It seems like they wasted two weeks of this family's time and added a ton of unnecessary stress, before even figuring out if the complaint was warranted. That seems deeply dysfunctional, and violently at odds with "innocent until proven guilty"
I’m not; there should be some reasonable basis for this level of intrusion, which there was not (note that the facts of the report were true and confirmed and still did not violate family law that CPS enforces; this isn't a case where someone reported something which would have warranted CPS intervention if confirmed.)
The same way they knew when the investigation confirmed the initial report, and it wasn't a violation.
Hahaha. Government employees lol.
Now, I am not saying that a report which on its face does not describe a violation does not warrant investigation, but absent some other evidence which provides cause to believe a violation exists which would legally impact parental suitability, it doesn’t warrant limiting parental rights during the investigation, just as a report to police that raises articulable suspicion but not probable cause to believe a specific crime has occurred warrants investigation, but not arrest.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-judge-chews-lawyer-missed...
Stuff like due process is what our forefathers died to at least ostensibly give us.
Unfortunately, due process is whatever the judge say it is.
CPS is basically the adversary in the court proceedings so I see the judge more as an additional layer in the swiss cheese rather than a replacement layer in the swiss cheese, which your previous statement seems to allude towards.
The parents agreed to the surveillance plan. Unless they go to a judge for an order mandating it, it's voluntary. It's likely the lawyer recommended they go along with it.
This is like the 5th time you've commented on my stuff while missing major information from the article, or simply going off on some random tangent.
From the beginning I indicated I would force them to go through the court for the "voluntary" agreement. Your snark "but judges are better?" completely bypassed that, seemingly completely missing the request for the order would never even get to the judge if the adversary CPS never pushed for the order in the first place.
> nor did they bring it to a judge.
Which is why I proposed a scenario where they were forced to if they wanted it to happen. I'm well aware many of my opinions were not expressed in the "information" of the article (oh no!).
>This is like the 5th time you've commented on my stuff
If you check this thread, you initially commented to me on this thread. It was your choice to reply to me unsolicited, although your statement here is a nice attempt to try to turn that on its head.
Cheers and have a good day.
It's the CPS equivalent of "let me in your house or else I'll get a search warrant and things will go worse for you." If they had the evidence to get in the house, they wouldn't be standing there asking you, the police would be there with battering rams busting in.
It's a bluff. If there is actually evidence they need to remove the child they will go get the order from the judge and execute it. And if that evidence exists, in no way would anyone in their right mind let you keep the kid by signing a "safety plan" to pretty please keep grandma and grandma around, who are not in any way credentialled/vetted to host supervised visitation.
Whereas if - as you seem to be assuming - CPS only heard "this parent commited neglect and possibly abuse of their child", investigation would indeed be needed to figure out they were being lied to. But other people are assuming CPS got accurate information in the first place.
Edit: apparently dragonwriter already explained this (better) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33629395.
Every parent within my hometown would be getting arrested. And god forbid when these people learn that we were riding the public bus service to and from school at 10 years old...
"My mom made me walk home because I was mean to my siblings."
"Where do you live?"
"That house over there."
Alternative, less dumb reality:
"Carry on."
A bit more concerned, still less dumb reality:
"I'll walk with you."
Dumb reality:
"I am calling the cops!"
And that fear needs to grow a lot before any action will be taken, so it's still a net loss for the present time.
Is that actually a harm, given the evidence?