Are you saying that:
A). All the facts of this particular care aren't being presented (certainly plausible).
B). You don't find the conduct of the CPS in this case infuriating.
C). For the sake of argument you accept the facts as presented, you personally find it reprehensible, but you don't think others should find it reprehensible, or at least shouldn't try to call it out as such.
D). You work for a related agency, and naturally would want to stand up for your colleagues? Certainly you sound a little on the defensive side.
E). Other?
...maybe these social workers should be on a rotation, so they're not working on the same thing for more than two years. Kind of like prison guards should be, so they don't end up dehumanizing the inmates?
There are a lot of reasonable and unreasonable actions on ALL sides of this.
1. Cops are mandated to report any potential child neglect and abuse in most places. While I think children walking to school alone is a good thing, it doesn't change the law stating that unsupervised children (details of the law are in the freaking article) fall under the umbrella of "potential neglect" as the rules are written.
2. The cops are following up on a report to them - again something they have to do. Some random person panicking over kids walking to school is where a lot of the rage should be placed. Not on the cops for following up because we have voted on laws requiring them to.
3. The mandatory reporting rules are in fact "Tell CPS". So yes, of course CPS is going to get involved.
4. CPS decided to find the facts. They are mandated to investigate in a certain way. Again, not by busybodies, but by the freaking regulations.
5. The parents freaked out because CPS came to ask questions. Now, this I find pretty unreasonable - while I understand it's stressful, it's also not the end of the world. It's a simple fact finding mission - answer the questions, with a lawyer if you feel it necessary.
6. Does this need to be investigated? By law yes, by sanity: no.
7. Yes, certainly all the facts are not being presented - the CPS is not allowed to comment on a case (by privacy laws) so we only hear the angsty parent's side.
8. I don't find the CPS case infuriating: I find the people who called the cops initially infuriating. I find the laws our society has enacted infuriating.
9. I'm sure the people who do foster care are a different division than the people who investigate neglect, however, they need to be in the same structure, because it makes sense to have the case worker assigned to a child be the same during an investigation and during follow-up.
10. It's not a non-sequitor to mention the cops misbehaving scenario - It's me pointing out an unreasonable difference between attitudes toward similar roles. Also note I said people, not "xrange". Further - the call for banishment of police departments never happens, but the call for banishment of CPS seems OK - even though they are just enforcing a different group of laws.
11. Rotation would probably be good.
The problem is when CPS threatens to remove children from a home because the parents are not compliant with their commands. For example a CPS officer will show up to a home unannounced and demand to inspect it, based on an anonymous tip. If the parent says "no," the CPS officer says, "let me in, or I will remove your child from your home."
In contrast if a police officer came to your home, they would need a warrant from a judge to enter against the owner's will. Do CPS officers need a judge's warrant for the above demand? Everything I've read says no.
A police officer also cannot threaten to take property without a warrant. They can't say, "let me in or I will take your computer." If they want the computer, they need to get a warrant that specifically says they can take the computer.
So: it seems like parents have more rights to inanimate objects than to their own children, who are far more precious to them.
There's also the matter of punishment without due process. Officers can get a warrant to take a computer only if they can show that the computer probably has evidence on it that will further an investigation. They can't take a computer just to force the owner to comply with some other command.
Removing a child from a home punishes the parent. CPS has the power to do so even if they have no evidence that the child will show proof of abuse, or indeed without any tangible evidence of abuse whatsoever. They explicitly say that they are doing it only because the parent refused some other command, like to inspect a home or interview the parent.
And removing a child from a home is traumatic to the child. A computer doesn't care that it's going to the evidence room; a child will be confused and terrified. The emotional impact can persist for months or years even if CPS says "oops!" a day later and returns the child.
There needs to be a high standard for removing a child from a home. It absolutely should not be just another tool in the investigator's toolbox.
Parents make mistakes all the time. When you see stupidity like this, you realise there's a problem. It's very unfortunate, because at the same time as ridiculous things like this one are occurring there really are abused kids out there slipping through the cracks.
Whether I agree with the law or not - as it's reported by the article, the children's ages, and them being unsupervised, does in fact potentially qualify as neglect. The CPS wasn't there to take children, they were there to find the facts. It isn't unreasonable for them to say "hey this takes a few days, we're not taking your kids, but you have to not do the same actions again, as they may be illegal".
Also: there is a giant hole in your argument: if kids are falling through the cracks, perhaps it's an indicator that the boogey man of "the kids will certainly be taken" is not as true as you think? Additionally, if kids are falling through the cracks, perhaps its that abusers (and neglectors) are known to be sneaky about it, so CPS needs to be thorough to prevent it?
That's the opposite of what they said, though. Here's the part that pisses people off:
> The Meitivs say that on Dec. 20, a CPS worker required Alexander to sign a safety plan pledging he would not leave his children unsupervised until the following Monday, when CPS would follow up. At first he refused, saying he needed to talk to a lawyer, his wife said, but changed his mind when he was told his children would be removed if he did not comply.
His children would be removed if he did not sign a piece of paper. That's totally disproportionate, and it's ridiculous that an investigator would have (or claim) the power to mete such an extreme punishment on their own judgment.
If a police officer came to your door, they would be absolutely prohibited from making a similar threat against, say, your computer or car. Apparently parents have more rights to inanimate objects than to their children.
This is why people get up in arms about CPS. The bar for removing kids from a home is way too low.
CPS does need to document that they took certain steps with the parent, or it doesn't count in court... instead they get in trouble for not being able to prove the parent was there, and discussed the welfare of the child.
Additionally if a parent stands up to CPS and refuses to sign, CPS will forcefully take your children (even if you shut the door and lock it they'll go get the police, and hopefully a warrant, to come and get your kids) and that itself will cause psychological damage harming otherwise unharmed children. CPS thinks it can do no wrong when they can inflict more harm and damage on children without any oversight and repercussions for their mistakes and overzealousness.
CPS is responsible for things like foster care, finding if parents are (truly) neglectful and abusive, helping teach ignorant parents how to not kill their kids accidentally, and other related things. In most of the work they do, it is just due process - Our society has decided that when a parent goes to jail, or is ordered into an institution, or what not, and does so while caring for children and having no backup means for caring for those children, we shouldn't throw those kids out on the street and hope they survive.
In the case of neglect and abuse - it's apparent to people trained to find it (even in clear cut cases) but not as often noticable just by a quick glance: A common tactic of abusers is to hide it to the outside world, and scare the abused into lying about it - cops are trained to handle one situation, CPS investigators are trained to handle this different one. (Much like we have forensic accountants investigate financial crime and homicide detectives investigate murder).
When cops overstep and murder random people - the response is "well they have hard jobs, and they are trained to be safe", but when CPS oversteps and asks some uncomfortable questions, its "busybodies". Why does no one say "well they also get kids into homes rather than putting them on the street, and they see a lot of horrible abuse cases and are maybe a bit overcautious"?
Do you in general disagree with the notion of specialization and division of labor, or is it a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that "government" is doing it?
Why do you want to automatically shut down an agency that does a lot of good, because some bureaucrat is overstepping (or legally mandated to do so, whatever the case may be)?