# CPS whistleblower (video)



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Why I am not surprised?






Carlos Morales's website: http://www.truthovercomfort.net/


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Thankyou so much for this.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

I don't believe this.

I have never called CPS and have them yank a kid without some grievous past harm having been done to a child. Never. Usually, the parents get counseling and more home visits and lots of time to shore themselves up as a parent.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

I have worked as a social worker closely with CPS. From my experience they always try to keep the child with their family. In fact, sometimes I really feel like they should take the child and its frustrating that it is such a process. I don't see why CPS has any incentive to "kidnap" a child?


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> I don't believe this.
> 
> I have never called CPS and have them yank a kid without some grievous past harm having been done to a child. Never. Usually, the parents get counseling and more home visits and lots of time to shore themselves up as a parent.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dalia*
> 
> I have worked as a social worker closely with CPS. From my experience they always try to keep the child with their family. In fact, sometimes I really feel like they should take the child and its frustrating that it is such a process. I don't see why CPS has any incentive to "kidnap" a child?


I agree. I've worked as an educator and as a foster parent. While there sometimes situations that aren't handled properly, they are not the norm. I know many, many, families who have been helped by CPS through a variety of in-home, and out-of-home services.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Ive heard that if you get a bad worker from the CPS, there is little you can do to stop their unjust intrusion upon your family..other than-dont open the door without a warrant.

To the comment-'i dont see any incenctive for the CPS to 'kidnap' a child', well they get paid.(according to the video at least) The question should be, what mechansim is in place to prevent the unjust removal of a child. There just doesnt seem to be one. Its not enough to rely on the good intentions of the workers, because what if they dont have good intentions? And with all due respect, i dont want to place the well being of my child on the tenuous foundation of a strangers' good intentions.

Also, are the pps implying that this video is a fake or the guy is lying? What would be his incentive for doing that?

Having said that, your posts are reassuring, but questions still need to be answered.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Honestly, the video does seem a bit suspect. CPS employees do not get paid per child removed from a home. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this part. CPS people BARELY get paid anything! I think a bigger problem is the underpayment and them being overloaded with cases and thus missing abusive situations.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

I just dont see why someone would make a video like this if there wasnt some truth to it. I also wish that my questions could be answered, but never seem to be in these discussions.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Well, there are people who certainly have an incentive to fight CPS. Some of them have great intentions, some not. There are folks who believe that no one has the right to remove children from a family regardless of abuse or neglect. It's a tough situation but I do believe there are cases in which a child must be removed for the sake of the child. The problem is abuse of power, which probably does happen, but I think apathy is a worse problem.

When I was a social worker, there were people who were great and people who seemed to be there just to make kids miserable because they could. They were horrible, horrible people. I think they were attracted to the line of work because they had some kind of God complex. This probably does happen at CPS however I don't believe a case worker has ultimate power to remove a child from a home. I imagine, though I'm no expert, that there are channels to go through and oversight to deal with in such a situation.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *dalia* 

Well, there are people who certainly have an incentive to fight CPS. Some of them have great intentions, some not. There are folks who believe that no one has the right to remove children from a family regardless of abuse or neglect. I know you mean well, but Im sorry, anyone who cares enough about this issue would believe that children deserve a happy and safe home. I have never come across such people. Please show me where you got this information. And as for the guy in the video? I find it hard to believe he would be such a person, and make all of this up. Come on, thats a bit far fetched.At his age (he looks about 25) im sure he must have such strong feelings about the importance of abused children staying in abusive homes, that he goes to the trouble of inventing all of this...Its more likely that what he is saying is simply true.

It's a tough situation but I do believe there are cases in which a child must be removed for the sake of the child. The problem is abuse of power, which probably does happen, but I think apathy is a worse problem. I dont think it has to be one or the other. And frankly, i dont think abuse of power is the lesser evil.

When I was a social worker, there were people who were great and people who seemed to be there just to make kids miserable because they could. They were horrible, horrible people. I think they were attracted to the line of work because they had some kind of God complex. This probably does happen at CPS however I don't believe a case worker has ultimate power to remove a child from a home.
I imagine, though I'm no expert, that there are channels to go through and oversight to deal with in such a situation.
I would like to imagine such a thing too, unfortunately, noone has been able to point out what those controls are, people often to allude to them as you are doing, in a wishful way. What are the mechanisms that prevent the abuse of power in the CPS? I dont think there adequate ones. Please convince me otherwise, because this video is scary.


> Would you be able to answer that question OP?


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dalia*
> 
> Honestly, the video does seem a bit suspect. CPS employees do not get paid per child removed from a home. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this part. CPS people BARELY get paid anything! I think a bigger problem is the underpayment and them being overloaded with cases and thus missing abusive situations.


The state can get funding for each child in foster care. So the employee does not- but the higher-ups put pressure on them, and if they won't do "their job", the higher ups will find someone who will. I know that in CT, it used to be really bad and I think the federal government had to come in and fix the whole system. www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141662357/incentives-and-cultural-bias-fuel-foster-system South Dakota was (if it isn't still) *really* bad for unjustly removing children because they got federal money for foster kids and got even more money for Native kids in foster care. At least one time the state even tried to put the kids up for adoption despite having no right to take them or keep them from their parents. It looks like the CPS workers are given information that makes them think they're doing the right thing, the problem is that the information is bad. One person on this forum also works in an area where CPS is really suspect (and you'll see that others in the thread are in areas where CPS is much better quality).

I hope that most CPS workers ultimately want to do good, but if the system is messed up, they won't be able to. I imagine that some CPS workers end up disenchanted and bitter from seeing the problems in the system as well.

The system varies a lot from state-to-state, and I believe it may also from county-to-county. Hopefully the good CPS departments outnumber the bad ones and that the bad ones will continue being improved.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Thankyou for sharing this sillysapling..

That NPR story is truly appalling and makes me want to vomit.

Thats what i call abuse of power and pure racism. I'm really sick of people defending the CPS at all costs when there are stories such as this. When someone breaks the news, such as the above video, they are somehow lying, because 'there are people who think children should stay in abusive homes". Noone thinks that.

Perhaps some states have more ethical CPS systems than others.

I would still like to know what are the mechanisms in any CPS system that prevents this appalling abuse of power.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

*Im quoting some comments written by Sherri Durham  from the above article, that clarify some of these issues.*

<< I cannot even begin to describe what it means to FINALLY read something on this issue from a source such as NPR. To have validation for what I, and others, have been saying for so very long.

Some are missing the big picture though as others have pointed out, this is nowhere near being just a Native American problem. Stories like this are rampant throughout our entire nation, and no one believes you when you describe how children can be taken without any justification. I hope this NPR report is the beginning of a trend.>>

 <<I guess the point of bringing up the money issue is to illustrate how there is no real "incentive" for family preservation. The incentive does lie in removal. I don't think that means, necessarily, that there are workers out there in large numbers, wickedly plotting to snatch kids for financial reasons. I DO think that the money issue skews decision making from the top down. You have the issue of "erring on the side of caution", to avoid mistakenly leaving a child with a real abuser, and you couple that with federal dollars that encourage the same, and you have a recipe for disaster, no evil intentions necessary.

I do appreciate you acknowledging the corruption and the possibility of mistakes being made in the other direction. Few do. Sometimes I feel like one of the lone voices long ago declaring that the world is ROUND when everyone believed otherwise. Having lived through a nightmare of CPS mistakes with a traumatized child as the end result, but having also seen the other side (dear friends murdered by an abusive non-custodial parent, including a 10 year old child, after CPS and police knew for months about abuse), I don't know what the answer is, but something needs to change, that's for sure.

AndrewCooper wrote: "Where is the reporting about the judges who very likely have to approve of a long term foster care placement, how about there serving of the parents/guardians of these children with formal notice of court proceedings."

Andrew, if you have worked in the system, then surely you have witnessed family court judges who have no interest in doing anything contrary to what a worker suggests? Judges who refuse to let parents speak during these court proceedings? Right?
I find it frustrating how those who have worked in the system will often point out the laws and procedures and rules, as some sort of proof that this sort of thing could never happen. Or rarely happens. As if the rules and laws are not neglected, ignored, or broken EVERY DAY in the child protection system!>>>

from Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families,

Incentives And Cultural Bias Fuel Foster System


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Well, clearly I need to do more research. Sigh... I really thought, after working in the "for profit" system for at-risk youth, that CPS were the good guys. I do believe many individual workers are good, just like I was, but they are fighting a monster they either have to be defeated by or become eventually.

I have seen horrible abuse both within the system and by parents trying to fight it. That's why I said that some parents feel they have the right I abuse their children and that they should be left alone. But I guess that doesn't mean that the CPS system is good.

Geez, is there anything in this country that isn't corrupt anymore?


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

I was looking for checks and balances, and found this website instead-all the reasons why the CPS across the board should be reformed...

Quote-

1. Agents who never had children and don't understand that a few toys in the corner of the room is not a hazardous mess.

2. Agents are not trained in real evidence recognition. In fact, no Agent in CPS has any training in evidence, the Constitution or criminal justice. They are given anywhere from 3 to 6 months of training, being taught that it is ok to break into a Home without probable cause or exigent circumstances.

3. Agents are trained to use subjective speculation and not objective factual reporting.

4. The Agents do not get psychological evaluations. A number of Agents who were abused as a child themselves see abuse in every home they go into, even if it's not there.

5. Most States do not require Agents to have a degree in Social Sciences. Any degree will do, doesn't even have to be related to the field.

6. The Agency has no checks and balances. A field Agent can lie to a judge or police officer with absolutely no proof and have it entered as factual evidence in a court of law!

7. Agents are trained to believe they are immune from the authority of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. They violate this in every investigation done nationwide.

Here are the statistics and sources to support these facts:

End quote -see website

Quote

Constitutional Violations and Court Rulings that CPS Ignores to this very day!

1. It's unconstitutional for CPS to conduct an investigation and interview a child on private property without exigent circumstances or probable cause. - Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144)

2. All CPS workers in the United States are subject to the 4th and 14th Amendment - Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588

3. Police officers and social workers are not immune for coercing or forcing entry into a person's home without a search warrant. Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999)

4. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)

5. Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Goodv. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989)

6. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation. Lenz v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995)

7. Making false statements made to obtain a warrant, when the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was based, violates the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)

End Quote

Here are a couple of reforms the writer suggests, the sound good to me...

Quote-

II. Have the abuse allegations investigated by a Detective or Police Officer, who are trained for this as a career, whereas CPS workers are not. All investigations are joint ones with said Officers of the Law and with warrants properly issues under probable cause.

III. Re-train Agents to respect and obey the laws of the Constitution of the United States. If a family is guilty of abuse, a legal investigation will find it.

VI. All interviews to be audio and video recorded just like it happens with the police!

VII. Hold CPS Agents and foster parents and the records keeper responsible for every child who vanishes or dies in their care for their location.

VIII. Also investigate the person or persons reporting the abuse, and if done maliciously with intent to disrupt a family, prosecute the reporter to the fullest extent of the Law regarding making false claims to Government Agencies to affect an unnecessary and costly investigation.

End quote

I got this from http://fight-cps.rallycongress.com/1448


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

I've been a foster parent for seven years and the above does not reflect my experience at all. Nor that of most of my FP friends around the country. Yes, the system is not perfect, and sometimes bad things happen, but it's not nearly as pervasive as the above website would lead you to believe.

CPS is not one entity. Each state has it's own and it's often administered locally.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Polliwog*
> 
> I've been a foster parent for seven years and the above does not reflect my experience at all. Nor that of most of my FP friends around the country. Yes, the system is not perfect, and sometimes bad things happen, but it's not nearly as pervasive as the above website would lead you to believe.
> 
> ...


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

I think people involved with sites like that have typically been involved with the system.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

What ever happened to that Russian family in Sacramento who had their son taken from them when they went to another hospital for another opinion since the first hospital did not seem to know what they were doing? It has been almost a year and the little boy is almost 18 months. The baby boy was returned physically to the parents, but ON PAPER, the child is still a ward of the state for at least another six to twelve months after the court date. So that is why I ask.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/04/30/baby-taken-from-parents-who-sought-second-opinion-removed-from-protective/

http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2013/05/happy-end-for-russian-parents-court-rules-to-return-their-baby-boy-2447230.html

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/30/government-rips-baby-from-couple-for-seeking-second-medical-opinion-65551






There was a home video of the CPS barging in and ripping the child from the mother's arms, but I think that may have been removed...mmmm.

As for personal stories, a crazy person reported my sister's children and they were taken from her and put in foster care where they were molested. My nephew told me that he was repeatedly beaten and raped by the older son in the foster home. When this was brought up in family court, the judge struck my nephew's statement from the record and moved on to something else. My sister was afraid to say anything since she just wanted her children back.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Thank you contactmaya, for your excellent post.

I had a CPS person come to my door 21 years ago and demand entrance without an ID. I let her in, but I followed her out to her car and got her license plate, and that is when she finally showed me her ID. I never had a problem with her again.

Years later, when another false report was made about me, I met the CPS person at the door with my GSD, rolling video recorder and microphone, and told her to get a warrant if she thought I was worth it. I learned my lesson.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

It only takes one call from a malicious person, or someone who has nothing better to do than say, after seeing a child whose pants a size too small, calls the CPS, it takes that one call, and you letting them in, and you are on record forever. It doesnt matter if you what kind of parent you are. You just got unlucky that someone made the call, and you let them in. Your name goes int he system, and Gd forbid, if ever another call is made.

Dont let them in without a warrant.

In fact, i will print out the webpage i just quoted above, and keep it at the door, in case anyone comes knocking again. Ill hand them the printout and tell them to get a warrant.

(theres more detailed info on that website, i recommend reading it thoroughly)

Anyone can make a call for any reason. My toddler occasionally runs down our hallway naked (she is often naked at home) while we are getting ready to leave. All it takes is a mean neighbor, and there are a couple of them in my building.

I worry about it, because i know how easy it is for something to happen.

Im so glad i know not to open the door.

In finding alot of scary things about CPS on you tube, and will link them later.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

If someone calls CPS on you then there must be a reason.

My experience has always been that I had a legitimate concern and the system says..... I'm the first person to ever call on such and such a child and that they cannot intervene unless they have others call for this same child. I teach preschool. I've seen kids nearly starved by their parents and covered in bruises but unless I got the other staff to call as well or unless the child's pediatrician also had concerns.. the child stays put. It is heartbreaking to see over and over again.









