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)