CPS to mother: Do not let your children play outside.

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
This is related, IMO, to past threads we've had on CPS, such as the child who was taken by CPS for being allowed to play at the park, and our current thread on "punishing bad parenting." I feel like CPS is a force for good, but that in our current climate, it has a tendency to go overboard. I also feel like there should be a written set of standards that are easily accessible and not so open to interpretation as those we currently have.

I suspect this is probably a function of the community (and possibly its level of funding too).

Here in Sacramento, they have foster parents who abuse and neglect, possibly even murder kids where no one did anything, even after multiple complaints (this woman made this little girl sleep downstairs in her clothes and put locks on the refrigerator and didn't heat the bottom floor of her home in winter, which is where she made this kid sleep). There was a big report about how screwed up our local CPS was a few years back, and it wasn't because there were social workers picking on people from having cats. The sad thing is that in some states and communities, we hears stories about people who are terrorized by cps because their kid had an accident that could happen to anyone or because a nosy neighbor complained about something that wasn't a big deal, and in others we have all these cases where there were multiple calls and complaints to cps and a child still ended up dead.

I guess that middle ground between an appropriate level of vigilance and neglect is hard to find. It would be interesting to hear some reports on communities that are doing a good job overall of balancing a respect for different styles of parenting and housekeeping with a concern for the welfare of kids.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Yes, I've seen way too many stories about foster parents who abused or neglected their charges - some of whom died as a result. And of course, the tragedy is that these kids were put into foster care by CPS because they thought the biological parents were a danger to the children.

And I agree that there are times when CPS does not act when they definitely should. My husband - a teacher - is a mandatory reporter. He has called CPS quite a few times based on what his students have told him of their home life, but to date, not one of these kids has reported positive change as a result, nor have any been removed.

The family friends I mentioned in the OP are another example - the mother in that family grew up with sexual and physical abuse, and CPS was called but never took action. Fast forward to her own children, and CPS is at her house acting like having cats is a serious health risk to her family.

I am not against CPS. I think it is necessary. But I think there needs to be more specific, accessible, across-the-board rules on what does and does not constitute abuse and neglect, and that enforcement should be more balanced. The first is easy to address; the second, not so much. I also take issue with the other things I mentioned before, namely, that those accused are forever possibly guilty, and that there is no real chance of redress against those who make false claims.
 
Last edited:

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
My concerns with regard to children on the street aren't based on fears of crimes, they're based on streets and the number of vehicles on them.

All that "free range kid" stuff is fine, but when the streets in question have constant traffic, allowing young children out unsupervised can still be a bad idea. Because there are more cars and trucks, period. And they're on the road more often. And they're driving faster. And drivers are more distracted.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I think they're always going to have to err on the side of caution with reporting, because the consequences of missing even an occasional case where a child is being abused or neglected is just so horrific. But this means treating people with respect during calls and making it really, really clear that things that are pointed out as potential risks are just that--things the person has to point out as per protocol and their own liability but which are probably safe in most cases.

The cat stuff seems ridiculous, and maybe it's simply based more on a personal vendetta this person has about cats (people with phobias can be very out of touch with the level of actual risk and be particularly blind about the benefits), but his or her agency should know this about her/him and send someone else to homes that have pets.

The sword thing is one of those cases that's probably fine in the overwhelming majority of cases, but there may be an occasional kid who would do just that and end up hurting themselves or someone else. But of course if the sword has been hanging there for years and the kids haven't done it yet, maybe it means something.

This is one of those things that would come down to the "know your kid" category. I had a friend whose kids were definitely the sort that were very hard to "child proof" homes against. They could not sit still or stop screwing around with things. And yes, one even went and played in the catbox when she was little (I don't know if she ate any poo, but she made a nice little poohenge). I also know people who prided themselves on never having to child proof a thing in their homes, because their kids listened to them when they said, "don't touch." They had the sort of kids who would entertain themselves quietly with books or puzzles for hours on end and would never run in the house or break anything.

It might have as much to do with the kids' temperaments as the parenting.
 
Last edited:

CrastersBabies

Burninator!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
Approximately 60% of sexual assaults go unreported. This number gets higher with minors. *I* grew up on a farm in the 1970's. I wandered the countryside. There were two sexual assault attempts made on me over a three-year period by neighbors or people driving by in cars. A friend of mine was raped when she was 9. She lived down the road. When I was 11 and moved to the city, I was asked twice to get into someone's car. When I was 12, three high school boys chased me across three blocks and the only reason I got away was because I knew a neighbor had a dog door I could fit through and slipped inside. (They were out of town.) Talking to friends when we got older, I learned that many had similar experiences—things they did not report to anyone.

