Just a housekeeping note: it seems a lot of the arguments in this thread have entrenched into parents rights vs child’s rights.
In my jurisdiction Children have rights and parents have responsibilities, and so it should be.
In my jurisdiction Children have rights and parents have responsibilities, and so it should be.
No, it's "parent's rights" vs. "concern troll's" rights.
Blessing arbitrary "bUt I tHoUgHt It WaS aBuSe" complaints with the guns of the State is, the overwhelming majority of the time, not in a child's (or society's) best interest.
That includes "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" reporting personnel who are so very eager to "save" some kid from evil (because it's everywhere, don't you know) that they end up assuming it's everywhere, which is how a kid walking half a block down the street or playing in their front yard becomes child abuse.
After all, they're trained professionals, and when have trained professionals ever been wrong about assessing risks? Besides, those employed by the bureaucracy have sovereign immunity anyway, so there will be zero personal consequences if they get it wrong: privatize successes, socialize failures.
I can totally buy that it happens some of the time (and every time it's a tragedy), but the overwhelming majority of the time? I find it hard to believe. It's not like the US government has an unlimited CPS funding to meddle with every parents.
In any fair society, rights like parental rights are removed only when someone commits a sufficient crime beyond a reasonable doubt as a result of a legal process. One low skill CPS worker shouldn’t be able to decide that some parent should have their children removed.