If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Just for the fun of it, let's do an address cross-match with our foster homes and sex offenders' lists. Whoa   (latimesblogs.latimes.com) divider line 46
    More: Scary, foster homes, sex offenders, child welfare, board of supervisors, Child and Family Services, couples, tracking  
•       •       •

14787 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Oct 2011 at 9:06 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-10-27 06:00:41 PM
So what I've gleaned from this is that people who want to actually spend time with strange children are child molesters.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2011-10-27 06:08:10 PM
Lots of foster kids are messed up. Lots of formerly abused foster children take it out on the younger kids in their new home.

I heard Massachusetts policy was not to investigate abuse complaints against foster parents or placed children. The complaint was treated like a bad driver report against a cop -- file and forget. I don't know if that is still the case.
 
2011-10-27 06:33:49 PM
It doesn't surprise me that they don't check the sex offender databases first, but the things that don't surprise me still never cease to amaze me. (Yeah, wrap your head around that).

Any yahoo with a cell phone can pull up a list of sex offenders in their area within minutes. I refuse to believe that doing this when placing a child for foster care, would require huge amounts of money or time for the agency. So why? It's completely indefensible.
 
2011-10-27 06:45:11 PM
How many of the residents of these facilities are the offenders, not the employees. derpaholics?
 
2011-10-27 07:09:45 PM
Wow.
Headline and story: 1000 sex offenders live at foster home/group home addresses.
Little correction at the bottom: Um, the real number is 31, not 1000, whoops.
 
2011-10-27 08:09:46 PM

dahmers love zombie: Wow.
Headline and story: 1000 sex offenders live at foster home/group home addresses.
Little correction at the bottom: Um, the real number is 31, not 1000, whoops.


Yeah, oops, our bad. They were only off by 969, but who's counting?
 
2011-10-27 08:29:14 PM

Bathia_Mapes: dahmers love zombie: Wow.
Headline and story: 1000 sex offenders live at foster home/group home addresses.
Little correction at the bottom: Um, the real number is 31, not 1000, whoops.

Yeah, oops, our bad. They were only off by 969, but who's counting?


Well 1 is too many, but yeah I think that's a correction they should make a little more obvious. Must be low on ad revenue this month.
 
2011-10-27 09:02:02 PM

dahmers love zombie: Wow.
Headline and story: 1000 sex offenders live at foster home/group home addresses.
Little correction at the bottom: Um, the real number is 31, not 1000, whoops.


The correction actually says " In reality, the sex offender matches included a wider group of state-licensed facilities, including day-care facilities for children and providers for the elderly and adults with special needs", as opposed to just foster/group homes. The correction still claims 1000 offenders.

The 31 is the number of offenders now barred from these places, instead of the 36 stated earlier.

How many sex offenders are acceptable around your children?
 
2011-10-27 09:11:31 PM

dahmers love zombie: Wow.
Headline and story: 1000 sex offenders live at foster home/group home addresses.
Little correction at the bottom: Um, the real number is 31, not 1000, whoops.


No... That was how many actual sex offenders they found and told to GTFO, I believe.

The 1000 is number of matches for pedo x at-risk people (kids, elderly, etc), which they initially reported (probably) as something like pedo x kids, which wasn't quite accurate either.
 
2011-10-27 09:11:39 PM

dopeydwarf: So what I've gleaned from this is that "some" people who want to actually spend time with strange vulnerable children are child molesters.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 549x362]


/Fixed that for you.
 
2011-10-27 09:15:18 PM

Dupa: dahmers love zombie: Wow.
Headline and story: 1000 sex offenders live at foster home/group home addresses.
Little correction at the bottom: Um, the real number is 31, not 1000, whoops.

The correction actually says " In reality, the sex offender matches included a wider group of state-licensed facilities, including day-care facilities for children and providers for the elderly and adults with special needs", as opposed to just foster/group homes. The correction still claims 1000 offenders.

The 31 is the number of offenders now barred from these places, instead of the 36 stated earlier.

How many sex offenders are acceptable around your children?


I think an important question is why are the foster/group homes not already on the list of "no fly" zones, and why is it their parole officers haven't stepped on their necks anyway?
 
2011-10-27 09:17:23 PM
Who didn't see that coming. Next question. How many registered sex offenders are living at these facilities as residents/patients?
 
2011-10-27 09:25:20 PM
Did they also cross reference that with the murderer's registry?
 
2011-10-27 09:26:24 PM
Assuming this is an actual sex offender, and not public urinator, mooning, or other minor incident.
 
