Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdtsc | Hacker News Reader

That wouldn't work in US until the whole culture changes. An individual family may do this, and then someone will call child protective services because there is a lost, unaccompanied child.

Happened to my coworker: kids were playing outside and a neighbor called the authorities on them. Not clear if they really thought the kids were in danger, or just did it out of spite, but what ensued was a nightmare of CPS calling the workplace and a few follow-up house visits. The sad part is everyone involved can turn around and claim "we were worried about the children" and use that as a shield for whatever overzealousness or maliciousness may hide underneath.

View on HN

>kids were playing outside and a neighbor called the authorities on them

The worst part is that someone would thing this is the appropriate thing to do rather than observe the kids and in any case approach them and ask if they’re OK. The US has grown a culture of “don’t get involved” cowards hidden behind the legal system.

The coworker never found out who that was and talking about he kind of suspected it was a just a neighbor that didn't like them. And like you said, they can always hide behind "I don't know I was just worried about the children".

>That wouldn't work in US until the whole culture changes.

This is one of those things laws are great at. Delete the power of idiot Karens and the culture will return to normal.

It works for Utah (and to a point, Texas); it can work for your polity, too.

When children are at far greater risk of abuse and abduction by concern trolls and the State, and they very much are in New World countries, your society is broken.

Nice. What laws are you referring to?

"Free range" laws. You search those terms and find a ton of information including which states have them.

But free range laws are a good thing right?

Free range laws say the opposite: that a kid over a certain age is allowed to be alone and the parents CANNOT be charged for it. It’s to encourage free range parenting.

> children are at far greater risk of abuse and abduction by concern trolls and the State

Is there evidence of that? And would you define 'concern trolls' (beyond 'people who have concerns different than mine')?

>people who have concerns different than mine

"Trying to abduct my child either directly or by proxy" is not merely a question of polite differing concerns.

Who is trying to do that?

People who call CPS just because children are outside unaccompanied? It's obvious taking children away from the parent is a possibility when one makes that call.

OK, but ... those people may not be 'concern trolls' at all (whatever that means).

I think in this case ‘concern troll’ means someone who can’t mind their own business and chooses to troll someone by stirring up unnecessary drama or conflict, using insincere concern as a pretext.

We know the concern is insincere because the OP’s example (children playing in their yard) cannot be considered concerning by a reasonable person.

I think you're creating a fine definition but based on context and your own intellectual sophistication; we don't know what the author of those words meant.

Based on my experience with children who actually need protective services help, calling about kids playing outside is not even close to getting a home visit let alone anyone taking your kids. Maybe it happens, but not in my east coast state.

> This is one of those things laws are great at. Delete the power of idiot Karens and the culture will return to normal.

How? Those idiot Karens are the ones writing the laws. They get on your state legislature and local town ordinances, and prevent more housing from being built too.

They have no competence and they do everything in the name of "safety", so you can't challenge them with logic or reason.

They are usually very privileged people with plenty of time on their hands so you can't play asymmetric warfare with them and expect to win.

That does not mean attempts to defeat them should not be made. Sometimes they even succeed.

Karen delenda est.

> The sad part is everyone involved can turn around and claim

As a mandatory reporter if I don't report such a thing I can be put in prison. Many activities now make all adults mandatory reporters (only mandatory reporters are allowed to go camping with scouts). I'm specifically told not to think, if there is any possibility I must report it and let the experts figure out if there is a problem or not.

This of course means the experts have to spend a lot of time/effort investigating where it is obvious there is nothing but they have to get enough evidence of that to close the case. This time is taken away from all the kids that really need help. Note that I have no idea how many kids who need help are discovered this way.

> As a mandatory reporter if I don't report such a thing I can be put in prison. Many activities now make all adults mandatory reporters (only mandatory reporters are allowed to go camping with scouts). I'm specifically told not to think, if there is any possibility I must report it and let the experts figure out if there is a problem or not.

There are some issues here with what you're saying.

Mandatory reporter classifications are a legal construct. Activities can't make people into mandatory reporters. Only some mandated reporters are subject to reporting requirements when off-duty (for example, in many jurisdictions, your scout camp 'chaperones' may well not be obliged to mandatory report. Teachers and HCPs may, however, be. And it may vary for WHAT they are reporting.)

> Activities can't make people into mandatory reporters. Only some mandated reporters are subject to reporting requirements when off-duty

What is all that based on? Are you a mandatory reporter?

It might be dangerous to give advice. Even if you know your jurisdiction, others will vary.

I am a mandatory reporter (healthcare provider), and I specifically called out that jurisdictions, occupations, and events or situations may tweak that.

