system: You are George Hero, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Victims/Falseacc message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to All about "For your info...".

They wrote:
>
> CELEBRATE THE VICTORY
> ---------------------
>
> AB1355, the bill that reduces social worker's absolute immunity to
> qualified immunity, passed the California Senate yesterday 23 to 6.
> It is going to the state Assembly basically for concurrence, since it
> has been amended (by Lucy Killea and et al).  It should pass this stage
> no problem, and head its way to the Governor's desk.  However, if you
> want to be certain, you may call your Democrat members of Assembly,
> and ask them to see that it goes through.
>
>
>
>To: pwharton@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us
>Subject: Re: ab 1355
>
>I just received your voice mail message.  The address here is
>NASWCAJL@AOL.COM
>
>It is interesting how supporters of AB 1355 claim to be speaking out on
>behalf of the children.  This is exactly the reason why NASW is opposed to
>the measure.
>
>Child abuse claims the lives of 2,000 children annually; it injures another
>140,000 annually.  Child abuse is a real problem.
>
>If AB 1355 succeeds into intimidating one social worker into leaving one
>child in a dangerous environment because that social worker is afraid of
>being sued, that is one more potential death or injury.
>
>If AB 1355 succeeds in diverting approximately $9 million from counties
>should be going toward protecting children, that is $9 million too much.
>
>Social workers and other child protective workers do not enjoy absolute
>immunity for all of their actions under current law.  Parents and others
>sued and recovered substantial damages when a child protection worker has
>erred in the conduct of a ministerial decision.  However, if litigation is
>now the tool to intimidate child protection workers into leaving children in
>dangerous environments, this will no doubt be detrimental to children.
>
>Under current law, a child protection worker cannot be sued for failing to
>remove a child from a dangerous environment.  If AB 1355 passes, the only
>time a child protection worker could be sued is if he or she chooses to
>intervene.  There is no question that there is a heavy intimidation factor
>involved here.
>
>This week in Sacramento, one child was killed in Sacramento County as a
>result of child abuse.  The alleged perpetrator evidently beat another child

Write your reply.

assistant: ========================================================================
 Forwarded here by George Hero (1:396/17.27)
========================================================================
 Area:    NETMAIL
 Date:    15 Oct 95  12:01:54  Public
 From:    George Hero                                       (396/17)
 To:      witchhnt@mitvma.mit.edu                           (396/17)
 Subject: Ca Limits Social worker immunity
========================================================================
========================================================================
 Forwarded here by George Hero (1:396/17.27)
========================================================================
 Subject: CA: AB1355 Passed Senate!                                [1]
On Fri, 15 Sep 1995 fgj@electriciti.com wrote:
From pwharton@owens.ridgecrest.ca.usFri Sep 15 15:13:22 1995
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 12:07:35 +0000
From: Patrick Wharton <pwharton@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us>
To: fathers@soho.ios.com
Subject: Re: ab 1355 from NASW
John,
I received this from NASW.  Opposition by antidote, not surprising.
Theirs is an ad hominem argument.  To support the bill is to condone child
abuse.  Perhaps you can get across to NASW that many of the custody
arrangements that social workers impose on Fathers is also child abuse.  I
would like to know where they get their figures.  Forward thier response
wherever it will get the best audience, please.
regards,
Patrick Wharton
hich
ave