Yet another child dies in a hot car; a foster father is arrested

[Reba]

Number is not the issue, the point is they are overwhelmed, and add new regulation only gets caseworker even more overwhelmed than it was.

Facts are always an issue.

and 12 to 15? I don't believe that, because with lines to apply for welfare assistance was rather very long. 15 each month, then the lines shouldn't be that long.

The 12-15 per caseworker is a recommendation. That's not what they have.

 

[CrazyPaul]

Inspecting all foster families just because of this incident seems like a knee-jerk reaction. However, I do support foster families being inspected in general to ensure that the children are well-cared for, the foster parents are doing well and need any support, and to ensure other standards of safety and well-being.

I imagine foster parents have to go through a lot of hoops to have a foster home and make sure they are psychologically sound. We've heard enough stories of abuse and neglect in foster homes that could be prevented. Then again, we hear about those stories of abuse and neglect in regular homes, as well. It's just that foster homes are inspected and monitored and can prevent abuse/neglect, whereas regular homes aren't.

That's what I was talking about. That's a dumb move. The key word of the quote in post #3 is "prompted". That word makes foster homes sound bad which is untrue. It is just one foster parent. There are more real parents leaving their child dying in a hot car. That's a fact.

 

[Reba]

That's what I was talking about. That's a dumb move. The key word of the quote in post #3 is "prompted". That word makes foster homes sound bad which is untrue. It is just one foster parent. There are more real parents leaving their child dying in a hot car. That's a fact.

Maybe foster homes sound bad to you in that story but I didn't get that impression at all.

 

[CrazyPaul]

Don't you know? The agency wants to protect themselves, and ensure that the children are in safe environments. So?

Uh-oh, you avoid explaining what it means. Please read post #22 if you are willing to.

Of course, every foster homes should be inspected to make sure that the children are okay but THIS is a different situation. The incident is about a foster parent who was messed up, therefore the state has to inspect every foster homes to make sure that foster parents are not messed up like him. That's a dumb move!

The key word "prompted" means "uh-oh, we better inspect foster homes because maybe some of those foster parents will leave a child dying in a hot car, too". *smh*

 

[CrazyPaul]

Maybe foster homes sound bad to you in that story but I didn't get that impression at all.

Alright, what prompted them to inspect foster homes?

 

[diehardbiker]

Maybe you need to work on your translator skills since your interpreter for living.

Read this quote without thinking of anything else, what does it really mean?


"image yourself as a caseworker dealing with 5,000 welfare cases, can you inspect every of them within limited time frame?"

Don't forget the keyword "Image" in the sentence, is it referring to a fact?

Facts are always an issue.


The 12-15 per caseworker is a recommendation. That's not what they have.

 

[diehardbiker]

Reba, my whole point is, that having over-regulated laws can be bad thing, and can have negative effect. We can't just assume that everybody is bad and needs to be checked. The fact is, not everybody is bad, not everybody is angel, why giving angels more burden?

The problem right now is double edge sword really... There are too many kids out there waiting for a real homes, and we do have problem with some parents aren't doing their job properly, if we assume every parent's bad and inspect them every damn time only shows prospective adopt parents that it is not worth their headache adopting kids... So, is it good idea to tighten up regulations? I think not.

Same with gun control concept, no matter how hard government controls gun, only outlaws has them.

 

[Reba]

Uh-oh, you avoid explaining what it means. Please read post #22 if you are willing to.

I didn't avoid anything. I answered your question (is this an interrogation?), and I read #22. Should I start making demands on your posts, too? This is ridiculous.

Of course, every foster homes should be inspected to make sure that the children are okay but THIS is a different situation. The incident is about a foster parent who was messed up, therefore the state has to inspect every foster homes to make sure that foster parents are not messed up like him. That's a dumb move!

What is your problem? Anyone should be glad to know that the state is trying to keep environments safe for foster children. I read nothing that said the state thought foster parents might be "messed up." You are seeing things that aren't there.

The key word "prompted" means "uh-oh, we better inspect foster homes because maybe some of those foster parents will leave a child dying in a hot car, too". *smh*

If that's how you want to interpret it, fine. I understand it to mean that their agency doesn't want to be blamed for not keeping better tabs on foster families, and are trying to appear pro-active to their public.

 

[Reba]

Alright, what prompted them to inspect foster homes?

You can read, right?

 

[Reba]

Maybe you need to work on your translator skills since your interpreter for living.

Actually, I'm retired. Due to my Parkinson's Disease I can no longer work.

Read this quote without thinking of anything else, what does it really mean?

