5 ms·

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'

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.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Putting children in a foster home is a higher legal barrier than a voluntary "Safety plan." Phrasing this as alternative is disingenuous. It's safe to assume if that legal barrier was actually met they would have put them in a foster home as staying with the parents would be too unsafe. The parents got bluffed by tyrants. Personally I would never open the door to, nor sign any document, nor speak with CPS outside of court proceedings. Let them gather whatever evidence they need with a warrant and enforce any order by mechanism of the judge rather than agreeing to whatever pompous authoritarian bullshit is spewed out by some 3rd-rate bureaucrat in a "voluntary safety plan." >”no unsupervised time, but children remain with parents” agreements are one alternative that CPS sometimes gives, IANAL but I don't think anyone but a judge can give that order, and I would certainly bet my freedom and even my life on that.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      But are judges better? https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-judge-chews-lawyer-missed-231256232.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-judge-chews-lawyer-missed...
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I'm not saying they're better, but would you rather just let it end with CPS and not get a hearing? To get a kid taken basically is going to require your consent or the holes lining up in the swiss cheese. I want as many layers in that swiss cheese as possible if the allegations against me are false. Stuff like due process is what our forefathers died to at least ostensibly give us.
        giantg2 4y ago
        The interesting part is that CPS determined there was no abuse in this case. So yes, in this case it would have been better to end with CPS. Unfortunately, due process is whatever the judge say it is.
        4y ago

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.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Putting children in a foster home is a higher legal barrier than a voluntary "Safety plan." Phrasing this as alternative is disingenuous. It's safe to assume if that legal barrier was actually met they would have put them in a foster home as staying with the parents would be too unsafe. The parents got bluffed by tyrants. Personally I would never open the door to, nor sign any document, nor speak with CPS outside of court proceedings. Let them gather whatever evidence they need with a warrant and enforce any order by mechanism of the judge rather than agreeing to whatever pompous authoritarian bullshit is spewed out by some 3rd-rate bureaucrat in a "voluntary safety plan." >”no unsupervised time, but children remain with parents” agreements are one alternative that CPS sometimes gives, IANAL but I don't think anyone but a judge can give that order, and I would certainly bet my freedom and even my life on that.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    But are judges better? https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-judge-chews-lawyer-missed-231256232.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-judge-chews-lawyer-missed...
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I'm not saying they're better, but would you rather just let it end with CPS and not get a hearing? To get a kid taken basically is going to require your consent or the holes lining up in the swiss cheese. I want as many layers in that swiss cheese as possible if the allegations against me are false. Stuff like due process is what our forefathers died to at least ostensibly give us.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        The interesting part is that CPS determined there was no abuse in this case. So yes, in this case it would have been better to end with CPS. Unfortunately, due process is whatever the judge say it is.
        4y ago