I'm not suggesting that parents should suddenly get their kids a GPS implant and a 24-hour body guard, but I also think it's silly to argue that because you personally had no incidents roaming the Wyoming wilderness that by God, every kid is going to be exactly the same. (Same as children will not all have MY experiences.)

When my daughter was younger, we lived in a bad part of town. No outside playing alone. Ever. Now? Different story. We know our neighbors and our neighbors' kids and we look out for one another. Can we stop being so dismissive of parenting that is more conservative? Especially if we don't know circumstances about that family?

As for this topic, I feel like 6 in general is too young. If I knew more about the neighborhood, mother, etc., that may change. I also (generally) think that CPS overreacted here. (Again, other details might change my mind.) I'm more inclined to put CPS into "Good guy" territory, but I know that's naive.
 
Last edited:

shadowwalker

empty-nester!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,601
Reaction score
598
Location
SE Minnesota
I would have called CPS if I had seen a six-year-old in a park (or anywhere else) by himself with no supervisory adult close at hand. 150 yards? I'm sorry, but a predator could have that kid and be long gone before the parent could say boo. The kid could run into the street before the mother could shout "No!". I lived in a nice neighborhood, school and church a block away, main police station six blocks away - no way in hell would I let my son out of the yard unless he had a responsible adult with him.

Parents need to understand that no, this isn't Mayberry any more. Free-range? Give me a fucking break.
 

DancingMaenid

New kid...seven years ago!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
460
Location
United States
It's hard to tell, but I haven't seen anything about whether it's known if the neighbor was the one who called CPS. It's possible the police officer had to file a report with them as a matter of procedure.

I have mixed feelings about the situation itself. I would find it a little bit odd to come across a child that young playing by himself that far away from his house. When I was that age, kids played around the neighborhood, but I usually remember them being in groups. I would find a lone child a bit more concerning. But it's also one of those things where I doubt I would call CPS or the police unless the child was doing something really dangerous or I'd observed the family for a bit and saw a habit of neglect. I'm not really sure why the neighbor called the police once she found out that the boy's mom knew where he was. It's a questionable parenting choice, but not an emergency or an abusive situation on its own.

But honestly, I would rather people be too quick to contact CPS than not quick enough. There are cases where it's really nothing, but there are also cases where kids are really being abused but people hesitate to call CPS because they're not positive.

I think the problem is when people's lives really get disrupted over minor or bogus complaints. In a case where there's a single minor complaint (like a child playing outside unsupervised), and neither the parent nor the child say anything to indicate that there's a problem, I don't see the need for doing more in-depth interviews.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
Sorry to hear that. They go by different acronyms in different states. I think, mostly, their caseloads are more than they can handle and they don't use judgement but follow protocol.

This is true. But part of the reason for that is (IMO) Hillary's misattribution of the "village" it takes to raise a child being the same as government agencies.

We *can* be concerned and engaged with our neighbors without (necessarily) calling in some government agency to act on our behalf.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
There is a glaring difference here.

In the CPS cases, the accusations are examined and found to be without merit, or for whatever reason NOT a danger to the child. No actual infraction was committed.

In your examples, there WAS an infraction.

Yes, maintaining a file on actual infractions makes sense. Maintaining a file when a professional determined that no infraction took place does NOT make sense.


Yes it does. A visit from the CPS is a data point, which may be important if other data points emerge. Of course no one should have their kids taken away, or be disqualified from fostering or adopting, because of a visit from CPS. But if someone is getting CPS called on them repeatedly, that is not something I'd want to be ignored because each time, the worker didn't find anything specific enough to act on.

Yes, it's possible for a CPS worker to be overzealous or have an agenda, and it's possible one could have busybody neighbors or a vindictive family member. So there should be checks and balances and a lot of discretion.

I also suspect the story has been spun.

Keep in mind, this article was from Reason.org, which of course gave the parent an uncritical platform for her tale of an authoritarian state employee harassing innocent people with absurd dictums. (She was wearing sunglasses! She smiled "condescendingly"!)
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
This is true. But part of the reason for that is (IMO) Hillary's misattribution of the "village" it takes to raise a child being the same as government agencies.

We *can* be concerned and engaged with our neighbors without (necessarily) calling in some government agency to act on our behalf.

