How could CPS possibly know that before they investigate?

It seems to me that if CPS immediately and preemptively puts you under a punitive regime like this (what happens if grandparents don't live nearby or just aren't alive? Oh well, not their problem I guess) for merely being reported, then it is a highly effective vehicle for harassing neighbors you don't like.

You can't really say what other alternatives were available beyond that this is what the family preferred. The grandparents were available and that's what they chose.

Do you think non-relatives are volunteering to supervise your parenting around the clock?

They could just do what we do with every other crime, and only punish people AFTER we find that they're guilty. You say this like the parents absolutely NEEDED to be supervised, despite saying "we only did this because we didn't realize it was illegal" - this is not exactly a High Threat situation.

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.

They came up with that plan because the grandparents DID live nearby.

> They came up with that plan because the grandparents DID live nearby.

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.

Putting children in a foster home is a higher legal barrier than a voluntary "Safety plan." Phrasing this as alternative is disingenuous.

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.

But are judges better?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-judge-chews-lawyer-missed...

I'm not saying they're better, but would you rather just let it end with CPS and not get a hearing? To get a kid taken basically is going to require your consent or the holes lining up in the swiss cheese. I want as many layers in that swiss cheese as possible if the allegations against me are false.

Stuff like due process is what our forefathers died to at least ostensibly give us.

The interesting part is that CPS determined there was no abuse in this case. So yes, in this case it would have been better to end with CPS.

Unfortunately, due process is whatever the judge say it is.

I'm not so sure. It appears the parents capitulated to two weeks of "safety plan" to CPS when there was no abuse at all. I don't see much functional difference between "CPS found no abuse and stopped there" and "CPS found no probable cause of abuse, then brought it to judge who said WTF with the safety plan without probable cause of abuse" other than the latter shut down the whole safety plan BS.

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.

Did you read TFA? Nothing you are saying is matching up with the information. CPS is not the adversary in this case, nor did they bring it to a judge.

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.

The fact that you characterize someone building an abuse case against you, and interfering with your normal parental rights, as not your "adversary" really makes me question what you have to prove here. Is this an ego thing? Is this why you're trolling right now?

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.

> How could CPS possibly know that before they investigate?

The same way they knew when the investigation confirmed the initial report, and it wasn't a violation.

So... by investigating? lol

Are these guys Inspector Clouseau? 2 weeks of investigation to determine whether kid was abused by walking home. Legends. They must have been chasing down leads. Stake outs at the house. Subpoena the teachers.

Hahaha. Government employees lol.

No, they would know by comparing the facts alleged in the report to the law, just like, when those facts were confirmed by the investigation, they compared those same facts to the law.

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.

So you think it's fine for CPS to force these measures onto a parent just off of random accusations?

I think the element missing here is that these "safety plans" tend to be "voluntary."

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.

The people arguing with you are assuming that the police accurately reported the situation, so that CPS was told "this parent let their child walk half a mile unattended". If that is the only complaint, there's clearly no need to investigate because there's nothing to investigate.

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.