9 ms·

...and really, CPS does need to investigate. Yes, most often it's just a nosey neighbour, but every now and then those nosey neighbours are on to something, and

...and really, CPS does need to investigate. Yes, most often it's just a nosey neighbour, but every now and then those nosey neighbours are on to something, and while unpleasant for the families, missing that one case is the horror story they want to avoid.

techdragon 4y ago
This is the fork in the road, they need investigatory power, but not punitory power. They should be empowered to investigate the reports but their investigation should simply be evidence. The evidence should be passed into the legal system and treated no different to other evidence… presumption of innocence snd burden of proof should not be abrogated … lest we simply abandon any pretence of jurisprudence on such matters.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  I think you're confusing the role of CPS with the police. It's the police who investigate crimes and provide evidence to the courts, who will in turn mete out any punishments. CPS's job is to protect the kids. AFAIK they aren't involved in any kind of punishment. Any measures they take are limited in scope to the best interests of the children. Now, they're indifferent to the impact on the parents, so some of the measures to protect the kids can feel like punishment to the parents, but that's not their concern. I keep feel like people aren't able to draw the line here between what CPS did and what the cops did. Absent more details on the story (and we always have to keep in mind that we're getting the version of the story that is most charitable to the mom), it sure seems like the cops really messed up here. Once the cops arrested her, that's when CPS got involved, and the consequences from CPS's involvement were pretty much inevitable, and frankly the least of the hardships placed on that family.
handoflixue 4y ago
You can't just say the ends justify the means, without actually working out the price you're paying. Otherwise, we should be OK with the government monitoring us 24/7 so that they don't miss any terrorists or child molesters. What proper Good Thinking citizen would possibly object to Big Brother watching them, after all? When an organization has the power to destroy families, I think we might want to require a standard of evidence above one nosy neighbor - or at least evaluate how many kids are protected VS how many suffer in Foster care VS how many had their lives ruined because their parents had a marijuana joint.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cbsmith 4y ago
  > You can't just say the ends justify the means, without actually working out the price you're paying. I wasn't suggesting that the ends justify the means. I'm simply speaking to the realities of the situation. However, from an ends justifying the means perspective, if you're not going to investigate, there's little point in hearing the case, and more importantly in people making the call in the first place. "When an organization has the power to destroy families, I think we might want to require a standard of evidence above one nosy neighbor - or at least evaluate how many kids are protected VS how many suffer in Foster care VS how many had their lives ruined because their parents had a marijuana joint." We do have a higher standard of evidence for that power to be invoked; that's what applied here, and why CPS ultimately passed on this one. If anything, the bar is generally pretty high, and you can get away with some pretty dastardly things with the odds of CPS taking any kind of "family destroying" action very low. > Otherwise, we should be OK with the government monitoring us 24/7 so that they don't miss any terrorists or child molesters. I think that's unreasonably slippery sloping this story. Sure, there are horror stories about CPS being overzealous, but this isn't one of those stories. I don't much like the "family safety plans", but it's a huge leap from there to 24/7 monitoring... and CPS obviously wasn't worried about terrorist or child molesters in this case. It's a hard problem to get right. There's a LOT of really bad stuff going on (estimates are that 1 in 7 children have experienced abuse or neglect at some point). No matter how you do it, families will be destroyed and children will suffer horribly. However, the system errs on keeping families together, which is what you'd want. Given that bias in the system, engaging in at least a lightweight investigation is entirely reasonable. > evaluate how many kids are protected VS how many suffer in Foster care VS how many had their lives ruined because their parents had a marijuana joint. I encourage you to look at the data on this. It's one sided.
