping the bio family together". Cases stretch on for years so that the CPS contractors

can

use it to suck money from the system (that means indirectly from

other

people). There is no real intent by CPS to return kids. There is no monetary incentive whatsoever for CPS to keep families together. CPS

is

there to take families apart.

Henry

Nice diatribe. However, there was no confusion on my part as a foster parent.

Destroycps! Perhaps you don't recognize your own confusion. At the time in history when the general wisdom was that the world was flat, people didn't recognize they were confused then either. It looks as though you're given to believe what supports you're already-arrived-at conclusions and you dismiss evidence to the contrary.

Actually, that's what I was thinking about you. I don't know what led to
your vitriolic anger nor whether it was justified, but it's clear you're
unable to discuss such situations in a reasonable manner.

Destroycps!

The idea that CPS tires to preserve families is such a grossly false contention, I'm going to subject you to another paragraph here.

Henry

Oh, joy. More demagoguery.

Destroycps! Demagoguery is a false plea that uses emotion or prejudice of the audience to persuade. (Perhaps you are using a different definition.) CPS regularly uses demagoguery. It appeals to people's emotional instincts to protect the young. It claims it is a white knight saving kids from brutal parents, and it asks for support on those grounds. That's demagoguery. Show me where I have used this strategy.

I'm sorry, but it is self evident in most of everything you write.

Henry

In Shelly's case they apparently did. In our case, I know they did [make efforts toward reunification].

Destroycps! Why would CPS try to preserve a family?

Because that is the policy that has been set for them. In general, most
folks believe families should be preserved if possible. The beliefs of the
people form the policies of state institutions, which are supposed to
provide appropriate services to the people. Certainly, DHS might be
affected by factors which might improperly sway them from their prescribed
role, but there is clearly a reason why they would do what they are supposed
to do.

CPS operates under an irresolvable conflict of interest. On the one side: natural law promotes the intactness of the family; instinct favors the family; certain morals recognize a family should be immune from interference; and the United States child welfare laws have a underlying spirit of keeping a family intact. On the other side, CPS gets paid to take kids, that is, divide a family. That's the side that wins, but CPS must give lip service to reunification line. I don't know what went on in the situation of the parents of the kids you fostered and, I suppose, adopted. But if CPS in that situation wanted to send the kids home, it would have made it happen. You say the mother didn't complete criteria, a service I assume. Well CPS always says that, whether the parents did or not.

Well, if the criteria for return is reasonable and the parent doesn't
address the criteria, then why would DHS return the children anyway? That
would be nonsensical.

Destroycps!

CPS doesn't promote visits.

Henry

They did in Shelly's case.

Destroycps! I have just pointed out several inadequacies, inconsistencies, and peculiarities in her story that all make it unreliable. At the very least, you should recognize that *I* find it unreliable. Now you cite it as evidence to me?

Fine. Then in my experience, you are wrong and there are numerous examples
of DHS promoting visits. In Iowa I believe that are legally obligated to do
so.

You can quit using Shelly's case. It's worthless as persuasion. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself when you advocate for CPS, but that's giving yourself a false pat of approval. Henry

They did with the foster kids in our care.

Destroycps! Well, okay. I can examine the case of the kids you fostered. Was there a court order for visits? Do you, by any chance, have any of the pleadings?

I do have copies of the paperwork that I believe includes some of the
pleadings. However, without going back and digging through the paperwork, I
don't know if I have it all. That said, off the top of my head I don't
recall the visits being court-ordered. It doesn't mean there wasn't
visitations ordered by the court, it just means that I was fairly involved
in the whole process and I don't recall that occurring. I do recall being
told in foster training and by the caseworkers and therapists involved that
we were responsible for assisting with efforts to reunify the family and DHS
instituted visitations immediately upon placement.

(I'm not saying you should, but you might. Usually a case has mountains of paper on the visits.) Henry

They have with children in the care of other foster parents we know. So much for preposterous blanket statements.

Destroycps! I can counter that with my knowledge of numerous cases in Missouri. It's ludicrous to say CPS promotes visit. It's a primary area of contention.

What can I say. In our experience and those of other foster parents we
know, it was clear DHS was typically promoting visitation. It was unusual
when it wasn't advocated. And in our case, it was granted (supervised) even
though our oldest daughter experienced horrific abuse. If they had been
anxious to avoid it, it seems like they would have had grounds to protest
it.

Maybe that blanket is what you're stuffing your head under to keep yourself deaf and blind. A motion by DFS or the GAL or the JO to stop visits is standard procedure. Most of them are even worded the same way except for changed in names, dates, bla-bla. Would you at least be willing to admit that *if* there is(are) a CPS motion(s) to stop or limit visits, then CPS can be termed to oppose visits?

In specific instances, absolutely. I know of cases where DHS attempted to
block visitation, although I don't know the specifics of why. I wouldn't
doubt that there instances where DHS attempted to block visitation for
invalid reasons. I just don't agree with your contention that DHS always
opposes visitation.

You're saying that although CPS takes kids, it really doesn't want to and it tires to send them back, but those **** parents don't make "reasonable criteria". If that's what you're saying, you are imbuing CPS with the ability to hold two opposing positions at once.

I'm saying DHS should be facilitate removal of children when there is severe
concern regarding the safety of that child. I'm saying that those families
should be reunified if possible, assuming that the danger to the child has
been mitigated. I'm saying the "reasonable criteria" that should be used
should be directly and reasonably related to the mitigation of that danger.
And I'm saying that, if that danger can't be mitigated, then it may be
necessary, though tragic, to terminate parental rights. Finally, inasmuch
as these are all issues of human endeavor, they are inextricably linked with
emotion and the imperfection of human interaction.

But that's what they pretend to do legally. Concurrent planning is the term. It means CPS is adopting a kid out and sending him or her home at the same time. If you keep your head under that blanket of yours, you'll believe CPS can miraculously do this. Destroycps!

In many cases, CPS makes extensive and repetitive court motions to stop or curtail visits.

Henry Sometimes they do. Sometimes they're wrong. I support efforts to fix what leads to improper situations. That said, based on my personal experience, on the whole, I believe they're often more right than wrong. Destroycps! That doesn't follow. You're not addressing what I said. Destroycps!

The parents are the ones who want visits, and the general court policy is to grant at-most one hour per week.

Destroycps!

It's an absolute lie by CPS when it says it wants the parents to visit with their kids.

Henry

This is an incorrect blanket statement.

Destroycps!

And it's an absolute lie when CPS claims the "goal" is

reunification. Henry

Another mistaken blanket statement.

Destroycps! CPS gives all cases (excluding things like dead-parent situations) in the beginning a nominal goal of reunification. The true goals are churning the case legally, implementing "services", and eventual adoption. It's a racket. Henry

> She doesn't say [why her life was in jeopardy] .

Destroycps!

I was pointing out it was a stupid remark. Shelly's life wasn't

saved by

the TPR. Her condition actually remained unchanged by it, except

that

she was relabeled from a foster kid to an adopted kid.

Henry

How the heck would you know? She says her life was changed. All you

have

is your tendency to bring up left field attempts to discredit her and

a

rather outlandish proclivity to issue patently false blanket

statements.

I'll go with her version. You can stew in yours.

Destroycps! She states her foster family adopted her, apparently the one she was with for years.

We don't know that.

She also says that her mother had abandoned visiting her years ago.

We don't know that for sure, although the text could reasonably be read that
way.

If there was something that changed when she changed form a foster to an adopted kid, she doesn't say what it was. That's how I know, or more correctly, that's how I concluded her condition was unchanged by the TPR.

