5 ms·

What part of "Child services had the family agree to a safety plan" makes you feel that CPS is blameless here? It seems like they wasted two weeks of this fami

What part of "Child services had the family agree to a safety plan" makes you feel that CPS is blameless here? It seems like they wasted two weeks of this family's time and added a ton of unnecessary stress, before even figuring out if the complaint was warranted. That seems deeply dysfunctional, and violently at odds with "innocent until proven guilty"

fluidcruft 4y ago
That was only while they investigated (which I'm fine with). It's annoying but it's NOT a CPS horror story.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > That was only while they investigated (which I'm fine with). I’m not; there should be some reasonable basis for this level of intrusion, which there was not (note that the facts of the report were true and confirmed and still did not violate family law that CPS enforces; this isn't a case where someone reported something which would have warranted CPS intervention if confirmed.)
  - fluidcruft 4y ago
    How could CPS possibly know that before they investigate?
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > How could CPS possibly know that before they investigate? The same way they knew when the investigation confirmed the initial report, and it wasn't a violation.
      - fluidcruft 4y ago
        So... by investigating? lol
        renewiltord 4y ago
        Are these guys Inspector Clouseau? 2 weeks of investigation to determine whether kid was abused by walking home. Legends. They must have been chasing down leads. Stake outs at the house. Subpoena the teachers. Hahaha. Government employees lol.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        No, they would know by comparing the facts alleged in the report to the law, just like, when those facts were confirmed by the investigation, they compared those same facts to the law. Now, I am not saying that a report which on its face does not describe a violation does not warrant investigation, but absent some other evidence which provides cause to believe a violation exists which would legally impact parental suitability, it doesn’t warrant limiting parental rights during the investigation, just as a report to police that raises articulable suspicion but not probable cause to believe a specific crime has occurred warrants investigation, but not arrest.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      It seems to me that if CPS immediately and preemptively puts you under a punitive regime like this (what happens if grandparents don't live nearby or just aren't alive? Oh well, not their problem I guess) for merely being reported, then it is a highly effective vehicle for harassing neighbors you don't like.
      - fluidcruft 4y ago
        You can't really say what other alternatives were available beyond that this is what the family preferred. The grandparents were available and that's what they chose.
        emodendroket 4y ago
        Do you think non-relatives are volunteering to supervise your parenting around the clock?
        handoflixue 4y ago
        They could just do what we do with every other crime, and only punish people AFTER we find that they're guilty. You say this like the parents absolutely NEEDED to be supervised, despite saying "we only did this because we didn't realize it was illegal" - this is not exactly a High Threat situation. If CPS is going to force this sort of thing on parents, they could also reasonably be expected to compensate for the involved expenses - force CPS to pay for a nanny if CPS really thinks that's essential. If CPS can't afford to do that, then we as a society have already voted that the nanny wasn't actually worth the cost.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        They came up with that plan because the grandparents DID live nearby.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > They came up with that plan because the grandparents DID live nearby. Yes, these kind of ”no unsupervised time, but children remain with parents” agreements are one alternative that CPS sometimes gives, where what they see as suitable supervisers are available, to putting the children in temporary foster care during an investigation. They are justified in exactly the same cases where what they are an alternative to would be justified.
