Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mntleo2

(2,637 posts)
41. This is not just about cops, it is about CPS funding
Sat Jul 18, 2015, 05:09 PM
Jul 2015

Been writing about this for awhile. it was unbelievable to me ~ until I heard the truth straight from legislators and policy makers, both state and federal who admitted the truth. I know it sounds like something out of an Alex Jones story but believe me I have been a witness in the US Congress, an attendee at policy meetings both in states and US DSHS meetings, obtained FOIA budget and policy information, and am also a winner of a lawsuit proving that CPS and CASA workers lied through their teeth with false allegations and fraudulent actions, and intentional infliction of pain in order to cause more damage.

Follow the money as they say ... Let me tell you how this budgeting works that translates into why this woman's kids were taken:

Title 1V funding, which comes out of Social Security, is about taking children for cash ~ not making this up. In order to to get this money the mandates for any state's Family Service departments, for-profit contractors, the medical industry mega-nonprofits, family courts, and adoption agencies says in essence: "...The more kids you take, the more money you will make and if you return these children to their families you with lose any and present and future funding for those returned kids..." . Social Security will grant these people between $8000-$10,000 per child per month. I am not making this up ~ I wish I were!

What these mandates mean on the ground is that every department involved including the police, the courts, DFS agencies and their contracted minions, non-profits, adoption agencies, they have a financial interest in taking taking children and putting them in foster care because they get bucco bucks for it.

Children's services and their cohorts have been taking advantage of people's preoccupation with child abuse ~ when they know for a fact that less than 15% of these children they take are truly bused ~ the other 85% are taken for profit based on their "concern". They will give money and resources to anyone and everyone BUT these children's families ~ pretending that if they support them they are "enabling" the family and that in order not to do that, they say taking them is "in the best interest of the child" ~ a broad term liberally used every day successfully in court. They also know that if they returned these children back to their homes and gave services, that returned children have a far better chance of succeeding than if left in foster care or are adopted even when the parents have substance abuse issues.

This woman was a prime target and they know whether it is ridiculous or not, this is fine with them just as long as they get their "more kids you take" funding. I could write so much more and have about the sordid details I have discovered ~ but I am not a "real" journalist with credentials. Still, let me tell you there have been hours and many difficulties I have been through to get this documentation and it is as ardent as any journalist as far as discovering the truth.

PM me if anyone wants to know more ...

