4 ms·

So, I'm not up to speed on this issue, but can anyone give a brief summary or link describing why we need a special "extra-legal" department like CPS? Extra-le

by xrange 12y ago

So, I'm not up to speed on this issue, but can anyone give a brief summary or link describing why we need a special "extra-legal" department like CPS? Extra-legal probably isn't the exact wording I'm looking for, but why couldn't issues of excessive cruelty to children be handled in the standard manner, with due-process, etc.? I suppose I only hear about the outliers of extreme overreach, but it seems like CPS attracts busybodies with power complexes. And there is a potential that there is more of a backstory here that we aren't hearing about. Is there a compelling reason we shouldn't we shut these agencies down, or at least greatly curtail their activities? Or at the very least, fire everyone who was involved in this particular investigation?

sophacles 12y ago
Mostly it comes down to: division of labor is a thing. CPS is responsible for things like foster care, finding if parents are (truly) neglectful and abusive, helping teach ignorant parents how to not kill their kids accidentally, and other related things. In most of the work they do, it is just due process - Our society has decided that when a parent goes to jail, or is ordered into an institution, or what not, and does so while caring for children and having no backup means for caring for those children, we shouldn't throw those kids out on the street and hope they survive. In the case of neglect and abuse - it's apparent to people trained to find it (even in clear cut cases) but not as often noticable just by a quick glance: A common tactic of abusers is to hide it to the outside world, and scare the abused into lying about it - cops are trained to handle one situation, CPS investigators are trained to handle this different one. (Much like we have forensic accountants investigate financial crime and homicide detectives investigate murder). When cops overstep and murder random people - the response is "well they have hard jobs, and they are trained to be safe", but when CPS oversteps and asks some uncomfortable questions, its "busybodies". Why does no one say "well they also get kids into homes rather than putting them on the street, and they see a lot of horrible abuse cases and are maybe a bit overcautious"? Do you in general disagree with the notion of specialization and division of labor, or is it a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that "government" is doing it? Why do you want to automatically shut down an agency that does a lot of good, because some bureaucrat is overstepping (or legally mandated to do so, whatever the case may be)?
- xrange 12y ago
  It sounds to me like providing foster families for incarcerated parents has nothing to do with this particular case, or child abuse in general, and the best "division of labor" would be to not have those under the same roof. But that's neither here nor there. Also, to the strange non-sequitur, I think that cops murdering people is worse than what the article describes. Are you saying that: A). All the facts of this particular care aren't being presented (certainly plausible). B). You don't find the conduct of the CPS in this case infuriating. C). For the sake of argument you accept the facts as presented, you personally find it reprehensible, but you don't think others should find it reprehensible, or at least shouldn't try to call it out as such. D). You work for a related agency, and naturally would want to stand up for your colleagues? Certainly you sound a little on the defensive side. E). Other? ...maybe these social workers should be on a rotation, so they're not working on the same thing for more than two years. Kind of like prison guards should be, so they don't end up dehumanizing the inmates?
  - sophacles 12y ago
    I'm saying the following: There are a lot of reasonable and unreasonable actions on ALL sides of this. 1. Cops are mandated to report any potential child neglect and abuse in most places. While I think children walking to school alone is a good thing, it doesn't change the law stating that unsupervised children (details of the law are in the freaking article) fall under the umbrella of "potential neglect" as the rules are written. 2. The cops are following up on a report to them - again something they have to do. Some random person panicking over kids walking to school is where a lot of the rage should be placed. Not on the cops for following up because we have voted on laws requiring them to. 3. The mandatory reporting rules are in fact "Tell CPS". So yes, of course CPS is going to get involved. 4. CPS decided to find the facts. They are mandated to investigate in a certain way. Again, not by busybodies, but by the freaking regulations. 5. The parents freaked out because CPS came to ask questions. Now, this I find pretty unreasonable - while I understand it's stressful, it's also not the end of the world. It's a simple fact finding mission - answer the questions, with a lawyer if you feel it necessary. 6. Does this need to be investigated? By law yes, by sanity: no. 7. Yes, certainly all the facts are not being presented - the CPS is not allowed to comment on a case (by privacy laws) so we only hear the angsty parent's side. 8. I don't find the CPS case infuriating: I find the people who called the cops initially infuriating. I find the laws our society has enacted infuriating. 9. I'm sure the people who do foster care are a different division than the people who investigate neglect, however, they need to be in the same structure, because it makes sense to have the case worker assigned to a child be the same during an investigation and during follow-up. 10. It's not a non-sequitor to mention the cops misbehaving scenario - It's me pointing out an unreasonable difference between attitudes toward similar roles. Also note I said people, not "xrange". Further - the call for banishment of police departments never happens, but the call for banishment of CPS seems OK - even though they are just enforcing a different group of laws. 11. Rotation would probably be good.
bryanlarsen 12y ago
I haven't had a lot of interaction with them, but my opinion is that CPS attracts very empathetic people -- people who are attracted to a job of "saving the children". These people are then exposed to a continuing stream of addicts, criminals, the mentally ill, etc, who are actively harming children. Preserving your empathy in such a situation is very difficult. I suspect most just protect themselves by shutting it down. Not to mention the fact that to everybody you interact with considers you the "bad guy". I was at a party once where we everybody was trying to outdo each other describing the most disgusting thing they'd ever seen. There were some whoppers there -- there were farmers, doctors and vets at the party. The winner was a CPS officer.