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      So you think it's fine for CPS to force these measures onto a parent just off of random accusations?
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I think the element missing here is that these "safety plans" tend to be "voluntary." It's the CPS equivalent of "let me in your house or else I'll get a search warrant and things will go worse for you." If they had the evidence to get in the house, they wouldn't be standing there asking you, the police would be there with battering rams busting in. It's a bluff. If there is actually evidence they need to remove the child they will go get the order from the judge and execute it. And if that evidence exists, in no way would anyone in their right mind let you keep the kid by signing a "safety plan" to pretty please keep grandma and grandma around, who are not in any way credentialled/vetted to host supervised visitation.
    - a1369209993 4y ago
      The people arguing with you are assuming that the police accurately reported the situation, so that CPS was told "this parent let their child walk half a mile unattended". If that is the only complaint, there's clearly no need to investigate because there's nothing to investigate. Whereas if - as you seem to be assuming - CPS only heard "this parent commited neglect and possibly abuse of their child", investigation would indeed be needed to figure out they were being lied to. But other people are assuming CPS got accurate information in the first place. Edit: apparently dragonwriter already explained this (better) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33629395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33629395.
- scarby2 4y ago
  you would think someone would take a look at the allegation and determine that this was not necessary anyone with an ounce of sense knows that an 8 year old can walk half a mile on the street. Every parent within my hometown would be getting arrested. And god forbid when these people learn that we were riding the public bus service to and from school at 10 years old...
  - fluidcruft 4y ago
    It certainly looks that way, but there are other factors at play such as the child being problematic and discipline being dumping him on the street to walk. It's not merely some kid playing in the neighborhood. Some car came to a stop and a kid was kicked out and there was likely yelling involved. It's certainly suspicious. Child abuse investigations aren't about one incident in isolation.
    - necovek 4y ago
      "Hey kid, are you alright?" "My mom made me walk home because I was mean to my siblings." "Where do you live?" "That house over there." Alternative, less dumb reality: "Carry on." A bit more concerned, still less dumb reality: "I'll walk with you." Dumb reality: "I am calling the cops!"
- yucky 4y ago
  Anybody who thinks parents being prevented from being alone with their own children for 2 weeks due to an unfounded complaint, is far too comfortable with authoritarian government. That sort of thing can cause irreparable harm in the development of the children as well, causing trust issues and fear of government to be deeply ingrained.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I don't think that the ends justify the means, but the outcome of having people have more fear and mistrust of government over-reach is at least a thin silver-lining.
    - necovek 4y ago
      I am afraid that people will mostly have more fear and mistrust of the government, not of their over-reach. And that fear needs to grow a lot before any action will be taken, so it's still a net loss for the present time.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "causing trust issues and fear of government to be deeply ingrained." Is that actually a harm, given the evidence?
- watwut 4y ago
  I mean, it is. It makes family life significantly harder for period of time. It does matter.

