All the ones that I know. I cannot profess to know all deaf children.
Since you are not an educator, a clinician, or a language specialist, your assessment of success leaves many, many questions. The entire population of CS users within the whole deaf population is very few. Additionally, as you cannot possibly know and be in direct contact with all of the CS users, your sample base cannot be considered to be representative of the whole of CS users, let alone the whole of the deaf population. Your anecdotal evidence,therefore, is not valid when discussing the success of CS.
Indeed it would be.
And, as CS has not been demonstrated to assist in language acquisition, it is indeed an arduous task. However, ASL has been shown to decrease the difficulty of learning English as a second language. .
You have issue with some deaf children benefiting from CS?
The issue is with your promotion of CS as a tool for primary language acquisition for all deaf children. The issue is with your promotion of visual oralism, which is nothing more than assisted lip reading as promoted by the oralist camp, and these techniques have been supported historically and empirically as the greatest variable contributing to language delays.
I have yet to meet personally a deaf/hoh child of hearing parents, who choose Cued Speech as a tool for the aquisition of English who was unsuccessful in aquiring language, inclusion and literacy.