  - handoflixue 4y ago
    > Sure, there are horror stories about CPS being overzealous, but this isn't one of those stories. The parents were forced in to two weeks of supervision, requiring another adult around them 24/7. The innocent parents, who had not actually done anything wrong. How is that not "overzealous"? > I don't much like the "family safety plans", but it's a huge leap from there to 24/7 monitoring... "Wallace and her husband could not be alone with their kids for even a second." That sure sounds like 24/7 monitoring, even if it's not the government doing it.
gspencley 4y ago
Investigate, absolutely. The cops need to do that as well. However, as someone else pointed out "Child services had the family agree to a safety plan" is not investigating. That's taking action and making a threat: "if you don't agree to this we'll take you to court and let a judge sort it out at your expense."
- fluidcruft 4y ago
  When CPS is investigating abuse it seems completely reasonable for them to implement a safety plan to ensure ongoing abuse doesn't occur during the investigation. Far better than yanking the kids into protective custody.
  - scarby2 4y ago
    but they had no suspicion that any abuse was occurring?
    - cbsmith 4y ago
      You mean, other than the parents being arrested by police for that?
  - kelnos 4y ago
    That sort of thinking enables all sorts of abuse, though. Knowing this, a neighbor with a beef with parent-neighbors could cause them a lot of grief by manufacturing a false report to the police or CPS, in such a way that they won't get in trouble themselves. I get that sometimes pro-active measures are prudent, but "hey, police, I saw my neighbor's kid walking outside unattended" is not one of those times. And even if we did agree that these parents were in the wrong, and that the kid shouldn't have been walking alone, the "safety plan" CPS came up with was still a huge unnecessary overreaction. That kind of plan should be reserved for situations when CPS is investigating reports of active abuse.
    - cbsmith 4y ago
      > That sort of thinking enables all sorts of abuse, though. Knowing this, a neighbor with a beef with parent-neighbors could cause them a lot of grief by manufacturing a false report to the police or CPS, in such a way that they won't get in trouble themselves. That's true, but the thinking you are describing also enables all sorts of abuse. > the "safety plan" CPS came up with was still a huge unnecessary overreaction Yeah, at least as described in the article, it seemed excessive and unnecessary. I could see where they don't have a smaller scale mitigation to put in place during an investigation. It's definitely not ideal.
pessimizer 4y ago
> CPS does need to investigate. No, they don't. CPS does not need to investigate observations that, even if they are true, imply nothing. That's just sentencing everyone who deviates from orthodoxy to constant investigation. CPS should be investigating claims of something and should have clear standards for those claims instead of being aggressive as a defense. Or you can be a black man with a white stepdaughter, or a white-passing daughter, and literally get authorities called every time you walk outside with her.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  > No, they don't. CPS does not need to investigate observations that, even if they are true, imply nothing. That's just sentencing everyone who deviates from orthodoxy to constant investigation. I think you're taking a slippery slope argument well past the point of reason. For starters, there'd be no reason for constant investigation: once you've completed an investigation, there is no reason to have another investigation in response to a similar report. At worst, every family would get a cursory investigation once. Admittedly, that's not great. Realistically, that would not happen either, as CPS does not have unlimited resources and would of course prioritize their time. So, the more people make spurious complaints, the less likely they'll get investigated. Similarly, it's pretty trivial to identify cases where someone is just spamming the system with complaints, and deprioritize it accordingly. While it's not unusual for complainants to exaggerate, it's also not unusual for complainants to understate; you get a call about a family you've never heard of before, from someone who has never called in before, you just have no idea what you're going to find. > Or you can be a black man with a white stepdaughter, or a white-passing daughter, and literally get authorities called every time you walk outside with her. ...and again, in that case, you're going to learn to ignore those calls pretty quickly.
