This literally happened to me last week in Fresno, CA at @dmpayton's house. Fortunately, it's not possible to directly call CPS here; one needs to go through the police first. The police arrived and questioned me. I explained to them that I had no intention of changing my behavior and that I didn't want to answer any questions. They were polite and eventually left.

But it was still bizarre. I don't understand why the response (to the caller) isn't, "M'am, there's no violation of the law in your description of this event. Please keep this line open in case of actual emergencies."

I'll just go let my best friend know that the several CPS inspections she had to endure last year when she left her kids at the park unattended were not real.

Anyone can call CPS for just about anything, and having someone pick through your home and point out every little flaw, with the threat of taking your kids away is a real issue. Please don't downplay it, and don't downplay how shitty people can be to each other.

I'm not very familiar with how CPS works and the law there--do you have any right to refuse unless they present some evidence that warrants such invasive next steps?

Seems like a passive-aggressive parental version of Swatting someone.

Don’t know what it’s like on the “receiving end” but in my state when I notify CPS it’s a very, very involved process that usually takes at least an hour. You can do it by phone or internet form and both require extensive information about the child, parents, family members, address, etc. It’s definitely not something you can just do because you don’t like your neighbors and want them arrested in five minutes.

"The Maryland parents accused of child neglect for letting their children roam freely had to retrieve their children from Child Protective Services after they were removed from a park Sunday by police."

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/silver-spring/md-free-range-...

Yes, you will.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/11-year-old-boy-played-in-... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/neighbor-calls-cops... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/22/canadian-mo...

Do you have any more "corrections" to make?

That first one (the only one I read) is such a nightmare. Just wow.

I live in the boonies and my kid gets to roam far and wide by himself. There's some risk involved, but it's never crossed my mind that I'm being negligent.

I think it would be more negligent to keep him indoors--not that it could qualify as criminally negligent in any sane universe.

When I was 6 years old my mom used to let me ride my bike all over town (a 5 mile jaunt) all day long. When I was 8, me and my friends used to walk 4 miles to school to play basketball, then spend rest of day playing in woods. Eventually when I was around 13 one of my friends lost an eye due to our experiments with explosives, but other than that we all survived.

Maybe I should call CPS on my mom. What's the statute of limitations.

I used to go to my friend's house when I was 8. It was through the woods, across the railroad tracks, and about 2 miles down a fairly busy residential road with no sidewalks. By 13 I went anywhere I wanted. Even on the city bus or whatever.

Most of my life the rule was "be home by dinner" (6pm)

Also I stayed home alone and watched my little sister after about age 11. I had a single father.

My friends and I also played with explosives--we got into one buddy's father's black powder stash--but the only casualties were one guy's eyebrows. And his pride, once his mother noticed.

I think your citations are instances of confirmation bias; also, you're only citing a handful of examples, and they're examples so extreme they made national news. (They're also each a year apart.)

Even in large cities kids roam alone in their neighborhoods and parks. I live in SF, and regularly see kids under 10 skateboarding or riding their bikes on their own around my neighborhood. Now that I'm a parent, I also see toddlers running around fields in GG Park, barely within in earshot of their parents.

Odds are, if you don't see kids running around your neighborhood, it's either because you live in a neighborhood without many children (like most of SF), or you tend to be at work during the hours in which most children play.

I know you're already getting a torrent of anecdotes right now, but I really think it's important not to sweep this under the rug. I have a co-worker who lives in a nice suburban neighborhood and had CPS called on him because his child was allowed to play in the park across the street from his house unsupervised. His child was interviewed by a social worker, his house was searched for drugs, the contents of his fridge were evaluated, and he had to go to court. In my state, it only takes one person to call, and once that person calls, an investigation is legally required, regardless of how spurious.

Growing up I was allowed to roam the grounds of wherever we were freely unsupervised. As with many of us gen-Y'ers. In spending time with various women with kids I have noticed that parents nowadays are way more likely

a) hover over their children (in a playground for example) so as to be no more than 10-20 feet away from them at all times

b) eyeing any adults in the play area without a nearby child suspiciously

c) Occasionally chastising or otherwise harassing parents that don't do this, in the same way that nosy people chastise others over their actions.

Given the prevalence of stories and my own observations, I think you are wrong. I also think the quality of the institutions being talked about vary greatly depending on where you are. When I was in high school my friend had CPS called on her parents after a particularly nasty fight (her family was prone to loud fights) and it took them a couple weeks to convince CPS to get off their backs.

I agree with the spirit of your argument, but I am pretty sure that this actually has happened.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/13/parent...

Nobody “called CPS on” the Meitivs. Somebody called the polic because they saw the children wandering around a parking garage (not a park like in many of the news stories. See [1].) The police officer then called CPS several times wondering what to do with children before finally driving over to CPS when they were dragging their heels[2].

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/free-range-family-again...

[2] Not that I think CPS is great. As a teacher, it’s basically impossible to get CPS to do anything unless the parents are abusing the children right in front of you on school property. Part of that is CPS being overworked and underfunded/understaffed. Part of that is that is it still usually better to keep the kids with their parents instead of foster care. And part of it is CPS not having the resources to have more options besides arrest parents or do nothing (like offering social services to the parents). Also I would argue there is a difference between letting your children play in the neighborhood outside your house and just leaving your children at the park for hours. I have had students who haven been abandoned at the park with their younger siblings.