I have never seen a kid pulled for anything less than broken bones on multiple occasions.


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

It's a very complicated issue- those who've been badly hurt by the system tend to root out the bad experiences and focus on them, ignoring the good ones as outliers. I imagine the person who made the list contactmaya made had had a very bad experience and/or knew many others who had as well. It's possible that they're in an area with a VERY awful CPS.

Also, for all that CPS can be too invasive- I've also known people who were left in abusive homes despite numerous calls and checks from CPS social workers. Sometimes, they see abuse where it isn't but sometimes they don't see abuse where it is. Both are awful situations, they can do serious damage whichever call they make, and it's impossible for them to be perfect.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> If someone calls CPS on you then there must be a reason.
> 
> ...


Alright, the fact that it takes 2 people to make a call-thats what i call 'checks and balances' on the potential abuse of power. But i have not seen this anywhere but your post. I think its a very good idea, and your local CPS sounds like a good one.

Add that to the list of reforms.

People can call for any reason at all! They can call because they dont like you! They could call because my toddler is naked in the hallway-maybe they think a naked toddler is a form of neglect. Maybe you do. Maybe the social worker that comes in does. I mean, its completely random. And one call is enough in many places.

They might call because they hear you shouting at your kids. Now i dont think shouting is good parenting, but it happens, and neighbors hear it, and you see, they could call for that.

You should do your research and see the types of things that are going on.

In a democracy, there is due process. This is not the middle ages, where a witch who doesnt drown when submerged in water is innocent and if she drowns, she is guilty. We have due process, law courts, laws, and constitution, and cps workers do not respect this due process.

Philomom, read the website i linked above, and have a look at these videos.






People are not saying, abolish CPS, they are saying reform it.

I feel strongly about this because it appalls me to see how families are treated. (see the youtube link) I dont have any personal negative experience other than the usual attention from random stangers because i have kids.

And i just dont understand why people keep defending the CPS in face of all of this information.

You just said, 'People dont call unless there is a good reason'. Thats like saying, you are guilty, because someone called.

Maybe YOU dont call unless you have a good reason. I dont doubt that you are a good person, but that says nothing about the ethics of CPS.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

ps. i meant to add, that if someone calls for spurious reasons, and the CPS finds after a 60 day rigorous invasion into the family's privacy, that the family is just fine, and the parents are actually above average. Tough luck. Youre in the system.

How is fair to brand someone for life on the basis of one spurious call, and because the family didnt know they just didnt have to open the door?

They shouldnt keep records of those who were not found to be bad parents. But they do!

Youre baby runs naked down the hallway, someone calls CPS you answer the door, and boom! You are in their records for life.


----------



## fisherfamily (Dec 29, 2013)

I would also like to see changes in what happens to children after they are removed. My experience has been that no one is truly advocating for the children, court dates are moved on a whim and burdensome to pare.ts, and foster parents are not connected to the resources and information to properly care for the children. A friend had two kids for three weeks before she even knew how old they were or their last name! And she fought for 9 months for a hearing evaluation for one of the children before they even started the process.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

The foster home my nephew went to for several months did not speak English.


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FisherFamily*
> 
> I would also like to see changes in what happens to children after they are removed. My experience has been that no one is truly advocating for the children, court dates are moved on a whim and burdensome to pare.ts, and foster parents are not connected to the resources and information to properly care for the children. A friend had two kids for three weeks before she even knew how old they were or their last name! And she fought for 9 months for a hearing evaluation for one of the children before they even started the process.


I agree with this. Sometimes children will even be put into a kind of juvenile detention because there were no foster homes to put them in. And that system is wrought with abuse. I have seen it first hand. It's absolutely horrible. I call them "forgotten children".

That being said, I think it is a good idea to check on a family after just one call. Perhaps a child is being so hidden that only one person outside of the family knows about it. Abuse is usually pretty well hidden in many cases. I would venture to say that the reason for the two-call rule in the PP's particular area is not because of checks and balances but because of lack of staffing.

From my experience, child protection agencies are horribly understaffed. It seems that because of this, abusive situations get missed or purposely swept under the rug. I can't imagine any case worker spending time on a family that was so obviously called in error or out of spite. They simply don't have the man power from what I have seen. This does not mean that the system is not corrupt or that there are not cases of wrongful removal. But I just don't think it's happening all the time. Of course, it should never happen.

ETA: I'm quite sure the system does need reform. I just have a hard time believing that children are being taken at an alarming rate for zero offenses.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Im quoting this from a petition i found for reform of the CPS. I thought i'd pass it along.

Quote

Thousands of families are being torn apart by CPS. CPS gets a bonus every time they remove a child from their home. Have you ever noticed the children the make the news are the ones that have been killed, molested, tortured and treated like animals, actually worse then animals. Have you ever stopped and really listened to what the media has said about them, i have that CPS was involved and they were trying to keep the family together, this really is disgusting, because the truth is these are damaged children and CPS cant place them in homes. They need healthy children emotionally and physically. They also come from families that don't have the means to hire an attorney that will fight CPS.That's why the media will not interview us about my grandchildren. They haven't been abused and aren't news worthy. Please help me to get this out there, we are not the only ones going through this. If we all stand together we can make a difference.

Here is a list of reccomendations Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer had wanted to impose upon CPS and I believe we should help her to get these changes made. her voice was silenced due to an apparent murder/suicide after she started to expose CPS for the corrupt government organization that they are.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Call for an independent audit of the Department of Family and Children's Services
(DFCS) to expose corruption and fraud.
2. Activate immediate change. Every day that passes means more families and children
are subject to being held hostage.
3. End the financial incentives that separate families.
4. Grant to parents their rights in writing.
5. Mandate a search for family m... embers to be given the opportunity to adopt their
own relatives.
6. Mandate a jury trial where every piece of evidence is presented before removing a
child from his or her parents.
7. Require a warrant or a positive emergency circumstance
before removing children from their parents. (Judge Arthur G. Christean, Utah Bar
Journal, January, 1997 reported that "except in emergency circumstances, including
the need for immediate medical care, require warrants upon affidavits of probable
cause before entry upon private property is permitted for the forcible removal of
children from their parents.")
8. Uphold the laws when someone fabricates or presents false evidence. If a parent
alleges fraud, hold a hearing with the right to discovery of all evidence.
Senator Nancy Schaefer
50th District of Georgia

End Quote

https://www.change.org/petitions/legally-kidnapped-by-cps-child-protective-services


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Something else to consider- i actually saw a case this this on mothering, where a mother was asking for help.

(ps.i hope passing on this info is helpful. I really didnt intend to do posting all of this, but theres alot out there that we should know about)

Quote

*The Situation as it Usually Unfolds*

In brief, the particular problem we cover usually unfolds like this. A mother herself seeks help from CPS or becomes involved with CPS through someone else's report of suspected child abuse. Her child has been physically or sexually abused by a family member, usually by a male family member, or there are concerns the child is living in a home where there is domestic violence. At first, the mother naturally anticipates that CPS will try to help her and her child, and try to punish and stop the perpetrator. So these mothers are stunned when suddenly the CPS/juvenile court system turns its sights on her, even though everyone agrees she didn't perpetrate the abuse or violence.

Suddenly she is the one under investigation, and the perpetrator is seeming to be all but ignored. And worse, CPS is threatening to take her child from her, or has already done so without warning or notice, and is threatening to keep the child, right at the time that mother and child need each other most. She feels the system turn hostile toward her. Did she, the non-offending parent, protect the child from the violent parent? Did she protect the child from molestation? Did she protect the child from being exposed to domestic violence in the home? Well, no, obviously she did not, or could not, or, in the case of molestation, often didn't know about it.

End Quote

Quote

The legal and evidentiary constraints on CPS powers are so minimal, that if you do assert your rights to CPS, the CPS worker can easily retaliate against you using the system's virtually unchecked power against you. The worker can easily make vague and prejudiced accusations against you such as 'instability', 'alienating your child from the other parent', 'failure to protect', 'should have known about the abuse', or 'engaging in domestic violence' even though you're the victim of the violence. (None of which accusations are crimes.) And then the worker can support that accusation against you in the juvenile court with the smallest tidbit of evidence, even the most bogus of evidence, or with evidence that wouldn't even be admissible in a criminal court. And with that the CPS system can take your child.

(Remember, the CPS/juvenile court system operates on the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, 51% of the evidence, the lowest judicial standard of evidence. This means that all CPS has to do is present to the court 1% more evidence on their side than you present on your side, and CPS wins. So once CPS makes an accusation against you, it is extremely difficult for you to defend yourself, and very easy for CPS to railroad the case against you.)



End Quote

from

http://justicewomen.com/tips_bewarechildprotectiveservices.html


----------



## kythe (Dec 20, 2007)

Some of you have touched on the system of checks and balances for abuse of power within the system. It may take a lot for a child to he removed - but where are the checks and balances *once a child is removed and is in the system*?

In my experience (yes, with my kids), the case worker (social worker) appears to have complete control. The case worker hand picks the various therapists who evaluate and work with the family. If a family knows their rights or can afford a good lawyer, they may work outside of this. But the way it was explained to me, "We like to work with our own specialists because they have experience with abuse cases and know what to look for". But this ends up being code for " we get together behind the scenes and agree on what evidence to present so we can provide a united front to the judge".

The case workers report - overseeing the therapy and interventions involved and interpreting results through their experience and expertise - is what is seen by the judge. Parents must attend court hearings, but only lawyers and case workers actually speak. So unless you can afford a good lawyer (not necessarily a court appointed one), who is keeping the case worker in check to ensure he/she is actually being fair and unbiased?

It all boils down to whether you case worker likes you. The case worker interprets what the kids say. The case worker visits the kids in foster care to determine their needs and ensure their care. The case worker chooses therapists and other expert witnesses. The case worker decides how compliant parents are with the investigation. The case worker writes the report that carries the most weight with the judge. Etc, etc, etc.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Im quoting from the above website again, because it is truly so interesting and informative-

Quote

-The attorneys assigned to these cases know that their clients are among the most powerless and voiceless in society; poor women who are caught in the most dire circumstances. Right from the start, most of these attorneys can't even begin to imagine the kinds of circumstances their clients are going through. Nor are they likely to dig into the situation sufficiently (if at all) to unravel the complexities in search of the truth. Furthermore, these attorneys know their clients do not have the resources, (neither the time, money, nor standing) to mount a case of lawyer misconduct, no matter how bad a job the lawyers do. ....

...

-The whole CPS/juvenile court system operates in secret. No one is watching. Nothing is on the public record. Add to this the absence of rigorous standards and the attorneys know that no one in the system, including themselves, is likely to be held accountable for legal malpractice......

End quote

http://justicewomen.com/tips_bewarechildprotectiveservices_2.html


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

I agree that sometimes one call has to be enough. Again, I base this on knowing too many now-adults who faced horrible abuse throughout their childhoods and CPS either never showed up or didn't do anything. I'm fully aware of how complicated a situation is, I'm really worried about CPS, but I also know that there are too many kids who are in danger and need help.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *FisherFamily*
> 
> I would also like to see changes in what happens to children after they are removed. My experience has been that no one is truly advocating for the children, court dates are moved on a whim and burdensome to pare.ts, and foster parents are not connected to the resources and information to properly care for the children. A friend had two kids for three weeks before she even knew how old they were or their last name! And she fought for 9 months for a hearing evaluation for one of the children before they even started the process.


Agreed. My mom was a foster mother- it was AWFUL. Like I said, to my knowledge the system has been totally overhauled since then- but I'm sure it can still be just as bad. I've also heard of teenagers in foster homes being forced to get abortions by social workers.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kythe*
> 
> So unless you can afford a good lawyer (not necessarily a court appointed one), who is keeping the case worker in check to ensure he/she is actually being fair and unbiased?


This is part of the problem, honestly. Because who said that well-paid, good lawyers keep things fair and unbiased? They just bias it in your favor.

A lot of times kids who are abused and no one does anything about it, their parents are well off and with good standing in the community. I know a few who were the children of religious leaders (pastors, etc). The odds of anyone calling abuse on a man of God were slim, and even if CPS showed up, CPS knew that the parents could afford the lawyers to fight.

It's no longer about abuse- it's about money. Poor people can't afford to fight CPS, so they jut have to get lucky. Wealthy people can afford to fight CPS, and fight criminal charges, and even counter-sue, so unless it is *SEVERE* abuse, they can get away with it.

In the case of Dylan Farrow, the woman who recently wrote an open letter about being sexually abused by Woody Allen, the prosecutor thought there was enough evidence to convict- but Woody Allen was powerful enough that the prosecutor came up with an excuse to justify not taking it to court. I'm sure that happens all the time.


----------



## preemieprincess (Oct 21, 2011)

http://www.danisstory.org/

This story explains a LOT about the failure of CPS. The fact that a case like Dani's even exists is appalling.


----------



## preemieprincess (Oct 21, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dalia*
> 
> *From my experience they always try to keep the child with their family. In fact, sometimes I really feel like they should take the child and its frustrating that it is such a process.*


This quote exactly. I've known a handful of people who've had CPS involved. Every single one of them should have had their kids taken away and placed in a loving home. Only one of them lost parental rights entirely, a few retained partial custody, and one has full custody and it makes me sick. Unfortunately, neglect is almost impossible to prove, unless it is as severe as Dani's story.

All of the kids who were kept with their families have severe mental/ emotional issues, that I can say in my totally non-humble, non-medical opinion, were likely the direct result of their environment. My heart breaks for them.

I'd much rather a child be in a messy home, dealing with food insecurity, wearing clothes a size too small, and loved to pieces by their parent(s)/ guardian, than to see a kid who is fed, bathed, sheltered, and resented/ abused by their parent(s)/ guardian.

I believe this guy. What the heck incentive would he have to make up a story like this?


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *preemieprincess*
> 
> http://www.danisstory.org/
> 
> This story explains a LOT about the failure of CPS. The fact that a case like Dani's even exists is appalling.


I agree... They really should have talked to the daughter and, if she coudlnt' talk, gotten her evaluated. I know there's a mom on here who is or was being pushed by a social worker to get her child evaluated for mental problems, so clearly the system can do it.

It really is so complicated. You get some cases where they come in and make a decent family's life miserable over dirty dishes, then you get some where severe abuse goes unnoticed.