DOH! Forgive me, but what a Homer Simpson response. She's ten years old.
She knows whats happened to her. She's old enough to appreciate the
implications of adoption. Moreover, we don't know if she was in just one
home or many. Finally, she says it was a lifechanging response. What do
you want, and assessment from a therapist?

Destroycps!

Shelly doesn't know when not to use a cliché exaggeration.

Henry

Perhaps she was gushing. The context of her statements don't explain

this

comment. Given that it was somewhat extreme, she probably should have> provided more information, but she didn't. That said, I believe she

thin>ks

that DHS intervention saved her life, but I wouldn't take it further

than

that.

Destroycps! Nope. She singles out the TPR as a lifesaver.

No, she singles out the adoption as a lifesaver.

Even if we excuse her for her hyperbole, we must still recognize she specifically praised the order of TPR.

Indirectly, yes, she is showing apparent approval of the TPR.

She was not talking about the "intervention" which happened many years prior.

Well, see you don't know that. You're putting that in to provide yourself
with an easy bone to pick.

Destroycps!

If you want to argue that something is "a specious theory at best",

you

need to say why you think so.

Henry

Well, for one thing, I think its specious because you have

specifically

suggested

Destroycps! This is kind of irrelevant, but "specifically suggested"? Isn't that oxy?

No. A suggestion could be general or it could generated as an implication
as opposed to a specific suggestion. Get a grip...

Henry

that Shelby Duis died because the DHS folks involved were too busy getting money,

Destroycps! That isn't a criticism that merits the word "specious". "Specious" comes from the same root as spectator. Something has to have the false *look* of genuineness to be specious. But anyhow, I didn't say why Shelby Duis died. I said the case, and like cases in other states, are erroneously used to argue for more CPS. I said with a different angle of thought, the case could be use to support a different point. I said there's no monetary incentive for DHS, or any CPS, to find genuine abuse. CPS gets paid for churning cases and taking kids, so that's what it does. I didn't say, or mean to imply, that a different kind of DHS would have prevented Duis's murder.

You took a general theory of DHS behavior that you have spent much time
attempting to support and then projected it explain what happened in the
Duis case and then suggested that the Duis case could be an example of your
theory. In other words, you used theory to justify the example and then
argued you could use the example to justify the theory. This is circular
reasoning and requires some time to disentangle, in other words, it's
specious.

Henry

yet you really didn't support this position with any evidence other than general speculation.

Destroycps! You're fond of that term "general speculation", but that's not what I've been providing. My comments aren't generalized and I'm not speculating on the funding methods of CPS.

Yes you are.

Henry

Second, I think it's specious, because your position doesn't really hold water from an economic standpoint. If

DHS's

goal really was to generate money by removing children, then they

would have

removed Shelby Duis.

Destroycps! Forgive me for drilling you on this, but "specious" is not synonymous with "wrong". If you want to argue that I'm incorrect, then go ahead, but don't say "specious" then. We all have to agree to use words in certain pre-defined ways in order to successfully communicate.

As you pointed out, specious indicates and argument is wrong, but with the
specific connotation that the position in the wrong looks genuine when it
really isn't. You have tried to characterize all DHS's actions from an
economic point of view, picking and choosing those actions which match your
framework. However, you ignored other obvious problems with this framework.
I think you do so intentionally. So I think specious is an appropriate
description.

But to respond. Why bother when DHS can just as easily take any kid? DHS takes lots of kids. It didn't stop taking kids when it got a report on Duis. Henry

All of the tips on her abuse would have provided ample cover to justify removing the child.

Destroycps! "Cover" is not that coveted by DHS. It manufactures cover whenever it needs it. There's no public inspection of DHS.

But there is. The Duis case is but one example. Iowa just fired it's last
head of DHS.

Henry

Furthermore, it is unlikely that her mother would have mounted much of an legal challenge.

Destroycps!

DHS might have gotten around to Duis at some time. Meanwhile, the tree had lots of other apples to pick.

See, this is speculative.

Henry

Thus, if revenue was their main focus, why would they ignore an "easy target" like Shelby Duis,

Destroycps! DHS, or in general, CPS does indeed concentrate on easy targets. This means the poor, the sick, and the unconnected. That it neglected a particular easy target doesn't mean anything, except that it doesn't get around to everybody right away. And there's more to it than that. I'm not sure about DHS, but DFS over here avoids going out to people's houses. That's right. It has a refined strategy in kidnapping. They wait until the kid and the parent are separated, such as while the kid's in school or at a hospital. The Duis thing probably involved going out to a house. Moreover, a case, inviting as it may be, still has to be selected and acted upon. This machinery to do this is inefficient. Nobody at DFS really cares about kids. If they did, they wouldn't be working for DFS.

More circular reasoning.

Henry

a child actually in danger and who could prove embarrassing to them if she was ultimately killed by abuse (which happened).

Destroycps! CPS simply doesn't care. If a kid gets murdered at home, CPS actually uses the case to advocate for more CPS. (I've made this point already.) Over here, DFS uses the Bass case to promote itself. It bears some similarities to Duis and is presented in the same way. "DFS" has problems. Bass shows how terrible DFS is.therefore, DFS should get more authority and DFS should take more kids, etc. I swear, even though Bass is now long over the horizon, if you hear a DFS person speak on TV for more than three minutes, they bring up the Bass case. I can even turn this into a prediction. The next time a DFS spokesperson does a more-than-three-minute spot on TV, she will bring up Bass. Destroycps!

[Duis] is commonly used by Iowa CPS to argue for the taking of kids

on

any pretext. "We can't allow another Shelby Duis," CPS will use as justification.

Henry

There is no doubt that public backlash against DHS' ineptitude in the Duis case resulted in politicians making a lot of statements and promises to cover their hind ends. This has no doubt led to some overzealous investigations and unwarranted interventions.

Destroycps! I believe the DHS motto in the wake of the Duis was "When in doubt, remove." Taking a kid is not a harmless state act. It's usually permanent, and it sets a kid's life downhill path. Henry

Every state CPS has a pet public case of this nature it uses in propaganda argument. These can be termed "failure to protect" cases,

and

the mentioning of them is often first cast as a criticism of CPS:

The

agency didn't do its job; There was incompetence in the agency. But

then

this criticism turns a bit: The well-meaning caseworkers are

overworked

and underpaid; Stupid laws restrict the authority of the CPS to save abused children; (And there's that ridiculous idea that families

should

be kept together.) In the end, a "failure" of the agency is twisted

into

an argument to give it more authority, freedom, confidentiality, and budget.

Henry

There is some danger of this happening. However, in general, I

believe most

caseworkers are well-initentioned

Destroycps! *Puke!* Caseworkers, who really are only low-level players, are some of the most neurotic dishonest people there are. Henry

and I believe most agencies desire to keep families together.

Destroycps! And Attila the Hun only wanted peace. Henry

> She doesn't cite her sources, thus it's unclear about what she

meant. Destroycps!

Thus, it's unsupported junk. In fact, it's wrong.

Henry

Look who's spouting unsupported junk now. You state she's wrong, but you don't support your assertions any more than she does.

Destroycps! Burden on affirmative. Henry

Now I don't know if she's wrong, because she didn't cite sources.

Destroycps! That should be reason enough. Henry

However, there have been citations in popular press for 22% (e.g.,

http://editorialmatters.lee.net/arti...p_stories/anew
s138.txt

Destroycps! That's an article reporting DHS stats about numbers of *reports*. Nobody knows if DHS is giving accurate numbers; abuse and neglect are undefined; reports go up in response to promotions like TV ads; and these are just reports, that is, call-ins. Over here, DFS itself, in its own admission, is the one who makes a large proportion of those hotline calls. I'm not kidding. Henry

and there are other sources for child abuse data in Iowa where you can get that number (e.g.,

http://www.pcaiowa.org/reports/sp01-02newsletter.pdf, see confirmed cases rising from 9930 in 2000 to 12117 in 2001.