My 2 cents,

Cat in Seattle

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

In these times, she's lucky the kids aren't orphans. HooptieWagon Jul 2015 #1
I've been through this. RandySF Jul 2015 #5
I wouldn't doubt they are working on that. lpbk2713 Jul 2015 #7
Baloney ! virgogal Jul 2015 #16
Quite true... cops are outt of control, they get green light from DoJ, everyone is afraid of cops whereisjustice Jul 2015 #29
No problem Turbineguy Jul 2015 #2
30 feet within line of sight is not a problem even for a 6 and 2 year old. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #3
"Crying." Igel Jul 2015 #19
That is an important detail. It helps explain why a citizen might call the police. aikoaiko Jul 2015 #21
Some, too many, cops are just aholes who once they decide to arrest you . . . brush Jul 2015 #46
This, too. Igel Jul 2015 #62
How do we know they were crying.... msrizzo Jul 2015 #27
I could tell when my kids were crying just because they didn't get something they wanted, or didn't Ghost in the Machine Jul 2015 #36
That justifies the call to police, but not the arrest. Yo_Mama Jul 2015 #47
I once watched my sister in law stay on the phone mnhtnbb Jul 2015 #56
I'm sorry, but it's not. She was right there. Those children were not abandoned. kcr Jul 2015 #66
Six-year-old and two-year-old LittleBlue Jul 2015 #4
They HAD adult supervision. Mom was there and able to watch them the whole time! nt tblue37 Jul 2015 #17
Why are you saying they didn't have adult supervision when she was 30 feet away? n/t gollygee Jul 2015 #49
how much attention could she pay to them and to her interview simultaneously? onenote Jul 2015 #72
This is so fucking stupid I want to cry Warpy Jul 2015 #6
I agree. delta17 Jul 2015 #52
I bet Depaysement Jul 2015 #8
Again it is a bystander who called the police yeoman6987 Jul 2015 #9
Really? WinkyDink Jul 2015 #10
CPS was there. No way the police are going to let this go yeoman6987 Jul 2015 #12
I disagree LordGlenconner Jul 2015 #18
An arrest probably was out of order, but I disagree about the "meddling busy body." A Simple Game Jul 2015 #20
Right on all counts. If their intellectually curiousity and detective skills are so numb that they GoneFishin Jul 2015 #35
what police are hired to do... icarusxat Jul 2015 #32
They can ASK QUESTIONS Warpy Jul 2015 #34
OTOH, why could she not have taken the children inside wherever she was interviewed? WinkyDink Jul 2015 #11
They were inside BrotherIvan Jul 2015 #13
THIS. That's correct. No childcare lostnfound Jul 2015 #40
They absolutely do BrotherIvan Jul 2015 #44
if she had a job she could have paid for childcare 6chars Jul 2015 #81
I know what a mall food court is! Aside from the larger social issue, 30' ain't 5'. J/S. WinkyDink Jul 2015 #67
Then you should know they were inside n/t kcr Jul 2015 #70
Fear of being rejected for the job? Xipe Totec Jul 2015 #14
It takes VERY little to get rejected in this job market. RandySF Jul 2015 #15
That's not possible. I had employers threaten to fire me because my kids passed through the office Hekate Jul 2015 #33
Because,really, her life doesn't appear to be tough enough. mountain grammy Jul 2015 #22
That is just callous, brain-dead policing. No arrest was necessary. Comrade Grumpy Jul 2015 #23
What happened was he never existed. cstanleytech Jul 2015 #25
My mother would have been arrested multiple times. stage left Jul 2015 #24
If she was in the area close by and could see them, i dont see a problem. Warren DeMontague Jul 2015 #26
What would have been a story packman Jul 2015 #28
"A nation of snitches." How many of these unfortunate police incidents begin with a snitch NBachers Jul 2015 #30
Getting somebody involved when a two year old is alone is not snitching Travis_0004 Jul 2015 #37
In most states it is the law Omaha Steve Jul 2015 #38
The mom was 30 feet away within sight gollygee Jul 2015 #50
Did the kids know where she was Travis_0004 Jul 2015 #54
30 feet isn't that far gollygee Jul 2015 #55
Was the kid wearing a sign saying "My mom is 30 feet away"? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #61
Did the cops have to arrest her when they realized the mom was 30 feet away? kcr Jul 2015 #69
The cops were idiots. That has nothing to do with my comment. ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #71
Who's shitting on the bystander? The problem is she was arrested. n/t kcr Jul 2015 #73
Have you even bothered to read this subthread? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #74
Yes, I did kcr Jul 2015 #75
So you completely ignored that this subthread.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #77
No, I didn't ignore how the subthread was started, but why does it matter? kcr Jul 2015 #78
You asked "Who's shitting on the bystander?" ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #79
Yes, because no one was shitting on the bystander n/t kcr Jul 2015 #80
Yeah, you're right ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #82
Nonsense Lulu Belle Jul 2015 #42
She's lucky she didn't get beaten and shot litlbilly Jul 2015 #31
Single moms have nowhere to turn for help, and a single dad would have been applauded lostnfound Jul 2015 #39
This is not just about cops, it is about CPS funding mntleo2 Jul 2015 #41
CPS False Allegations, Altered Files Confirmed - OIG, News32 Investigations P1-3 2006-07 me b zola Jul 2015 #48
It is also a "solution" to families in poverty mntleo2 Jul 2015 #63
Oh and PeeEss: mntleo2 Jul 2015 #64
This has been a problem in Kentucky too. KentuckyWoman Jul 2015 #68
I just left my 5-yr old child out of eyesight twice today alone NickB79 Jul 2015 #43
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess she's not a white woman NickB79 Jul 2015 #45
Yeah that pretty well went without saying gollygee Jul 2015 #51
Uh oh, you used the p-word. U4ikLefty Jul 2015 #59
Thanks. But I think your headline should say "Black mom" instead of "single mom" because pnwmom Jul 2015 #53
sad Liberal_in_LA Jul 2015 #57
It is hard to be poor in this country nt artislife Jul 2015 #58
In addition to steroids romanic Jul 2015 #60
And the cops didn't shoot her? Emelina Jul 2015 #65
Surprise, surprise! KamaAina Jul 2015 #76
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Single mom arrested for ‘...»Reply #41