11 Kids Abandoned in Nebraska

Some of the older ones because their parents were not able to control them. And why is that? Because the "child protectors" and their propaganda have convinced people's children that all they have to do if they're "dissatisfied" in any way with their treatment at the hands of their parents, is to call CPS and they'll "take care of it." Some kids have "made the call" simply because their parents would not let them go to the movies or have confined them to their rooms with all their toys because they had violated the rules. And CPS routinely sides with the kids, "chiding" parents about "being too restrictive." Soon those kids "get the message" that their parents no longer have any authority over them and, when they predictably get in trouble, they (CPS) want to blame the parents. Pretty soon those kids are no longer able to be "handled." I don't blame some of those parents for "abandoning" those kids in a safe manner. Things can get pretty nasty if kids REFUSE to be "controlled. If my children were in that age bracket and continually defied my authority, making them impossible to handle, I would tell them if they kept it up I'd turn them over to the "child protectors" and they wouldn't like that, not a bit. I would hope that would "cure" the problem and make them more amenable to the rules. If they kept it up, soon they'd be "in the system," being passed around from foster home to foster home, even being abused and sexually abused, sometimes by the foster parents, and other times by fellow foster children. I would hope they didn't push me that far. They don't know just how hard it would be to get themselves back home. Maybe not possible at all, because once the "child protectors" get their hands on them, they're like leeches, and just won't let go unless forced. And when they become adults, the "child protectors" will just abandon them without even giving them a change of clothes and a little money, the way the prison system DOES for criminals when they let them out of THEIR "system." (Yahoo News)

Foster Child Murders

It's difficult to find any news source that actually mentions the fact that murdered seven-year-old child, Chandler Grafner was murdered by his FOSTER parents, not his own parents. I had to search for a long time to find this Denver Post article. The problem is, there are TOO MANY children being assaulted, sexually assaulted, and even murdered IN foster care, where they're supposed to be safe. But their own figures (CPS) show that the chance of children being hurt or killed while IN foster care is much higher than in their own homes (although they "bury" it in a mass of statistics). The man who killed him was a foster parent, assigned by CPS, although he CLAIMED to be his "biological father," having at one time been his mother's boyfriend. Then there is the more recent case of a COP who was foster parent to a little girl, and who fondled her one day while she was playing on a swing. He is now on suspension and is "putting in his retirement papers" while awaiting trial. This story is so new I couldn't find mention of it in the media, but what I DID find was a site that listed MANY instances of policemen sexually assaulting children. (YouNewz)

Foster Parent Starves Child to Death

And I won't add the usually obligatory "alleged" to this because medical experts who have autopsied many children WITH diabetes have already testified that Chandler Grafton DID NOT have diabetes and had "stopped growing" five or more days before he died, which is, to those who do autopsies, obvious evidence of starvation. I've said for a long time that children are in dire danger from some foster parents, more than they ever were in their own homes, and they keep on proving me right. Their own figures prove me right (although they play them down). I still don't know what happened to my own two boys that they stole from my second wife and me more than thirty years ago, with no provable charges against her and none ever laid on me. They may be dead. I don't know. If they were, does anybody think CPS would tell me, their parent? (Rocky Mountain News)

Ho Hum, Business As Usual at CPS

"Sacramento County officials announce Tuesday that they will hire an independent expert to conduct a CPS critical case and practice review. At the announcement, from left to right are Nav Gill, Sacramento County Chief Operations Officer, Lynn Frank, director of the Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Dickinson, County Supervisor, Laura Coulthard, CPS Director and Ann Edwards-Buckley, deputy administrator." Here we go again. They'll "investigate" CPS practices and will predictably agree with them that they don't have enough money or enough people for their caseload. So they'll give them more money and "turn them loose," as usual. There MIGHT be one or two "scapegoats," but most of the people responsible for those deaths of children under CPS auspices will go on doing what they've done for years, abusing children and their parents in the name of "child protection." In Denver, a child was systematically starved to death by a FOSTER PARENT, so we'll probably get another "Governor's Committee" to investigate CPS (again) and the same thing will happen (as it has many times in the past). (Sacramento Bee)

