DHS view on local Child abuse case

Points, AC was right.
The way he goes about delivering them is wrong.

Not necessarily.

Sometimes, of course, don't we all?

-AC

well, yes. its just that for most of us, our angry rebuttals occupy all but 3 or 4 lines. yours seem to consume 3 or 4 pages. (the 2 of you, i mean)

And it' s counterproductive for the members whose time and energy is limited, and have to wade through those posts.

Now get back on topic please.

Originally posted by Storm
And it' s counterproductive for the members whose time and energy is limited, and have to wade through those posts.

Now get back on topic please.

Well said Storm!!

please dont slobber on the mods

Originally posted by Schecter
please dont slobber on the mods

Expressing agreement = slobbering? Not really.

Originally posted by Creshosk
"Soon after my oldest niece and second oldest, 6 and 4,"

I'm sure that they could adequetly explain what happened. I'm not even sure if they're literate. DHS should have investigated. Not necciserily arrest the guy or anything...

But they would take action if the proper actions were taken.

Originally posted by Storm
And it' s counterproductive for the members whose time and energy is limited, and have to wade through those posts.

Now get back on topic please.

If your time and energy are limited then your choice to wade through the posts is somewhat your own fault.

Not yours, in general.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If your time and energy are limited then your choice to wade through the posts is somewhat your own fault.

Not yours, in general.

-AC

-AC all Storm pointed out is a very long post is not always needed.

Verbosity is not always the way to get your point across. Why the need for constant repitition of the same argument thorought your post, and the overanalyzing of very minor points?

It makes following in a thread a boring task.

Originally posted by Creshosk
DHS should have investigated.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, the reason they wont do it at a childs word is this:

In the past, there have been innumerable cases where children had reported child abuse that didn't actually happen. Normally they don't "make it up", but its not unheard of. The biggest problem with these accusations is that, once accused, people can be convinced that they had commited the abuse when it never happened. Once everyone is caught up in the emotions of the situation, it becomes impossible to sort out without direct evidence of something.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that these kids admitted what had happened to a counselor. People, not children, have been shown to be overly leadable by questions, and that therapists, assisted communicators, counselors, whatever, can subconsiously lead them to conclusions. Children are especially susceptable, and in controlled experiments, therapists have been able to implant memories into children, which the children will later elaborate on.

Finally, when it comes to people's memories of childhood trauma, studies have shown that it is unreliable at best. Memory is falliable, and for any reason, people may get certain notions from out of nowhere. It is especially suspect if the memory is spontaniously recalled (meaning that they had forgot about it, or "repressed" it). Again, without evidence, there is really no proof of anything.

Notice: this isn't saying that there was no abuse, it is an answer specifically to why DHS will not do anything at just accusations with no cooberating evidence.

1) A DHS investigation, if one occured (re: investigations require both time and money, and even a single investigation that turns up false can have irrecoverable effects upon an accused individual and the family) would need more than this.

a) does this mean that if the person is abusing the child it may happen again? YES
------> however: protection from potential crime has NEVER been grounds enough for removing the rights of an individual.

b) does this mean that DHS is doing nothing? **** NO, and I don't know where that came from.
------>For instance, they tried to get the kids to write something out. This is to let a child express something without being led by an adult. This is them doing something. They legally need better evidence before anything else can be done. Also the idea that they wouldn't be doing everything in their power to stop it is asanine.

Everyone gets really emotional when it comes to stuff with kids. This is specifically the reason why MORE caution is necessary when making these accusations. A father being wrongfully accused of molestation will not recover, psychologically or socially. A father wrongfully accused of molestation may become so emotional that they become convinced that they were a molester.

Some hard evidence would be good. Sperm in the child's underwear, the father's skin under the nails of the girl, anything. Just because we all get really hot and bothered by child rape doesn't mean that standards of evidence and due dilligence get thrown out the window.

Just checking, but he is Whirly, right?

likely.

Originally posted by inimalist
Just because we all get really hot and bothered by child rape doesn't mean that standards of evidence and due dilligence get thrown out the window.

I didn't understand it. Why would child rape get anyone "hot and bothered"?

'hot and bothered' is an expression for being extremely passionate and energised, but its also an expression for being really horny.

Originally posted by Schecter
'hot and bothered' is an expression for being extremely passionate and energised, but its also an expression for being really horny.

I know that but why would the thought of child rape get anyone "hot and bothered"?

because, like i said, 'hot and bothered' has multiple meanings. if you indeed knew that, you wouldnt be asking, would you?

Originally posted by Schecter
because, like i said, 'hot and bothered' has multiple meanings. if you indeed knew that, you wouldnt be asking, would you?

I knew what it meant, I don't see why child rape would engender that reaction, so I don't understand what he meant by joining the two together. This is confusing. Inamilist what do you mean?

Originally posted by Zebedee
I knew what it meant, I don't see why child rape would engender that reaction, so I don't understand what he meant by joining the two together. This is confusing.

ffs if you knew its multiple meanings you wouldnt be asking the same question. it also means extremely agitated/angry