Indeed, Iowa has seen a dramatic increase in the number of confirmed cases of abuse in the last 3 years. Of course, that doesn't mean there has been a huge change in human behavior.The hjgher numbers could mean, among other things that, there simply more kids moving into Iowa over the last three years, especially at lower income levels.

Destroycps! Unlikely Henry

Or it could mean that the definition of abuse has changed (I think abuse now includes things like manufacturing drugs in the presence of children). It could also mean that DHS has gotten more aggressive in determining substantiation, which could in turn either be

overzealousness or

correcting previous incompentence.

Destroycps! Those points discredit her number.

Indeed. It would not be objective to not consider those possibilities.

Henry

Nevertheless, there is nothing positive in the fact that it's going up and going up dramatically. It suggests

that

we have gone wrong in several places and cries out for thorough and thoughtful investigation.

Destroycps! In reality, _nothing_ can be concluded from a DHS made stat. Henry

Except that Shelly didn't mention Cheryl's kid's case and nobody was discussing Cheryl's kid's case. You brought it up from left field.

My

point was (and still is) that Jonathan Waller was abused and it

happened.

Moreover, Waller's mother shared in the blame. She should have

prevented

the abuse against her son, but didn't.

Destroycps!

If Shelley included the mention of Waller just "to suggest abuse of children is a bad thing", then it is insufficiently relevant to her argument to support it.

Henry

Waller was abused. It was bad. Thus it's relevant.

Destroycps! A moment ago you said the case I brought up was irrelevant; "from left field" I think you said.

Yes, it was from left field. We were discussing Ms. Terpstra's article.
You inserted "Cheryl's" case out of the blue and proceeded to assert invalid
comparisons that had no relevance to the article. I don't know anything
about Cheryl's case. It sounds terrible. But you still failed to make it
relevant to the discussion.

Henry

Her statement was, "What happened to me 30 years ago is still

happening to

children now." It was in a separate paragraph. It's a statement that stands on its own. She clearly was not tying it to the Waller or Duis

case.

However, since the Duis death was in 2000, she still could have

reasonably

used a figure of 30 years later. Thus her math was not flawed, you inference is.

Destroycps! You are conceding that one of them, the one I complained about, is significantly short of the thirty-year mark. You can't salvage it by showing the other is almost thirty. If Shelly were reasonably careful, she would have worded her representation differently. Of course since she's perfect to you, you wouldn't agree. You'd rather give her a break at every turn.

You have lectured me on critical discussion. Let me return the favor. When
you use unintentional ambiguity to purposively construct the most unlikely
or ridiculous premise for a writer's position, you are constructing a
"straw-man" which you can then knock down with great gusto and righteous
indignation. You are apparently very adept at building strawmen and
apparently not above ridiculing me for not looking the other way.

Destroycps!

Although Shelly correctly accuses the boyfriend, she fails to recognize the story is *not* one of parental abuse.

Henry

So what? Abuse is abuse. She's not zeroing in on parental abuse. She's saying all child abuse is bad.

Destroycps! Where does she say that? And her theme is not simply about all abuse bing bad.

It's strongly implied. Her theme was abuse still happens and it shouldn't.
She certainly implied that abuse is bad. I mean, when would abuse be good?

Destroycps!

And there is a leap of logic if you equate "allowing" with an actual act.

Henry

I didn't equate the acts.

Destroycps! Good. But CPS *does* equate these two in that CPS causes the same consequences for either situation: it takes the kid. As long as CPS has statutory authority to take kids for anything it can construe as abuse or neglect, CPS will construe as it pleases, even with indirect responsibility. Actually, ny extended logic, anybody can be attached to the "allowing" chain. I should point out here that CPS *doesn't even need* to find abuse or neglect to take a kid. CPS can simply say the child is in need of "care custody and support" that the (say) mother can't provide. Henry Clearly, the direct abuser is more culpable. But make no mistake about it, an adult that allows a child to be abused in such a brutal fashion and doesn't do anything to stop it is certainly responsible to some extent. Destroycps! "Brutal fashion"? The publicized cases are usually the ones with criminal charges attached. Only a small proportion of CPS cases have collateral criminal cases, and seldom is brutal abuse even alleged. CPS begins most or its cases with a statement about some form of neglect. It doesn't need anything worse for its purposes.

I believe we were still, at least tangentially, discussing topics related to
Shelly's citation of the Waller case. That was certainly brutal and the
"brutal fashion" to which I was referring.

CPS is not out there saving crib-bound babies from club-wielding parents. Most "allowing" cases have nothing to do with brutal anything. Henry And if that person is the child's parent, then their actions could very well cast serious doubt on their fitness as a parent. Destroycps!

"Allowing" and *doing* are two different things. Allowing is open to speculation. What makes you think the mother in that case was

capable of

*not* allowing. Was she even there at the time? Actually, in my

limited

search, I didn't find the mother accused of "allowing". Jonathan was beat very badly, and he was taken to a hospital where he stayed

until he

died (albeit after a while). There wasn't a serious debate on his removal.

Henry

Actually, there was some debate on his removal, but DHS unfortunately decided not to act.

Destroycps! There was no legal debate. That's what I meant. Legal involvement began when Jonathan had already been badly beat up. Destroycps!

"Allowing" is frequently used in CPS arguments to encompass an

innocent

parent into a circle of wrongdoing. Nowadays, anything done by a babysitter, or anybody for that matter, CPS can use to reflect badly

on

the parents. Indeed, current laws penalize the parents for

"allowing"

their kids to be in foster custody for more than fifteen months.

Henry

You have cited some rather extreme positions regarding "allowing" as a culpable factor,

Destroycps! Actually I was thinking about some real cases. Henry

but in both the Duis and Waller case, the mothers of those children had reason to believe abuse was being perpatrated and failed to act to protect the child.

Destroycps! The type of "allowing" cases I'm talking about are vastly more common than those two Shelly pulled from the archives. Henry

First, nothing in my experience in dealing with DHS suggested actions motivated by a desire to increase revenues.

Destroycps! You perceive things that way because you're keeping that blanket over your head. It's all about money, control, and government's inherent tendency to get larger. Henry

I did see behaviors and policies which seemed to be motivated by a desire to save money,

Destroycps! On what planet was that? One early realization for someone learning about CPS is that they are all similar. They all use similar people, they all are funded the same way, and they use similar laws. The advantage of this for our purposes is that I can talk about Missouri's DFS and what I say will be applicable to DHS, with some limitations, of course. DFS routinely "provides" therapy to parents and kids. The therapies go by different names: anger management, relationship counseling, individual therapy, family therapy, drug counseling, and so on. Kids as young as three get therapy. Authorizations are usually twenty hours per month but were forty per month in some instances. DFS pays around $60/hour to the therapy company (which may be one individual or an organization). Therapists declare travel time, waiting time, and other non-face-to-face time. The therapy expenses alone for one small family may exceed $100,000. Do the multiplying yourself. But this is small potatoes contrasted with the legal expenses. Money doesn't work the same way in a government agency with access to federal funds as it does with a private individual. When DFS spends fungible money, it means its accomplices *make* money. DFS *wants* to spend money. It doesn't come from the spenders pockets; it goes into the spenders pockets. Henry

which is consistent with DHS current budget woes.

Destroycps! "Budget woes"? You seem to take on buzz phrases without thinking. DHS, or any CPS, has a budget that would be the envy of most small countries. CPSs spend fungible money, that is, money, uncapped money incidently, that really comes from the fed not the state. Henry

Second, the issues of budget woes is also not consistent with an organization that is supposedly driving revenues. If they were a cash cow for the state and the state's objective was to only get money, then there wouldn't be much value to cutting

their

budget, would there?

