How We Protect At-Risk Kids.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?

I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.

If I were forced to hazard a guess as to the nature of RWHN's educational background, I would say he majored in public policy and minored in never getting invited to any of the good parties.

Well, yeah, twitchy caffeine addicts who drink once a month are a bit of a weird invite.

[Doktor Howl]

And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.

You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.

I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles. 

You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.

[Doktor Howl]

I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.

Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.

In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in my America.

This is the best post on PD.  Ever.   

[Doktor Howl]

I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?

I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.

If I were forced to hazard a guess as to the nature of RWHN's educational background, I would say he majored in public policy and minored in never getting invited to any of the good parties.

No, no, THAT was the best post on PD, ever.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?

I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.

If I were forced to hazard a guess as to the nature of RWHN's educational background, I would say he majored in public policy and minored in never getting invited to any of the good parties.

No, no, THAT was the best post on PD, ever.

[AFK]

And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.

You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.

I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles. 

You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.

Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.

[AFK]

I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.

You, as usual, are completely wrong.  Still looking for that parking lot?

[AFK]

I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.

He's policy, rather than health, so yeah, actually some sort of arts degree, like history, would seem to fit.

Not knocking that either, but he's coming from a position of politics, not science.

Actually it is policy AND science. 

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders

Alcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.

Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:

Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.

It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."

To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.

Yep.

Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.

Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.

In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.

The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home. 

But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.

I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.

My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.

clearly we need to ban milk dads.

No, no, no, you're not getting it.
Milk is a GATEWAY DRUG that leads to COFFEE.
VIRTUALLY ALL COFFEE ADDICTS ABUSED MILK AT AN EARLY AGE.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders

Alcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.

Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:

Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.

It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."

To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.

Yep.

Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.

Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.

In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.

The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home. 

But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.

I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.

My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.

clearly we need to ban milk dads.

No, no, no, you're not getting it.
Milk is a GATEWAY DRUG that leads to COFFEE.
VIRTUALLY ALL COFFEE ADDICTS ABUSED MILK AT AN EARLY AGE.

Tits.
Not even once.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.

He's policy, rather than health, so yeah, actually some sort of arts degree, like history, would seem to fit.

Not knocking that either, but he's coming from a position of politics, not science.

Actually it is policy AND science.

Yes, because brushing all contradictory data off as biased shill pieces is wicked scientific.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders

Alcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.

Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:

Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.

It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."

To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.

Yep.

Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.

Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.

In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.

The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home. 

But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.

I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.

My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.

clearly we need to ban milk dads.

No, no, no, you're not getting it.
Milk is a GATEWAY DRUG that leads to COFFEE.
VIRTUALLY ALL COFFEE ADDICTS ABUSED MILK AT AN EARLY AGE.

Tits.
Not even once.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

 

[Doktor Howl]

And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.

You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.

I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles. 

You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.

Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.

We have only your word for that.  Perhaps if you linked us to a reputable source (say, the Daily Mail)...

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.

You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.

I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles. 

You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.

Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.

We have only your word for that.  Perhaps if you linked us to a reputable source (say, the Daily Mail)...