Saturday, June 14, 2008

"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)

Thursday, June 05, 2008

"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)