Another Child Murdered in Foster Care

Chandler Graftner was intentionally starved to death by his foster father. He was awarded custody only because of his contribution to Chandler's brother's conception a long time ago. I say he and his live-in girlfriend INTENTIONALLY starved him to death because he could not have starved to death accidentally in the four months between the child protectors' last visit (at which they declared him "healthy") and his death of malnutrition (unless the child protectors hid his condition, which is possible). He had been confined to a closet and not fed for a LONG time. God knows, there were enough "signals," including one from a school nurse that was also dismissed) even if you don't include his cryptic plea to his grandmother that his foster father was going to "hurt me,' A claim the child protectors dismissed out of hand, as they always do with FOSTER PARENTS. Foster parents, being "part of the system," are usually not suspected of child abuse, even though the child abus . . .er, uh, protectors' own figures prove that more children are abused and killed in FOSTER care than ever at home. Predictably, the "child protectors" hide behind the "confidentiality" law so they won't have to answer questions. I would think the "confidentiality" would end when they kill the child. As is usual, there will be an "investigation," at which they will whine about "not enough money" and "not enough people" to do the job right. Then they will get a bigger budget (using incompetence as a fund-raiser as usual), this death (as with all the others) will be "swept under the rug," they'll get a bigger budget, one or two lower level employees will be fired or transferred, and life will go on, business as usual, for everybody except Chandler. That's the way it always is, including the year I was on the Governor's Committee on Child Abuse and was "frozen out" when I submitted a report on how to improve it for real. After that, I couldn't get a straight answer as to where and when the next meeting was to be held. Later that year the committee published its findings. The child protectors got a bigger budget, a couple of lower level people "had to go" and things went on, business as usual. They depend on the gullibility and short memory of politicians. The child protectors are so well entrenched, and have everybody so well conditioned, they can do this. (Source: Rocky Mountain News, 5/12/07)