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)