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,)