"image yourself as a caseworker dealing with 5,000 welfare cases, can you inspect every of them within limited time frame?"

Don't forget the keyword "Image" in the sentence, is it referring to a fact?

It doesn't really matter what I think it means because you will interpret it any way that you want.

There is no caseworker dealing with 5,000 cases even in my wildest imaginings. When I read that sentence, it means to me that it's hyperbole that someone is using to stir up emotions rather than use facts to support an argument.

 

[Reba]

Reba, my whole point is, that having over-regulated laws can be bad thing, and can have negative effect. We can't just assume that everybody is bad and needs to be checked. The fact is, not everybody is bad, not everybody is angel, why giving angels more burden?

I guess that's where we disagree. I don't assume that "everybody is bad" just because they get checked. In life, inspectors check commercial buildings for fire code compliance, health inspectors check sanitation of restaurants, day care workers get criminal background checks, and in the military they get security background checks. None of that is done to say someone thinks anyone is "bad." It's done to maintain safety in the public domain.

The problem right now is double edge sword really... There are too many kids out there waiting for a real homes, and we do have problem with some parents aren't doing their job properly, if we assume every parent's bad and inspect them every damn time only shows prospective adopt parents that it is not worth their headache adopting kids... So, is it good idea to tighten up regulations? I think not.

I didn't see anything in the article that stated the inspections had anything to do with accusing adoptive parents of being bad.

Same with gun control concept, no matter how hard government controls gun, only outlaws has them.

Not the same situation. There is no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to be a foster parent.

Usually people complain that the backgrounds of foster homes aren't checked into enough when something tragic happens to a child.

Apparently, foster child agencies can't win--they either inspect too much or not enough.

 

[diehardbiker]

There have been too many overlook occurred on various kinds of inspections. Inspections isn't going to catch every hard cases, often those that should have been inspected but haven't done for years. Often there are covers up during inspection, it is common than you think. That is why it is harder to catch no matter how heavily regulation exists.

That applies to home inspection, often they don't find out anything until after buyer bought the house. Had it happened in the past? Yeah, happened to good friend of mine.

I guess that's where we disagree. I don't assume that "everybody is bad" just because they get checked. In life, inspectors check commercial buildings for fire code compliance, health inspectors check sanitation of restaurants, day care workers get criminal background checks, and in the military they get security background checks. None of that is done to say someone thinks anyone is "bad." It's done to maintain safety in the public domain.


I didn't see anything in the article that stated the inspections had anything to do with accusing adoptive parents of being bad.


Not the same situation. There is no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to be a foster parent.

Usually people complain that the backgrounds of foster homes aren't checked into enough when something tragic happens to a child.

Apparently, foster child agencies can't win--they either inspect too much or not enough.

 

[Foxrac]

There have been too many overlook occurred on various kinds of inspections. Inspections isn't going to catch every hard cases, often those that should have been inspected but haven't done for years. Often there are covers up during inspection, it is common than you think. That is why it is harder to catch no matter how heavily regulation exists.

That applies to home inspection, often they don't find out anything until after buyer bought the house. Had it happened in the past? Yeah, happened to good friend of mine.

I'm seriously questioning about home inspection.

In here, home inspection failed to make a report that houses are infested with brown recluse spiders and sometime, homeowners could bribe inspectors to not report about pest issues, especially brown recluse spiders.

It isn't concern for you and Reba because you live outside of brown recluse spider range, but you could have one if you transport from south central states to NY or any states that are out of range.

This spider is extremely creepier.

 

[diehardbiker]

My whole point is, should we tax more for the fear when its really only the fear itself?

 

[CrazyPaul]

You can read, right?

Yes, I can. Can you?

The article pointed out that the state decides to inspect foster homes because of this incident. Wait a minute...they didn't do their jobs before this incident? In other words, taxpayers pay them to do nothing? NO, they inspected foster homes before and they are prompted to inspect them again because of this incident. That's ridiculous.

 

[Reba]

Yes, I can. Can you?

The article pointed out that the state decides to inspect foster homes because of this incident.

So? No one has denied that they did a special inspection as a result of what happened. I've never denied that. What is your point?

Wait a minute...they didn't do their jobs before this incident? In other words, taxpayers pay them to do nothing? NO, they inspected foster homes before and they are prompted to inspect them again because of this incident. That's ridiculous.

It may be ridiculous but there's nothing wrong with doing that.

 

[CrazyPaul]

So? No one has denied that they did a special inspection as a result of what happened. I've never denied that. What is your point?


It may be ridiculous but there's nothing wrong with doing that.

Well, that's your opinion. So mine is different than yours, lets move on.