Destroycps! What budget cut are you referring to? The general trend is for a larger and larger proportion of the economy to be allocated to human services. It doesn't equal defense yet, but give it time. Henry

Third, I have not seen any opulence associated with DHS.

Destroycps! Maybe that's because you look at CPS from a foster's perspective. Although foster/adoption money is significant to foster/adopters, CPS is really just throwing peanuts in your direction. Owners of service companies have opulence in their private lives. Alan Archer, of Alter services in Kansas City regularly goes on gambling junkets, for example. His company, a DFS contractor, provides therapists and parent aids for DFS attackees. DFS is his only customer. (He might have recently branched out to get SRS of Kansas as an additional customer.) Henry

Their offices are small and cramped.

Destroycps! Good. The better to contain an explosion. Henry

None of the workers I knew were raking in any outlandish salaries.

Destroycps! Workers are only a small part, But that said, if you want to learn what their start-compensations are, goto the state job-req sites. The caseworker salaries and benies are excellent for somebody with no real marketable skills. If they could do better, they would. Private CPS contractor caseworkers, such as those who work for Critenton http://www.saint-lukes.org/Crittentonhp.asp get a good third more than their state counterparts. (Except for the prison-like architecture and ugly drug-the-kids doc the site featured, it looks like an innocent web site, huh? .I take that back. It looks creepy now that I look at it.) Counselors get (if they are in business for themselves) around $60/hour as I have said (info three years old). Urine collectors get $40 per collection and $20 for a no show. DFS Lawyers and GALs can contract for $135 pre billed hour. I've got more info on this junk. Is there something in particular you would like to know? Henry Fourth, although I have seen some financial abuse by government officials to line their own pockets, I believe believe it to be the exception rather than the rule. Destroycps! Even at the lowest levels there's padding and fraud visible to even parents. Considering this, and considering CPS is an inherently dishonest organization, it's reasonable to assume fraud and padding go up as you go up. Henry

Finally, although I have seen specific behaviors undertaken in government that are related

to

revenue, such as spending budget to ensure a similar future budget and enacting laws or practices to get access to federal funds, the

decisions to

practice those behaviors were made with the overriding goal to provide better services as opposed to a general goal to somehow enrich DHS

workers. Destroycps! Actually, over here, and I assume there's a similar trend over there, the CPS push is to get the money flowing to the "private sector". Your focus on workers is a bit misdirected. Workers are crooks alright, but they have less opportunity to be crooked than many others in other positions. Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but I don't find your explanations compelling.

[Destroycps!]

Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!!

Destroycps!

Yes, the story relates personal experiences. How does that make it credible? Lots of people relate personal experiences of flying saucers and mating with an aliens. You can believe those too if you want. You can take whatever you want and call it truth, but that doesn't improve its objective value.

Henry W. Moritz

I don't believe that Ms. Terpstra's personal story of abuse is on a par with with UFO's and extraterrestrial intercourse.

Destroycps!
It's on par insofar as having the same basis for credibility. Both
situations are portrayed as a "related personal experience". You were
giving Shelley's story credibility-merit on those grounds. I'm showing
that those grounds, "related personal experience", don't count for
much.

Destroycps!

A critical reader has to analyze what he or she reads and determine veracity. The stamp of someone's "related. personal experience" counts for little - particularly on this subject. This is not an irresolvable clash of differing opinions. The burden is on the affirmative.

Henry

Yet, your criticism of her piece was filled with complete and one-sided speculation. Most folks are able to read something personally related and listen critically without going overboard either way.

Destroycps!
You use this same technique in several of your responses. You just lob
a criticism, maybe even apologize for it, but then you don't support
your criticism with anything. You seem to believe you are
accomplishing something. Perhaps it gives you a sort-of satisfaction.

Anyway, "overboard" to you is disagreeing with you. And all you are
doing is that saying what I'm saying is wrong. You have to state *why"
you think so. If you don't, your comment is worthless.

Destroycps!

Despite your remarkable abilities, childhood perceptions *and* childhood memories are notoriously unreliable. A four-year-old can't give reliable testimony even a day after an event let alone after decades. Kids have trouble distinguishing reality form fantasy, and they are easily influenced.

Henry

I don't believe my abilities are particularly remarkable. Moreover, Ms. Terpstra's experience continued from the age of 4 to the age of 10, not just at 4.

Destroycps!
The related experience she had with her natural family was before
four. The critical elements of the story are from that period. Ten was
the adoption with the fosters. I don't dispute her memory that that
happened.

In any case, if she is using memory, its only early-childhood memory…
I already know how you're going to handle this. You're going to say
you think that memory is accurate, and then you're going to leave us
hanging. Why don't you try presenting some study that says
early-childhood memory is accurate? You should be able to find
*something*. At least if you did that, your argument would appear to
have some logic behind it.

Henry

Finally, while it obvious that children's memories can be influenced, that doesn't mean anybody that claims abuse as a child is automatically suspect for fantastic memories.

Destroycps!
Yes, when childhood memories from a particular party are used as
evidence to make a case against parents and a case for adoption in a
piece that is slanted entirely in that direction, yes, they should be
automatically suspect.

Destroycps!

It's very common for an adopter/foster family to talk disparagingly about the natural family. In court, the foster contractors are always witnesses _for_ the state and _against_ the parents. CPS pits the fosters against the parents, and CPS pays the fosters. You think all these fosters adhere to principles?

Henry

I think many foster parents adhere to principles. I think your overgeneralizations are incorrect.

Destroycps!
Again, another blank bullet. Well, I think you're incorrect too! So
there! … You see, noting is accomplished by shooting blanks except a
little noise.

Henry

But I also think most (not all) substantied abuse cases are likely genuine cases of severe abuse.

Destroycps!
"Substantiated" is an ambiguous term. In places where CPS uses term,
it isn't indicative of a legal finding, it means only that CPS says it
substantiated something but not exactly what. Actually, in Missouri,
DFS and the courts don't use the term at all.

(In certain circumstances the term "unsubstantiated is used" but
"substantiated", as I said, isn't used at all.)

In Missouri, something analogous to the "substantiated" label of other
states may be "services indicated". But still, that would just be DFS
saying something, and there certainly doesn't need to be "abuse" for
such a label.

You seem to be under a basic misapprehension of how family court CPS
cases proceed. People, lots of people, not-necessarily fosters, assume
the CPS secret courts are similar to the much-better-known criminal
public courts. People assume there's a similar burden for the state in
each, and people assume generally accepted principles of justice are
accepted throughout both systems. But these courts are different.

In a criminal court, there has to be a predefined act (in some cases
this may be an "act" of omission but we'll ignore those for this
explanation) that the state must legally prove happened. Additionally,
the state, that is, the prosecution, must then prove the defendant is
responsible for the commission of the act. These required "proofs" are
referred to as the prosecutorial burden. The standard of proof is
"reasonable doubt"

CPS courts are much different and more complex, and I don't claim to
be able to accurately summarize how they work in just a few
paragraphs. But

CPS courts (that's the term I'll use for JV, TR, and related family
court case actions that involve, in Missouri, DFS) the burden for
removal is essentially nonexistent. Only the state is present, it's
not a hearing in the true sense of the word, and DFS simply alleges a
condition, "The child is at risk because…". DFS always "wins" these
actions because nobody else is there to oppose.