Child Deaths in CPS "System"

The "child protectors" take the child as a FIRST option in most cases, and put them "in the system," to "protect them" from abuse at home. But their own figures show that these children are much more apt to be abused, even KILLED "in the system" than they ever were at home. It's all a scam to gain CONTROL over your children and keep you from demanding they not be taught socialism as an idea in school. Where it all goes wrong is when those children are abused and KILLED while "in the system." They're routinely ABUSED there, and sometimes KILLED. There have been FIVE such deaths in California recently. I wonder haw many there have been in Denver recently. If there have been, they have been well covered up. How about in YOUR area? Robert Littleton, a blogger who posted a simple list of children who have died IN the child protectors' custody, bent to intimidation and took the list down after threats of suits, you can guess from whom. (Robert Littleton)

Court Overrules Dad

Girl keeps visiting web sites her dad disapproves of; she posts "inappropriate" pictures of herself on the Internet, and her dad "grounds" her for misconduct. The court thought that was "too much" and disallowed it. This happened in Canada, and columnist Paul Jacob says it won't affect us here in the "good old United States." Who has been doing his research? It IS happening here, and much worse! The "child protectors" are "out of control" and think they don't have to follow the law; their "captive courts" agree with them and they lose every time a case actually gets to a higher court because their regular actions violate not only the civil rights of parents, but of children, too. Does this stop them? Naaah! It doesn't even slow them down. They just "surrender" in the one case and go on violating people's tights in every other case they handle. Doesn't affect us here? Sheesh! Do some research, Paul! Otherwise, he's exactly right. (Common Sense)

"But That's How We've Always Done It!"

That's their "defense" to the Texas "raid" and subsequent removal of almost 500 children from a "religious compound" ranch. In other words, they ALWAYS violate the rights of parents AND children in order to "protect" those children from "abuse" that may or may not be only in the imaginations of child protection agents with "dirty minds." They think they have the "right" to do this because it's "for the children," the usual cry whenever any government agency wants to violate people's rights. "The tactics perpetrated on the YFZ families are the same ones that CPS uses in almost every child-protection removal case nationwide: insufficient investigation, a superficial initial hearing, a boilerplate case plan whose real purpose is to provide evidence to the agency, splitting children in foster care and moving them far from family, a low standard of proof for abuse, and failure to use reasonable efforts to avoid removal from the home, among others. What turned this situation around was the extensive publicity that exposed the normally hidden agency wrongdoing. These revelations forced the higher court to reverse the rulings of the agency and of the lower court, which was acting as a puppet of the agency. If each of these 468 cases had been adjudicated individually, hidden from public scrutiny in secret courtrooms as the law provides, the agency might have won most of them, despite having no evidence." Maybe this case will "open" the "can of worms" that is the "child protectors" and force some REAL reorganization with the realization that they cannot, and should not be allowed to violate the rights of parents AND children, "willy-nilly." As one of their victims 30 years ago, with NO proof of wrongdoing on my part, I hope so. "This episode should be a warning to all families that an arbitrary attack by the state against a family can happen to any of us and that a court will likely not protect the family from overreaching state social workers or false reports of child abuse." (The New American)

"ATTEMPTED" Child Abuse?

