CPS investigated her 4 times because she let her kids play outside
reason.com
reason.com
That said though, it's easy to imagine how quickly things could become problematic if some busybody decided they wanted to make trouble. You do not want CPS involved with your family - full stop.
I don't really know what the right thing to do is if you do have CPS show up - at first blush it seems like a "never talk to the police" type of situation where hypothetically the right play is to absolutely refuse to play ball and involve a lawyer immediately.
It's a whole can of worms to take that stand though. Do you just let Umbridge into your house and hope that the quick look around is enough to close the case? Or do you recognize you're dealing with an Umbridge and not take the chance?
That kind of tough call for parents probably does mean that the right play is to try to ensure your state has reasonable legislation about these sorts of things.
(what a drag!)
In the US at least, you absolutely do not give consent for anyone from the government to come into your house. It can only hurt you. Call the police and tell them someone is trespassing. Call your lawyer and explain the situation.
Children should know it is inappropriate for adults they don't know to ask for details about their home life. Any adult acting in good faith will always make it easier for a child to contact their parents without negotiation. "Yes you can use my phone" is the only acceptable response. No "come over here first", no "let's talk about where your parents are".
How many people 'have' a lawyer?
Edit, which on second reading, you do mention. “Some busybody” is a big part of the problem.
If it's the first, on first contact you assume they're generally good-willed, and play the part of the concerned parent, and find something obvious and physical that can be added and verified (a fence, say, or a lock, or alarm, depending on what occurred). Try to sus out how the report occurred.
If it's the second, move. Move out of their district or out of their state. You're already fucked, so your best option is to run.
You do not speak with the police, you calmly but firmly inform them that they can return with a warrant if they think there is something actionable.
You then proceed legal action against the false reporter. Sometimes all you can get is a no contact order, sometimes you can get a stalking injunction, sometimes a full blown restraining order. This is why you want a lawyer ahead of time, they know how to deal with this.
Again, don't let a cop into your house unless they have the magical piece of paper called a warrant.
FTFY
This isn't just for CPS, for all sorts areas of government.
This must be a mistake from the CPS agent, surely? For one, it's obviously absurd (you'd get a CPS call if they found out you were "supervising" your 12 year old in the bathroom or while changing), but secondly (and I might be mistaken), in most places I've looked at/known people/lived in, you are allowed to privately babysit at the age of 12.
In any case, this whole thing is a bit too rage-inducing for a Monday morning read.
Just remember you don’t need to talk to them or let them into your home. Anything you say or they see is evidence they can use against you. Force them to go get a court order or warrant.
Unfortunately, not in California: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40381801
1. Just like the police, they can only go in without a warrant if they have a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger to a child. They must have a specific thing in mind, not just "vibes." Bringing your child to the door to show them they are fine would often be sufficient to quash that (but you can't do that if your child isn't home).
2. Refusing to be interviewed by CPS and/or denying them access to your children can be used against you in family court (unlike when you are being interrogated by the police).
3. From the ACLU of SoCal(https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/california-chi...):
> If there is no warrant and no emergency and you do not want to allow the investigator in your home, you can say something like, “Sorry, this isn’t a good time for me, but I’d be happy to schedule a visit on a later date.” By offering an alternative date like the next day or later in the week, you can plan to be more prepared for a visit, but also show cooperation. If you refuse any visit, that can be used as evidence against you later in the investigation. Depending on the situation, follow-up visits can take place either at home or the CPS office.
The good ones are up and out.
At that point I'd be approaching both the police and this 'social worker's' employer and complaining about her threatening my children.
I saw an article floating around about a couple that were prosecuted for letting their child cross a street alone to go to a store, but it was actually a highway and one of their other kids had died on that highway a few years ago.
Having been involved in the foster care system before, I can tell you, no parent believes they were doing anything wrong, ever. They almost all exclusively believe they were being unfairly targeted for past transgressions or unfair accusations. That happens, but given how everyone says that, it's not a good signal.
Yes, this may not be the case in this article, or even in most cases, but it is something to consider about human nature.
It is basically crazy how car obsession has turned America into such an unsafe place for children, and the statistics show it;
> In 1969, 48 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school. In 2009, 13 percent of children 5 to 14 years of age usually walked or bicycled to school.
http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_...
Yes, it is.
You can complain all you want about land allocation, but when there are 2 tons vehicles going 100+ Kmh/h somewhere and it's closed to pedestrian you don't let your kid got there. Period.
Similarly, if they are reintroducing wolves and grizzlis in a forest near you, and they close it off for trails etc, you don't organize a weekend camping trip there.