----------



## preemieprincess (Oct 21, 2011)

Let me clarify on saying "I believe this guy."

What I'm trying to say is more along the lines of what you said, sillysapling. I believe that his accusations of witnessing truly messed up stuff going on in CPS are entirely true. As far as some of his other claims (calling it a "terrorist organization," etc), I wouldn't necessarily be so easily swayed.


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *preemieprincess*
> 
> Let me clarify on saying "I believe this guy."
> 
> What I'm trying to say is more along the lines of what you said, sillysapling. I believe that his accusations of witnessing truly messed up stuff going on in CPS are entirely true. As far as some of his other claims (calling it a "terrorist organization," etc), I wouldn't necessarily be so easily swayed.


I'm sure that a lot of what he says is true, but it wonder what his job was there and how he accessed that information. It could be that his source was biased or didn't have all the facts, in some of the cases.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Sigh, the more I look into CPS, the more depressed (and appalled) I become. I actually feel traumatized just reading about it, and have avoided this thread for the last few days. However, I am posting some more information I have come across below.

Just don't open your door people!

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-state-central-register-on-child-abuse-and-neglect-seriously-flawed

<<. New York State, in deed all states, also maintains a child abuse and maltreatment registry, known as the State Central Register&#8230;.
Just how does your name get on the registry? After a phone call is made to the child abuse hotline, a report of the call is made to Child Protective Services (CPS). CPS launches an investigation that can take up to sixty days to complete. When the investigator completes her investigation, she either indicates the report or declares that it is unfounded. An unfounded report means that the investigator found no evidence of neglect or abuse. An indicated report means that the investigator found some evidence of neglect or abuse. Once a report is indicated, the person who allegedly abused or neglected a child is immediately placed on the child abuse registry.

All it takes then to be placed on the registry is one person's investigation, resulting in her belief that there is some evidence that abuse or neglect took place. The investigator is not required to find that there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to guilt, but only some evidence.

&#8230;. , but there are also many cases where the person is found innocent. If a person is found innocent, his or her name is not automatically removed from the registry

What is disturbing about the child abuse and maltreatment registry is that, regardless of whether or not a person is guilty, he or she is placed on the registry before having a chance to defend his or her innocence.

These laws are unfair and most likely unconstitutional, but no one has challenged them. Most of the people on the list, whether guilty or innocent, are the kind that can't afford an attorney to represent them at a "fair hearing"....>>

One of the comments

<< i reported my exhusband for abusing our daughter and as a result i was placed on the registry. My degree in Child and Family Development is of no use to me any more. All my past experience working with children is worthless.>>

I like the reforms recommended below

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/12child.html

<<<&#8230;.Child Protective Services investigated more than three million cases of suspected child abuse in 2007, but a new study suggests that the investigations did little or nothing to improve the lives of those children.

Other experts agreed. "I don't see investigation as an intervention. I see it as an activity to gather information," said Jill Duerr Berrick, a professor of social welfare at the University of California, Berkeley. "While we might all hope that C.P.S. could do more, in the current context it doesn't. This is an important study that will get people talking again." Dr. Berrick was not involved in the work.

In an editorial published with the study, starkly titled "Child Protective Services Has Outlived Its Usefulness," Dr. Abraham B. Bergman suggests some essential changes: child abuse, because it is a crime, should be investigated by the police; public health nursing services should be the first to respond to concerns of child neglect; social workers should assess appropriate living situations and work with families to obtain services, and not be engaged in law enforcement. But Dr. Bergman, who is a pediatrician at the Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, expressed considerable skepticism that such changes would happen.

(How come these reforms were never implemented?)

Rethinking the Paradigm for Child Protection - Academic Commons
academiccommons.columbia.edu/.../08_01_06.pdf‎

<<...This brief description of the current CPS
system highlights the fact that CPS is primarily
an investigative system designed to
intervene authoritatively with families whose
children are at risk of serious abuse or
neglect. These families, however, constitute
only a small share of the families referred to
CPS. Seven of ten cases are not investigated
at all or are closed after the investigation.
For this latter group of families, one has to
wonder how effective and helpful CPS has
been. In spite of having been referred to
CPS and, in some cases, having undergone
a coercive and intrusive investigation, none
of these families end up receiving ongoing
services.

******

For a variety of reasons, some families are
unjustly or inappropriately reported to CPS,
exposing them unnecessarily to coercive and
intrusive investigations. That problem can
be termed "overinclusion."

One stream of
reform proposals focuses on the concerns
about overinclusion, capacity, and service orientation,
and suggests that the mandate of
CPS should be more narrowly defined and
more vigorously pursued.

&#8230;.some reformers would limit CPS
intervention to cases in which a criminal act
has been perpetrated against a child and
would locate CPS in the criminal justice
system, rather than the social services arena.
Presumably, this shift would resolve the tension
between the CPS agency's investigative
and helping roles, and would allow social
workers to focus their attention on cases
of noncriminal maltreatment.15>>

..

Advice for suing CPS if necessary
http://fightcps.com/2010/12/03/how-to-sue-cps-in-federal-court/#comment-1431427h


----------



## preemieprincess (Oct 21, 2011)

Unfortunately, the most pervasive and insidious form of abuse, neglect, is nearly impossible to prove. If CPS investigates, it's about 99% likely nothing will happen, so long as the children are clean and fed and the house isn't festering with roaches and dirty diapers. No bruises? No abuse has occurred.
I heard ^this^ from my daughter's home health nurse, who made several visits a week while my little NICU graduate was adjusting to life outside the womb.

A mom calls in to say, "I think my _____ (boyfriend/ older child/ neighbor, etc) has been sexually abusing my child," and the MOTHER can be charged with child abuse.
[/begin sarcasm] DUH, as a parent it's your job to protect your child at all times. What were you thinking leaving your kid with your father? [/end sarcasm]
I heard ^this^ from a family law attorney, who had represented several clients on cases where the aforementioned happened.

I've shed many tears reading stories about CPS, and hearing stories about acquaintances who've had to deal with CPS/ foster care, and have made friends with many people who are victims of foster care and CPS. My heart goes out to foster parents, because I firmly believe most foster parents have their heart in the right place. To all the awesome foster parents of the world, *CHEERS! YOU ROCK!*


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *preemieprincess*
> 
> A mom calls in to say, "I think my _____ (boyfriend/ older child/ neighbor, etc) has been sexually abusing my child," and the MOTHER can be charged with child abuse.
> [/begin sarcasm] DUH, as a parent it's your job to protect your child at all times. What were you thinking leaving your kid with your father? [/end sarcasm]
> I heard ^this^ from a family law attorney, who had represented several clients on cases where the aforementioned happened.


I think I mentioned her, but this happened to someone I know- she and her child's father were broken up, the child revealed to her therapist that hse was being molested at her dad's house, mom calls CPS- they investigated her and did nothing about the dad's house situation even after he kidnapped the child. Thankfully, she was able to raise money to hire a lawyer and go through family court directly to get her baby back and protections in place. That was just utterly appalling to me- it wasn't even a he-said/she-said, they had a therapist to attest to it and CPS still didn't want to hear it.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Well, all i can say is, i will be calling the police, not the CPS, if ever i suspected abuse in my own kids.

Thanks Gd for this thread, because i would not have known that.

Also, it looks like being a single mother might just be to my advantage....


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *contactmaya*
> 
> Well, all i can say is, i will be calling the police, not the CPS, if ever i suspected abuse in my own kids.
> 
> ...


I think the police may defer to CPS, but I'm not really sure. Hopefully you'll never have to face it.


----------



## preemieprincess (Oct 21, 2011)

I feel that domestic abuse is somewhat similar to child abuse, so I share this story about my own experience with calling the police in regard to finding myself in a "domestic situation," as the police refer to it.

Partner ransacks the house, breaking furniture, throwing food at the wall, etc. The police (both men) arrive, and say, "Sweetheart, where are your bruises? You can file a civil suit for all the broken stuff, but breaking your stuff isn't domestic violence." I respond, "My father taught my sister and me to defend ourselves. Just because I'm strong and fast and ducked out of the way as he threw furniture at me, it's not abuse? By the way, my name is ____, do NOT call me sweetheart. Next time, should I let him knock my teeth out, officer?"

Fast forward to the end of the joke that was calling the police that night, they tell us to "kiss and make up" as they walk out the door.

Yeeeeah... don't know how much I'd trust the police to handle a child abuse situation, either.

No worries, I ended that relationship years ago.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *contactmaya*
> 
> Well, all i can say is, i will be calling the police, not the CPS, if ever i suspected abuse in my own kids.
> 
> ...


In many jurisdictions the police turn the situation over to CPS.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *applejuice*
> 
> In many jurisdictions the police turn the situation over to CPS.


In that case, i would consult a lawyer before telling anyone. But then they would accuse me of covering up, so your damned if you do, and your damned if you dont.

Also, in the case of criminal prosecution, why would the police turn the case over to the CPS? The CPS are not qualified for a criminal investigation. Do the police just drop the case when they turn it over to the CPS, or do they continue with a professional criminal investigation? Presumably they continue doing the work taxpayers pay them for.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *preemieprincess*
> 
> I feel that domestic abuse is somewhat similar to child abuse, so I share this story about my own experience with calling the police in regard to finding myself in a "domestic situation," as the police refer to it.
> 
> ...


One of the websites i dug up that i quoted in this thread recommends telling the police over the CPS for a variety of reasons.

Let me find the website. again


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

from

http://justicewomen.com/tips_bewarechildprotectiveservices.html (in the state of California)

Quote

*A. Tips on How and Where to Report Child Abuse*

*NOTE:* If you are a mandated reporter outside California, please check your state's mandated reporting law to determine if your law, like California and many other states, allows mandated reporters the option of reporting to law enforcement rather than to CPS.

** Whether you are a mandated reporter, an advocate, or a non-offending parent who suspects child abuse, DO NOT report to child protective services unless other options have failed. (see above note.) Make your child abuse report to police or other law enforcement agency, at least initially.*

The best way to protect the non-offending parent and the child victim from the inherent risks and abuses of the CPS system is to stay as far away from CPS as possible. If you are a mandated reporter, or any individual wishing to make a child abuse report, we highly recommend that you choose to make your report to law enforcement (i.e. to police or sheriff), and not to CPS....

End Quote

Theres alot more detail on the website

Quote

....In broad summary, the criminal justice system responds to family violence, including child abuse, as crime. The criminal justice system aims to hold the offender accountable for the acts of child abuse, and to do so using a rigorous standard of evidence....

....In contrast, the CPS/juvenile court system is not designed to treat child abuse, or any family violence, as crime. The CPS system does not seek to hold the child abuse offender accountable, and has virtually no power to do so. CPS does not have the power to open, nor to carry out, a criminal investigation, does not have the power of arrest, nor does CPS have the power to prosecute perpetrators. The only significant power CPS has is the power to remove children from one or both parents...

Furthermore, the CPS system, unlike the criminal system, will frequently target the non-offending parent; i.e., will likely investigate the non-offending parent for non-criminal behavior such as 'failure to protect',......

.....*NOTE 1:* If you make your child abuse report to police, it may be that at one point or other the police themselves may call in CPS to participate in handling the case to one degree or another. However, even if CPS does begin to take a role in the case, the non-offending parent and the child will still generally be much better off than if you had only made your report to CPS. This is because the criminal system will generally continue to take the lead in the case....

.....In addition, any criminal justice abuses against the non-offending parent would be an individual officer failing to follow established policy. As such, this abuse would be easier to correct. The abuses of the CPS system against the non-offending parent, on the other hand, are built into the CPS system. When CPS unjustly targets the mother as subject of investigation, accusations, and threats to take the child, these abuses are difficult to correct with advocacy, because they fall within the scope of standard CPS policy and practice....

....If you make your initial child abuse report to law enforcement, it may be that the police officer will willingly take your report, work hard to investigate the case....

....But be aware. A significant number of police and prosecutors themselves still hold to the mind set that family violence should not be treated as a crime. Some of these officers will say and do whatever they can to get rid of you and the case, despite the fact that US state laws require that police treat family violence as crime. These officers may refuse to take the report, tell you to go elsewhere to make the report..........

..........If an officer outright refuses to take your report, or attempts to get you to make your report elsewhere, the best thing to do is to immediately call the officer's supervisor, or call the police agency's on-call sergeant, or the head of the family violence unit..........


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Wow, check this out-

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/parents-sick-teen-justina-pelletier-accused-verbally-abusing/story?id=23067247&page=2


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *contactmaya*
> 
> Wow, check this out-
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/parents-sick-teen-justina-pelletier-accused-verbally-abusing/story?id=23067247&page=2


That poor girl. It doesn't even sound like what's going on effects her mentally, at least not to the degree that she can't at least be involved in discussions about her life- but it sounds like everything is being done to her. Is that what she wants? If it is- then that's a big red flag that the parents may be part of the problem (it can happen). If it's not- that's just awful. 15 year olds can file for emancipation.

I'm also really concerned that she apparently had a diagnosis, and now (with a different doctor) her diagnosis is "we don't know what's wrong with her, so it's all in her head". I really don't like how a lot of medical things work in this country...


----------



## fisherfamily (Dec 29, 2013)

She just spent a year as a prisoner in a psych ward. It's hard to imagine she has much gumption left.

I always wish I could go around to all the involved people in cases likre these to try to ascertain all the facts. I never know who to believe.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

When a family fights so hard to get their child back, when a parents lose custody for being angry at medical staff (how is that logical?), then i side with the family. Did the family lose custody because they were abusing their daughter, or because the father lost his temper? The article says the latter. Blame the journalist for lying i suppose, but then you have to wonder why they judge placed a gag order on the father....

My point is, sometime the facts that are known, speak for themselves.


----------



## fisherfamily (Dec 29, 2013)

It does make me curious why another daughter with the mito disorder was left in their care.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Polliwog*
> 
> CPS is not one entity. Each state has it's own and it's often administered locally.


Yes, and I think it is very different in different regions of the U.S. I'm an unschooling, non-vaxing mom in Missouri and have had two different people make CPS reports against me, once in 2008 and once in 2011. In both cases, the social workers were very respectful to me and my family, and after brief visits, said they saw no reason to open a case.