The next hurdle DFS must overcome is what's called here the
"protective custody" hearing. This is supposed to happen within ten
days and the parents are supposed to be notified. Most of the time
this happens. At this hearing, the parents usually aren't even
represented, and the commissioner doesn't let the parents talk, let
alone testify. It's kind of like an arraignment in a criminal
proceeding. Naturally, there's no hope of a parent "winning" at such a
hearing.

I could go on. The next hearing is usually around the six-month point.
Do you get the idea? Among other advantages, CPS never has to prove
something happened.

Before I leave this "substantiated" subject, I will offer one more
clarification for you: Even CPS doesn't claim "most substantiated [in
places where the term is used] cases are… severe abuse".

Henry

I also think most (not all) substantied abuse cases are likely genuine cases of severe abuse. Hence, most of the time foster parents will probably be witnesses for the state, if indeed they are called as witnesses.

Destroycps!
Apparently, you are conceding that foster contractors testify for CPS,
but you are providing an cause-consequence explanation why that is so.
But I can't see how your consequence sentence follows self-evidently
form your cause sentence. Also, as I have already explained,
"substantiated" certainly doesn't mean "genuine cases of severe
abuse". Therefore, your cause sentence isn't valid either.

Henry

Regardless, you don't have any reasons whatsoever to question her relationship with her family.
Destroycps! I'm having some trouble determining whether you mean her adoptive/foster family or her natural family when you say "her family". But I didn't question her relationship with either. I didn't discuss it.

Henry

As noted above, I meant her relationship with her biological family.

Destroycps!
So you're saying I "don't have any reasons…to question her
relationship with her [you mean her biological] family? I don't know…
I could answer this section now as you wrote it, but I think I should
give you an opportunity to rewrite it. I don't think it expresses what
you want to say.


Henry

But I beg to differ that you questioned her relationship. It has to be for your theory of credibility to hold water. Shelley is part of her adoptive family. If her adoptive family has a bad relationship with her biological family, then that would affect her personal relationship as well. Otherwise, you would have to assume that if she had a good relationship with her biological family and your theory that her story is incredible would fly out the window.

Destroycps!
As I said, I didn't discuss her relationship with either family, and
you can't say I must have done so. This is particularly true since you
have a different idea of what my perceptions are than I have myself.

I would suppose her attitude toward (I'm using that phrase) her
natural family is bitter. That's what I get from her piece. Isn't that
what you got?

Henry

Actually, you brought up the tangent that a probable "adversarial" relationship between her family and the original family was a reason for questioning her credibility.

Destroycps!
The "position" the foster/adopter family relative to the natural
family, which I said is probably adversarial, is not the same as the
"relationship" Shelley has with either family. And I didn't bring that
up at all; consequently, didn't bring it up as a tangent.

Henry

it's easier to deny stuff like this happens than actually have to deal with someone that actually experienced it.

Destroycps!

... As you can see, I have dealt extensively with her article.

Henry

Yes, you've dealt extensively with trying to destroy her credibility on the basis of supposition.

Destroycps!
If you concede that I "dealt extensively with trying to destroy her
credibility", then you can't say that I avoided dealing with it. You
are apparently equating "dealing with" with "believing", and *to you*
since I don't believe, then I don't "deal with". Are those your
definitions and your line of reasoning?


Henry

But it was clear from the article that the mother had substantial influence

after she was removed. She mentioned unsupervised visits

(questionable in a

substantiated abuse situation) and efforts to return her.

Destroycps!

First, nothing is "clear form the article". Second, there's nothing to indicate Shelly's mother had substantial influence post removal.

Henry

Actually, the article quite clearly notes

Destroycps!
You said, "clear form the article". That's different from "clearly
notes". I guess you mean "says" when you use the second phrase. I
agree that the article *says* some things.

Henry

that she had unsupervised visits with Shelley until she left the state. These visits typically have a *lot* of influence on children.

Destroycps
The visits stopped long before she was adopted. You're making up more
stuff. You have to work with what you have. If she didn't ever say her
mother had "substantial influence", then you can't manufacture it with
a dubious inference and then count it as a fact to build upon.

Henry

I agree that there is nothing in the article that specifically states substantiated abuse, at least as a legal term as it applies in Iowa.

Destroycps
I'm interested to learn what exactly it means as a legal term in Iowa.

Henry

However, you left out that she was abandoned by her mother

Destroycps
That's not "severe abuse" either. That doesn't' support your
assumption of "severe abuse".
Furthermore, as I pointed out before, it's difficult to consolidate
the idea of abandonment with Shelly's report that the mother continued
to visit for a number of months. Parents who abandon their kids don't
visit them, unless you use an unusual meaning for "abandon".

Henry

and that she was physically removed from her mother's custody several times, which suggested to me substantied abuse.

Destroycps
(I'm beginning to wonder if you throw around adjectives with "abuse"
and hope they sound good. A second ago, you were on "server" abuse.
Now you're trying "substantiated" abuse. Neither one had any basis,
and I'm not clear what you mean {apparently you have your own
meanings} by your terms.)

See my section on "substantiated". And removal, certainly *repetitive*
removal, doesn't suggest serious (I'm using that word to help you with
your adjectives) abuse.

Henry

I suppose it's possible that all of this could have happened without a finding of substantied abuse, but it seems unlikely.

Destroycps
You don't know what's likely or unlikely because CPS cases are behind
a cloak of secrecy.

(If your CPS system is so wonderful, why does it hide everything?)

And in this context, you must be careful using the word "finding".
"Finding" is a legal term meaning somewhat different things in
different situations. At certain points in cases in Missouri (at
least), the word is used elliptically, meaning things like a finding
of jurisdiction.

I probably shouldn't have said that. It just complicates things, but
understanding CPS cases requires an understanding of the argot.

Henry

No, I'm [for those of you who just tuned in, Henry is accusing me – he's not talking about himself] just not so wrapped up in my bitterness and self-pity

Destroycps
What makes you think that? I haven't once said anything pitiable about
myself. In fact, I haven't said anything about myself. I would say I'm
"hostile" alright, but that's different. You've done this again and
again in this exchange. You simply make an accusatory comment out of
the air and then run. I hesitate to say this again, but you have to
back up what you say. What did I say that showed self-pity?

Henry

that I automatically reject

Destroycps
Hardly automatic. I used critical analysis.

Henry

stories of child abuse and neglect when I hear them. I can rationally evaluate them based on my own experiences and knowledge and assign a reasonable likelihood to them.

Destroycps
Well, good for you, but again, you've shot another blank. You're
saying nothing to support your position except that you used your
experiences and knowledge to arrive there. Everybody does that.

Henry

You have formed some debatable theories regarding her credibility. You have not identified nor confirmed any untruths.

Destroycps
"22%" is a definite untruth. Your postulating how she could have come
up with the figure doesn't help its validity. Moreover, several other
items have questionable truth to them. Those are what I've been
pointing out. But anyhow, the burden isn't mine.

Henry

and we know that abuse *does* happen.

Destroycps!

I don't understand your argument. We know some balls are red. That doesn't mean a particular ball is red.

Henry

Then I will elaborate. Your arguments appear to be so one-sided

Destroycps!
I would hope my arguments are one-sided! Am I supposed to argue for
the opposite position simultaneously?

But by the way, how does your elaboration follow the line of thought?


Henry

and contrived as to suggest to me that you may believe that there is no abuse or that actual cases of it are exceedingly rare. All of your arguments follow from the presupposition that she must be wrong about the abuse in the first place.

Destroycps!
Not quite. I'm saying the story is not credible. I never made that
premise to construct an argument.

Henry

My point was that actual abuse happens

Destroycps!
You can quite saying that. I grant that. But from that nothing in
particular about Shelley's story follows.

Destroycps!

…There's really no other evidence in other courts like case reports.

Henry

Okay, so because all case reports are full of deception then any story based on one would be automatically be false?