fluidcruft 4y ago

That was only while they investigated (which I'm fine with). It's annoying but it's NOT a CPS horror story.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> That was only while they investigated (which I'm fine with). I’m not; there should be some reasonable basis for this level of intrusion, which there was not (note that the facts of the report were true and confirmed and still did not violate family law that CPS enforces; this isn't a case where someone reported something which would have warranted CPS intervention if confirmed.)
- fluidcruft 4y ago
  How could CPS possibly know that before they investigate?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > How could CPS possibly know that before they investigate? The same way they knew when the investigation confirmed the initial report, and it wasn't a violation.
    - fluidcruft 4y ago
      So... by investigating? lol
      - renewiltord 4y ago
        Are these guys Inspector Clouseau? 2 weeks of investigation to determine whether kid was abused by walking home. Legends. They must have been chasing down leads. Stake outs at the house. Subpoena the teachers. Hahaha. Government employees lol.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        No, they would know by comparing the facts alleged in the report to the law, just like, when those facts were confirmed by the investigation, they compared those same facts to the law. Now, I am not saying that a report which on its face does not describe a violation does not warrant investigation, but absent some other evidence which provides cause to believe a violation exists which would legally impact parental suitability, it doesn’t warrant limiting parental rights during the investigation, just as a report to police that raises articulable suspicion but not probable cause to believe a specific crime has occurred warrants investigation, but not arrest.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    It seems to me that if CPS immediately and preemptively puts you under a punitive regime like this (what happens if grandparents don't live nearby or just aren't alive? Oh well, not their problem I guess) for merely being reported, then it is a highly effective vehicle for harassing neighbors you don't like.
    - fluidcruft 4y ago
      You can't really say what other alternatives were available beyond that this is what the family preferred. The grandparents were available and that's what they chose.
      - emodendroket 4y ago
        Do you think non-relatives are volunteering to supervise your parenting around the clock?
      - handoflixue 4y ago
        They could just do what we do with every other crime, and only punish people AFTER we find that they're guilty. You say this like the parents absolutely NEEDED to be supervised, despite saying "we only did this because we didn't realize it was illegal" - this is not exactly a High Threat situation. If CPS is going to force this sort of thing on parents, they could also reasonably be expected to compensate for the involved expenses - force CPS to pay for a nanny if CPS really thinks that's essential. If CPS can't afford to do that, then we as a society have already voted that the nanny wasn't actually worth the cost.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      They came up with that plan because the grandparents DID live nearby.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > They came up with that plan because the grandparents DID live nearby. Yes, these kind of ”no unsupervised time, but children remain with parents” agreements are one alternative that CPS sometimes gives, where what they see as suitable supervisers are available, to putting the children in temporary foster care during an investigation. They are justified in exactly the same cases where what they are an alternative to would be justified.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    So you think it's fine for CPS to force these measures onto a parent just off of random accusations?
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I think the element missing here is that these "safety plans" tend to be "voluntary." It's the CPS equivalent of "let me in your house or else I'll get a search warrant and things will go worse for you." If they had the evidence to get in the house, they wouldn't be standing there asking you, the police would be there with battering rams busting in. It's a bluff. If there is actually evidence they need to remove the child they will go get the order from the judge and execute it. And if that evidence exists, in no way would anyone in their right mind let you keep the kid by signing a "safety plan" to pretty please keep grandma and grandma around, who are not in any way credentialled/vetted to host supervised visitation.
  - a1369209993 4y ago
    The people arguing with you are assuming that the police accurately reported the situation, so that CPS was told "this parent let their child walk half a mile unattended". If that is the only complaint, there's clearly no need to investigate because there's nothing to investigate. Whereas if - as you seem to be assuming - CPS only heard "this parent commited neglect and possibly abuse of their child", investigation would indeed be needed to figure out they were being lied to. But other people are assuming CPS got accurate information in the first place. Edit: apparently dragonwriter already explained this (better) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33629395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33629395.
scarby2 4y ago
you would think someone would take a look at the allegation and determine that this was not necessary anyone with an ounce of sense knows that an 8 year old can walk half a mile on the street. Every parent within my hometown would be getting arrested. And god forbid when these people learn that we were riding the public bus service to and from school at 10 years old...
- fluidcruft 4y ago
  It certainly looks that way, but there are other factors at play such as the child being problematic and discipline being dumping him on the street to walk. It's not merely some kid playing in the neighborhood. Some car came to a stop and a kid was kicked out and there was likely yelling involved. It's certainly suspicious. Child abuse investigations aren't about one incident in isolation.
  - necovek 4y ago
    "Hey kid, are you alright?" "My mom made me walk home because I was mean to my siblings." "Where do you live?" "That house over there." Alternative, less dumb reality: "Carry on." A bit more concerned, still less dumb reality: "I'll walk with you." Dumb reality: "I am calling the cops!"
yucky 4y ago
Anybody who thinks parents being prevented from being alone with their own children for 2 weeks due to an unfounded complaint, is far too comfortable with authoritarian government. That sort of thing can cause irreparable harm in the development of the children as well, causing trust issues and fear of government to be deeply ingrained.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I don't think that the ends justify the means, but the outcome of having people have more fear and mistrust of government over-reach is at least a thin silver-lining.
  - necovek 4y ago
    I am afraid that people will mostly have more fear and mistrust of the government, not of their over-reach. And that fear needs to grow a lot before any action will be taken, so it's still a net loss for the present time.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "causing trust issues and fear of government to be deeply ingrained." Is that actually a harm, given the evidence?
watwut 4y ago
I mean, it is. It makes family life significantly harder for period of time. It does matter.