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.
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?