2011-10-27 09:28:34 PM
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2011-10-27 09:30:52 PM
Right. Lets ignore that some of the sex offenders are the foster kids.
 
2011-10-27 09:32:20 PM
I certainly wouldn't want anyone who was caught urinating in public looking after my children.
 
2011-10-27 09:41:16 PM

Vigorous_Apathy: I certainly wouldn't want anyone who was caught urinating in public looking after my children.


Yeah, it pisses me off too.
 
2011-10-27 09:47:44 PM

cretinbob: How many of the residents of these facilities are the offenders, not the employees. derpaholics?


And not all are places where there are kids:

foster homes, group homes and day-care facilities for children, as well as facilities for adults with special needs and the elderly
 
2011-10-27 09:48:14 PM

Dupa: dahmers love zombie: Wow.
Headline and story: 1000 sex offenders live at foster home/group home addresses.
Little correction at the bottom: Um, the real number is 31, not 1000, whoops.

The correction actually says " In reality, the sex offender matches included a wider group of state-licensed facilities, including day-care facilities for children and providers for the elderly and adults with special needs", as opposed to just foster/group homes. The correction still claims 1000 offenders.

The 31 is the number of offenders now barred from these places, instead of the 36 stated earlier.

How many sex offenders are acceptable around your children?


I'm gonna go with five. Five seems like a reasonable and modest enough number.
 
2011-10-27 09:49:29 PM

JWideman: Right. Lets ignore that some of the sex offenders are the foster kids.


Though, that would explain their high demand.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2011-10-27 09:50:04 PM
I'm gonna go with five.

Literal numeric answers to rhetorical questions should include the digit 7.
 
2011-10-27 09:50:14 PM

hobblekitty: It doesn't surprise me that they don't check the sex offender databases first, but the things that don't surprise me still never cease to amaze me. (Yeah, wrap your head around that).

Any yahoo with a cell phone can pull up a list of sex offenders in their area within minutes. I refuse to believe that doing this when placing a child for foster care, would require huge amounts of money or time for the agency. So why? It's completely indefensible.


We should probably form a committee to investigate the matter. We'll probably end up needing a Director to oversee the operations. He'll need a full support staff, so hiring will have to commence in the standard 90 day cycle, posted to the DOL career assistance program, must abide by all affirmative action and equal opportunity guidelines and approved by the State legal staff. Union reps will be consulted and fair and equitable benefit package will be offered, as well as guaranteed salary increases and career transition options in the event of a termination. The staff can be housed on the north east building on the Montgomery square complex. Janitorial and culinary staff will be needed to support the building. Existing personnel from the north west complex can be utilized at double overtime rates per their existing contract. However, additional security personnel will be needed to comply with federal homeland security measures to obtain block grants. EPA officials will need to clear the building and any infractions will be posted to bid to bring the building up to code.

At 180 days the Director and new support staff will have the ability to obtain an unpaid intern recently graduated from the local state university 60 grand in debt, who will be tasked with the ability of checking all foster care prospects against the sex offender database on his cell phone.

Projected cost: 12.7 million
 
2011-10-27 09:55:19 PM

Dupa: dahmers love zombie: Wow.
Headline and story: 1000 sex offenders live at foster home/group home addresses.
Little correction at the bottom: Um, the real number is 31, not 1000, whoops.

The correction actually says " In reality, the sex offender matches included a wider group of state-licensed facilities, including day-care facilities for children and providers for the elderly and adults with special needs", as opposed to just foster/group homes. The correction still claims 1000 offenders.

The 31 is the number of offenders now barred from these places, instead of the 36 stated earlier.

How many sex offenders are acceptable around your children?


It depends. Are we talking "John Doe knife-dildo rapist" sex offender, "Free Candy" van sex offenders, "19 with a 16-year-old girlfriend" sex offender, or "peed off of his back porch" sex offender? The number would be different.
 
2011-10-27 10:01:54 PM

Nuclear Monk: Dupa: dahmers love zombie:
How many sex offenders are acceptable around your children?

I'm gonna go with five. Five seems like a reasonable and modest enough number.


Three, sir.
 
2011-10-27 10:02:12 PM
i3.photobucket.com
 
2011-10-27 10:32:39 PM
Relax everybody. I just checked the article, these are FORMER sex offenders. They were sex offenders, but we're rehabilitated in prison. They are out now and are not sex offenders anymore. They are on the list of FORMER sex offenders. All the current sex offenders are still in jail, you know, cause they are dangerous.
 