He raped a THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD and they let him "plead out" to a charge of "ATTEMPTED" child abuse? Maybe he needed Viagara and didn't have any, so he couldn't get the job done. But a THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD? There has to be something worse than ATTEMPTED child abuse for him. Maybe when he gets to prison one of the other prisoners might have some ideas on what should be done with a "baby-raper." I notice the article about it wasn't very specific. Maybe they just couldn't bear to write about a man who had sex with a THREE-YEAR-OLD? Maybe the "child protectors" couldn't get to him before he did it because they were too busy going after people they KNEW weren't guilty, but from whom they could siphon the most money? (MSNBC)

"CPS Exceeds Authority"

So what else is new? They do that every time they go out on a "case." But their excessive acts do not usually involve hundreds of children who are "taken" because they "might" have been abused in the past or "might" be abused in the future. Yes, I'm sure there were a number of children who were forced into "marrying" older men, thinking it was "how the world worked." They didn't think they were "forced" because they were taught from birth this was the "right way" to go and they didn't know any different. But that is not an excuse for "child protectors" to just walk in and "take" hundreds of children, even if they don't believe in their religious concepts of "marriage." Each case should be considered on its own merits BEFORE any children are taken from their parents. I'm sure this case is not over, but it should be much better done without hundreds of children being taken as a "first option" as CPS (or whatever they're called there) generally does. (Houston Chronicle)

B-B-But That's The Way They Operate!

And they get away with it all the time because mostly the courts in which they operate are their own "captive courts" where "evidence" can be nothing more than a worker's opinion. Where they screwed up this time is trying to do it in front of the world and NATIONAL media. They couldn't keep operating as judge, jury, and executioner themselves, and the judge who "caught the case" realized that. There may have been many underage "mothers" or mothers who were underage when they were forced into marriage with much older men. But unfortunately, the proof just wasn't easily obtainable and the "child protectors" just aren't used to operating under such restrictions). So these underage mothers or FORMER underage mothers will be reunited with their husbands and many co-wives, and things will "go back to (their kind of) normal." This isn't about multiple wives, which IS illegal everywhere in this country. It's about forcing CHILDREN to be screwed by old men and become the mothers of their many children. They need to keep on investigating this situation without involving the "child protectors," who routinely exceed their authority and, unless it's in THEIR courts, can screw it up royally. (Café Hayek)

The "Power of God"

"The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services erroneously labeled 3,051 innocent people as child abusers by placing them on the state's official list." And the law requires that once you get on the list, innocent or guilty, you have to remain there for five years. That this can ruin your life doesn't seem to matter. 'They're not all bad, there are good ones,' Nick Brunstein reportedly said of state child abuse investigators, 'but the bad ones have the power of God, and with the stroke of a pen they can ruin your life.' " And they do it routinely in ALL states. These people have WAY too much power. They need to be "reined in." (World Net Daily)

Typical "Child Protector Trainwreck"

"If the head of the Florida Department of Children and Families doesn't get mentally ill inmates out of the Pinellas County Jail soon, she might join them behind bars. A Pinellas judge Tuesday charged DCF Secretary Lucy Hadi with seven counts of indirect criminal contempt for failing to get the inmates out of the jail. The maximum penalty for each of those counts is five months and 29 days in jail." This is a typical "trainwreck" with the child protectors. Judges created the problem by increasing the number of mentally ill people in jail by 100%, then got "irate" because the child protectors couldn't "magically" come up with the money to obey the court order. But they did. They magically "found" $5 million dollars "under seat cushions on the couch." Whether this is enough to solve the problem, nobody knows. But if it isn't they're going to have to "find" more, or the director of the agency is going to jail. Notice all this does NOTHING to "help" children. Janet Reno would be pleased. (St. Petersburg Times)

Removing Consequences and Making Hoodlums

I've long said that when you remove the consequences for an act, people are going to DO that act and expect to get away with it. The biggest example of this is the "know-nothing do-gooder" who knows nothing about what is going on, but who sticks her/his nose in it anyway. Nothing is a better example than the situation below: "The liberals have been taking away our rights and liberties for years, and this is just another example of this invasion of our privacy. ‘The woman that started this whole thing took offense to a child being spanked for acting bad. She had no idea what was really going on, but she made it her business to butt in.' And I will tell you where this whole idea of crap is going to end up. We are going to have, in the future, a generation of hoodlums who have grown up without any idea of what is right and what is wrong. [That's in bold because it's the most important thing in this post. -RT] To them there will be no consequences for their actions, and there will be no stimulus for them to do the right things. The only input that these children will have, is negative input because when they are good, nothing will be said. When they are bad, they will be called victims by the authorities and they will be coddled by the government and taken away from good parents." This is liberalism at work. (Tired of Liberal Rhetoric)