by xrange 12y ago

sophacles 12y ago

Mostly it comes down to: division of labor is a thing. CPS is responsible for things like foster care, finding if parents are (truly) neglectful and abusive, helping teach ignorant parents how to not kill their kids accidentally, and other related things. In most of the work they do, it is just due process - Our society has decided that when a parent goes to jail, or is ordered into an institution, or what not, and does so while caring for children and having no backup means for caring for those children, we shouldn't throw those kids out on the street and hope they survive. In the case of neglect and abuse - it's apparent to people trained to find it (even in clear cut cases) but not as often noticable just by a quick glance: A common tactic of abusers is to hide it to the outside world, and scare the abused into lying about it - cops are trained to handle one situation, CPS investigators are trained to handle this different one. (Much like we have forensic accountants investigate financial crime and homicide detectives investigate murder). When cops overstep and murder random people - the response is "well they have hard jobs, and they are trained to be safe", but when CPS oversteps and asks some uncomfortable questions, its "busybodies". Why does no one say "well they also get kids into homes rather than putting them on the street, and they see a lot of horrible abuse cases and are maybe a bit overcautious"? Do you in general disagree with the notion of specialization and division of labor, or is it a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that "government" is doing it? Why do you want to automatically shut down an agency that does a lot of good, because some bureaucrat is overstepping (or legally mandated to do so, whatever the case may be)?

xrange 12y ago
It sounds to me like providing foster families for incarcerated parents has nothing to do with this particular case, or child abuse in general, and the best "division of labor" would be to not have those under the same roof. But that's neither here nor there. Also, to the strange non-sequitur, I think that cops murdering people is worse than what the article describes. Are you saying that: A). All the facts of this particular care aren't being presented (certainly plausible). B). You don't find the conduct of the CPS in this case infuriating. C). For the sake of argument you accept the facts as presented, you personally find it reprehensible, but you don't think others should find it reprehensible, or at least shouldn't try to call it out as such. D). You work for a related agency, and naturally would want to stand up for your colleagues? Certainly you sound a little on the defensive side. E). Other? ...maybe these social workers should be on a rotation, so they're not working on the same thing for more than two years. Kind of like prison guards should be, so they don't end up dehumanizing the inmates?
- sophacles 12y ago
  I'm saying the following: There are a lot of reasonable and unreasonable actions on ALL sides of this. 1. Cops are mandated to report any potential child neglect and abuse in most places. While I think children walking to school alone is a good thing, it doesn't change the law stating that unsupervised children (details of the law are in the freaking article) fall under the umbrella of "potential neglect" as the rules are written. 2. The cops are following up on a report to them - again something they have to do. Some random person panicking over kids walking to school is where a lot of the rage should be placed. Not on the cops for following up because we have voted on laws requiring them to. 3. The mandatory reporting rules are in fact "Tell CPS". So yes, of course CPS is going to get involved. 4. CPS decided to find the facts. They are mandated to investigate in a certain way. Again, not by busybodies, but by the freaking regulations. 5. The parents freaked out because CPS came to ask questions. Now, this I find pretty unreasonable - while I understand it's stressful, it's also not the end of the world. It's a simple fact finding mission - answer the questions, with a lawyer if you feel it necessary. 6. Does this need to be investigated? By law yes, by sanity: no. 7. Yes, certainly all the facts are not being presented - the CPS is not allowed to comment on a case (by privacy laws) so we only hear the angsty parent's side. 8. I don't find the CPS case infuriating: I find the people who called the cops initially infuriating. I find the laws our society has enacted infuriating. 9. I'm sure the people who do foster care are a different division than the people who investigate neglect, however, they need to be in the same structure, because it makes sense to have the case worker assigned to a child be the same during an investigation and during follow-up. 10. It's not a non-sequitor to mention the cops misbehaving scenario - It's me pointing out an unreasonable difference between attitudes toward similar roles. Also note I said people, not "xrange". Further - the call for banishment of police departments never happens, but the call for banishment of CPS seems OK - even though they are just enforcing a different group of laws. 11. Rotation would probably be good.

bryanlarsen 12y ago

I haven't had a lot of interaction with them, but my opinion is that CPS attracts very empathetic people -- people who are attracted to a job of "saving the children". These people are then exposed to a continuing stream of addicts, criminals, the mentally ill, etc, who are actively harming children. Preserving your empathy in such a situation is very difficult. I suspect most just protect themselves by shutting it down. Not to mention the fact that to everybody you interact with considers you the "bad guy". I was at a party once where we everybody was trying to outdo each other describing the most disgusting thing they'd ever seen. There were some whoppers there -- there were farmers, doctors and vets at the party. The winner was a CPS officer.