Even though I'd previously heard the advice to refuse to let them in without a warrant, in both cases, my gut instinct told me that it was okay to go ahead and cooperate. And I am not the greatest housekeeper, but I went with my gut and let them come through the house. They were respectful in walking through the house with me and didn't even enter bathrooms or open cabinets or anything.

I carefully read through the paperwork they gave me, which they gave me a carbon copy of, and saw that, in both cases, I was signing a statement that my home was safe. I suppose that it wouldn't be a good idea to sign something if you have any reading comprehension issues, but it was all very easy and clear for me, personally.

But I don't think my positive experiences discount the horrid realities that some families have encountered. And I honestly don't know whether a third experience would be just as positive for me. I really think the best defense is just knowing our rights and then, if we're confronted with a situation, following our instincts about how to deal with it.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Something else to consider...

http://news.yahoo.com/changing-pot-laws-prompt-child-endangerment-review-133104227.html


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Blundering CPS and and ignorant doctors strike again&#8230;. &#8230;parents accused of abuse for wanting daughter to be seen by a gastroenterologist

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

_<< The parents&#8230;. complained that despite their repeated requests, Justina had still not been seen by her gastroenterologist. They became furious when the Children's team informed the parents that they would be prohibited from seeking second opinions......>>

<<Still, allegations of suspected medical child abuse become far murkier when the parents' assessment of the child is backed by reputable physicians at different hospitals. Some child-protection doctors, whose field has recently been elevated to a board-certified specialty, are beginning to draw criticism - even from some unlikely quarters.

Dr. Eli Newberger, a pediatrician who founded the child protection team at Children's in 1970 and ran it for three decades, cautions that "doctors in this new specialty have enormous and really unchecked power."

As an expert witness in cases around the country, Newberger said he's seen a tendency for state child-welfare agencies to be "overly credulous to hospitals" and for some child protection teams to show a "reflexive willingness to label and to punish," especially educated mothers who are perceived as being too pushy. (..._as I said blundering cps, and now they use their power because a mother is too pushy when defending her children's rights....thats a good one) _

<<....Assertive parents, armed with information from Internet support groups and believing they're advocating for their child's best interests, risk alienating doctors and nurses, leaving them few allies if they find themselves accused of medical child abuse&#8230;>>
_

Some good news-law courts intervene and return girl to parents 16mth later....

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...uuxeL/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Top


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

Eurgh, love the dismissive "internet support groups". 

It's really awful. If you try to push for a second opinion or for a closer look, you get accused of mistreating your children. I've heard about it being really bad with NICU situations- where doctors will put a perfectly healthy child in the NICU because they get more money if they do, and if you question it, you get charged with medical abuse. You could lose your baby before getting to even hold them. I hope that's not still the case, I heard about it a few years ago.

Doctors aren't gods. They can make mistakes, misdiagnose things, and cause serious damage if they do. Every parent should have a right to get a second opinion, or third or fourth or fifth, especially if you're getting a second opinion from another "real" doctor (I can see the argument against homeopathy/herbal options with kids, whether or not I agree with it, but another "proper" doctor?!). And doctors should be adults who can handle being questioned, rather than taking out wounded pride on helpless children.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

CPS strikes again:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/30425482-
452/woman-claims-workers-used-coercion-to-separate-
her-from-toddlers.html

copy-paste whole link


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

I've seen a lot of people say that CPS blames victims of DV for "not leaving sooner", focusing on the victim instead of the abuser.  It's awful.


----------



## farmermomma (Oct 30, 2012)

Not having any luck with link on post 58.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

You need to copy-paste the whole link....


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

> Every parent should have a right to get a second opinion, or third or fourth or fifth, especially if you're getting a second opinion from another "real" doctor (I can see the argument against homeopathy/herbal options with kids, whether or not I agree with it, but another "proper" doctor?!).


An aside, but I do agree with you.

Homeopathic, naturopathic, herbalists, chiropractic, osteopathic, alternative types are just as valuable in many cases, but I agree it will not look good to go to one of them as a second opinion if you go to a medical type first.

Anecdotally, I had bursitis for years. Very painful. I had three sessions of physical therapy, chiropractic, and all the medical types could offer me was cortisone or surgery, although I had to go to the medical doctor to get a recommendation/prescription for the physical therapy. My chiropractor said he could not help me.  He told me that I needed the physical therapy. Nothing helped. Finally, I went to a rolfer, who took care of both shoulders in one session. I was supposed to go back, but I have not had to. It has been six years now. So the very alternative type was the ONLY person who helped me.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Wow, one good thing about MDC coming to a virtual standstill, is that its easy to find old threads. This one, for instance was third from the top, even though it is barely active.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!I am always particularly grateful to be with my family when I come across stories like this one involving yet another CPS bungle (or rather crime).

http://medicalkidnap.com/2014/11/25...ken-away-from-parents-for-not-using-hospital/


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

http://www.redbookmag.com/kids-family/blogs/mom-blog/tiffany-langwell-baby-cosmo?fb_comment_id=fbc_739146359485081_739154002817650_739154002817650#f24df55dc1dfbd4

Yet another one. These articles keep coming up on yahoo. Im not actively looking for them.
What can be done about this?


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/couple-fights-for-custody-of-children-following-104434804787.html

CPS takes nursing newborns away..., because... they can.

Read the comments too. They restore my faith in humanity.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

CPS not effective in preventing abuse, and also break laws that require them to reveal information. Comments on the article very revealing.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-abused-kids-die-authorities-fail-protect-053956800.html

One comment and discussion from a poster -

"Princess Delilah 1 day ago 
15

""While very disturbing, its not surprising coming from a set of agencies whose corruption, mishandling and prejuduce is legendary. People who pose a genuine danger keep their children until something horrendous happens while hard-working folks doing the best they can,get theirs stolen and imprisoned in a largely uncaring system simply for being unorthodox or otherwise dont fit the Leave It To Beaver fantasy version of the familial unit. Its damn shameful. Its time the agencies are held accountable for their actions regardless of all that shiny funding many states get per child in the system.


 Joyce 1 day ago 0 
3

It is the county that gets the money and it's $85K, that's eighty-five thousand dollars per child removed from his home. Just one of CPS's dirty secrets. 
More










Elaine 1 day ago 0 
3

Seeing it with my own eyes the whole system is CORRUPT. 
More










concernedinoregon 21 hours ago 0 
1

The reason they want those children from the hard-working parents is so 1%ers can adopt a "clean" child. Check it out. ..."


".......Just Me N KC 1 day ago 0 
8

 The Mandatory reporting system is a big part of the problem. You will get Doctors who report every single Scratch or Bruise on a child regardless of how it happened or where it is. Then the Doctor will flat out tell the parent that they have to make a mandatory report because Junior skinned his knee at soccer practice. We switched Doctors within our Family Practice because the one we were with Hot Lined me 2x in a row over scrapes on my son from Sports. Both were minor and barely there, and had been cleaned and treated. Both were typical soccer injuries. After a few years , we ended up having to see her on a Urgent Appointment for a ear infection and she tells me again, she HAS to hot line me because my oldest had a small scratch on her hand from the Kitten. I snapped at her, NO you dont. You have to legally call in a report when there is signs of abuse. You do not have to report every single mark a normal child acquires. Its out of bounds and its why your losing patients! By the next year she was let go, because none of the parents wanted her!..."

""

Highflyer16V 1 day ago 0 
7

This is a ridiculously slanted article and fails to even mention all the kids who are harmed AFTER they are taken from their parents. The authors seem to think that child protective services takes these kids and leads them to the promised land. Nothing can be further from the truth. Kids taken from their parents fare very poorly in life. Their rates of crime, divorce, suicide, drug abuse, and domestic violence as adults are about ten times those who remain with their families. Furthermore, there are many CPS workers, doctors and other professionals who truly are zealous and believe they are going to save the world, and have perpetrated heinous "medical kidnappings" and other ridiculous premises for terrorizing children and families. This article is basically being written to poison the well against the likely re-introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment to the constitution in congress next year. This constitutional amendment is desperately needed to avoid nightmares like Justina Pelletier and her family faced in Massachussetts. Of course, the elitist anti-parent zealots love to tell these horror stories about a few children who truly should have been removed. While each of these stories is tragic, in most of these examples, these children were so young that a pattern of abuse could not have been established yet. What these authors actually are advocating is the right of child protective services to break up families with NO due process of law. In wake of the current scandals involving CPS and other "protective' agencies, that would be a nightmarish development....."


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Interview with Carlos Morales - Legally Kidnapped: The Case Against Child Protective Services


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Nice to hear from the OP. I appreciate this thread very much. (you may have noticed from the my number of posts ;-)


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

contactmaya said:


> Nice to hear from the OP. I appreciate this thread very much. (you may have noticed from the my number of posts ;-)


I appreciate you have kept this thread alive. This information is so important to get out. We cannot allow this kind of psychopathy to continue this must be out in the open.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/parents-under-investigation-for-neglect-after-108180228512.html

Sigh.... a 6yo and 10yo walk to the park alone-are investigated by cps.

I always like to read the comments on these articles. Many people say that government is interfering too much-i see it more as a government organization that needs reform.

After reading this article, i wonder if i should let my 9yo catch the school bus alone....


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Watch how effective the cps and the police are in deaing with these parents-in the words of the parent-
"
L. Riki Cheever 2 hours ago 0 
 7

"Meitiv explains via email:

On Monday, a Montgomery County child protective services worker went to my children's school and interviewed them without my knowledge or consent. Why?

Because last month we'd let them walk home from the park by themselves. It's a mile away. They are 6 and 10. We live in suburban Maryland. Let me recap the story and then tell you where we're at.

On a Saturday afternoon in December, my husband, Alexander, gave our kids permission to walk home from the local playground. I was out of town at the time. When they'd walked about halfway, a Montgomery County Police patrol car pulled up. A "helpful" neighbor had called 911 to report unaccompanied children walking outside. Our kids were brought home in a police cruiser.

At the door the police officer asked to see my husband's ID, but did not explain why. When he refused, she called for backup.

A total of six patrol cars showed up.

Alexander then agreed to get his ID and went to go upstairs. The officer said-in front of the kids-that if he came down with anything else, "shots would be fired." She proceeded to follow him upstairs, and when he said she had no right to do so without a warrant, she insisted that she did.

Our 10 yr. old called me crying and saying that the police were there and that Daddy was going to be arrested. Alexander stepped outside to continue the conversation away from the kids. When he disagreed with one of the officers about the dangers that walking alone posed to children, she asked him: "Don't you realize how dangerous the world is? Don't you watch TV?" They took notes and left.

Two hours later a CPS worker arrived with a "temporary safety plan," which she told my husband to sign. It stated that he would not leave the children unsupervised at any time before Monday morning, when someone from their office could contact him. He refused to sign it. She informed him that if he didn't, she would instruct the police to take the children away immediately. He signed.

We were then contacted by a CPS social worker named W. Don Thorne who made an appointment for us to come to his office on Friday, Jan. 9. A little while later he called back saying that he needed to come to us, so that he could see our house. We told him we would meet with him at his office, not our home. He said he would speak with his supervisor and call us back.

On Monday, Mr. Thorne showed up at our door unannounced, accompanied by a police officer. He insisted that he had the right to come into our house without a warrant. I said that I was invoking my Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted search, and would not let him in, but repeated my willingness to go to his office to answer questions. Then I noticed that he had a visitor's sticker from my children's elementary school on his jacket. Had he been to my children's school to interview them?!

He didn't answer that question and they quickly left. I have since learned that he visited my children's school and spoke to my children without my knowledge or consent.

We do not know what actions CPS will take next.

We are frightened and confused. We are good parents, educated professionals, and our children are happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and academically successful.

As difficult as it is for us to believe, all of these events occurred as the result of allowing our children to walk along public streets in the middle of the afternoon without our supervision.

My husband grew up in the former Soviet Union. Now he wonders if we have to just go along with whatever the authorities want us to do. I keep reminding him that we have RIGHTS in this country and that neither the police nor the bureaucrats can arbitrarily dismiss them."

http://news.yahoo.com/parents-trouble-letting-10-old-walk-home-010534214.html (see comments--L. Riki Cheever )


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

It looks like they are doing a great job. They are investigating suspicious parents who broke the law while still keeping the family intact. The police didn't handle the father's suspicious behavior well but so far it looks like cps is.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

contactmaya said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/parents-under-investigation-for-neglect-after-108180228512.html
> 
> Sigh.... a 6yo and 10yo walk to the park alone-are investigated by cps.
> 
> ...


Honestly the need for investigation by CPS isn't that clear cut for me. If they were walking on quiet, neighborhood streets then yes, it would be unwarranted. But, if their route home involved crossing major roads/highways then maybe it is.

In my area a 12 year old boy was killed by a car while walking home from school. He didn't like taking the bus so his parents let him walk home. It's been quite cold in our area lately so he decided to take a shortcut home - unfortunately that involved running across a 6-lane highway. He was hit and killed instantly.

No I don't believe that these parents should lose custody, but if their children are walking a route that involves crossing major roads then maybe they need to be made aware of the dangers and get help brainstorming other alternatives for their kids.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

No matter what the policeman nor the social worker says, they have NO right whatsoever to go into your home without a warrant. There are still the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, whether they want to acknowledge that fact or not.

The fact is if the social worker thinks the case against you is strong enough then they have to go before the judge on their day off and prove to a judge that their case against you is strong enough to obtain a warrant. They will get mad. They will threaten you. But the law is the law, and the policeman and social worker knows what the law is. 

The bad parents know their way around the law; the good parents are intimidated by this affront. You are guilty of nothing. Stand up for your rights.

Let me add that I have known CPS agents to say that giving children chores is child abuse. I know of a teacher who told a parent that giving her child a long name is child abuse. CPS needs to get a grip. They cannot run and regulate every little thing in family life. We are supposed to be a free society, not an oligarchy, or are we?


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

One_Girl said:


> It looks like they are doing a great job. They are investigating suspicious parents who broke the law while still keeping the family intact. The police didn't handle the father's suspicious behavior well but so far it looks like cps is.


Seriously...did you read the story? Have you read anything in this thread at all? Nah, guess not.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Yes I did read both and I think the cps fear is silly and that this situation is being handled appropriately by cps. They broke the law and allowef their children to walk through a business district (heavy traffic areaa where I live) unsupervised. CPS merely asked them to not leave their kids unsupervised until contacted again for an interview and interviewed the kids before attempting to make sure the house was safe. Asking a parent not to break the law or act neglectfully doesn't horrify me and kids should be interviewed away from parenta when investigating abuse and neglect. 