Easier Release of Child Death Info

In Memphis, they're trying to make it easier to get the release of information about children who die of child abuse. But you'll notice nothing is said about children who die while IN the "child protection system." The information about those deaths, beatings, and rapes will continue to be hidden behind their "confidentiality" policies to "protect the children," dont'cha know? I think those "confidentiality laws" should be altered to allow the release of information about abuse suffered "in the system," so the "child protectors" cannot hide behind "confidentiality." (Memphis Daily News)

Yet Another "Governor's Committee on Child Abuse"

Gov. Ritter is incensed that 13 children have died last year IN CUSTODY of the child protectors, so he's "forming a committee" to look into it and come up with "changes." Maybe they'll do something concrete. I don't know. I was a member of such a committee a couple of governors ago, and when I came up with some concrete things wrong with child protection in Colorado and some suggestions to go with them, from that point on, I couldn't find out when or where the next meeting was. The next year, the committee completed its work and the child protectors (predictably) got more money to pay for "more people." The government is the only place I can think of where you can use incompetence as a "fund-raiser." Nobody got fired, although a number of low-level workers got "transferred" (a "lateral transfer"). I hope the same thing doesn't happen again. I'll be watching. (CBS 4 Denver)

Not Like the Branch Davidians

When local cops went to Warren Jeffs' "child sex compound" after a child called them complaining she was forced into sex with a 50-year-old man, it was not like Waco. At Waco, they just wanted to "take down" the group and used possible sexual abuse of children as their excuse, and wound up killing many of the children they told usd they went there to "save." Here, there is a "compound" where it is well known "old men" regularly screw little girls who have nothing to say about it and are afraid to say or do anything about it. The courageous child who called the cops has not been found, and might even be dead, killed to "save" their "child sex compound." They may never find her, or her body. This is what happens when the "child protectors" treat every "report" they get as "prima-facie evidence" of abuse, even if no proof is there and thus, have such large caseloads that they tend to ignore such things as Jeffs' "compound" because it's too much work. They only notice when they get a call from a VICTIM who says she has been repeatedly raped by "old men" without her permission, nor knowledge that she has a right to refuse. Finally, they went in, when they HAD TO, and found HUNDREDS of small girls (after the article linked here was published) who had been similarly sexually abused on a regular basis. It was a "way of life" for them, for as long as they could remember. So what will happen now? The "child protectors" will excuse their failure by saying they "don't have enough people nor enough money." Then they will get more money and more people and will, as usual, have used failure as a "fund-raiser" while life goes on, "business as usual." (Parrerico)

Screwing Little Girls

Jeff's "Yearning for Zion" Compound

Warren Jeffs and his "co-conspirators aren't just having sex with a lot of women. They're also having sex with little girls. They SAY they're "marrying" these little girls, but they're "marrying" them in wholesale numbers and against their will. These little girls have nothing to say about whether or not they want to have sex with these "old men." These "old men" have convinced their parents it's okay to "marry" children at just barely teen-age. This is not a case of "religious tolerance." It is a case of "child sex abuse" DISGUISED as "religious tolerance." These people should be "put away," and forced to register as sex offenders, as would happen with the average sex offender. There's nothing worst than this kind of person, who would claim "religious authority" for their child sex abuse. They've still not found the little girl who called them, which makes you wonder what happened to her. Did they just change her name and hide her, or is she dead. Are these people just "child-screwers" or murderers, too? Gawd, I get so sick of hearing stories like this! I'm offended that there are people like this allowed to remain in this world. There are some people who are only still alive because it's illegal to kill them, and these people match that description. This is one case where I wish the "child protectors" had not been so busy going after innocent parents that they had no time to go after this KNOWN child abuser compound. (KUTV)