Sometimes it's about common sense, stop blaming "society and the government" for your inability to function as a reasonable human being.
I played in the streets and rode my bike every summer day (still do just not as much). But I also knew that 2000lbs of steel traveling at 30mph is not going to stop for me so my life was in my hands and I needed to be vigilant.
That's a mistake, I think. They are for traffic and that includes kids, adult pedestrians, people on bikes, people with dogs, mopeds, and yes, cars. And as the driver of one of those you have a responsibility towards all those lesser protected members of society.
Yes, streets should be safer.
No, that does not mean we should just let everyone act like they are safe, when we all know they are not.
But okay...
Distance and traffic danger (also a function of urban planning decisions) are by far the strongest predictor of whether kids walk to school.
not if there are other factors e.g lack of civil safety.
But yes, the data does show that most things are held relatively equal when grouping reasons into <1mile and >1mile. So distance seems to be the clear factor. Nice article.
Urban arterial roads (not quite streets, not quite interstates or grade separated freeways) account for half of all crashes in the US.
The problem specifically for stores is, small classic mom'n'pop stores cannot compete with big retailers like Walmart, Costco and whatnot - they simply cannot get even close to the scale of purchase that the big ones do, and so people prefer to use cars to get to a big retailer because it is more economical.
The amount of hoop jumping is the same if you're putting in a family mini golf with a restaurant and bumper cars. But you'll never make it back so the development never happens...
They also tried to stick a massive apartment building in a nice nearby residential neighborhood to house the cheap workers Amazon will bring in, but the residents caught wind of it and managed to get it stopped. For now.
>"He would come and get a drink of water and then he would casually take his cup and throw it in the trash that was there where they dump their trays. And then you would see him digging through the garbage," Davis said. "At that point, if the little kid is hungry, I'm going to buy his lunch ticket."
>Davis said she and a co-worker started paying for Gavin's lunch, despite being "advised" by school officials not to do so because the school wanted to encourage families in hardship to fill out a form for reduced or free lunch.
Teachers and admin are mandatory reporters...
>Over the course of several months, Davis said she and other cafeteria workers made multiple calls to school officials and the Utah Division of Child and Family Services to report their concerns.
>"First we went through the channels. The head lunch lady knew what was going on. She said the principal had to take care of it. We reported it to the principal," Davis said, adding that later they also called DCFS directly.
https://www.ksl.com/article/51077343/the-system-is-broken-ca...
I looked for follow up but aside for the parents being rightfully charged, what was done regarding the system? Anyone fired for not reporting? Not following up? From what I see, "It's a tragedy" and then same as before.
Don't forget that the system is made up of humans. Which social worker investigates (and how well socialized the parent is) can make a huge difference in when an intervention happens, and what the intervention is.
We had child that was removed on the very first report to CWS, after the social worker interviewed the mother and was not satisfied.
We also had a child that was removed only after the 17th report, made by a total of about half a dozen people (including every single preschool teacher), with all the reports being consistent with each other. The child was only removed because the mother was smoking meth when the CWS worker showed up. The social worker had shown up several times previously, but was satisfied after interviewing the mother.
Anyone that suggest agencies like CPS are overflowing with time and money to target random parents over minor things like letting a child cross a street isn't a serious person.
This is exactly what the original commenter is talking about.
Like, is it a willful decision to not think critically about anything, ever?
I'm not opposed to rare government intrusions into peoples lives, but there must be well-defined rules about when those intrusions happen, and what standards they are enforcing.
"The local law enforcement agency is required to investigate all reports. Cases may also be investigated by Child Welfare Services when allegations involve abuse or neglect within families." [0]
Just one example, but 27 states came up in my search for where CPS has little or no latitude in choosing which allegations to investigate.
[0] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/ap/childabusereportingguide.asp
That is precisely what was happening in the examples the original commenter provided [1]. Why are you compilating CPS being legally required to investigate a report and the CPS targeting parents?
[1] they almost all exclusively believe they were being unfairly targeted for past transgressions or unfair accusations.
Well if its on youtube
Parents these days are fearful to an unhealthy degree to begin with, but having to deal with CPS, who may subject you to repeated visits and bureaucratic reports or at worst take your kids away, is making the parents have even more fear of giving kids the slightest independence or hint of a real childhood.
Remember if CPS shows up at your door, you don’t need to talk to them. You can tell them firmly to get off your property and to not return. If they insist, record them, tell them to identify themselves with ID, tell them they’re trespassing and you’ll press charges, and to leave. They have no legal right to be there or speak to you without a warrant and a police officer. The point of them making you talk to them is so they can make a big deal out of SOMETHING you say or SOMETHING they see so they can do paperwork that justifies their ability to invade your life. Don’t let them. There are videos on YouTube about how to deal with them.
