From: Frank McCoy on
Dan Sullivan <dsulldan(a)optonline.net> wrote:

>On Jul 31, 7:49 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...(a)millcomm.com> wrote:
>> Dan Sullivan <dsull...(a)optonline.net> wrote:
>> >About 1400 kids die every year at the hands of their parents.
>>
>> >How many kids die every year from foster parents, grag?
>>
>> Actually, quite a few do.
>> The government though, won't release THOSE statistics, because it
>> makes them look bad.
>
>Actually the feds would get the info from the states who would get the
>info from the counties, and that's where the problem lies (pardon the
>pun). It's the info from the counties that is inaccurate.
>
>> http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-12-03/opinion/17326464_1_children-s-d...
>>
>> I suspect, that far more *percentage wise* die in foster-care than in
>> their parents homes.  It only makes sense.
>
>I'm asking about children who're killed by their foster parents as
>compared to the number of children who're killed by their parents..
>
What's significant, isn't the actual numbers; but the *relative*
numbers. (Pardon the inadvertent pun.)

There will, quite naturally be an enormously larger number of parents
who kill their children than foster-parents; unless something is
incredibly horribly wrong.

It's just that foster-parents are a MUCH smaller number than "real"
parents.

OTOH, not all that much can be assumed if the relative numbers are
higher for the foster-parents; unless those same per-capita numbers
are hugely out-of-line ... For reasons I previously mentioned.

>> It DOES happen!
>
>Correct.

But don't go assuming that foster-care is necessarily worse than
familial care. Sometimes it is; and sometimes it ain't.

Having spent a lot of time in foster-care as a child, I could give you
both wonderful examples and some incredibly bad ones as well.

Overall?
My feeling was generally that foster-parents TRIED.
Sometimes they tried too hard.
Sometimes they assumed thing about the kids they cared for that were
completely unfair.
Sometimes doing what they thought was "best for the child" was often
the worst. Good intentions don't always mean good results.
Rarely indeed was the harm *intentional*.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen or was fair.

Taking a kid, especially an abused kid, into your house from off the
street can be quite a challenge. It takes a special kind of person.

Unfortunately, for BEST results, it takes not just kindness or
firmness, but an incredible amount of brains and common sense ... Not
just goodness and religion. Often those "qualities" interfere.

Believe me: I know.

A really GOOD foster-home is as hard to find as a really GOOD teacher,
doctor, or programmer. What all too many people forget, is that 50%
of people are, by-definition, "below normal". And THAT goes for
foster-parents as well as any other "professional".

The greatest, of course, often get overwhelmed.

Though I remember really BAD times in foster-care, I can't say it was
ever from vindictiveness (like often happens with familial care).
Usually it was from OVER-supervision (not under, like some would
suspect) and either religious attitudes or idiotic beliefs sold by
quacks that tended to push things overboard.

Even those-in-charge trying to match religious upbringing of children
with religious beliefs by foster parents, quite often make for some
rather horrid mis-matches.

I could give some real horror-stories ... not just of me and my
siblings, but of other kids I knew in foster-care.

OTOH, I could give you some truly heart-warming tales as well.

Neither one tells the whole truth.
Just like a few minutes of observation by a CPS person at a kid's
home, doesn't give all that good an idea of what actually goes on.
And yet: The judge often makes his/her entire decision from that.

All too often, nobody actually LISTENS to the kids themselves.
;-{

But again ... Sometimes they DO.
I've (again) had it happen both ways.

In a way, it's amazing the system works as well as it does.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
From: Dan Sullivan on
On Aug 1, 2:40 am, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 9:35 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...(a)millcomm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dan Sullivan <dsull...(a)optonline.net> wrote:
> > >On Jul 31, 7:49 pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...(a)millcomm.com> wrote:
> > >> Dan Sullivan <dsull...(a)optonline.net> wrote:
> > >> >About 1400 kids die every year at the hands of their parents.
>
> > >> >How many kids die every year from foster parents, grag?
>
> > >> Actually, quite a few do.
> > >> The government though, won't release THOSE statistics, because it
> > >> makes them look bad.
>
> > >Actually the feds would get the info from the states who would get the
> > >info from the counties, and that's where the problem lies (pardon the
> > >pun). It's the info from the counties that is inaccurate.
>
> > >>http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-12-03/opinion/17326464_1_children-s-d....
>
> > >> I suspect, that far more *percentage wise* die in foster-care than in
> > >> their parents homes.  It only makes sense.
>
> > >I'm asking about children who're killed by their foster parents as
> > >compared to the number of children who're killed by their parents..
>
> > What's significant, isn't the actual numbers; but the *relative*
> > numbers.  (Pardon the inadvertent pun.)
>
> Several of Dan's cohorts used to go to some
> trouble to avoid correcting for exposure.

1500 children killed a year doesn't need "correcting for exposure."

> Did you see Dan's recent claim that 4 kids
> die at the hands of their parents/caretakers
> every single day in the USA?
>
> Isn't that ""statistic"" Dan presented a classic
> form that screams propaganda while bypassing
> population and probability?

1500 is 1500.

Population and probability will not change the 1500.

> > There will, quite naturally be an enormously larger number of parents
> > who kill their children than foster-parents; unless something is
> > incredibly horribly wrong.
>
> Dan's friends have acted like they don't
> understand exposure or ratios.

What effect do you think exposure or ratios have on 1500 dead children
a year?

It's still going to be 1500.

In a population of 300,000 or 300 million, it's still going to be
1500.

Are you claiming 1500 is an acceptable number, grag, because the
percentage is statistically insignificant?

From: Tucci on
Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote in
news:5990297f-9a9e-4dc8-9310-386c25b95c7a(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/ms
> g/3f09e98311b27807
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/30/france.dead.babies/index.htm
> l French woman accused of killing 8 newborns 'very distressed'By the
> CNN Wire StaffJuly 30, 2010 12:57 p.m. EDT
>
> Woman held over the deaths of 8 babiesSTORY HIGHLIGHTS
> Mother's attorney says she's "distressed," "depressed" and "falling
> apart"
> Attorney says the woman admits killing and hiding the babies, but
> denies burying them

Greg, Do you still molest little girls?

From: Dan Sullivan on
On Aug 1, 10:32 am, Tucci <Y...(a)yYy.YyY> wrote:
>
> Greg, Do you still molest little girls?

grag has intimated that he's married the little girl's mother, Lisa
Watkins, and that she's been reunited with her daughter... so (if you
believe him) the chances are quite high.

From: Greegor on
Dan, Why are you so in favor of statism?