4 ms·

So by your argument CPS just…shouldn’t do anything? If foster care for an abused child won’t help, then what’s the point?

bluefirebrand 2y ago
If they aren't absolutely beyond any doubt certain that the child is being neglected or abused, then yes of course they shouldn't do anything Their job is to protect at risk kids, not just shuffle kids to new homes The damage that a false positive would do to a child is unfathomable The foster system does overall help abused children, but fostered kids don't have as good outcomes in general as non-fostered kids
- petsfed 2y ago
  Man, I dunno how opiod-crisis-adjacent you are, but I am very close to it. I cannot imagine that relocating a child to their grandparents is automatically worse than letting them stay in a home that stinks of burnt heroine, where their trash-bag full of laundry for the relocation stinks of urine.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    To clarify, I'm talking about outcomes of children who are in families that aren't abusing them, versus children who have been placed in foster care (for any reason) Comparing outcomes of children who are being abused against children in foster care will show improvement generally. But there's still a pretty wide gap between their outcomes and the outcomes of children in healthy families Also, do grandparents really count as "the foster system"?
    - petsfed 2y ago
      At least in my state (Washington), CPS prefers to relocate kids to nearby family members over actual foster homes, for what I hope are obvious reasons. There is always a balancing of false-positives vs. false-negatives, in any attempt to restrict any behavior. And while I agree that the consequences of the false-positives are dire, sometimes unthinkable, CPS and its power to remove children from their homes is in response to something also dire and unthinkable. You seem to be arguing that the consequences of a false positive vastly outweigh the consequences of a false negative. Viewing the consequences of an admittedly light-duty false negative (that is, abuse or neglect that, for one reason or another, hasn't received a CPS response), and being on the periphery of another much worse false negative (via contact with a member of the jury), I am uncertain. Which is worse? Lacking the power to remove a child from a bad situation, or occasionally sending a child into a bad situation? I don't have a good answer for that question. I just disagree with the idea that either is indisputably worse than the other. Its awful that there is a situation that we have to choose at all. And unambiguously, the foster system must be reformed. The OP even quotes the family's lawyer as saying that CPS disproportionately goes after poorer families ("neglect" and "poverty" can look the same, even if the cause is wildly different). But I do not think the foster system is so broken that we should abolish CPS entirely and just accept actual child abuse as unpreventable.
      - bluefirebrand 2y ago
        > But I do not think the foster system is so broken that we should abolish CPS entirely and just accept actual child abuse as unpreventable I have not advocated for that anywhere. > Which is worse? Lacking the power to remove a child from a bad situation, or occasionally sending a child into a bad situation Actively using power to make someone's life worse is worse than failing to use power to make someone's life better. Even if the power is used with all of the best intentions That's why the road to hell is paved with those
      - em-bee 2y ago
        i don't see the problem in the foster system itself (yes the system may have issues, but that's another topic) the problem is that fostering in most cases is the wrong way to help those children. instead the parents need help. but that help needs to be provided in a way such that parents and children can stay together. but that is not what is done. instead the children are taken away and the parents are left to themselves: go fix your problems, and then you can have your children back. pretty much the only cases where fostering is the right choice is where children are in actual danger or the parents need to go to prison for serious crimes.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I think the point is rather that the system should skew extremely heavily towards inaction. For example is better to let 10 children die than falsely rehome 1.
baobabKoodaa 2y ago
The comment you are replying to talks about "false positive vs false negative optimization". Are there cases where CPS should just not do anything because the probability of abuse is so low? Yes. If you are implying that we should take "no chances", then CPS should just take everybody's children away from them. After all, there's always more than 0% chance that someone is beating their child.

bluefirebrand 2y ago

If they aren't absolutely beyond any doubt certain that the child is being neglected or abused, then yes of course they shouldn't do anything Their job is to protect at risk kids, not just shuffle kids to new homes The damage that a false positive would do to a child is unfathomable The foster system does overall help abused children, but fostered kids don't have as good outcomes in general as non-fostered kids

petsfed 2y ago
Man, I dunno how opiod-crisis-adjacent you are, but I am very close to it. I cannot imagine that relocating a child to their grandparents is automatically worse than letting them stay in a home that stinks of burnt heroine, where their trash-bag full of laundry for the relocation stinks of urine.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  To clarify, I'm talking about outcomes of children who are in families that aren't abusing them, versus children who have been placed in foster care (for any reason) Comparing outcomes of children who are being abused against children in foster care will show improvement generally. But there's still a pretty wide gap between their outcomes and the outcomes of children in healthy families Also, do grandparents really count as "the foster system"?
  - petsfed 2y ago
    At least in my state (Washington), CPS prefers to relocate kids to nearby family members over actual foster homes, for what I hope are obvious reasons. There is always a balancing of false-positives vs. false-negatives, in any attempt to restrict any behavior. And while I agree that the consequences of the false-positives are dire, sometimes unthinkable, CPS and its power to remove children from their homes is in response to something also dire and unthinkable. You seem to be arguing that the consequences of a false positive vastly outweigh the consequences of a false negative. Viewing the consequences of an admittedly light-duty false negative (that is, abuse or neglect that, for one reason or another, hasn't received a CPS response), and being on the periphery of another much worse false negative (via contact with a member of the jury), I am uncertain. Which is worse? Lacking the power to remove a child from a bad situation, or occasionally sending a child into a bad situation? I don't have a good answer for that question. I just disagree with the idea that either is indisputably worse than the other. Its awful that there is a situation that we have to choose at all. And unambiguously, the foster system must be reformed. The OP even quotes the family's lawyer as saying that CPS disproportionately goes after poorer families ("neglect" and "poverty" can look the same, even if the cause is wildly different). But I do not think the foster system is so broken that we should abolish CPS entirely and just accept actual child abuse as unpreventable.
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      > But I do not think the foster system is so broken that we should abolish CPS entirely and just accept actual child abuse as unpreventable I have not advocated for that anywhere. > Which is worse? Lacking the power to remove a child from a bad situation, or occasionally sending a child into a bad situation Actively using power to make someone's life worse is worse than failing to use power to make someone's life better. Even if the power is used with all of the best intentions That's why the road to hell is paved with those
    - em-bee 2y ago
      i don't see the problem in the foster system itself (yes the system may have issues, but that's another topic) the problem is that fostering in most cases is the wrong way to help those children. instead the parents need help. but that help needs to be provided in a way such that parents and children can stay together. but that is not what is done. instead the children are taken away and the parents are left to themselves: go fix your problems, and then you can have your children back. pretty much the only cases where fostering is the right choice is where children are in actual danger or the parents need to go to prison for serious crimes.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I think the point is rather that the system should skew extremely heavily towards inaction. For example is better to let 10 children die than falsely rehome 1.

baobabKoodaa 2y ago

The comment you are replying to talks about "false positive vs false negative optimization". Are there cases where CPS should just not do anything because the probability of abuse is so low? Yes. If you are implying that we should take "no chances", then CPS should just take everybody's children away from them. After all, there's always more than 0% chance that someone is beating their child.