> Many activities now make all adults mandatory reporters

I was specifically commenting that an activity doesn't make someone a mandatory reporter. That is you are a mandatory reporter based on your occupation, status, and what is happening. The OPs comment makes it sound like "if you're camping overnight with children, you become a mandatory reporter"

versus, for example, "The BSA's policy is to only allow people who are already designated mandatory reporters to chaperone camping overnight with scouts". The BSA cannot ... mandate ... that you are a mandatory reporter (in the legal sense, with protections and responsibilities accompanying) just by virtue of you saying "I'll chaperone this event" (though they can certainly say "it is our policy that you act as-if").

Their policy is probably only act as if. The training I'm given doesn't go into such details though.

Come to think of it, they say it is mandatory to report, but are careful to avoid talking about the law. However it is recorded I have training. I would honestly expect the courts decide that I'm legally a mandatory reporter if it was discovered I should have seen something, even if I don't technically meet the law. (at least if they can find any way to read the law to get me)

That makes absolute sense. And I think it's quite deliberate to not talk about the law. And I have no objections to a policy that 'we expect you to report concerning things' and disqualifying you if they learned you didn't.

All of this is of course on top of any moral or ethical imperatives about reporting suspected abuse, mandated or otherwise.

You are mandatory reported for kids playing outside?

This seems community specific. In my town, kids as young as 2nd or 3rd grade walk home alone, and one of the biggest issues in town are the roving gangs of bike kids riding through town en masse. This is mostly only possible due to tight zoning. No big yards or huge McMansions, but it allows independent kids without child services being called.

I understand that’s terrifying in the moment to have CPS at your door, but maybe the erroneous CPS visit is a one time cost we have to pay to change the culture, until CPS learns to ignore phone calls with no more details other than “children are outside”. If they don’t learn to ignore them - that sounds like lawsuit territory

Change requires someone that doesn’t accept the status quo

(I don’t have kids, but hope to have some in the future, so this is me talking out of turn)

> If they don’t learn to ignore them - that sounds like lawsuit territory

It's the reverse. CPS could be found liable if they ignored a report where there were indeed problems.

Also, I have family that work in CPS and it's really not the bad guy everyone that's "anti-CPS" seems to think. They have a HIGH bar to go over before they'll remove kids from a home. Things have to be particularly bad. And even then, the organization is slanted to get the kids back into the home ASAP. The state doesn't want to have to take care of kids.

Most of the time, it's work with the parents to make the environment safe.

If a single report from a source of unknown credibility is enough to send agents to upend an innocent person’s life, then that system is broken. The same is true for swatting. A single phone call should not result in an armed police response.

CPS agents didn't come in guns ablaze (that aren't armed). It's a simple investigation and interview with the parents.

It's quite literally the same thing as a cop checking up on someone for a reported domestic disturbance.

It's not as instant jail sentence or separation of parents from their kids.

Like I said, those are literally tools of last resort. Things have to be really bad. Like, for example, a kid that shows up with bruises and stories of violence from the parents won't instantly be removed. That's how far CPS bends over to avoid family separation. The research is pretty clear that family separation is about the worst thing you can do to a kid. That's why instead CPS generally will deploy things like mandatory therapy (if that). Or life skills lessons. And that's assuming they see major problems at the initial interview. If it's a false claim the actual most likely thing that will happen is they'll show up and say "looks like a false claim" and leave, probably ignoring future reports.

It's actually wild to me how anti-cps people are.

Family separation is the most extreme outcome. There is a long spectrum of stress and uncertainty between "CPS merely knocks on your door and leaves" and "Forcible family separation." You really don't want to land anywhere on that spectrum. Encounters with the government and law enforcement tend to escalate depending on how busy/belligerent/bored their agents are, so what might be a routine "checking up" today can snowball into a series of more and more serious encounters and harassment as time goes by.

I'm not really anti-CPS as much as I'm anti unnecessary involvement with unaccountable people who can wreck other people's lives.

> depending on how busy/belligerent/bored their agents are

Or on how caring, responsible, and capable they are. You're making a lot of assumptions about a lot of people.

People say these things casually but let me point out that it's not at all trivial: Demonization is the first step used by the right-wing to oppress and harm people: Democrats, liberals, LGBTQ (esp trans people), immigrants, FBI, CDC, any regulators, high-ranking government officials in national defense, government workers, city residents in blue states (when will the National Guard be sent in?), ...

The casual spread of such ideas, which makes them more insidious because few people notice their significance, is a big part of demonization.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com