  - mwint 4y ago
    You’re assuming someone in the process is in the position to apply sanity. More likely, they operate as “call-taker puts every call into GovJira, investigators are required to investigate in order to close a GovJira ticket”
dragonwriter 4y ago
> ...and really, CPS does need to investigate. Why does CPS need to restrict parental rights while investigating a report which even if confirmed as true (as it was in this case) does not violate family law and warrant further action. This would be like saying that, had the law which addressed the family law aspects also (as it should have) made the same changes to criminal law, the police should still have arrested her, even when their information was only of an act that would be a non-crime if true.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  > Why does CPS need to restrict parental rights while investigating a report which even if confirmed as true (as it was in this case) does not violate family law and warrant further action. So, the police arrested the mom, which means you've got a case where the mom has at least been accused of violating the law. Even if mom has not done a single thing wrong, given that she's been arrested & taken from the home, CPS has to get involved just to make sure the kids are okay. It follows that some degree of investigation is done. I guess you can characterize it as "restrict parental rights", but really all they were doing was insisting that there be someone else in the home with the kids at all times. That does still seem like a bit much, I agree, but I don't see that as a restriction on parental rights. Let's say that it is then, I don't think it's unreasonable that someone who has been arrested specifically on charges of child abuse/endangerment might have their rights curtailed at least until such time as someone can feel like the kids are okay. > This would be like saying that, had the law which addressed the family law aspects also (as it should have) made the same changes to criminal law, the police should still have arrested her, even when their information was only of an act that would be a non-crime if true. It's very clear that they interpreted her own statement as meaning she did not perceive how she was endangering her children. I think that's a terrible assessment of the situation, as by their own admission, the kid was NOT in serious danger, but given that assessment, yeah, they should arrest her. In the end, you do end up empowering people to exercise good judgement, and when they get it wrong, there will be terrible consequences.
nasmorn 4y ago
Depends on what was reported but if the report said child walked alone on the sidewalk the really do not need to investigate. That is my daughters regular activity when they go to school and come back. If someone reports me as having had dinner, why does the police need to come to my house? Where is the potential crime?
- cbsmith 4y ago
  My point was about CPS's investigation, not the police response. Given that the police arrested their mom, you want CPS involved, and if they're involved, they ought to do some degree of investigation, if for no other reason than so they can STOP being involved.
emodendroket 4y ago
Investigating is one thing but it seems that they also punished them before starting their investigation.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  It's pretty much required, for obvious reasons, for CPS to put mitigations in place for whatever they might be investigating. Mitigations often feel like punishments, for sure, with the key difference that they are only until the investigation is resolved.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    Is it though? If that’s necessary why isn’t it necessary to lock someone up while you investigate whether he might be involved in drug dealing, just in case he might be guilty and destroy the evidence?
    - cbsmith 4y ago
      Wait... I think you've got cause & effect backwards here. The police arrested the mom, not CPS. There was no interaction between the family and CPS prior to the arrest. The arrest is what brings CPS in to the picture. Just by virtue of arresting a parent, CPS should to get involved, because arresting the parent potentially puts the kids at risk... and then you double down on that because they've been arrested for endangering the kids. CPS then needs to figure out the lay of the land, so that they can establish that the kids are NOT at risk and they can step out of the picture.
      - emodendroket 4y ago
        What I’m objecting to is the imposition of the “no unsupervised time with your children” rule, which, to my mind, is a punishment just as much as a precaution.
        cbsmith 4y ago