Destroycps!
Show me any case report, and I'll show you dishonesty. I wonder if
you've ever even read one. Fosters generally don't get copies. And
fosters are unlikely to ask the parents for theirs.

Destroycps!

Again, the burden is on the affirmative. (Don't you subscribe to that principle?) I could say there's a green monster behind the moon. Without something to support that, it's just a declaration. And you could legitimately contest my veracity on those grounds.

Henry

Actually, since it's personal story relating events that she claims happened to her, then it is evidence. You are, of course, free to dispute it, but it is evidence nonetheless. For example, you are forced to invent reasons why her memories are false. In contrast, your example of a green monster is indeed just a declaration. Unless, of course, you also stated that you also saw it personally. After all, all evidence, scientific or otherwise, are simply observations by others. Then we would have to assess whether we think you might have some credibility or not. Perhaps you might have additional evidence (such a spaceship and video evidence) that would lead us to give you more credibility than a crackpot, perhaps not. In the end, alas, we are back to our own to weigh that information provided to us and to decide what we believe and whether the green monster is actually out there.

Destroycps!
A reasonable person would conclude, for practical purposes, that there
was no green monster behind the moon. This reasonable person would not
need to offer evidence that there was no monster because this person
doesn't have the burden.

Destroycps!

And I don't know how you define "speculation", but having speculation is not how I'm questioning her veracity. Questioning, doubting, and pointing out oddities, inconstancies, and garbage stats, mocking exaggeration, and pointing out her tone are not speculation.

Henry

It is when you have nothing more than supposition to back up these questions.

Destroycps!
Let me understand what you are saying: Questioning something's
validity is speculation when it's backed up with only supposition? And
that's what you're saying I'm doing?

Destroycps!

Something like assuming there was a "substantiated abuse situation" is speculation.•

Henry

Indeed, although I feel a reasonable speculation.

Destroycps!
Since there are many more cases regarding neglect than abuse, it's not
a reasonable speculation. Moreover, "substantiating" is not a
requirement of a CPS case.

Destroycps!

Something like "the mother had substantial influence after she was removed" is speculation.

Henry

No, it was stated in the article that she had unsupervised visitation. This is evidence of influence -- not speculation.

Destroycps!
*"substantial influence"* is speculation. Now in an effort to salvage
your speculation, you appear to be downgrading it to just "influence"
without it being "substantial". I can grant that since everything has
influence. But "influence" at that level doesn't support your
argument.

Destroycps!

Something like "untreated injuries" is speculation.

Henry

This is also a reasonable speculation based on evidence provided that a child had gangrene on his head.

Destroycps!
It that what your search turned up?

No. You can't now justify speculations simply by now giving it your
stamp of "reasonable". Haven't I told you enough already? ___You have
to back up what you say or else it's useless__. You have to say why
it's reasonable. I've already asked you to find some reference for for
gangrene on the face and you haven't provided anything. Since this has
gone a few exchanges already, you've had plenty of opportunity.

Indeed, your suggested cause is not a reasonable speculation. Even a
medical professional having the patient in his or her presence would
be hesitant to speculate on a cause. This is not a common condition at
all, if it was there at all.

(The only gangrene on the face I can think of is Michael Jackson's
nose. I didn't find that with a search engine.)

Henry

we know who the Queen of England is and she's not a young adult living

Destroycps!

From a logical point of view, It's certainly *possible* she's the Queen of England. You're giving absolute credibility to particularly chosen attributes that conflict with the Queen possibility. Those attributes haven't been confirmed.

Henry

Once again, it's down to what we believe based on available information evidence, my experience, and my knowledge. The mass of evidence convices me she's not possible that she's the Queen of England and so I say she's not the Queen of England, so there. ;-) You, however, have not provided such a mass of evidence to sufficiently discredit Ms. Terpstra's story.

Destroycps!
I don't need to provide a mass of evidence, because as I have said
before, the burden is on the affirmative. I have pointed out
shortcomings in her story (I'm not going to enumerate them again). I
have also provided some evidence in the form of facts we should agree
on that are true, such as the secrecy of CPS hearings and the standard
inclination of fosters in court testimony.



Destroycps!

In any case, my argument was that "possibility" and "believability" are not the same and shouldn't be. You can show lots of things are possible.

Henry

And you can believe lots of things that aren't true.

Destroycps!
That's a retort to my last statement, but it doesn't follow in the
discussion.

Destroycps!

Not at all. I discredit what's deserving of discredit. That piece was riddled with holes. You could go on saying that it's deserving of a Pulitzer; it doesn't help it.

Henry

Okay, now this is imagination. Nowhere do I equate her story with a Pulitzer.

Destroycps!
I made a literary exaggeration to help you see you are ridiculously
backing a piece that is just the opposite of Pulitzer quality.

Henry

I just think you're terribly biased and nothing you've presented has yet to dissuade me from that point of view.

Destroycps!
<sarc>Yet another laser-accurate and irrefutable analysis by
Henry.</sarc>

Destroycps!

It's a poorly written piece that shouldn't be used to influence policy or opinion. You should have picked something better to post in the first place. I don't know about your commitment, but I'm moving on.

Henry

As well you should, since you've only succeeded in laying bare just how one-sided and prepossessed you are on child abuse issues.

Destroycps!
CPSers should be killed, blinded, or have some limbs cut off. I make
no secret that that's my opinion.

Henry

Or it simply could have been a doctor's diagnosis. Something must have been wrong for the child to have been hospitalized.

Destroycps!
The comment about "hospitalized" came in the next sentence after the
gangrene comment. You can't use that as supporting evidence since it's
from the same source and just further describes the supposed malady.

Saying someone has a broken leg and saying someone was hospitalized
for a broken leg are equally valid or invalid. Adding "Hospitalized"
doesn't improve veracity of a statement.

Henry

Wouldn't have been a little stupid to put a fake medical diagnosis on a report that would have been so easily rebutted by doctors reports from the hospitalization?

Destroycps!
CPS does it all the time (I can almost say every time). It's not easy
to rebut anything. And as I said, case reports are a special kind of
evidence.

Destroycps!

You are staunchly defending Shelley's story as truthful and accurate. This equates to offering it as fact.

Henry

Nope, I'm saying I generally believe her story and I'm staunchly dimissing your speculative attacks on her credibility. This is not the same as stating that I belive that there story is inequivocally truthful and accurate.

Destroycps!
So you're saying it lies somewhere between fact and non-fact?

Destroycps!

Shelley's piece should not be allowed to escape scrutiny simply because the news organization that published it elected to place it in the opinion section.

Henry

That's why I said it's up to the reader to form their own opinion.

Destroycps!
That's not an escape clause now (unless it means you're backing down).
Your efforts are definitely to persuade towards accepting her story
and the conclusions it comes to.


Henry

You're entitled to think what you want. For example, I think you're obsessed.

Destroycps!
Blank bullet.

Henry

Interesting. So you're saying since I can't reasonably disagree with your speculative arguments, then I *must* have a particular set of "anti-parent" and "pro-adopter" beliefs and intents because of the "appearance" that you've perceived?

Destroycps!
You're obviously "pro-adopter". Are you disputing that? And you
certainly look anti-parent. I don't have time to look it up; did you
ever make a pro-parent comment in a ng posting?

Destroycps!

I lack the info to argue specifics about the case of the kids you fostered. But if CPS wanted the kids to go back, the kids would have gone back. Are you saying CPS was advocating for the kid to go home, but some other force, the court perhaps, prevented it? No, that's not what you are saying. You're saying that in CPS's judgment, CPS shouldn't send the kids home. And that's what it did.

