2 ms·
This appears to be one sheriff pushing a personal agenda. Unfortunately it's not - there's a whole "child safety" department behind them, ready with a "safety
by aguaviva 2y ago
This appears to be one sheriff pushing a personal agenda.
Unfortunately it's not - there's a whole "child safety" department behind them, ready with a "safety plan" and even an app that they're going force the poor kid to install. This kind of stuff doesn't happen without the coordination of external bodies, and decades of societal shift in favor of this kind of control-oriented parenting (and blind faith in technical solutions toward this end), also at institutional levels:
A few days later, DFCS presented Patterson with a "safety plan" for her to sign. It would require her to delegate a "safety person" to be a "knowing participant and guardian" and watch over the children whenever she leaves home. The plan would also require Patterson to download an app onto her son's phone allowing for his location to be monitored. (The day when it will be illegal not to track one's kids is rapidly approaching.)
Against this backdrop - it's quite likely the Sheriff wasn't pushing her own agenda at all, but simply following the procedures provided by her department.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoI don't know if that's true. the assistant DA refused to drop the charge, and the compromise that they offered was some CPS-based safety plan. but the ADA who owns the case could drop the charge tomorrow and it all goes away. and Sheriffs don't prosecute or dismiss charges, they simply take them to the DAs and supply evidence. someone called them and said there was a kid walking alone and they looked abused, and the sheriff took it to the courts and DAs.