techdragon 4y ago

This is the fork in the road, they need investigatory power, but not punitory power. They should be empowered to investigate the reports but their investigation should simply be evidence. The evidence should be passed into the legal system and treated no different to other evidence… presumption of innocence snd burden of proof should not be abrogated … lest we simply abandon any pretence of jurisprudence on such matters.

cbsmith 4y ago
I think you're confusing the role of CPS with the police. It's the police who investigate crimes and provide evidence to the courts, who will in turn mete out any punishments. CPS's job is to protect the kids. AFAIK they aren't involved in any kind of punishment. Any measures they take are limited in scope to the best interests of the children. Now, they're indifferent to the impact on the parents, so some of the measures to protect the kids can feel like punishment to the parents, but that's not their concern. I keep feel like people aren't able to draw the line here between what CPS did and what the cops did. Absent more details on the story (and we always have to keep in mind that we're getting the version of the story that is most charitable to the mom), it sure seems like the cops really messed up here. Once the cops arrested her, that's when CPS got involved, and the consequences from CPS's involvement were pretty much inevitable, and frankly the least of the hardships placed on that family.

handoflixue 4y ago

You can't just say the ends justify the means, without actually working out the price you're paying. Otherwise, we should be OK with the government monitoring us 24/7 so that they don't miss any terrorists or child molesters. What proper Good Thinking citizen would possibly object to Big Brother watching them, after all? When an organization has the power to destroy families, I think we might want to require a standard of evidence above one nosy neighbor - or at least evaluate how many kids are protected VS how many suffer in Foster care VS how many had their lives ruined because their parents had a marijuana joint.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cbsmith 4y ago
> You can't just say the ends justify the means, without actually working out the price you're paying. I wasn't suggesting that the ends justify the means. I'm simply speaking to the realities of the situation. However, from an ends justifying the means perspective, if you're not going to investigate, there's little point in hearing the case, and more importantly in people making the call in the first place. "When an organization has the power to destroy families, I think we might want to require a standard of evidence above one nosy neighbor - or at least evaluate how many kids are protected VS how many suffer in Foster care VS how many had their lives ruined because their parents had a marijuana joint." We do have a higher standard of evidence for that power to be invoked; that's what applied here, and why CPS ultimately passed on this one. If anything, the bar is generally pretty high, and you can get away with some pretty dastardly things with the odds of CPS taking any kind of "family destroying" action very low. > Otherwise, we should be OK with the government monitoring us 24/7 so that they don't miss any terrorists or child molesters. I think that's unreasonably slippery sloping this story. Sure, there are horror stories about CPS being overzealous, but this isn't one of those stories. I don't much like the "family safety plans", but it's a huge leap from there to 24/7 monitoring... and CPS obviously wasn't worried about terrorist or child molesters in this case. It's a hard problem to get right. There's a LOT of really bad stuff going on (estimates are that 1 in 7 children have experienced abuse or neglect at some point). No matter how you do it, families will be destroyed and children will suffer horribly. However, the system errs on keeping families together, which is what you'd want. Given that bias in the system, engaging in at least a lightweight investigation is entirely reasonable. > evaluate how many kids are protected VS how many suffer in Foster care VS how many had their lives ruined because their parents had a marijuana joint. I encourage you to look at the data on this. It's one sided.
- handoflixue 4y ago
  > Sure, there are horror stories about CPS being overzealous, but this isn't one of those stories. The parents were forced in to two weeks of supervision, requiring another adult around them 24/7. The innocent parents, who had not actually done anything wrong. How is that not "overzealous"? > I don't much like the "family safety plans", but it's a huge leap from there to 24/7 monitoring... "Wallace and her husband could not be alone with their kids for even a second." That sure sounds like 24/7 monitoring, even if it's not the government doing it.

gspencley 4y ago

Investigate, absolutely. The cops need to do that as well. However, as someone else pointed out "Child services had the family agree to a safety plan" is not investigating. That's taking action and making a threat: "if you don't agree to this we'll take you to court and let a judge sort it out at your expense."

fluidcruft 4y ago
When CPS is investigating abuse it seems completely reasonable for them to implement a safety plan to ensure ongoing abuse doesn't occur during the investigation. Far better than yanking the kids into protective custody.
- scarby2 4y ago
  but they had no suspicion that any abuse was occurring?
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    You mean, other than the parents being arrested by police for that?
- kelnos 4y ago
  That sort of thinking enables all sorts of abuse, though. Knowing this, a neighbor with a beef with parent-neighbors could cause them a lot of grief by manufacturing a false report to the police or CPS, in such a way that they won't get in trouble themselves. I get that sometimes pro-active measures are prudent, but "hey, police, I saw my neighbor's kid walking outside unattended" is not one of those times. And even if we did agree that these parents were in the wrong, and that the kid shouldn't have been walking alone, the "safety plan" CPS came up with was still a huge unnecessary overreaction. That kind of plan should be reserved for situations when CPS is investigating reports of active abuse.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    > That sort of thinking enables all sorts of abuse, though. Knowing this, a neighbor with a beef with parent-neighbors could cause them a lot of grief by manufacturing a false report to the police or CPS, in such a way that they won't get in trouble themselves. That's true, but the thinking you are describing also enables all sorts of abuse. > the "safety plan" CPS came up with was still a huge unnecessary overreaction Yeah, at least as described in the article, it seemed excessive and unnecessary. I could see where they don't have a smaller scale mitigation to put in place during an investigation. It's definitely not ideal.

pessimizer 4y ago

> CPS does need to investigate. No, they don't. CPS does not need to investigate observations that, even if they are true, imply nothing. That's just sentencing everyone who deviates from orthodoxy to constant investigation. CPS should be investigating claims of something and should have clear standards for those claims instead of being aggressive as a defense. Or you can be a black man with a white stepdaughter, or a white-passing daughter, and literally get authorities called every time you walk outside with her.