2011-10-27 10:34:22 PM
foster homes are bad now,what are we goning to do with the unwanted children now
 
2011-10-27 10:39:24 PM

CasperImproved: dopeydwarf: So what I've gleaned from this is that "some" people who want to actually spend time with strange vulnerable children are child molesters.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 549x362]

/Fixed that for you.



I'm looking at you suspiciously.
 
2011-10-27 10:51:25 PM
I was prepared to be outraged thinking that these homes and foster parents were the registered sex offenders. Then I read the article.

WTH do you want subby? If these people need to be taken care don't design programs to do so then complain that the people that need care are getting care.

Besides what else do you want them to do wander the streets untracked? Ya that's the best idea for sex offenders lets release them and not know what they are up to.
 
2011-10-27 10:53:53 PM
Hey, this time of year it is easy to spot the sex offender houses; just look at the punkins!

media.tumblr.com

\not really surprised by the article
\\more disappointed in the lack of unified databases for government
 
2011-10-27 10:56:56 PM
I've known, personally, the story of one foster kid - the outrageously abusive home she was removed from. It's beyond description.

People can try to joke however the whim would strike, even to joke about awful circumstances - most people haven't known the worst, by any measure.

Regardless of the correction in the statistics, the fact remains that the Caly state Dept. Social Services ignored the guidance of Caly State Auditor Howle, in that crucial matter of ensuring that the children who have been placed under the state's care will not be further endangered, in their lives, once placed into homes.

For the negligence of the California Department of Social Services, it's an awful example of the really inhuman extent to which bureaucracy has developed, in some quarters, even in our democratic nation.
 
2011-10-27 11:00:19 PM

Warlordtrooper: I was prepared to be outraged thinking that these homes and foster parents were the registered sex offenders. Then I read the article.

WTH do you want subby? If these people need to be taken care don't design programs to do so then complain that the people that need care are getting care.

Besides what else do you want them to do wander the streets untracked? Ya that's the best idea for sex offenders lets release them and not know what they are up to.


just farkin kill them, why do we need to spend so much time and resources to keep up with them,if you're on the list you're life is shiat anyway. death would be more humane and save a lot of time and worries wondering if you neighbor is a child farker
 
2011-10-27 11:02:20 PM

Farabor: Nuclear Monk: Dupa: dahmers love zombie:
How many sex offenders are acceptable around your children?

I'm gonna go with five. Five seems like a reasonable and modest enough number.

Three, sir.


Ya know, I was gonna go with the standard "42" but I like what you guys did better. Kudos!
 
2011-10-27 11:04:09 PM

haywatchthis: Warlordtrooper: I was prepared to be outraged thinking that these homes and foster parents were the registered sex offenders. Then I read the article.

WTH do you want subby? If these people need to be taken care don't design programs to do so then complain that the people that need care are getting care.

Besides what else do you want them to do wander the streets untracked? Ya that's the best idea for sex offenders lets release them and not know what they are up to.

just farkin kill them, why do we need to spend so much time and resources to keep up with them,if you're on the list you're life is shiat anyway. death would be more humane and save a lot of time and worries wondering if you neighbor is a child farker


By your logic we should kill unwanted children too, since their lives would be poor and they would be a drain on society. By why waste the meat after they are dead.

\real baby-back ribs
\\with sauces
 
2011-10-27 11:55:16 PM

ChuDogg: hobblekitty: It doesn't surprise me that they don't check the sex offender databases first, but the things that don't surprise me still never cease to amaze me. (Yeah, wrap your head around that).

Any yahoo with a cell phone can pull up a list of sex offenders in their area within minutes. I refuse to believe that doing this when placing a child for foster care, would require huge amounts of money or time for the agency. So why? It's completely indefensible.

We should probably form a committee to investigate the matter. We'll probably end up needing a Director to oversee the operations. He'll need a full support staff, so hiring will have to commence in the standard 90 day cycle, posted to the DOL career assistance program, must abide by all affirmative action and equal opportunity guidelines and approved by the State legal staff. Union reps will be consulted and fair and equitable benefit package will be offered, as well as guaranteed salary increases and career transition options in the event of a termination. The staff can be housed on the north east building on the Montgomery square complex. Janitorial and culinary staff will be needed to support the building. Existing personnel from the north west complex can be utilized at double overtime rates per their existing contract. However, additional security personnel will be needed to comply with federal homeland security measures to obtain block grants. EPA officials will need to clear the building and any infractions will be posted to bid to bring the building up to code.

