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)