cbsmith 4y ago
> No, they don't. CPS does not need to investigate observations that, even if they are true, imply nothing. That's just sentencing everyone who deviates from orthodoxy to constant investigation. I think you're taking a slippery slope argument well past the point of reason. For starters, there'd be no reason for constant investigation: once you've completed an investigation, there is no reason to have another investigation in response to a similar report. At worst, every family would get a cursory investigation once. Admittedly, that's not great. Realistically, that would not happen either, as CPS does not have unlimited resources and would of course prioritize their time. So, the more people make spurious complaints, the less likely they'll get investigated. Similarly, it's pretty trivial to identify cases where someone is just spamming the system with complaints, and deprioritize it accordingly. While it's not unusual for complainants to exaggerate, it's also not unusual for complainants to understate; you get a call about a family you've never heard of before, from someone who has never called in before, you just have no idea what you're going to find. > Or you can be a black man with a white stepdaughter, or a white-passing daughter, and literally get authorities called every time you walk outside with her. ...and again, in that case, you're going to learn to ignore those calls pretty quickly.
- mwint 4y ago
  You’re assuming someone in the process is in the position to apply sanity. More likely, they operate as “call-taker puts every call into GovJira, investigators are required to investigate in order to close a GovJira ticket”

dragonwriter 4y ago

> ...and really, CPS does need to investigate. Why does CPS need to restrict parental rights while investigating a report which even if confirmed as true (as it was in this case) does not violate family law and warrant further action. This would be like saying that, had the law which addressed the family law aspects also (as it should have) made the same changes to criminal law, the police should still have arrested her, even when their information was only of an act that would be a non-crime if true.

cbsmith 4y ago
> Why does CPS need to restrict parental rights while investigating a report which even if confirmed as true (as it was in this case) does not violate family law and warrant further action. So, the police arrested the mom, which means you've got a case where the mom has at least been accused of violating the law. Even if mom has not done a single thing wrong, given that she's been arrested & taken from the home, CPS has to get involved just to make sure the kids are okay. It follows that some degree of investigation is done. I guess you can characterize it as "restrict parental rights", but really all they were doing was insisting that there be someone else in the home with the kids at all times. That does still seem like a bit much, I agree, but I don't see that as a restriction on parental rights. Let's say that it is then, I don't think it's unreasonable that someone who has been arrested specifically on charges of child abuse/endangerment might have their rights curtailed at least until such time as someone can feel like the kids are okay. > This would be like saying that, had the law which addressed the family law aspects also (as it should have) made the same changes to criminal law, the police should still have arrested her, even when their information was only of an act that would be a non-crime if true. It's very clear that they interpreted her own statement as meaning she did not perceive how she was endangering her children. I think that's a terrible assessment of the situation, as by their own admission, the kid was NOT in serious danger, but given that assessment, yeah, they should arrest her. In the end, you do end up empowering people to exercise good judgement, and when they get it wrong, there will be terrible consequences.

nasmorn 4y ago

Depends on what was reported but if the report said child walked alone on the sidewalk the really do not need to investigate. That is my daughters regular activity when they go to school and come back. If someone reports me as having had dinner, why does the police need to come to my house? Where is the potential crime?

cbsmith 4y ago
My point was about CPS's investigation, not the police response. Given that the police arrested their mom, you want CPS involved, and if they're involved, they ought to do some degree of investigation, if for no other reason than so they can STOP being involved.

emodendroket 4y ago

Investigating is one thing but it seems that they also punished them before starting their investigation.

cbsmith 4y ago
It's pretty much required, for obvious reasons, for CPS to put mitigations in place for whatever they might be investigating. Mitigations often feel like punishments, for sure, with the key difference that they are only until the investigation is resolved.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  Is it though? If that’s necessary why isn’t it necessary to lock someone up while you investigate whether he might be involved in drug dealing, just in case he might be guilty and destroy the evidence?
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    Wait... I think you've got cause & effect backwards here. The police arrested the mom, not CPS. There was no interaction between the family and CPS prior to the arrest. The arrest is what brings CPS in to the picture. Just by virtue of arresting a parent, CPS should to get involved, because arresting the parent potentially puts the kids at risk... and then you double down on that because they've been arrested for endangering the kids. CPS then needs to figure out the lay of the land, so that they can establish that the kids are NOT at risk and they can step out of the picture.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      What I’m objecting to is the imposition of the “no unsupervised time with your children” rule, which, to my mind, is a punishment just as much as a precaution.
      - cbsmith 4y ago