Henry

You seem very intent on telling me what I'm saying. What I said was that DHS made an honest effort to return the children, but that the mother's behavior prevented it. And I'm saying that, in this case, I agreed with their assessement, which also turned out to be the assessment of all the involved therapists (both children's and mother's), the children's Guardian Ad Litem, the extended biological family of the children that elected to get involved, the mother's attorney, the mother herself, and the court.

Destroycps!
If the mother herself agreed to the termination, it was an uncontested
termination. Are you saying she changed her mind form wanting the kids
back to not wanting that?





Henry

I don't know what led to your vitriolic anger nor whether it was justified, but it's clear you're unable to discuss such situations in a reasonable manner.

Destroycps!
You're shooting blanks. You do that a lot. You have to back up a
accusation with some substance.


Henry

Oh, joy. More demagoguery.

Destroycps!

Demagoguery is a false plea that uses emotion or prejudice of the audience to persuade. (Perhaps you are using a different definition.) CPS regularly uses demagoguery. It appeals to people's emotional instincts to protect the young. It claims it is a white knight saving kids from brutal parents, and it asks for support on those grounds. That's demagoguery. Show me where I have used this strategy.

Henry

I'm sorry, but it is self evident in most of everything you write.

Destroycps!
I said show me.

Destroycps!

Why would CPS try to preserve a family?

Henry

Because that is the policy that has been set for them. In general, most folks believe families should be preserved if possible. The beliefs of the people form the policies of state institutions, which are supposed to provide appropriate services to the people. Certainly, DHS might be affected by factors which might improperly sway them from their prescribed role, but there is clearly a reason why they would do what they are supposed to do.

Destroycps!
Let me paraphrase this exchange.

I say CPS is not doing what it is supposed to do because there is no
motivation to do so.

You say that CPS does what it is "supposed to do" because that's what
it's supposed to do.

Do you recognize that there might be some problem with your argument?


Henry

Well, if the criteria for return is reasonable and the parent doesn't address the criteria, then why would DHS return the children anyway? That would be nonsensical.

Destroycps!
There never is any "criteria for return". CPS loads the parents down
with "services" and the implicit deal is that if you do this, they you
get your kids back. But invariably experienced CPSers don't make the
mistake of making an explicit deal. CPSers adopt a linguistically safe
construction to avoid explicit deals coming back to haunt them: "If
you don't do this, then you won't get your kids back."

A service plan never has CPS's commitment attached. And legally, since
there is no trade, a promise for a promise, it is not an agreement.

A reasonable, but uninitiated, person may rightly be inquisitive in a
particular case about *why* the kids weren't returned. To this person,
CPS can cite anything, usually an uncompleted service. But if the
parent *did* complete the service, he or she *still* wouldn't have
gotten his or her kids back.

CPS rigs it so the parent cannot win.

Since you seem to dispute everything anti-CPS, I will offer a
challenge as proof. If "criteria" (as you put it) were so important,
don't you think it would be written down somewhere? Show me a CPS
document that says if you do this, this, and this, you will get your
kids back.

Destroycps!

> CPS doesn't promote visits.

Henry

They did in Shelly's case.

Destroycps!

I have just pointed out several inadequacies, inconsistencies, and peculiarities in her story that all make it unreliable. At the very least, you should recognize that *I* find it unreliable. Now you cite it as evidence to me?

Henry

Fine. Then in my experience, you are wrong and there are numerous examples of DHS promoting visits. In Iowa I believe that are legally obligated to do so.

Destroycps!
I never heard of a statute in any state saying CPS was obligated to
promote visits. Unless there's case law or a consent decree particular
to your state saying that, they probably aren't obligated unless
there's an order. But there would normally be an order.

Henry

I do have copies of the paperwork that I believe includes some of the pleadings. However, without going back and digging through the paperwork, I don't know if I have it all. That said, off the top of my head I don't recall the visits being court-ordered.

Destroycps!
It will be in the next or the same hearing as the stipulation or the
finding of jurisdiction or dependency (whatever term your state uses).

Destroycps!

Would you at least be willing to admit that *if* there is(are) a CPS motion(s) to stop or limit visits, then CPS can be termed to oppose visits?
In specific instances, absolutely. I know of cases where DHS attempted to block visitation, although I don't know the specifics of why. I wouldn't doubt that there instances where DHS attempted to block visitation for invalid reasons. I just don't agree with your contention that DHS always opposes visitation.

Destroycps!
I suppose there are rare cases where CPS discovers that the mother is
actually the daughter of a Senator or something, and then they have to
promote visits…well, I take that back, in that situation, CPS would
just give the kid back. It wouldn't need to promote visits. Well, I
just thought of another one. CPS might want to give back some kids to
some retards to have something to show. In that case CPS would promote
visits. And in some situations, CPS may need some maligning info to
report on the parents. It may need a stage of a visit to provide
something to report on.Yes, you are right, CPS doesn't always oppose
visits.

The fact is, it's a routine motion and motion response in CPS cases.
CPS moves to end or limit the visits; the parents respond by saying
the child is in no harm by the visits. This is, by the way, one of the
few motion battles that the parents usually win if they are together
enough to fight.

I don't have stats on what percentage of cases have motions to stop
visits. Nobody does. I'll ask for an estimate from an attorney and
I'll report back.

Destroycps!

You're saying that although CPS takes kids, it really doesn't want to and it tires to send them back, but those **** parents don't make "reasonable criteria". If that's what you're saying, you are imbuing CPS with the ability to hold two opposing positions at once.

Henry

I'm saying DHS should be facilitate removal of children when there is severe concern regarding the safety of that child. I'm saying that those families should be reunified if possible, assuming that the danger to the child has been mitigated. I'm saying the "reasonable criteria" that should be used should be directly and reasonably related to the mitigation of that danger. And I'm saying that, if that danger can't be mitigated, then it may be necessary, though tragic, to terminate parental rights. Finally, inasmuch as these are all issues of human endeavor, they are inextricably linked with emotion and the imperfection of human interaction.

Destroycps!
That's a nice description of what CPS is supposed to do, but you
didn't address the conflict of interest argument. How can CPS promote
two opposite plans at once?

Destroycps!

She states her foster family adopted her, apparently the one she was with for years.
We don't know that.

Destroycps!
I said "apparently". I still say "apparently". You admit it is the
apparent situation. What's the quibble?

She also says that her mother had abandoned visiting her years ago.

Henry

We don't know that for sure, although the text could reasonably be read that way.

Destroycps!
Just so this is clearly understood, "a number of months" after she was
four would reasonably indicate years before she was ten. It's a
working assumption.

Therefore, she is saying her mother had abandoned visiting her years
before her adoption, and the influence of her mother at the time of
the adoption could not have changed much by that adoption.

Destroycps!

If there was something that changed when she changed form a foster to an adopted kid, she doesn't say what it was. That's how I know, or more correctly, that's how I concluded her condition was unchanged by the TPR.

Henry

DOH! Forgive me, but what a Homer Simpson response. She's ten years old. She knows whats happened to her. She's old enough to appreciate the implications of adoption. Moreover, we don't know if she was in just one home or many. Finally, she says it was a lifechanging response.

Where does she say that? She doesn't say anything about a change, and
in most cases there is no change. She says her fosters adopted her.
That's what happens in lots of cases. That's not a physical change and
it shouldn't be an attitude change either. If some fosters love a kid,
they shouldn't love or not love a kid more when the paperwork changes.

Henry

What do you want, and assessment from a therapist?

Destroycps!
That's of course sarcastic of you, but we don't need a therapeutic
assessment. We are discussing what she wrote. What she wrote is
already there.

Destroycps!

She was not talking about the "intervention" which happened many years prior.