I realize this is an emotional issue for you but that doesn't mean I agree with your opinion of cps. I actually disagree with it very much and think your lack of care for the well being of children is concerning.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Yes, i think the CPS needs reform, therefore, i dont care about children. Please....

You have not informed yourself of CPS incompetence, corruption, and the harm that results to children and their families. Redeem yourself and read the thread. 

As for the specific reference to the 10yo walking the the playground, I believe a 10yo is capable of doing that both alone and with a 6yo sibling. But i think it depends on the child, and that is a decision for parent to make. Parents know whether or not their children are traffic savvy. The actions of the cps in this case were unnecessary and harmful. A better way would have been to inform the parents of the law. But CPS isnt tained to do that, they are trained to build a case against parents, whether there is one there or not.

If the law stupilates a certain age, and these parents broke that law, they still dont deserve what the CPS did to them. Breaking the law doesnt make them negligent parents anymore than parking illegally does. 

One girl, just read the thread and refrain from name calling.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Yes, it is an emotional issue for me. Why isnt it for you?


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

applejuice said:


> No matter what the policeman nor the social worker says, they have NO right whatsoever to go into your home without a warrant. There are still the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, whether they want to acknowledge that fact or not.


 Exactly


----------



## fayebond (Jun 16, 2012)

Since when does the government need to interview the kids away from their parents, and search their home, because the kids went on a long walk together? They are both old enough to go walking by themselves as long as they aren't alone. There is nothing abusive about this situation. There is no clear threat to their safety. Yet there is a government agency ripping apart the family home and asking sexual questions of those kids .. for what? This doesn't make anyone safer. This doesn't make anyone's life easier. Of course it is upsetting... it's wrong. Its invasive. And in any other situation would be illegal.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I didn't call you any names and I did read the thread and disagree with you as I already stated. CPS is absolutely suppossed to get involved when parents break laws that are designed to protect children whether people who advocate minimal supervision/free range parenting agree with those laws or not. I hhaveworked with children for many years and witnessed and reported abuse, seen a child die because cps never followed through, and never once seen cps take children from a family

You are obviously free to search the internet for the few stories of cps overstepping so you can post them in one general location to make the problem seem big, you are free to avoid a real conversation by claiming that people who don't agree with you haven't read the thread and are just being mean to you. That doesn't change my opinion about how cps is handling this case or other cases, it only changes how seriously I take your posts. If you believe that I was calling you names on my first post then it doesn't surprise me that you believe cps is going overboard. You are obviously prone to over reacting.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

fayebond said:


> Since when does the government need to interview the kids away from their parents, and search their home, because the kids went on a long walk together? They are both old enough to go walking by themselves as long as they aren't alone. There is nothing abusive about this situation. There is no clear threat to their safety. Yet there is a government agency ripping apart the family home and asking sexual questions of those kids .. for what? This doesn't make anyone safer. This doesn't make anyone's life easier. Of course it is upsetting... it's wrong. Its invasive. And in any other situation would be illegal.


Exactly. The CPS needs to be reformed.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

One_Girl said:


> I...think your lack of
> 
> care for the well being of children is concerning.


'Name calling' was the wrong terminology, 'direct

insult', more accurately describes your turn of

phrase, namely that i do not care about children.

Thats not a very nice thing to say to someone now is

it? So, let me put it differently, please refrain from

insulting other posters.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

One_Girl said:


> You are obviously prone to over reacting.


There you go again....


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

One_Girl said:


> You are obviously free to search the internet for the few stories of cps overstepping...


Again onegirl, you havent read the thread. I dont go

looking for these stories. They appear frequently

on webpages i read for general news items, like

yahoo.com, Huffingtonpost,

to name a few. I dont search for it. What shocks me,

is how often these stories appear, because CPS

corruption and incompetence, and unethical behavior

occurs so frequently across the country.

People should know about this, because most of us

here are parents.The cps need reform. What they are

doing here is just wrong.

I post to spread information.



One_Girl said:


> ..... so you can post them in one general location to make the problem seem big, you are free to avoid a real conversation.....


Simply trying to spread the news as i receive it. The conversation has been had on this thread and elsewhere.



One_Girl said:


> ...by claiming that people who don't agree with you haven't read the thread and are just being mean to you.


You clearly havent read the thread, since you keep saying things that reveal that. You addressed one case i posted and stated your opinion with which i disagree. What about all the other cases that i have posted here over many months? What about the first post of the CPS whistleblower? (not my post btw) But im not here to argue, just post information. I think the information speaks for itself. Your random insults (i dont care about children and i overreact), also speak for themselves.

And again, this is not acceptable behavior on MDC.



One_Girl said:


> ....it only changes how seriously I take your posts.


Its clear you dont take evidence of CPS incompetence and law breaking and corruption very seriously. There are alot of people like you. That is why it continues.

So like i say, read the thread. Thats what its here for.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

You aren't here to argue so you quoted my post three times in an attempt to trash it and repeated your previous claim that people who disagree with you haven't read the thread. Serial pointless posts don't change anyone's opinion an this issue they just change how quickly your opinion and you become irrelevant due to lack of substance. Your choice to overreact to my posts is not a violation of mdc policy. If a post on a public forums hits a nerve with you then you should examine your ideas to see why.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Onegirl, read the links i posted, and read the first post on this thread."CPS whistleblower" We do disagree on some things, that is clear, what constitutes an insult, what constitutes 'trashing' someone's post, what constitutes an 'overreaction', what is pointless versus important information, what constitutes ethical and legal behavior from a government funded organization. 


Also, i stated it is clear that that *you* havent read the thread, but didnt mention anyone else. 

Lets agree to disagree ...there is no need to address me personally anymore, i see clearly where you are coming from already. 

But as i said, feel free to inform yourself of the important information in his thread. On the other hand, dont read it if you dont want to.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Once again I did read the thread, I've been following it for a while now, and I disagree with the view that cps is over reaching. In each of these cases there was more going on. In your most recent one this is the second time cps has been involved for the same issue. I'll be happy to agree to disagree but not to put up with you blaming my disagreement on not reading the thread.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Its good to know you have read it, and followed each of the troubling cases i have posted. Since you do disagree, i would be interested to hear how, in each case, was CPS behavior justifiable? Please post the case, and explain the exonerating circumstances.


There are other cases i have come across which i did not post here. A recent one was where a newborn and toddler were taken from parents for attachment parenting practices and a homebirth. If you are aware of this case, then all the better. If not, i will dig it up. The newborn and toddler were eventually returned. They should never have been taken.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

I guess it doesnt surprise me that you couldn't exonerate them.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Parents investigated for child neglect because they let their kids walk to the park alone. Findings-unsubstantiated, meaning, no proof for, and no proof against. Their case stays on file for 5 years. In some states its much longer.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto..._parents_responsible_for_unsubstantiated.html

These parents have two months to appeal the case, and they are doing so.

http://news.yahoo.com/parents-let-kids-walk-alone-appeal-neglect-case-140001761.html

They are lucky to be informed on the outcome of their case at all, and to be informed enough to appeal. 
Most parents investigated for trivial reasons do not. I am so glad this case is getting the media attention it deserves.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Video-parents interviewed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...-cps_n_6800070.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Full interview, 26minutes

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/se...arents-maryland-cps-/54f360c702a76026ab00116e


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

https://www.causes.com/campaigns/88...at-risk-not-others?utm_campaign=search_widget

Tell CPS To Investigate Children Who ARE At Risk

"CPS has closed THIS investigation with a finding of "unsubstantiated" child neglect, keeping Danielle and Alexander Meitiv in CPS' databank of parents who have "unsubstantiated" child neglect charges. This is wrong AND ups the scrutiny and protocol CPS will follow the next time their children are happily playing outside or walking to or from their home. With the assistance of the National Association of Parents and the law firm of Wiley Rein, the Meitiv's are appealing through the CPS' administrative appeal process as a necessary step before or while seeking court intervention -- for their family and other families in Maryland and, by extension, throughout the USA! CPS must be ordered by a court to limit their intervention in cases where a child has been harmed or was in imminent danger of actual, not imagined, harm. You can help by signing the petition and/or donating and also by spreading the word to your friends and family."

Quoted from
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/se...arents-maryland-cps-/54f360c702a76026ab00116e


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

*Mom and Baby Move to Secret Location After Child-Abuse Investigation*
selected quotes from the article. See full article below

"Warner believes the Burns's case is emblematic of a nationwide problem with agents of the child welfare system. "They go to extremes to do their jobs, and they do it badly," she says. "CPS is clueless to the fact that the Constitution applies to them - they just believe that they can do anything they want." A spate of similarly-themed stories that have grabbed headlines recently include that of the Meitivs in Maryland, who were found responsible for "unsubstantiated child neglect" after allowing their children to walk unaccompanied to nearby playgrounds, and the Smartwoods of California, who won $1.1 million after an investigation found CPS workers removed their two children from the home without just cause."

"Warner believes that Mohr is part of a recent national trend that has pediatricians working closely with CPS to provide expert testimony in abuse cases, and that many are "unethical, incompetent, and overzealous, but very credible to juries."

"She says there's no reason for CPS to demand Brenda provide them with her current address - especially since she did so recently, when she and Naomi were staying with friends, and CPS social workers allegedly showed up unannounced and demanding entry, but without a search warrant, and were turned away by the friend."

"She's been exonerated," Warner says about her client. "If she is a fit parent, then she has full control." But this latest petition, she believes, is evidence that CPS has no intention of giving up the situation, as Brenda has made it clear she believes her husband is innocent. "They believe," Warner says about the motives of CPS, "that there's something unfit about a mother who stands by her husband."

In comments on another case
"Their own pediatrician said yes it was a birthmark yet CPS would not give up the child until a court order mandated it. Even after that they would try to check up and force another abduction until the woman went back to court and got a cease and desist against CPS and a restraining order against the social worker. The real kicker is she has no recourse to force CPS to pay for all of the legal costs."

see full article
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/mom-and-baby-move-to-secret-location-after-113356709152.html


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

<<Last week, scientist Danielle Meitiv (a consultant to government agencies on climate science) and her husband Alexander (a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, who goes by Sasha) were found responsible for "unsubstantiated child neglect" after letting their 10-year-old son Rafi and 6-year-old daughter Dvora walk home by themselves, during the daytime, on a sidewalk next to a lively main street, from a neighborhood park a mile away from their Maryland home. An unknown someone called 911 after seeing the kids walking without an adult. A squad car swooped up the kids, and four more police vehicles pulled up to the Meitivs' home. When Sasha went upstairs to get ID, as an officer demanded, he was told "shots will be fired!" if he didn't immediately comply or if he did anything suspicious.

Rafi called his mother, crying, saying the police were going to arrest his daddy. (The police had also told Rafi that "there are creeps out there that are just waiting to grab children if they're walking by themselves.") Two hours later, before Danielle could get home, a representative from the local Child Welfare Service showed up with a temporary plan of action for Sasha to sign. When Sasha said he wanted a lawyer to look at it first, he was told that if he didn't sign instantly, the children would be taken away. He signed.

The "unsubstantiated child neglect" ruling means that Child Welfare will maintain a file on the family for at least five years, and if the parents do anything else that might be deemed a danger to their kids (such as let them walk parentless in the neighborhood again) there could be as-yet-unspecified consequences.>>

Read the rest at
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-life-an...il&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-4d54b3d1f6-207024725

https://www.causes.com/campaigns/885...=search_widget

Tell CPS To Investigate Children Who ARE At Risk


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/24/hel...mes_by_police_for_being_outside_unsupervised/

Some quotes
"I'm on your side no matter what. My new push is for the "Free-Range Kids' and Parent's Bill of Rights," which states that kids have the right to some unsupervised time (with their parents' permission) and parents have the right to give it to them, without fear of government intervention."

"*In the wake of what's happening with the Meitiv family, I'm inclined to put up a big fight. I'm a professional writer with a robust network, so I feel I could make a difference-not only for us, but on a larger scale, for other families too, maybe for the country as a whole. You're already doing so much, and it can't hurt to have more voices. "*

"You could raise property values AND get fantastic national attention by deliberately deciding that the police and the citizens will all be looking out for kids in a way that lets them know they are SAFE outside - the community is watching out for them (not investigating their parents)!"


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/20/the_day_i_was_nearly_arrested_for_having_an_autistic_son/

Some quotes
"A recent spate of arrests of mothers has me thinking about this now more than ever. *At what point did parenting go from a communal activity to an actionable crime? * A mother in her 40s, Debra Harrell, is currently in jail for letting her 9-year-old daughter play in well-populated park while Ms. Harrell was at work. Tanya McDowell, a homeless single mother, was charged with felonious larceny when she hoped for a better education for her son, using her babysitter's address instead of her last known permanent address in a worse neighborhood, to enroll her son in kindergarten. (i.e., "stealing" a free public education). Shanesha Taylor, another single homeless mother, had no one to watch her two small children, so she left them in the car during a job interview. She got the job - and then returned to find the cops waiting for her. (The district attorney in Scottsdale, Arizona, has now agreed to dismiss the charges, as long as Taylor completes parenting courses, and establishes education and child-care trust funds for her kids.) In all three cases mothers were separated from their children for the act of mothering."
*
"And where are these so-called arbiters of correct parenting coming from? It seems all one has to do is add a little race or class difference to a dollop of self-righteousness (I'm doing it for the children!)*, and you're off to the races in the 9-1-1 race.* Did the so-called good Samaritan who came across Debra Harrell's daughter in the park *- she'd been happily playing there without incident for three days - think to have a little talk with the mother, to express her misgivings*?* Maybe help her find a babysitter, or replace the daughter's laptop, which had been stolen, and was the whole reason she had asked to play in the park instead of playing on the computer inside her mother's workplace? Or, did all this woman see was a child of a black mother, a poor mother (her job was at McDonald's) and whatever smorgasbord of stereotypes she wished to attach to that?"


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

I choose to believe that children are protected by our government. Leaving children under 10 unsupervised for too long a time is suspect in my opinion. And leaving three kids alone in a car where you cannot see the car.... definitely not okay. Not even for a job interview. 


This is why growing a community and a support network even before you have kids is crucial. But no, most of us socialize through the online world now. It is really way too sad.