School "Crotch Inspectors"

What would you think if your children were subjected to "crotch inspections" to see if they were secreting ASPIRIN in their pants? Boy! What a neat excuse for someone who likes to look at little boys and little girls naked to get APPROVAL to strip search children 13 and under at school? I've heard of this before, but I thought school "authorities" had learned their lesson before they found themselves unemployed or in prison for child abuse. But apparently they've learned nothing in Safford,Arizona, where they do this regularly, and with COURT APPROVAL! (Notice it's the oft-reversed 9th Circuit Court that made that decision). I wonder how many children will be scarred by this experience before "wiser heads" reverse their decision (as usual)? In 2003, on the unsupported word of a student caught with a small number of 400 Mg Ibuprofen pills, an Honor Student with NO record of anything but superlative grades was summarily strip-searched without notification of her parents OR any kind of a warrant. What makes these people think they have the power to do such things is beyond me. If there was any REAL danger, they should call the parent and have THEM do any searches they feel necessary. Jacob Sullum says, "Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between "drug warriors" and "child molesters." I agree. Maybe because there IS no difference in some cases. The girl said it was the most humiliating experience she had ever had. The school principal (Robert Beeman) said the strip-search was "no big deal" because they didn't find anything and did it on the unsupported accusation of the student who was in trouble and wanted to "share" it. I say this supercilious jerk is wrong. It WAS a "big deal" BECAUSE they didn't find anything! This will not be the last such report, as liberals get more and more power. The "child protectors" weren't even involved, according to this report. (The Atlasphere/Jacob Sullum)

Is Anybody Surprised?

Like Rush Limbaugh, "I toldya so!" The report on how to stop killing more children next year is in: and as I predicted, it calls for "more money and more people." Specifically, they're going to "create a new position" of "child protection director" and spend nearly $1.7 million MORE to hire 65 new workers (PLUS the 40 other new workers they've already got a $2 million dollar increase in funding to hire). The Denver Department of Human Resources said, "There is a critical need to continue to develop new staff capacity in order to enable staff to make the right decisions for each child and family." Bureaucrat-speak for "if we just had more money and more people, we cold do a competent job," thus predictably turning incompetence into a fund-raiser. (Denver Post)

Surprise, Surprise!

"From one end of Colorado to another, in farm towns and urban centers, people are seeing -- or think they are seeing -- child abuse and neglect on an unprecedented scale. Statewide, the number of child-abuse reports has soared, from 42,559 in 2001 to 68,657 in 2006, a 61 percent jump, state figures show. But whether it is because those reports are patently unfounded or because their sheer numbers overwhelm child welfare agencies strained by years of budget cuts, almost half of those reports are never checked out." The fact is, 80% or more -- by their own numbers -- of such reports ARE unfounded because there is no penalty for those who make such reports, even if they're not only wrong, but are intentionally wrong, made to distract people's attention from other things. It has become a well-known fact that lawyers routinely advise their clients to make such reports for this reason, to take their opponent's attention off the action they're in. The "child protectors" do "investigate" as many of these "reports" as they can, but the sheer volume of "reports" makes it impossible for them to get to many of them, and they then "miss" REAL child abuse and children are killed or injured. Add to that the fact that (again by their own numbers, hard to find) children are much more apt to die, be injured, or raped while IN foster care just makes it worse. This story in the Denver Post comes right out and confirms my statement that 80% or more "reports" are unfounded when they say, "When referrals are investigated, abuse or neglect typically is substantiated in about 20 percent of cases, state figures show." [Emphasis mine -RT] If the "child protectors" would stop treating every case as if it were true, and the "report" prima-facie evidence of abuse, spending a lot more time on each case than necessary, just to collect those ubiquitous federal fees, they'd have time to get to the REAL cases of child abuse that go ignored today. I don't believe the Post is surprised at this. I think they're just pretending. The result of this "expose" will be more money for the "child protectors," a few low level "heads" will roll, and it will be "business as usual." Government, and especially the "child protectors are the only organizations who can turn failure into "fund-raising." (The Denver Post)