I do think the lose-your-kids-to-CPS fear is a little overblown. But it's a little silly to say "they didn't call CPS, they called the police". The outcome is the same, and people almost always call the police instead of CPS directly.

The original comment I was responding to specifically said “you can have CPS called on” you. Many people then pointed out the case of the Meitiv family even though nobody called CPS on them. Somebody called the police because they saw children playing in a parking garage unattended. Nobody called the police and said “the Meitiv’s children are playing in the neighborhood unattended.”

"you can have CPS called on you" doesn't imply a direct relationship between the reporter and CPS. The end result is the what matters.

I think it does. The statement is very clear and straight forward. It is a different statement than “you could be investigated by CPS for leaving your child on a parking garage.”

Depends on your neighbors and your neighborhood. Definitely not a universal, but it can fit an existential.

> You won’t have CPS called on you for letting your children wander and play in the neighbor. Please don’t spread nonsense.

You're absolutely wrong and I know first hand of a couple of neighbors where exactly this has happened.

Just because you haven't experienced it first hand it doesn't mean you have proof positive that it never occurs.

Everyone is pointing out various news articles that show that people do indeed call CPS when you let your kids play by themselves at a playground. I won't dispute that it happens, but to me this is similar to how we view other low-probability events. If I let my kids walk to school or the playground by themselves there's also a chance they can get hit by a car crossing the street. I can teach them safety rules and arm them with the tools they need, but there's always that chance. If you were so inclined I'm sure you could find countless articles about unsupervised kids getting hit by cars (or whatever other horrible thing you wanted to dig up, child abduction, etc etc). And yet that's a low-probability risk that we readily accept for the trade-off of fostering a child's independence and not being held hostage by every small risk in this world. Some asshole calling CPS and causing serious annoyance and maybe even emotional trauma is a real risk, but I'd argue it's super low probability (lower than the risk cars on the street pose). So yes, it happens, but that doesn't mean we have to change our behavior. We just have to accept that risk just like we do thousands of others in the course of daily life.

Many are sharing personal experiences as well.

I have not had CPS called on me. But I do have friends who dealt with that. In fact I know more people whose had CPS called on them than I do people who have been in car accidents. So it doesn't seem to be a super low probability event.

What also has me concerned is that my kids are heading towards puberty. Over 1/4 of all registered sex offenders committed their crime while minors. The single year of your life that you are most likely to become a registered sex offender is 14. It is massively more likely that they will have their lives destroyed that way than by an accident.

A bit off-topic: I've been in 12 car accidents, I think. 2 while I was driving a car, neither my fault. One while I was driving a motorcycle, also not my fault.

Most were before I was old enough to be driving.

5 of the vehicles were totaled, including the motorcycle.

Anyway I find it strange that some people have never been in one. I'm not sure I know anyone who hasn't.

That is crazy. When you say they were 'not your fault', how not your fault were they? Sometimes things aren't your fault, but you could also drive more defensively and expect other people to mess up. Sometimes things are not your fault and there is nothing you could do, like when you are stopped at a stoplight.

In the three accidents where I was driving:

A ford explorer in front of me on a 2-lane road going about 45mph turned into an apartment complex, then used their drive to do a big sweeping U turn back across my lane, and through a stop sign (for the driveway people turning onto the main road). I was 17 years old but I don't fault myself for not driving more defensively. The guy just turned into the apartments, when he swooped back out I swerved but it was all very quick. That's not something you're prepared to defend for until you've seen it happen, frankly.

The next one was very minor, but we had two left-hand turn lanes and we were approaching a traffic light. I was in the right-hand lane, with no cars directly in front of me. I had a red car to my left, and a black car in front of him. The light turned yellow, and the black car was going to stop. The red car swerved quickly into my lane to go around the black car, and he clipped the front of my car. It knocked off a light cover, but otherwise no real damage. He ran the light and did not stop. There was no time to react, he literally yanked his wheel over, and I could not swerve right anyway, as there were vehicles there.

On the motorcycle, I was driving on a two-lane road behind a large vehicle, I think it was an SUV. Someone was waiting to turn left in the opposite lane (so they wanted to turn across our lane). There were many cars behind me as well. The person didn't see me and turned after the SUV passed. They stopped halfway through the turn, by which time I had already put down the bike while slamming on the brakes. The bike hit the car and totaled, and I slid down my lane with virtually no injuries. I was fairly well equipped so I just had a couple of very minor scrapes. She had no insurance. This accident was most avoidable in theory. Perhaps I could have positioned myself better, and she might have seen me. But probably not. I could not have swerved around her, though, unless I anticipated her stopping halfway. If she didn't stop halfway, and I swerved right, I would have gone through her passenger window. If I swerved left, it was a head-on collision.

During all of the other accidents, I was not the driver.

Well, maybe the OP means a car accident that wasn't a small fender bender with damage to 1 car or no damage to either. Or they are young or live in a city with not many cars.

I am not sure what the sex offender thing had to do with CPS being called on you. Were you giving another example of a low probability event?

What? Please explain how a minor can become a registered sex offender. I'm not American, sometimes America just confuses us foreigners.

You now qualify if you (as a 14 year old) send a nude selfie to someone else. Manufacture & distribution, something like that.

We (rational Americans) are as perplexed as you are how that could possibly qualify.

I would definitely not call car accidents a low probability event.

A quick Googling says otherwise. Here's one of many. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/protective-services-called-on-m...

It's unfortunate, but it happens regularly in today's world.