At 180 days the Director and new support staff will have the ability to obtain an unpaid intern recently graduated from the local state university 60 grand in debt, who will be tasked with the ability of checking all foster care prospects against the sex offender database on his cell phone.

Projected cost: 12.7 million


Your newsletter i must subscribe to it
 
2011-10-27 11:59:56 PM

gozar_the_destroyer: By your logic we should kill unwanted children too, since their lives would be poor and they would be a drain on society. By why waste the meat after they are dead.

\real baby-back ribs
\\with sauces


I don't remember seeing that on the menu last time I went to Chilis.

/Do I need to ask the cook personally or something?
 
2011-10-28 01:18:51 AM
In some places sex offenders are forced to live under bridges and in weird sex offender jungles because no other housing is available to them as sex offenders. In other places, they just move them in with the vulnerable.
 
2011-10-28 02:36:40 AM

wumpus: In some places sex offenders are forced to live under bridges and in weird sex offender jungles because no other housing is available to them as sex offenders. In other places, they just move them in with the vulnerable.


"Some places"=Miami. It comes up in the local news every so often...the "Where they can't live" bubbles keep them out of just about anywhere.
 
2011-10-28 04:20:37 AM

Krieghund: cretinbob: How many of the residents of these facilities are the offenders, not the employees. derpaholics?

And not all are places where there are kids:

foster homes, group homes and day-care facilities for children, as well as facilities for adults with special needs and the elderly


And sex offenders who grow old go to live where?

it didnt say the care givers WERE the offenders anywhere in this article.
 
2011-10-28 05:10:25 AM

Farabor: wumpus: In some places sex offenders are forced to live under bridges and in weird sex offender jungles because no other housing is available to them as sex offenders. In other places, they just move them in with the vulnerable.

"Some places"=Miami. It comes up in the local news every so often...the "Where they can't live" bubbles keep them out of just about anywhere.


Happens elsewhere too. In Iowa and Illinois they have such wide swaths of No Pedo Zone that many are homeless. Met one when I was in a shelter for two months. He was a dumbass, too. Went into a local library and got caught looking at kiddie porn. They only kicked him out and banned him, but a few months later he figured they forgot and walked in, got on the same damn computer, and looked at CP again.

He got arrested that time. Oh, and there were kids at this shelter, though there was a rule that the parents couldn't leave their kids alone in the house. I don't think he did anything to them when the mom DID leave them alone in there, I hope not anyway.

/NSCS,S
 
2011-10-28 06:08:45 AM
If Cali is anything like Ga, the foster homes may not even be aware they have a sex offender in their midst. The social workers are required to disclose all known issues before placement. However, we have had to remove more than one child from our home because the case workers either didn't disclose or didn't know at time of placement. There is a larger, rather than smaller, number of kids that are sex offenders, but because they are juveniles, the freaking records are sealed, even across juridistictional (sic) lines.
 
2011-10-28 07:44:24 AM
Burke is not surprised.

/Obscure
 
2011-10-28 09:46:14 AM
The update at the bottom says "The actual number is 31" yet they leave the headline saying "ITS OVER A THOUSAND!!!!". Fear-mongering much?
 
2011-10-28 10:15:08 AM

Sandvich is loose cannon: The update at the bottom says "The actual number is 31" yet they leave the headline saying "ITS OVER A THOUSAND!!!!". Fear-mongering much?


And if you were a displaced 5 yr old in a group home where one of those 31 were either a peer, or worse, an adult, how would that adjust your thinking?
 
2011-10-28 10:53:08 AM

Sandvich is loose cannon: The update at the bottom says "The actual number is 31" yet they leave the headline saying "ITS OVER A THOUSAND!!!!". Fear-mongering much?


You (and several other people in the thread) are misreading the update. It's correcting two errors. First, the 1000+ matches came from more than just foster homes and group homes, but there are still 1000+ matches:

"For the record, 3:04 p.m. Oct. 27: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said more than 1,000 sex-offender addresses matched the addresses for foster homes and group homes. That account was based on a summary of the report provided to journalists by the state auditor. In reality, the sex offender matches included a wider group of state-licensed facilities, including day-care facilities for children and providers for the elderly and adults with special needs."

Second, the people who are supposed to prevent this from happening have only done something about 31 of the 1000+ matches instead of 36:

"Additionally, the state auditor said that regulators issued 36 orders barring individuals from licensed facilities. The true number is 31, according to the California Department of Social Services."
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report