As a former foster parent, I was appaled and disgusted by how CPS works and how every social worker, guardian ad litem, law enforcement officer seemed more obsessed with maintaining a slow moving cash cow bureaucracy than actually building a system that helps kids.
They then use "but we are helping kids get out of horrible situations" as a shield to avoid any scrutnity or condemnation of the inefficient, ineffective leviathian of greed they participate in.
Correct, the kid we were babysitting had an ear infection and we need parent authorization to adminster medicine. A simple phone call? Nope. The system require a lawyer, CPS, and several weeks delay at which point the kid didnt need the medicine, but we babysitter got to stay up every night for those two weeks listen to a kid cry we legally couldnt give medicine to.
We had no intention to adopt, we only wanted reconcilliation and to help kids. You seem to have a bone to pick with foster parents since you were quick to judge me and my wife's intentions.
We were glorified babysitters. Shitty, piece of shit babysitters apprently. I am glad we arent involved in that cluster fuck system anymore.
To the point there are stand up comedians talking about remembering being kids during the 70's and 80's.
Also, the way this article reads, this lady just seems like a pain in the a* and clearly her neighbors do not like her. The best bet is for them to move...
Now im in my mid 30s and have my third daughter on the way. I would never let my kids go play outside in the front yard unsupervised, just for the simple fact that I don't want them getting hit by a car, the oldest is 6, and understands things, but still, that just seems neglectful.
It could be because they are girls, and im more protective, but I also just generally gauge a Childs "readiness", and I don't know many 6 year olds that I would be comfortable going to explore my neighborhood without some form of supervision.
I also generally despise the use of CPS in this way, but from what I gather, this lady seems like a pain in the a*, and her neighbors clearly do not like her, for whatever reason it is. It doesn't mean they should get CPS involved, but it's honestly shocking that this lady would continue to live in a place like this, it's pretty unreal actually.
Not sure what to make of all of this, and it reads like a very one sided piece, would be interesting to hear all the other drama that led to all of this transpiring.
I didn't get this impression at all, why do you think the lady is a pain in the ass..?
On the other hand, it is plausible that the parents were actually negligent and the kids were outside totally unsupervised, and the neighbors tried to find someone watching over the kids before calling the police. I would normally not be suspicious, but statements like, "the next door neighbors were okay with our kids playing in their yards" and, "of course my child is allowed to climb the stairs" feel a little off. Yes, neighbors will often say it is okay for kids to be on their lawns but there is usually an understanding that the parents are aware of what's going on. And it's easy to say that you allow your kids to climb the stairs, but the child in question was less than a year old. I don't know of a parent who wouldn't at least be watching over them on the front porch.
So I don't know where I land here. This story, even if true, sounds like a bad parent trying to pass this off as intrusive neighbors and government overreach. Kids can and should be allowed to roam, but there should be some appropriate limits. I experienced this first-hand as a kid. My parents were great and we had awesome families on our street. Most of the time we just roamed to various houses on the street and the parents all knew each other and it was fine. Once we rode our bikes to another town and had to ask a stranger to use their phone because we got lost- this was probably not okay, but our parents picked us up and things turned out okay. But notably, we did not get CPS called on us multiple times.
In my experience the stories about strangers telling the kids what they can or cannot do (as a European not part that these people would be taken seriously by cps though) seem entirely plausible both from experiences from my childhood and experiences as a parent.
There are lots of people who seem to enjoy bossing kids around. It often gets worse when kids are articulate and insist on their rights. Some people get downright aggressive if a child or teenager isn't immediately submissive.
I can relate with this so much. When kids are articulate and confident, bossy adults have a such a hard time reacting appropriately, that they often result to acting like children. They then resort to telling lies, knowing fully well that the society will often take the word of an adult over that of a child.
I mean, it seems like the parent went through a lot of effort to craft a narrative where they aren’t bad parents despite having CPS called on them four times, their kids were accused of animal abuse, entering people’s houses without permission, and lets them run around town. I get that some neighbors can be intrusive, but either this is one single neighbor that needs to be given a cease and desist order, or there are multiple neighbors who were concerned enough to call the authorities. Either way this story doesn’t really lead me to the conclusion that the parent was fine, but the laws about kid supervision needed to be changed. Something just doesn’t make me fully believe that the parent didn’t do anything wrong.
This stated so plainly as a rational insight is indicative of the ludicrous shift in discourse that has happened culturally.