Contactmaya, I can see this is burning issue of yours since the last nine posts belong to you but I believe that intervention to "save the child" is generally a good thing.

Gotta go, I'm volunteering this morning. (building community)


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

@contactmaya

I too am VERY concerned about the expansion of the government into the private lives of families. I find it very worrisome that people trust the government so much more than they trust each other. What they forget is that the government is just people. Plus, it seems like a special kind of ignorance is necessary to stand idly by while these cases are reported in the media more and more given that most of us are aware of the dire consequences that can happen when governments are allowed too much power. Look at Tianamen Square, the KGB, and of course the Nazis.

Also, i work in this area so i see it all the time. People who come under state scrutiny simply because they are poor. I have been doing this kind of work for almost three years and i have yet to see a SINGLE case where the parents aren't poor. It's 100% disgusting and anyone who justifies this treatment of already marginalized groups will get no respect from me.Best way to think of it is that social workers are like cops, but with far less accountability/oversight.

Bottom line, playing the "dead baby" card over and over to exert control and engineer a society to behave a certain way is not only morally reprehensible but is also dangerous.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Contactmaya, I really appreciate your continued attention to all of this, and I look forward to reading the Salon article in a moment.


Viola P., I can't help wondering if the expansion you're talking about is due to a decrease in cases of actual child abuse. It seems like every time a movement to correct a social problem becomes an institution with people on its payroll, there's a lot of motivation to keep everyone on the payroll by expanding the definitions that determine who's in need of this institution's help and intervention.


And if caseworkers were indeed overwhelmed with huge caseloads of actual abuse victims, how could they find time to worry about the horrible stuff that might "possibly" happen -- but is statistically not at all likely to happen -- to a 9-year-old walking to the park?


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

mammal_mama said:


> Contactmaya, I really appreciate your continued attention to all of this, and I look forward to reading the Salon article in a moment.
> 
> Viola P., I can't help wondering if the expansion you're talking about is due to a decrease in cases of actual child abuse. It seems like every time a movement to correct a social problem becomes an institution with people on its payroll, there's a lot of motivation to keep everyone on the payroll by expanding the definitions that determine who's in need of this institution's help and intervention.
> 
> And if caseworkers were indeed overwhelmed with huge caseloads of actual abuse victims, how could they find time to worry about the horrible stuff that might "possibly" happen -- but is statistically not at all likely to happen -- to a 9-year-old walking to the park?


One of the bigger problems with it, which i think you suggest ^, is that it doesn't just catch abuse anymore, it catches all kinds of things that are just judgement calls. The content in the Salon article is very well thought out, especially when she says it's basically criminalizing mothering. I think it is, in a sense, criminalizing mothering by taking away the parent's right to decide what is safe for their child (such as walking alone). It's beyond bizarre to me that so many people are comfortable with the government getting involved in the private lives of people based on parental judgement calls that are not, by any reasonable standard, abuse.

My father was raised in an extremely abusive household. I won't go into details but I will say that the physical aspect of it was extreme. Back then, no one called the cops, even when they heard the children/my grandmother being beaten. The reason for that was that the family home was viewed as really private and people in society back then were far less trusting of government than we are now. To me, that was one extreme where there were many cases where intervention would be justifiable. But now we've gone to the other extreme where judgement calls are cause for state intervention, which is very scary.

Your point about the payrolls is well taken. I wonder if maybe you're right, maybe part of the problem is an underlying motivation to criminalize behaviour in order to keep the system rolling. That happens with the oil economy and the prison industrial complex as well. Interesting perspective.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

The first two minutes of this shows the problem with misinformation, etc...






The rest is also beautiful


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

philomom said:


> I choose to believe that children are protected by our government. Leaving children under 10 unsupervised for too long a time is suspect in my opinion. And leaving three kids alone in a car where you cannot see the car.... definitely not okay. Not even for a job interview.
> 
> *Your opinion.... but parenting requires responsiveness to individual children. Your opinion could cause invasion and trauma to the family you disagree with. Not to mention the fact that 8yos are deemed mature enough to get themselves to school in many places.
> 
> ...


bbb


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Viola P said:


> @contactmaya
> 
> I too am VERY concerned about the expansion of the government into the private lives of families. I find it very worrisome that people trust the government so much more than they trust each other. What they forget is that the government is just people. Plus, it seems like a special kind of ignorance is necessary to stand idly by while these cases are reported in the media more and more given that most of us are aware of the dire consequences that can happen when governments are allowed too much power. Look at Tianamen Square, the KGB, and of course the Nazis.
> *
> ...


bbb


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Viola P said:


> One of the bigger problems with it, which i think you suggest ^, i*s that it doesn't just catch abuse anymore, it catches all kinds of things that are just judgement calls. *The content in the Salon article is very well thought out, especially when she says it's basically criminalizing mothering. I think it is, in a sense, criminalizing mothering by taking away the parent's right to decide what is safe for their child (such as walking alone).* It's beyond bizarre to me that so many people are comfortable with the government getting involved in the private lives of people based on parental judgement calls that are not, by any reasonable standard, abuse.
> *
> My father was raised in an extremely abusive household. I won't go into details but I will say that the physical aspect of it was extreme. Back then, no one called the cops, even when they heard the children/my grandmother being beaten. The reason for that was that the family home was viewed as really private and people in society back then were far less trusting of government than we are now. To me, that was one extreme where there were many cases where intervention would be justifiable. But now we've gone to the other extreme where judgement calls are cause for state intervention, which is very scary.
> 
> Your point about the payrolls is well taken. I wonder if maybe you're right, maybe part of the problem is an underlying motivation *to criminalize behaviour in order to keep the system rolling*. That happens with the oil economy and the prison industrial complex as well. Interesting perspective.


Thanks for making these excellent points. (bolded) Its heartening to hear there are other people out there who see this.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

Thank you contactmaya. We agree on many things except that you seem to believe that the US is a democracy, when in fact it no longer is. I think that several political scientists, including the very well renowned Noam Chomsky, have made a very good case that the US is an oligarchy. The thing is that in order for it to be a democracy the will of the people has to control the government, in the situation of the US it doesn't matter what people vote for the prison industrial complex, the military complex, the siphoning of money from the bottom to the top, the lack of governmental controls, ALL of that WILL continue, even if 90% of people are against it. Hence it is not a democracy, because the voters can't change the outcome. If anything, Obama has proved that.

ETA: I shouldn't have said that many political scientists say the US is an oligarchy, i'm not sure how many of them think that. But i do know many of them think it's not a democracy, including Noam Chomsky. Not sure if he thinks it's an oligarchy or what, but i know many say it's not a democracy:






There, in that NC says it's a "polyarchy" "power resides...in the wealth of the nation...and the rest of the population is fragmented, distracted, allowed to participate every couple of years..."


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Point taken. But i think democracy is a relative term, and the US is certainly more democratic that many other places... thats another interesting debate. 

I think the CPS could so easily be improved, if the goal of the social workers was to find the families innocent of abuse, not look for evidence of abuse where there is none.
When i see some possible evidence of abuse in other children (for eg, excessive bullying by an older sibling can mean s/he himself is bullied at home), or any other thing-kid looks underfed, i wish there was someone i could call to go check. But i know that the CPS would more likely do more harm than good.

I wish I could rely on them to be a partner when caring about other kids, and if someone called on me, to be able to trust that they see I care about my own children. I want to be able to open my door and say, come in, and see how well i take care of my kids!

Instead, i am afraid, i would just have my name dragged through the mud for a minimum of 10 years, even if no evidence whatsoever was found against me, i would be afraid that a pile of unsorted washing, or toys on the floor, would be held against me. I would be afraid they would talk to my kids without my consent and say nasty things to them about me behind my back.

Would it be so hard to expect them to be a partner in caring about children? It could so easily, be so much better.

Im glad there is media attention to these issues.


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

Not explicitly CPS, but I think very related: http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexcampbell/how-the-law-turns-battered-women-into-criminals#.niqRAqmeb



> By the end of the day, Titches would be dead, and Turner would be arrested for his murder. Prosecutors would charge Turner with assaulting Lindley too, noting that she was "very afraid" of him.
> 
> Yet they would also deem Lindley a criminal. Even though Lindley had tried to rescue her son, they would prosecute her for failing to protect him from Turner.
> 
> Her sentence: 45 years in prison.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

I had read about this, and it is a true travesty of justice. I hope she can appeal somehow.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

So the Meitiv's let their children go for a walk again, and this time, the police picked them up and detained them....wait for it, without telling the parents!!! (dont you just love how the community works together?)
The Meitiv's were found guilty of 'unsubstantiated' child neglect, that mean, when someone called on them, cps came and had a look, and found a perfectly happy family. The least possible thing the CPS can accuse you of, is 'unsubstantiated' child neglect (that means innocent), but they stay on record for 5years, (in other states its much longer)

I say, the police had no right to pick up those kids, let alone detain them. At the very least, they should have taken them home!

The boy is 10years old!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/1...o-custody-by-child-protective-services-again/

Some comments from the article....

<<portia2708 Mar 4, 2015
As a liberal, I find this utterly disgusting and I hope the parents sue the state...period. I have just ONE name for these nutbaggers...Richard Branson. And, while there are REAL and heart-breaking cases of child neglect, these people are being hounded, while others are allowed to continue to abuse their children.
BibleThumpers Mar 4, 2015
CPS went too far in this case. The parents aren't putting them in any danger. I walked to/from school all the time. 
CPS is there for children of "true" neglect, abuse, abandonment, etc. Would they really take the kids away for walking to/from school? That is a cruel punishment on the kids. >>
(from linked article 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/0...rents-hit-with-unsubstantiated-child-neglect/)

Yes, sue the state, sue the state!!!!


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

I'm currently reading "Free Range Kids" and loving it.

It is utter insanity that we live in a place where 10 year old kids can be detained by the state for walking alone. This IS a police state. It's like being under constant curfew or something. Very worrisome indeed. 

Either it's neglect/abuse or it's not. There's no in between. And if there's not *actual* neglect/abuse, the state has no business being involved.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Viola P said:


> Either it's neglect/abuse or it's not. There's no in between. And if there's not *actual* neglect/abuse, the state has no business being involved.


Aah so true. You see, its so easy to figure out...yet they just cant seem to do it....


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Here's an inspiring story...to give us some hope.

http://www.freerangekids.com/thank-goodness-for-cops-stopping-kids-tempe-az-version/


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

I've seen some good stories. I also remember seeing the story of the cops being called because a baby was in a car without a carseat. The family couldn't afford a carseat. So the cops went to the closest store and bought them a carseat.

This article also sheds some lights on some of the problems CPS has: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-...36&comment_id=824288734312736#f15e24f44154712

It focuses on foster kids, but 6-9 touch on the conditions social workers are working under.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

mammal_mama said:


> Here's an inspiring story...to give us some hope.
> 
> http://www.freerangekids.com/thank-goodness-for-cops-stopping-kids-tempe-az-version/


Thanks for the inspiring story and interesting website. Yes, if only more police could be like this. It only take a a bit of generosity, common sense and compassion. The same goes for social workers. (or rather, case workers-they do not receive as extensive an education as social workers)


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

sillysapling said:


> I've seen some good stories. I also remember seeing the story of the cops being called because a baby was in a car without a carseat. The family couldn't afford a carseat. So the cops went to the closest store and bought them a carseat.
> 
> This article also sheds some lights on some of the problems CPS has: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-...36&comment_id=824288734312736#f15e24f44154712
> 
> It focuses on foster kids, but 6-9 touch on the conditions social workers are working under.


Thanks for the link.

I hope its ok for me to copy and paste a couple of informative comments from the article-

<<Anna Smirny 
Then why does CPS waste resources harassing families like the Meitivs?

Doris Smith 
Because they are parents who will fight to keep their kids. When they figure the parents aren't anxious to take the kids back, they don't spend as much time prying into family business. The kids are actually better off staying with lousy parents sometimes.

Anna Smirny ·
Doris Smith but if they are so overwhelmed with cases of serious abuse or neglect, why pay any attention at all when everything is obviously fine?

Aster O'Shea
I agree completely. I've seen so many CPS stories that go one of two ways: 1. A child has suffered grievous harm/is found dead and "CPS visited the home a few months earlier...", 2. A child is ripped from a loving, stable family over a minor problem.
What is going on? Is it that in some counties, CPS has a hair trigger and in others they just can't be bothered paying attention? Are they intentionally targeting the healthy families to avoid dealing with the psychos? What?

Boory Smith
There are many reasons. From federal funding to overloaded caseworkers. And these reasons vary from county to county. The feds pay the states every time a child is adopted. So kids that are taken from a family with minor issues will come across nicely for adoption and the state bags a nice bonus. Also the states have quotas for adoptions. A child in a bad situation will not 'clean up' as well and can stay in the system for years.

Anna Smirny 
Sounds like legalized kidnapping

Lori Heeren Scribner · 
Well I can't help but respond to this being that I have been a foster parent, grandparent of children in the system and RN working in the ER. Yes I've seen many sides! The corruption and lack of accountability are egregious. I have to say the most surprising thing I found about foster care was the length they went to keep me from getting the children and for that matter the lengths they went to prevent them from any family relationships once they had them. See number 3 in the article, it doesn't have to be that way. No. 6 talk to a supervisor and on up to the ombudsman. I did all that and wrote letters. The Ombudsman called after my letter was received. Here is the conversation it speaks for its self! 



 No. 10 parents rights are often considered before the child's best interest. Go back to number 8 remember where you said they will say anything to get a child placed. Yes they do and when that doesn't work they work on returning the child. It's not the parents rights they are concerned about as they willingly violate those on daily basis. It's the fact that they can't place them. Real cases of abuse and neglect leave the children with behaviors! Many cases are manufactured. Those children are much easier to place and some of the worst cases go back to the parents or are never removed in the first place. That's why we keep see those stories of children slipping through the cracks and being killed by their parents. On the other side they are so gun ho to adopt them to strangers, they will often adopt them to people who should never have them like the Barahona twins and my grandchildren. The superintendent of the Michigan Children's institute during my hearing opposing their adoption to the foster parents testified he would still consider them even if they were on the abuse and neglect registry since they were found to have put hot sauce in their mouths, slapping, spanking, made to run laps around the house, falling through ice while unsupervised, unlocked ammunition in the house and taught to not say what happens in this home. Don't take anything they say a face value!>>
 Wow. It really is frightening if true...im finding it hard to believe....


