3 ms·

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 in

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.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > 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. It's possible that "I saw a kid walking alone" isn't enough to justify an CPS investigation but "This child's parent was just arrested and is being charged with a felony for endangering this child" is reason enough. At the point CPS got involved, they were investigating the home of someone being charged with felony child endangerment. We don't know what CPS polices demand n that situation, or what alternatives were available to the family, but after hearing what options they had the family agreed to the safety plan. If the alternative was "this or we have to remove you or your children from your home" I'd say it was the right choice. It's entirely possible that CPS did their job exactly as they should have and were required to do under the circumstances. In fact, if the family had gone to trial it would have helped their case that CPS investigated the home and determined that that the complaint was unfounded. There's no reason to think that a neighbor with a beef could have called CPS and had this happen to anyone else. There's not even reason to think that a neighbor calling the cops would do it since those cops would have to be as dumb as the one in this story and arrest and charge an innocent person with felony child endangerment for it to work. That should be a pretty high bar to clear. The police screwed this one up, and that's what opened the door to all the other grief.
    - cbsmith 4y ago
      > At the point CPS got involved, they were investigating the home of someone being charged with felony child endangerment. We don't know what CPS polices demand n that situation, or what alternatives were available to the family, but after hearing what options they had the family agreed to the safety plan. If the alternative was "this or we have to remove you or your children from your home" I'd say it was the right choice. It's also worth noting that CPS's investigation would no doubt serve as helpful for the parent's defense against the charges.
- ticviking 4y ago
  You seem to be resistant in several threads to the idea that the specific conduct alleged is not on its face abuse. There was never a reason for CPS to even claim they were investigating abuse. I have had jobs that required me to be a mandatory reporter several times in my life, and none of this was even close to evidence of abuse I'd have to report.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    The police at the scene arrested and charged. That really seems like reason enough. Really, once the police arrest the parents, you need to get CPS involved anyway, to ensure the kids have some degree of support. > I have had jobs that required me to be a mandatory reporter several times in my life, and none of this was even close to evidence of abuse I'd have to report. Mandatory reporting rules are, by design, not intended to include anything and everything that constitutes abuse or neglect.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  When investigating a report of abuse, that's often reasonable. When the report itself doesn't have any abuse in it, no way.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    In this case, the parents were arrested and charged. One could argue wrongfully, but given that's happened, so some kind of short-term mitigation and investigation seems eminently reasonable.
- gspencley 4y ago
  I would agree if these types of pro-active measures required a judge to sign an order given a minimum threshold of evidence. I have heard that it is shockingly easy to get a judge to issue a search warrant at 2 in the morning on a Saturday. I am not a lawyer, but from what I understand even then there is a minimum bar that needs to be met as far as evidence supporting the petition goes: what is the suspected crime? What evidence is there that supports the suspicion? Why do we believe that a search warrant will produce concrete evidence that the crime occurred and what is the scope of the required search (what property, specifically, are we asking to be able to examine and potentially confiscate?). Similar, much higher, thresholds need to be met with respects to holding suspects in custody pending a trial. Under no circumstances should any other government agencies be able to compel anything from anyone "just because." That's what the courts exist for. People have a right to due process and "agree to a safety plan" under threat is an act of force that was not authorized by a court order but by an independent government agency acting alone; outside of the one single entity that we trust to be in charge of doing that both fairly and under extremely tight scrutiny and limitations.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    > I would agree if these types of pro-active measures required a judge to sign an order given a minimum threshold of evidence. Police are empowered to arrest people on the spot. It seems impractical to add a judge to that process. Once someone has been arrested, you need CPS to step in anyway, at which point it seems silly to bar them from investigating. > Similar, much higher, thresholds need to be met with respects to holding suspects in custody pending a trial. I mean, she was released on bail, but she was held in custody. So yes, holding them in jail without bail has a higher standard, but you'd really hope the standard would be higher for that. > Under no circumstances should any other government agencies be able to compel anything from anyone "just because." That's what the courts exist for. That seems like a broad and vague statement. In fairness, the parents aren't obligated to do anything, but if they don't, then the courts would get far more involved.
cbsmith 4y ago
Yeah, as I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure that the family plan, as described, makes much sense given the situation. I get that it was a temporary measure while they were doing their investigation, but it still seems pretty impractical and disproportionate.