Henry

Well, see you don't know that. You're putting that in to provide yourself with an easy bone to pick.

Destroycps!
She stated what she was talking about, the legal adoption. She also
stated when CPS became involved with her family and when she
permanently ended up "in another" foster home. I didn't put any of
that in.

I don't understand how you come up with your criticisms. You just
throw out wild stuff. Maybe you're short-term memory is bad. You can
read back in newsgroup articles, you know.


Destroycps!

You're fond of that term "general speculation", but that's not what I've been providing. My comments aren't generalized and I'm not speculating on the funding methods of CPS.

Henry

Yes you are.

Destroycps!
I just went through a description of fungible money. Specifically, I
refer to Title IV Social Security funds. There are other funding
avenues for CPS contractors, Medicaid being the largest. And there are
also various federal grants. But Title IV is what really fuels CPS.
It's codified at
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0400.htm
See part B and E
(A page I had with an explanation is no longer up, but I've studied
this for some time. If you have a specific question, I'd be glad to
give you an answer.)

I didn't speculate on the funding methods of CPS. It's methods of
funding are well-known facts.

Destroycps!

"Cover" is not that coveted by DHS. It manufactures cover whenever it needs it. There's no public inspection of DHS.

Henry

But there is. The Duis case is but one example. Iowa just fired it's last head of DHS.

Destroycps!
The courts are secret. The files are secret. Only in rare cases are
juries involved. The only (what might be called) public inspection is
when an attorney from another field is appointed and then takes a
case.

The Duis was a criminal charge case. It also was a
"failure-to-snatch-the-kid" case. Such cases do make the public eye
because criminal cases are public. DHS promotes it because DHS uses it
to argue for a more active and powerful DHS.

Iowa DHS's current director is Kevin Concannon. He came form Maine
where he was director during the Logan Marr case. A caseworker killed
Logan, a kid she adopted. (Err, excuse me. She wasn't a caseworker at
the time of the killing, only when she started the adoption process. )
Yes, Concannon really cleaned up that Maine agency. I think two
supervisors resigned. And of course he had to hire *more* employees so
we could have *more* Logan Marrs, err, I mean protection.

If you're saying DHS was cleaning itself up in the wake of Duis by
changing directors, then why would Iowa hire someone who oversaw an
even worse disaster than Duis like the Logan case?
http://desmoinesregister.com/news/st.../20712675.html

"Nothing succeeds like failure"
An article on Concannon's appointment
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/qt.../0312-134.html

Destroycps!

DHS might have gotten around to Duis at some time. Meanwhile, the tree had lots of other apples to pick.

Henry

See, this is speculative.

Destroycps!
The first statement is; the second is not. Certain speculations are
proper.

Destroycps!

Nobody at DFS really cares about kids. If they did, they wouldn't be working for DFS.

Henry

More circular reasoning.

Destroycps!
CPS exploits kids and abuses them. Anybody who actually cares about
kids and who makes the mistake of starting to work for CPS soon learns
that the job is a vicious sham. Because of this, good people, people
who care about kids, have already removed themselves out of the CPS
employment ranks.

That is not circular reasoning.

It's like saying airline pilots aren't afraid of flying. If they were,
they wouldn't be pilots.

Henry

Waller was abused. It was bad. Thus it's relevant.

Destroycps!

A moment ago you said the case I brought up was irrelevant; "from left field" I think you said.

Henry

Yes, it was from left field. We were discussing Ms. Terpstra's

article.

You inserted "Cheryl's" case out of the blue and proceeded to assert invalid comparisons that had no relevance to the article. I don't know anything about Cheryl's case. It sounds terrible. But you still failed to make it relevant to the discussion.

Destroycps!
You just said "Thus it's relevant" about Waller (look a few lines up).
If we use your Waller reasoning, Cheryl's case has to be relevant.

Destroycps!

You are conceding that one of them, the one I complained about, is significantly short of the thirty-year mark. You can't salvage it by showing the other is almost thirty. If Shelly were reasonably careful, she would have worded her representation differently.

Of course since she's perfect to you, you wouldn't agree. You'd rather give her a break at every turn.

Henry

You have lectured me on critical discussion. Let me return the favor. When you use unintentional ambiguity to purposively construct the most unlikely or ridiculous premise for a writer's position, you are constructing a "straw-man" which you can then knock down with great gusto and righteous indignation. You are apparently very adept at building strawmen and apparently not above ridiculing me for not looking the other way.

Destroycps!
Legitimate restatement and reductio ad absurdum aren't straw men.

Destroycps!

Where does she say that? And her theme is not simply about all abuse being bad.

Henry

It [all child abuse is bad] 's strongly implied.

Destroycps!
How? Where? In your head? She didn't make that implication at all. You
made it to make boyfriend abuse and parental abuse the same (because
it's all bad) thereby allowing her to use an example of one against
the other. There's a significant difference in stories when the
perpetrator is different.

You have to pretend at least one other person is reading this. If you
state something, you have to back it up. You're beginning to irritate
me. It's one thing to have stupid opinions. It's another to ignore the
standard protocols of discussion while insisting on those opinions.

Henry

Her theme was abuse still happens and it shouldn't. She certainly implied that abuse is bad. I mean, when would abuse be good?

Destroycps!
When it's applied to CPS contractors or employees.

Destroycps!

"Brutal fashion"? The publicized cases are usually the ones with criminal charges attached. Only a small proportion of CPS cases have collateral criminal cases, and seldom is brutal abuse even alleged. CPS begins most or its cases with a statement about some form of neglect. It doesn't need anything worse for its purposes.

Henry

I believe we were still, at least tangentially, discussing topics related to Shelly's citation of the Waller case. That was certainly brutal and the "brutal fashion" to which I was referring.

Destroycps!
Okay, so your comments about "allowing" were restricted to "brutal
fashion" cases like Waller. I'm willing to limit the matter to those
cases. But first, do now you concede that "brutal fashion" is not the
norm in CPS cases?

Destroycps!
(I'm taking to the third party now.) At this point Henry doesn't
respond to several sections. I don't blame him. If I were he, I
wouldn't either.

Henry

Sorry, but I don't find your explanations compelling.

Destroycps!
We know you disagree with anti-CPS positions. Simply restating that
without support accomplishes nothing but to show how feeble shallow
your position is.

Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!!

[maggie1270]

I just found this online. I am the author of the editortial. Any questions can be directed to me. Thank you,

Shelly M. Terpstra

[cbg]

I will leave your message there, Shelley, but given that the original post and the subsequent comments have been there for eight years with no further additions, I don't anticipate your receiving very many questions at this time.

[maggie1270]

I will leave your message there, Shelley, but given that the original post and the subsequent comments have been there for eight years with no further additions, I don't anticipate your receiving very many questions at this time.

Shame on people who would assume that I am a liar. I have read all the related court documents in regards to the legal termination of my birth mothers rights along with the memories I personally have. I of course signed away legal rights to that which I wrote. So, the idea that some asss holes who dont know anything about me or what happened writing total speculation on a site where it was never intened to be is outrageous and stupid if I could sue you I wouldl.

[Marketeer]

Shame on people who would assume that I am a liar. I have read all the related court documents in regards to the legal termination of my birth mothers rights along with the memories I personally have. I of course signed away legal rights to that which I wrote. So, the idea that some asss holes who dont know anything about me or what happened writing total speculation on a site where it was never intened to be is outrageous and stupid if I could sue you I wouldl.

I don't see where cbg is calling you a liar. Again, given that this post is EIGHT YEARS OLD now, I doubt that any of the other posters are going to come back to continue this thread.

[Betty3]

I "think" she was talking about the other posters who commented on her story/
article that was posted in the 1st post of this thread.