This might be a first, but I agree with you.

I absolutely 100% believe in the "it takes a village" philosophy.

But we are that village. Calling the government agency should be a last resort.

Unfortunately, sometimes last resorts are necessary.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Yes it does. A visit from the CPS is a data point, which may be important if other data points emerge. Of course no one should have their kids taken away, or be disqualified from fostering or adopting, because of a visit from CPS. But if someone is getting CPS called on them repeatedly, that is not something I'd want to be ignored because each time, the worker didn't find anything specific enough to act on.

There is a fear — a completely justifiable one, IMO — that many people will treat all such "data points" as equal.

Having a record of any kind tends to colors how people view you, regardless of what that "data point" actually is.

It takes a lot of training, effort, and a strong system of checks and balances to fight against that bias.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Kuwisdelu said:
There is a fear — a completely justifiable one, IMO — that many people will treat all such "data points" as equal.

Yes.

And keep in mind that because these "data points" are initiated in anonymity and remain on the record even if found to be baseless, having ten baseless "data points" all from the same ex-spouse who happens to be fighting for custody of the kids is, on the record, exactly equal to having ten "data points" coming from ten different sources without a personal vendetta.

Also, beyond there being a tendency to see all these "data points" as equal, there is also the risk of assumption that because there are data points at all, there is a higher likelihood of guilt. I would say that in, say, the case of custody battles over children, this is not necessarily the case - but there is currently no way to know how the "data points" were generated.


Yes it does. A visit from the CPS is a data point, which may be important if other data points emerge. Of course no one should have their kids taken away, or be disqualified from fostering or adopting, because of a visit from CPS. But if someone is getting CPS called on them repeatedly, that is not something I'd want to be ignored because each time, the worker didn't find anything specific enough to act on.

We do not keep such "data points" on people accused of any other crime. If you are accused of murder, rape, torture, or even treason against your country, but no evidence is found to support that accusation, it is not kept on your record as a "data point" that suggests, should you be accused again, that you are likely guilty simply because of the number of times you've been accused.

Moreover, an ex-spouse who accused you of murder, rape, torture, or treason and whose accusations were found to be baseless could not go on reporting the same accusations against you every single year without facing criminal charges themselves. They could not do so in anonymity and then sit back and watch the state subject you to a full-on investigation every time, never once facing any sort of investigation or discipline themselves. They can not build a series of "data points" against you in this manner.

Yes, it's possible for a CPS worker to be overzealous or have an agenda, and it's possible one could have busybody neighbors or a vindictive family member. So there should be checks and balances and a lot of discretion.

There should be. There is not. This is one of my areas of contention.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Actually I think you may find that local police keep some record of accusations made by the public. Just as doctors may make notes in your records about various observations they make that will stay there forever. CPS is just very standardized and indelible in their approach because they are regularly accused of dropping the ball when a child is killed and they get sued individually and collectively on a routine basis. Therefore anything they see and record must become a matter of record accessible to the courts.

So basically the public wants CPS to permanently record and investigate everything about children that will be seriously abused, and nothing about those that will not--despite the fact that they have no good way of knowing at any given point which is which. There is a reason why CPS workers burn out at such a high rate. Their job sucks.
 
Last edited:

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Actually I think you may find that local police keep some record of accusations made by the public. Just as doctors may make notes in your records about various observations they make that will stay there forever.

However, when you are investigated and there is no evidence of the claims, those claims cannot be used against you, even as "data points" to build suspicion.

Also, you are under no obligation to report them to anyone before you do something related - with CPS, you have to report even a baseless claim before you can adopt, but with an accusation of rape, a man wouldn't have to report a baseless claim before he could work as a gynecologist.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
Also, you are under no obligation to report them to anyone before you do something related - with CPS, you have to report even a baseless claim before you can adopt, but with an accusation of rape, a man wouldn't have to report a baseless claim before he could work as a gynecologist.


Applying for a job is somewhat different than applying to be responsible for a child's life.

Has anyone been turned down as a foster parent or adopter because they were once visited by CPS?

If a vindictive ex-spouse were calling CPS over and over again, and each time it was found to be baseless, I think CPS would become aware of this situation and note it accordingly. It's not like they don't see this happen a lot.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
Applying for a job is somewhat different than applying to be responsible for a child's life.

Has anyone been turned down as a foster parent or adopter because they were once visited by CPS?

If a vindictive ex-spouse were calling CPS over and over again, and each time it was found to be baseless, I think CPS would become aware of this situation and note it accordingly. It's not like they don't see this happen a lot.