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

More comments from the same article, very informative....

<<Jenn Grentzer-Etherton · 
If the AZ foster system does nothing for mental health needs like the child you described (who stabbed someone), is there anyone who can begin legislation? Are you in a position to be the voice for that change?

Dawn Teo · Top Commenter · Works at Foster Children's Rights Coalition · 539 followers
Hi Jenn, it's not that they do nothing... it's that what they do is inadequate. There is a class action lawsuit against the state right now by a nonprofit organization representing foster children, and part of that lawsuit deals with the lack of mental health services. Unfortunately, that lawsuit will take years to work its way through the courts, and these children need change now. I am trying to be a voice, but we need many voices. Nothing will change as long as only a few people speak up about it. We need the Arizona public to understand what is really happening to these kids and demand change. I am volunteering with Foster Children's Rights Coalition, and I hope you will consider signing up for the email list to learn what you can do to help.

Jennifer Mallory
Arizona takes 35+ children a day into state's care. Maricopa county takes the grand prize by have a 13+% per capita put into the foster care system which is by far the worst county in the state. I am on the other side of the coin here and it's not to say there is a genuine need for foster care for children that are TRULY abused but AZ has taken a different stance. There are thousands of children who do not belong in the system. Years ago AZ hired consultants to maximize their revenues in the system. Reunification services didn't give the state as much of a return as did the foster homes so the services were eliminated. A child in the system will return on average $72000 per year, per child and more if the child has a disability and that does not take into account what the return is if the child is adopted out. Families are losing their children for ridiculous reasons and if one peruses the FB groups and reads their stories the same pattern repeats itself over and over and over again. Should a parent lose their child because a social worker finds dirty dishes in a sink, lose a child because a doctor's appointment was missed and had to be rescheduled, because the parent asked for a second opinion? Parents are losing their children for these reasons and many more that are not deemed imminent danger. Parents are coerced into signing forms before their first visitation once in state's care which prevents them from discussing a litany of subjects with their child or visitations are not allowed. The answer here is not to increase the foster homes but to eliminate the incentives in place to fill those homes and in place reward the states for reunifying families just as it was before these incentives were put in place. The family court system allows hearsay at trial, YES hearsay and parents are denied the right to present evidence. At one recent trial the in Maricopa county the judge is on court record and on a recorded device which was shared on social media stating to the mother "It is not about the evidence" to the mother when she wanted to present her proof to the court. Hearsay was allowed, evidence wasn't and the mother lost her child. This repeats itself on a daily basis in the Maricopa family court system.

How many foster families are ever told that the child they will be taking care of came from a good loving home and the child was removed because the social worker deemed the parent unfit because there were dirty dishes in the home? Or the child was removed because her eyeglasses didn't fit right? Or the child was removed because a neighbor reported hearing the bio father raise his voice? Or are all the foster families told that the child came from a physically abusive home or one that had drug addictions? There is a veil of secrecy within the system that shields the actual truth from the foster families who are truly wanting to help a child in need and I beg to differ but not every child in the system was ever in need in the first place.

Cathy Mitchell · 
I believe the problem is not so much the people in the system, but the system of Child Protective Services. A Director once stated in a meeting discussing possible reforms - "there can be no reform, the current system needs to be blown up, and start fresh". I believe her. We need to re-think this whole process from the ground up. One thing to consider, when I was little, our family took in a cousin who had a troubled home. Other family members did the same with the other cousins. Fast forward to today, with the system of CPS in place. There is so much red tape, and easier for relatives to say, "someone else will do it", that children of cousins were not offered homes with relatives. Definitely follow the money - the ultimate incentive.
Reply ·

Mamacita Phantasm
Maybe the social workers would be less overwhelmed were we to limit the removal of children to those actually in some physical or mental danger, rather than removing kids because society does not like the way those children are being raised. I know dozens of kids in the care of child protective services, and of those, only 2 really should have been there. About half simply needed someone willing to provide reasonable habitation to their parents. Given the per child cost for foster care (both to the foster parents and for the system's efforts), I fully believe it would be much cheaper for the community to simply pay for apartments for these families rather than remove the kids because the parents do not have the resources to provide a safe healthful place for the family to live.

Jennifer Mallory
You make some excellent points and I fully agree with you about them taking children than should actually need the services. What most of the public isn't aware of is the fact states are paid handsomely through the FED IV-E funding for these children when they are in state's care to the tune of approximately $6000 per month per child and when the child is adopted there is another incentive from the FED to the tune of $4000 - $6000 with the potential of generously increasing that if they exceed the prior year's adoptions. States are incentivized to have foster children and it's uncapped. This is not in the best interest of the child.

Vlad Sandra Krasojević · 
My husband and I are considering adopting from foster care and I have to admit a lot of this is very troubling. We had started the classes but postponed them because we are in the middle of a move. We are most interested in adopting a child or sibling group that is already free for adoption. Can anyone give us advice to make this a better experience? My heart breaks for these kids and I feel so angry about the way the system works. The children's welfare should be the number one priority, NOTHING should come before that. Haven't they already lost enough?

Ebony Chantelle Parris
Wow you made really good points on here I was a foster kid been through 6 foster homes was very difficult for me.I felt so out of place even though my mom sexually and physically abused me and did drugs and we didnt have food in the house really .i still wanted to go back I thought she would change But nope I found out thought I could give her another chance she was clean and sober and all for years but a few years ago she started useing drugs again.I want to foster,then adopt why you ask because ive been through the system.I will wait until my kids are grown so I have no problems .I want to be able to give thm full attention .I will e asking for background checks thats a must.so i can get a feel on their history to better understand them.

Lesley Kring
The first night I tucked my foster child...the first and only I'd ever fostered...(I adopted him & his sister), he had taken three bananas from the kitchen and hid them under the covers. His preschool teacher recognized his foid insecurity and let him keep a bag of cereal on his desk. Adopt American children. They are waiting for and deserving of families.

Melissa Lamprey · Preparing Food at Ruby Tuesday
I agree with a lot of the comments one in particular.Would be the one on how many a day taken.I would like to mention CT.We take the cake on it.If anyone wants to google it check it out.The head DCF makes almost 200,000 a year.We have horror stories of children dying at the hands of workers.Google it.

Kristine Bowles · 
I grew up in that system and there is no way they will ever get their hands on any child of mine and they can't have my grandkids either! Some foster homes are great while others are awful.>>

from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-...36&comment_id=824288734312736#f15e24f44154712


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

Contactmaya those last quotes you posted are so disturbing. It makes me scared to be a parenting, being that my heart now resides outside my body and walks around and talks and has opinions of its own. How terrifying that there is also a CPS industrial complex. 

What has this world come to. This is SO SAD.


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

I found an article that talks about 4 different cases where a parent let a child alone in a safe temperature car in a safe area for less than 10 minutes and was arrested, at least one was charged with a felony. One, there were two kids in the car and the elder (8yo) had a means of contacting her mom from the car if there were any problems. http://www.salon.com/2015/04/19/wha...s_arrested_for_leaving_their_kids_in_the_car/

I am _terrified_ of where our country is heading.

I think I mentioned up-thread that a state was intentionally taking Native American kids from their families for no reasons, breaking federal law that required them to place the kids with other Native families to place them with white families, and tried to adopt them out. Even though the parents had never done a dang thing wrong and there was no reason- just because they got a nice sum of money from the federal government for adopting out Native kids.

I'm not remotely surprised to hear that they target safe kids. Not only are the kids easier to place, their parents are easier to deal with, and if you target lower-middle class then they can't easily afford a lawyer. The safe parents follow the rules, stay in line, no one has to fear for their lives and it's not hard for the bureaucracy to make their lives miserable. I imagine some really violent parents have attacked foster parents and social workers.

I think the first thing that needs to change is that the state should *NEVER* get any money from the federal government to place children. Either that money, 100% of it, should go directly to the foster/adoptive family (so the state has no incentive) or there just shouldn't be any. Any federal money to support family services shouldn't be based on how many kids are in foster care/adopted/reunited/whatever. Even in cases of abuse, it's sickening to think that the states are _paid_ to take children from their families.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

sillysapling said:


> I think the first thing that needs to change is that the state should *NEVER* get any money from the federal government to place children. Either that money, 100% of it, should go directly to the foster/adoptive family (so the state has no incentive) or there just shouldn't be any. Any federal money to support family services shouldn't be based on how many kids are in foster care/adopted/reunited/whatever. Even in cases of abuse, it's sickening to think that the states are _paid_ to take children from their families.


Not to get too philosophical here but really this last issue is only really a super big issue with capitalism since states themselves are now run like businesses and maintaining "profits" (or whatever word is used to describe increasing $$$$$)trumps EVERYTHING. In other systems, such as true social democracies, this would never happen as the * $$ dollar $$ * isn't the be all-end all- measurement of total awesomeness.

Though not saying that i disagree that there shouldn't be a financial incentive as that is troubling on its own regardless. It's just that the extra perversion of removing to generate revenue is an inevitable result of capitalism, which obviously encourages more of it. Money at all costs, right?!?


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

It really doesn't matter _what_ the incentive is. As long as there's an incentive for the states to rip families apart, they'll rip apart even healthy families.

Money's hardly the only incentive that matters in this society. There are a lot of different ways that politicians sway each other, and at the end of the day- that's all government is. A body of people. There could be other ways politicians could be incentivized to increase the number of kids in foster care and getting adopted out- it'd still be horrible.

Social workers aren't individually swayed by money. They don't get a pay raise for putting more kids in foster care. They don't (to my knowledge) get a bonus for each child adopted out. They get other incentives from their superior. Including the incentive of "if you don't, you're fired".

You can say that it comes down to money- they wouldn't be trying to keep their job if not for money, but that's not so simple. I doubt anyone gets into social work solely for the money. Many truly want to do good, and know that they have to work within the system to be able to help the many kids who truly do need it. Taking a child that, in your heart, you know should stay with their family if it means being able to help a dozen kids who truly need help can be worth it. Or you find a way to convince yourself that the child does deserve to be taken, which is why you get the social workers who flip out over a dirty dish.

And, then, they're incentivized to go after families that don't deserve it. Not by anyone in the system: by the families themselves. If you're signing up to spend the next months or years dealing with a group of people, which people would _you_ prefer? The nice, well-behaved people who will work within the system, or the violent and unpredictable abusers who might seriously harm you and the kids with severe mental problems they've raised? I doubt it's a conscious decision, but ultimately the incentive is there. Parents talk about negative and positive reinforcement all the time, its effect doesn't go away once you hit 18.

There's also another problem: bullies. There are some people who enjoy exercising power over others. They tend to be drawn towards positions like social worker and police officer, because they're in a unique position to exert power over a larger section of the population. These people, as long as they can get the authority, would happily rip families apart for free.

Yes, money is an incentive, but I disagree that the problem is capitalism. Incentives will always exist. Even before money, people were finding ways to get ahead and profit off of each other. It's a part of human nature. Capitalism may exacerbate it, but getting rid of money won't get rid of human nature.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

sillysapling said:


> ...Yes, money is an incentive, but I disagree that the problem is capitalism. Incentives will always exist. Even before money, people were finding ways to get ahead and profit off of each other. It's a part of human nature. Capitalism may exacerbate it, but getting rid of money won't get rid of human nature.


What a positive view of capitalism and dim view of human nature. I tend to be the opposite - capitalism sucks and human nature is pretty awesome. I actually believe that absent a centralized government that imo exists to oppress so the rich can get richer (and powerful more powerful) we would all do pretty well figuring stuff out. We're more like bees than bears, we are a species that thrives from team work more than any other. We know that. We don't need big government to control us, on the contrary, we need to be free from big governments that oppress us.

They say people get more conservative as they get older, but in my case the opposite has been true.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

I think that an organization like the CPS can be reformed without a revolution (overturning capitalism). Lets hope so because I dont think capitalism is going away anytime soon.

I dont see reforms in sight though, because there is no political will. Who wants to side with parents who have been accused of abuse and neglect? (never mind that they are innocent, or accusations are "unsubstantiated") 

Noone.

When parents rights are framed against children's rights, you will never get the political will for reform.


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

The current state of the US has me truly amazed at what humans will put up with. I really want to say that reform will come but I don't know if that's true. Look at what else we put up with. No paid parental leave, people constantly going into debt over medical care, etc. Now parents are increasingly altering their behavior out of fear of CPS and... nothing. Nothing gets done. A few people make noise about it, but how many people truly do anything?

I think we've actually struck the perfect balance of disenfranchisement. People have enough that they don't want to lose it, but they have so little that they aren't confident enough to stand up for themselves. The government should be proud of itself. The people should be horrified.

This is a problem that goes beyond CPS. We've got a national epidemic of authority figures abusing power. Doctors, teachers, police, politicians, it's happening all over the place and we're just rolling over and letting it happen. I know that I'm too busy trying to make ends meet to actually change anything.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

contactmaya said:


> I think that an organization like the CPS can be reformed without a revolution (overturning capitalism). Lets hope so because I dont think capitalism is going away anytime soon.
> 
> I dont see reforms in sight though, because there is no political will. Who wants to side with parents who have been accused of abuse and neglect? (never mind that they are innocent, or accusations are "unsubstantiated")
> 
> ...


Except that eventually if you alienate too many people the scales tip and there's mass civil disobedience.



sillysapling said:


> The current state of the US has me truly amazed at what humans will put up with. I really want to say that reform will come but I don't know if that's true. Look at what else we put up with. No paid parental leave, people constantly going into debt over medical care, etc. Now parents are increasingly altering their behavior out of fear of CPS and... nothing. Nothing gets done. A few people make noise about it, but how many people truly do anything?
> 
> I think we've actually struck the perfect balance of disenfranchisement. People have enough that they don't want to lose it, but they have so little that they aren't confident enough to stand up for themselves. The government should be proud of itself. The people should be horrified.
> 
> This is a problem that goes beyond CPS. We've got a national epidemic of authority figures abusing power. Doctors, teachers, police, politicians, it's happening all over the place and we're just rolling over and letting it happen. I know that I'm too busy trying to make ends meet to actually change anything.