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.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > 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. It's possible that "I saw a kid walking alone" isn't enough to justify an CPS investigation but "This child's parent was just arrested and is being charged with a felony for endangering this child" is reason enough. At the point CPS got involved, they were investigating the home of someone being charged with felony child endangerment. We don't know what CPS polices demand n that situation, or what alternatives were available to the family, but after hearing what options they had the family agreed to the safety plan. If the alternative was "this or we have to remove you or your children from your home" I'd say it was the right choice. It's entirely possible that CPS did their job exactly as they should have and were required to do under the circumstances. In fact, if the family had gone to trial it would have helped their case that CPS investigated the home and determined that that the complaint was unfounded. There's no reason to think that a neighbor with a beef could have called CPS and had this happen to anyone else. There's not even reason to think that a neighbor calling the cops would do it since those cops would have to be as dumb as the one in this story and arrest and charge an innocent person with felony child endangerment for it to work. That should be a pretty high bar to clear. The police screwed this one up, and that's what opened the door to all the other grief.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    > At the point CPS got involved, they were investigating the home of someone being charged with felony child endangerment. We don't know what CPS polices demand n that situation, or what alternatives were available to the family, but after hearing what options they had the family agreed to the safety plan. If the alternative was "this or we have to remove you or your children from your home" I'd say it was the right choice. It's also worth noting that CPS's investigation would no doubt serve as helpful for the parent's defense against the charges.
ticviking 4y ago
You seem to be resistant in several threads to the idea that the specific conduct alleged is not on its face abuse. There was never a reason for CPS to even claim they were investigating abuse. I have had jobs that required me to be a mandatory reporter several times in my life, and none of this was even close to evidence of abuse I'd have to report.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  The police at the scene arrested and charged. That really seems like reason enough. Really, once the police arrest the parents, you need to get CPS involved anyway, to ensure the kids have some degree of support. > I have had jobs that required me to be a mandatory reporter several times in my life, and none of this was even close to evidence of abuse I'd have to report. Mandatory reporting rules are, by design, not intended to include anything and everything that constitutes abuse or neglect.
Dylan16807 4y ago
When investigating a report of abuse, that's often reasonable. When the report itself doesn't have any abuse in it, no way.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  In this case, the parents were arrested and charged. One could argue wrongfully, but given that's happened, so some kind of short-term mitigation and investigation seems eminently reasonable.
gspencley 4y ago
I would agree if these types of pro-active measures required a judge to sign an order given a minimum threshold of evidence. I have heard that it is shockingly easy to get a judge to issue a search warrant at 2 in the morning on a Saturday. I am not a lawyer, but from what I understand even then there is a minimum bar that needs to be met as far as evidence supporting the petition goes: what is the suspected crime? What evidence is there that supports the suspicion? Why do we believe that a search warrant will produce concrete evidence that the crime occurred and what is the scope of the required search (what property, specifically, are we asking to be able to examine and potentially confiscate?). Similar, much higher, thresholds need to be met with respects to holding suspects in custody pending a trial. Under no circumstances should any other government agencies be able to compel anything from anyone "just because." That's what the courts exist for. People have a right to due process and "agree to a safety plan" under threat is an act of force that was not authorized by a court order but by an independent government agency acting alone; outside of the one single entity that we trust to be in charge of doing that both fairly and under extremely tight scrutiny and limitations.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  > I would agree if these types of pro-active measures required a judge to sign an order given a minimum threshold of evidence. Police are empowered to arrest people on the spot. It seems impractical to add a judge to that process. Once someone has been arrested, you need CPS to step in anyway, at which point it seems silly to bar them from investigating. > Similar, much higher, thresholds need to be met with respects to holding suspects in custody pending a trial. I mean, she was released on bail, but she was held in custody. So yes, holding them in jail without bail has a higher standard, but you'd really hope the standard would be higher for that. > Under no circumstances should any other government agencies be able to compel anything from anyone "just because." That's what the courts exist for. That seems like a broad and vague statement. In fairness, the parents aren't obligated to do anything, but if they don't, then the courts would get far more involved.

cbsmith 4y ago

Yeah, as I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure that the family plan, as described, makes much sense given the situation. I get that it was a temporary measure while they were doing their investigation, but it still seems pretty impractical and disproportionate.