On Aug 26, 6:54=A0pm, joe <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:50:35 -0400, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sup****t.child-protective-services/...
>
> > News stories where CPS screws up are abundant and severe.
> > This is not the best example of where CPS screwed up.
> > It seems to be some sort of sales pitch to try to
> > enlarge funding and authority to enlarge CPS
> > and their intrusions.
>
> > DS > From the info in the article Rawls
> > DS > was probably 18 or older at the
> > DS >time CPS removed his younger brother.
>
> > BT > Are you a CPS booster then?
>
> > Yes, Dan is. =A0He LIES about it but he is.
>
> > Why did you come to that conclusion so quickly though
> > when all Dan pointed out was that this Dad was not
> > legally a subject of the previous Child Abuse case?
>
> > I can't shake the wierd feeling that this was
> > some kind of GAME about forcing me to defend
> > an opponent, Dan, for such a blatant fact.
>
> > NWA, I disagree with the position you took
> > that CPS agencies don't make cases lightly.
joe/NWA > I took no such position -- I
joe/NWA > simply ask the poster, "What
joe/NWA > makes you think CPS takes kids
joe/NWA > for minor indiscretions"
joe/NWA > Of course CPS takes kids for
joe/NWA > minor indiscretions -- CPS
joe/NWA > takes kids for NO indiscretions
joe/NWA > -- CPS takes kids when they
joe/NWA > freakin' feel like it.
Sorry and thatnks for clarifying!
That's true.
Often nothing but a ""hunch"" or an attitude.
Rubber stamp courts don't protect families against that abuse.
|