Privacy.

CPS would announce the visits to the adoption agency. But not the content (including the findings).
 

Captcha

Banned
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
637
However, when you are investigated and there is no evidence of the claims, those claims cannot be used against you, even as "data points" to build suspicion.

I think the police would absolutely use claims against someone as data points as a way to build suspicion. Even if the police can't prove something, there'd still be a police report on file, and if you're accused of a something similar again, of course they'd be more suspicious, based on the previous file.

Do you know something I don't?

I live in a small community, but I know the police here spend a lot of their time gathering rumours and accusations and other tools that wouldn't be admissible in court but that can otherwise give police a good idea of where to start looking when trouble flares up.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
Privacy.

CPS would announce the visits to the adoption agency. But not the content (including the findings).


Is that actually how it works? This seems unlikely to me, that CPS will tell someone, on demand, how many times another individual has been investigated, but not the outcome.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
I live in a small community, but I know the police here spend a lot of their time gathering rumours and accusations and other tools that wouldn't be admissible in court but that can otherwise give police a good idea of where to start looking when trouble flares up.

"Wouldn't be admissible in court" goes right to the crux of the issue.

CPS calls are. Even if nothing is found, the very fact that there was a call can be used in court to create suspicion against parents.

Also, as I said, suspected criminals of any sort - no matter how serious the crime - are not required to report this before they adopt, or get a job, or whatever, but if CPS has investigated you, you DO have to report it before you adopt or take certain jobs.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
"Wouldn't be admissible in court" goes right to the crux of the issue.

CPS calls are. Even if nothing is found, the very fact that there was a call can be used in court to create suspicion against parents.


If someone is being charged with child abuse, the fact that CPS was called to their house might be considered pertinent. Presumably the defense attorney would introduce the results of the investigation if no wrongdoing was found.

Also, as I said, suspected criminals of any sort - no matter how serious the crime - are not required to report this before they adopt, or get a job, or whatever, but if CPS has investigated you, you DO have to report it before you adopt or take certain jobs.

See above - if "certain jobs" includes "taking care of children," then yes, that makes sense. I work a job that requires me to report all kinds of things about myself that most people would never have to report.
 

TerzaRima

Absinthe O'Malice
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
3,340
Reaction score
892
Location
the foulest in the land
If a vindictive ex-spouse were calling CPS over and over again, and each time it was found to be baseless, I think CPS would become aware of this situation and note it accordingly. It's not like they don't see this happen a lot.

You think correctly. CPS doesn't have to investigate every call they get, and those calls not investigated don't become part of a family's record.

As a rule, these are extremely busy people who are trying to do the right thing and who don't give a (redacted) if you have cats.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
However, when you are investigated and there is no evidence of the claims, those claims cannot be used against you, even as "data points" to build suspicion.

Also, you are under no obligation to report them to anyone before you do something related - with CPS, you have to report even a baseless claim before you can adopt, but with an accusation of rape, a man wouldn't have to report a baseless claim before he could work as a gynecologist.

I agree with your overall point, Monkey, but I disagree that it's very different from other records like arrests. Even if you're not convicted, arrest records and court records are generally public, and can easily be used against you. Perhaps not in a court of law, as you're saying CPS records could be, but employers can definitely ask if you've been arrested, and use that in their consideration of you.

I understand what you're saying about CPS records being somewhat unique, but they're not so unique that they're the only kind of records I'd worry about.
 
Last edited:

CrastersBabies

Burninator!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
I have heard horror stories about children who needed intervention and had well over a half-dozen calls made against them to CPS, and yet, nothing was ever found on the up-and-up. (Though those close to the kids knew they were being abused.)

It sounds like this system isn't perfect, has issues, but tries to do good. Perhaps it varies area-by-area?
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
Some neighborhoods are safer than others with regards to "free range" kids. The neigborhood I grew up in, in a different state than I live now, was incredibly safe, and while there were usually parents around, there weren't always, and kids went to nearby parks to play at varying ages. Usually older than ten, but sometimes younger if there was an older kid. This was before "must be accompanied" signs became mandatory in parks, though. Even now, my friend who still lives near there says kids and groups of kids wander up and down the streets of the neighborhood. Do keep in mind that these are suburban neighborhood streets with 25 mph speed limits.

It's not helpful to overgeneralize situations. Context is pretty important here.


Where I live now, I wouldn't say it would be safe to treat kids the same as where I grew up.