Can't Control Kids, Goes on Strike

Melissa Dean

Melissa Dean, a Walgreen's manager, got tired of being bullied by her own 4 sons and she couldn't get any help from "authorities," so she "went on strike" and stayed away from them most of the time. Boy, did THAT get a response from "the authorities," which charged her with "neglect." She would even cook meals and deliver them to her home while the boys weren't there, as you might with an animal who might charge you if he saw you. "The Authorities" teach the children that she has no authority over them and can't touch them in any way. That contributed to this situation because when they predictably get in trouble, they want to blame the parent. In this case, they ignored a major "problem situation" until it became something they could blame on her. No one has said what happened to the kids, but I'd bet they're minding a lot better, wherever they are now, or will end up in jail. (Local 6 News)

Child Protectors "Not Tough Enough"

A story in the Denver Post whines about the new rules given to child protectors might account for fewer children being ripped from their homes on just the "suspicion" that abuse might occur in the future. They fear that the increase in the number of kids not taken from their homes might be responsible for the increase in child deaths due to abuse. Nowhere do they say that all those child deaths occurred in their own homes, rather than in a foster home. From what I've seen in the last few years, most of the child deaths did happen in foster homes and those that didn't were in homes where the "abuse factor" was either obviously nonexistent or so obvious it couldn't be denied, but was ignored by the child protectors in their haste to get to other homes where they could "maximize income" for their agencies because taking the child and being able to put them up for adoption would be easier. It was very rare for such a death to come "out of the blue." They say right out, " 'The intent is not to get more kids to remain in in-home care, it's to make sure your safety response is the best fit and least intrusive, but also the most appropriate for the family on an individualized basis,' [Wayne] Holder said." Looks like they're trying to make it much easier to break up families by "crying wolf." As usual, they want tighter control over your children and less accountability for themselves, and they mean to get it, by "hook or crook." (Denver Post)

Smoking Banned in Foster Homes

They'll ban smoking anywhere they can, and claim they're "doing it for their own good." If I were a foster parent, I'd tell them where to put their fostering. I don't need their "foster care," but they DO need as many foster homes as they can get because they routinely steal children as a FIRST option rather than as a last OPTION. They don't care how many families they ruin. If they just THINK there's A possibility OF ABUSE, even "sometime in the future," they'll steal the child -- and getting them back, even if you're not guilty of ANYTHING, is almost impossible, since they use every scam and scheme in existence to block you. Innocence is no defense for the parents they target. Even if they can't prove ANY abuse now, or in the future, they'll take the child anyway, and getting them back is next to impossible. If I sound bitter it's because Indianapolis did it to me more than 30 years ago. They couldn't prove abuse on my ex-wife, but used every trick and scam they could to deny me custody. And there wasn't even a HINT of a reason for that (I wasn't even in the state) except they wanted the $12,000 they'd get (from the feds) for putting my two boys up for adoption. (Houston Chronice,)

Legislators Want DCS Split After Double Murders

And what in hell is that going to solve? Make it harder for foster children with violent backgrounds to do violence again? What foster parent is going to knowingly take in a child that has committed violence? Such children ought to be placed in the juvenile jail system where they can't do violence, except maybe to other violent prisoners. They think they can treat violent offenders who happen to be children the same way they do other children? That's idiocy! The biggest danger to non-violent children in "the system" is from foster parents themselves (their own statistics show this). The second biggest danger is from other foster children. So what does "dividing them in two" do to "correct" this problem? (WKRN, 1/7/08)