I've had similar thoughts many times. To me, once people start experiencing hunger then they will revolt. If bread gets to $10 a loaf and is so much that even a "normal" (middle class) family struggles to feed itself then the state will be in danger of being overthrown. There has never been a time in history where a massive majority has silently withered away while the oppressive but tiny minority dine on hors d'oeuvres. When push comes to shove people will fight.

So, the good news is that the government seems to be forgetting that there is a balance that needs to be maintained in order for the ruling minority to keep its reign. We are getting closer every day to a truly revolutionary situation. When ordinary housewives take to the streets in droves because their babies are hungry, the state revolution. A true revolution is never about left vs. right, it's always about survival.

Not saying that i want that though, they are bloody and messy and let's be honest, women almost always fare worse afterwards, hard as that may be to imagine given how bad it already is for us. Still, as time goes on, we do seem to be edging closer and closer to that point of no return.


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

I don't think that we're going to reach that point, though. Conservatives that want to slash social programs are certainly pushing us in that direction- but I don't think we'll get there, because enough people push against it. There are enough safety nets. (WIC, SNAP, etc) Hunger is present, way too many kids go to school hungry and their free school lunch is basically the only meal they get each day- but they _are_ getting that meal.

Modern technology is also really making it unlikely. We have far more ways to distract and temporarily amuse ourselves. Look at how many people are glued to smart phones and constantly playing brightly colored, repetitive games.

I don't want a full-on revolution, either. It's not gonna be pretty. I think that we can make changes without bloodshed- and we're making progress. Technology is actually somewhat of an equalizer. Increasingly more people are finding a way to make a living wage on their own creations that probably would never have been able to without the internet. The net is also a powerful tool of activism _when used correctly_.

It's just taking time. Far more time than if more people would actually do something.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

sillysapling said:


> I don't think that we're going to reach that point, though. Conservatives that want to slash social programs are certainly pushing us in that direction- but I don't think we'll get there, because enough people push against it. There are enough safety nets. (WIC, SNAP, etc) Hunger is present, way too many kids go to school hungry and their free school lunch is basically the only meal they get each day- but they _are_ getting that meal.
> 
> Modern technology is also really making it unlikely. We have far more ways to distract and temporarily amuse ourselves. Look at how many people are glued to smart phones and constantly playing brightly colored, repetitive games.
> 
> ...


"I think that we can make changes without bloodshed- and we're making progress...It's just taking time."

I really like this conversation we're having so i hope you'll forgive me for disagreeing with you again, but i feel i have to.

Things objectively * aren't * getting better. The wages between the richest and the poorest are growing. The richest are taking more of the pie now than they have in many decades. The middle class is shrinking as is its buying power. More women are dying in childbirth. We've now discovered that the real wage gap is between mothers and non mothers, where mothers make 60-something cents to the man's dollar, and single mothers make fifty something cents to the mans dollar, while men's wages go up when they have children. There is massive violence against women that is normalized through our media and perpetuated in reality then ignored by the state, or, worse, perpetuated by the state.

Here's a single piece on income inequality. I know it's journalism but the figures can be found in bank reports too, i imagine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-tyson/us-income-inequality-costs_b_6249904.html

Here's a piece on rising maternal mortality:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/us-maternal-mortality-rate_n_5340648.html

Here's a single example of the epidemic of law enforcement ignoring/enabling sexual violence against women:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-police-routinely-ignored-cases-report-finds:

Here's a link to wikipedia page describing the phenomenon sociologists at Stanford discovered, now aptly named the motherhood penalty and fatherhood bonus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherhood_penalty

And, of course, the subject of this thread. The growing military state perpetuating violence against good people, imprisoning and strongly coming down on anyone who dares to question anything.

So, you see, women think things have gotten better for us because we have the "privilege" of earning a wage. Meanwhile as soon as we use our ability to reproduce and are arguably in a more vulnerable situation as a result, society openly capitalizes on that and uses it as an opportunity to have an army of desperate low income wage earners who will say/do anything to feed their babies. And, the choice of whether or not to have more babies is not even entirely our own decision, since employers can opt out for religious/conscience purposes. Meanwhile women's bodies are splattered all over the media and used as sex objects to sell products, and females are still generally portrayed as being subordinate.

I don't see how any of this is an improvement over how things were in the 70's. Things are worse for everyone, except the tiny ruling minority, now than they were a few decades ago. And it's only getting worse. Because of greed. And we can count on that, can't we. They will never ever ever have enough. They will take more and more and more. And eventually we will be very hungry. Then things will change, because there won't be a choice anymore. I too wish it wouldn't have to come to this, but it will. Because, unfortunately, for every nice kind person there is a total as*hat. And if there was a war between 50 good and 50 evil people - who would win? Remember the evil people are, presumably, willing to do things the good would never do. So they have a natural advantage. So anyway, that's relevant because i don't believe we're all bad, i just believe that the bad people want to have power way more than the good do.

What a long rant!!!


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

It's funny, all of that is actually proof progress is being made.

Progress never goes linear, there's always push-backs. We're in a time of massive upheaval, of course it's going to be rough sailing.

Women have more freedom and power than they have for all of US history and quite a good chunk of human history. We're nearing the point where women breadwinners are in the majority, increasingly more men are being stay at home dads and fathers are being expected to take a more equal and active role in parenting and housework. More companies are offering paid paternity leave. It's more possible for single women to raise kids, and more single women are choosing to have kids alone.

And, seriously, don't even try to school me on rape culture- but even there we're making progress. Do you seriously think that rape culture didn't exist in the 70s? That's ludicrous! More people actually acknowledge that a husband can rape his wife. We're starting to actually have a conversation about it rather than just allowing it to happen. More people are realizing that "boys will be boys" is screwed up. More people are realizing that 'she was asking for it' is bogus. More people are realizing that teaching kids about safe sex has to include _CONSENT_ and not just condoms, that we have to take steps to raise kids who won't abuse each other and aren't so vulnerable to abuse. More people are realizing that wives and children aren't property, but people who deserve to be treated with respect.

But there's push-back, there's always push-back. I read awhile ago that the whole abortion debate is pretty much entirely because male doctors realized that women weren't relying on them and got pissed. Before that, herbal abortions were the norm. I'm sure you know the history of the medicalization of birth, including twilight births- but even there, you can't deny that we're going in a better direction. (Hard to go in a _worse_ direction than just knocking folks out for birth...) The natural childbirth movement is making a lot of progress. Home birth is getting more accessible and more people are pushing hospitals to do better. _Medical groups_ are recognizing that hospitals perform too many c-sections and are pushing hospitals to decrease.

Honestly, if you pay attention to it, the pendulum on hospital birth is fascinating, especially because not all hospitals are at the same state of progress. A lot of "Baby Friendly" hospitals push too far the other way, denying new parents choices when those choices aren't natural enough (so pushing against elective c-sections and trying to force breastfeeding), at the same time there are still hospitals that try to force c-sections and encourage formula feeding. Sooner or later we'll meet in the happy middle of "Practices that overall focus on the well-being of parent and baby while allowing for personal differences".

That push-back also happens on an individual level. People who like the way things were get scared of change and try to stop it. Some men get more violent because they're defensive of their privilege being taken (and it is *NOT *a male-only thing. Women get quite nasty towards minorities as well). It's the exact same as the increased violence against trans folk- it's not a sign that things are getting worse, it's ironically a sign that things are getting better. I'm sure that people would point to the news stories about transgender youth suicides and try to argue things are getting worse- but those kids have always been killing themselves, the fact that we're now acknowledging it and getting outraged is a HUGE step forward! That doesn't make it pleasant to see, but it doesn't erase the massive progress that's being made.

And then some of the problems are because we simply aren't keeping up with the progress that's being made. Our culture evolved on the basis of the nuclear family with a stay at home mother. Hell, we still have summer vacation, which was designed for farming families, despite our culture predominantly being non-farmers. We haven't caught up to families where every adult in the house works. That's a huge part of why there's still the "motherhood penalty"- because SOMEONE has to take care of the kids, SOMEONE has to stay home with the kids when they're sick, SOMEONE has to handle summer vacation, and that person is assumed to be the mother. Gradually, that's going to change- but it will take time. One way to make that change is to push men to step up. Push them to take paternity leave when they're able to and demand it when it's not an option. Push them to be the one to stay home with the kids when they're sick. Push them to do all the things that employers complain about women doing. If 80% of men demanded paid parental leave to stay home with their babies- guess what would suddenly be available to all workers?

It's never a smooth or easy course. Things are better than they were in the 70s in part because we're actually acknowledging the problems. Rape and domestic violence existed in the 70s. Sexism existed in the 70s. But now women are increasingly being able to do something about it and we're increasingly acknowledging it.

Also- do not forget the role that the internet, globalization, and an increasingly sensationalist media plays in all of this. People used to be more cut off, so they only knew about what happened in their community. News had a lot more control about what did and didn't get published. Nowadays, the media seeks out the most shocking stories and the internet means that we hear far more stories than we ever would have before. So a lot of things feel worse in part because we're constantly bombarded with crap.

This reminds me of the argument that comes up around Free Range Parenting. Our society is, objectively, SAFER. But we feel LESS safe. http://www.newscientist.com/article...-are-less-violent-than-ever.html#.VT6AMpOYEXM http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/18/us/weeklong-u-s-gun-violence/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/megan-rosker/child-safety_b_1717100.html

A huge part of this is that our eyes are more open now than they ever have been. We're not only able to see more instances than we ever had before, we're ACKNOWLEDGING more than we ever have before. We're looking at domestic violence and rape and bigotry and saying "That's wrong" whereas just a few decades ago, they were status quo and no one noticed because it was just how things were. We talk about racism now far more than we did in the 50s. That's not because we're more racist than we were in the 50s, it's because we _acknowledge_ racism more now than we did in the 50s. Which is the only way that we're going to make strides to address it.

The progress is far slower than it would be if people werne't so complacent, but progress _is_ happening and has happened and will continue to happen. People will also continue to fight progress tooth and nail and return us to the time where white, straight cis men ruled supreme. They won't succeed, but the set-backs aren't any easier to handle.

And employers aren't allowed to totally block off birth control. They may be able to screw with insurance- but that's really just proof that we need to stop with private insurance as our main mode and institute national health care the way so many other countries have done.

(and for the love of all that is good- will the anti-birth control people who have no problem funding vasectomies please acknowledge the hypocrisy and just admit that they're sexist @#[email protected]#bags already?)


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

I pretty much disagree with all your examples of improvements.

Regarding things are better now than they have been for most of human history, this is the mass delusion we've been lead to believe so that we'll be more docile. It's a bald faced lie that women are freer now than ever. Sure, women were perhaps less free during most of agrarian history, but prior to that, which is where a wide majority of our history takes place, women and men lived in societies that were far more equal that the ones we live in now. Those were called hunter/gatherer societies.

With regards to rape culture in the 70's, i don't know, now people admit what rape is, but no one gives a shit. So i really don't see how that's an improvement either. Have the numbers of rape gone down? Is a woman today safer than she was 3 or 4 decades ago? Are rapists more likely to be brought to justice? The answer to all of these is no, so how have things improved? Knowledge doesn't equal improvement, improvement is more than a state of mind, there has to be some action, imo.

With regards to childbirth, again, i'm not sure that it is an improvement over the twilight days. Actually, it's funny you bring that up since i'm pretty sure in a few decades the medical model's current mo of drugging women with fentanol and getting them to agree to pitocin so as to not miss the hockey game/martini night then cutting open 1/3+ of women for NOTHING, hopefully eventually someone will see this for the travesty of justice that it is.

I think things were easier for my mom's generation than they are for ours. I think my mom got to give birth in much better conditions and with fewer risks and lower chance of death. I think the rape situation is more or less the same, albeit maybe we do talk about it more, but again, who cares, the things we do are the same, which is to treat victims with disdain and suspicion. etc...Sure, there were times when things were worse for women, but there were times when they were better, and the times when they were better far outweigh the times when they were worse. And the fact that it could be worse isn't very compelling for me anyway. I don't want to settle for second best when it comes to being treated fairly and with total autonomy.

All of this of course is partly motivated out of a deep concern for my daughter, who is only 1. I feel so bad for her, for how she will see women being treated, for how limited her options will be because of her VAG. It sucks.


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

If you want to go back to hunter/gatherer, you can. There are still tribes that live that way, and people go to live with them for research purposes and I'm sure you can find one willing to adopt you permanently.

And that's the beautiful thing. People have choice now. In our parents' generation, things were so much worse. They were only easier because people had fewer choices. And that _is_ easier- hell, I get overwhelmed just shopping at the thrift store because there's too many choices. Choice is hard. Going with the flow is easy. But it's not fulfilling and it left a lot of people badly hurt.

People do care about rape. A LOT of people care about rape. A lot more parents are intentionally raising their kids with "how do I teach my kids not to be rapists and not to be victims?" in mind. More people are taking responsibility for how we uphold rape culture. More people are focused on teaching people not to rape. More people are fighting back. And men are wholly included in that - most rape is committed by a small percentage of serial rapists, most men are disgusted by rape and when they realize that they're accomplices to the rapes of their loved ones, they do something about it.

If you don't like where you were born, it's easier to move. If you don't like the people you live near, you can get in contact with people across the world. If the education options in your city suck, you can access classes and knowledge online. Gender reassignment surgery is coming along well, more trans people are brave enough to not just be out but to have kids after transitioning. Queer people aren't just treated with respect, they've got families and we're working on making kids with two biological mothers. Kink is increasingly less of a big deal- and, yes, it's CRAP that the 50 Shades of Bullshit has a hand in that, but even that is making discussions of consent much more common. Formula means that now when breastfeeding doesn't work out, babies don't have to suffer. Modern medicine is making it so that people who once would have had to suffer or just die get a chance to _live_. And at the same time, if you're a cis straight person who wants to raise children 100% naturally and uphold traditional values, you've still got the resources and communities to do it! And, yeah, it goes overboard- but everything does. We're humans. We're imperfect. We're working on it. But we've got a lot of things to work on, limited time, and even more limited ability to work together.

The entire world is basically Twitch Plays Pokemon. Slow as hell, full of heartwrenching mistakes, spends ages trying to do incredibly simple things, occasionally you get people who intentionally set everyone back- but, overall, progress is made.

I hope for your daughter's sake that you open your eyes and realize the world isn't that bad. It's crap in a lot of ways- but it's not nearly as misogynist as you're hellbent on believing.

Your daughter can be anyone she wants to be. She can do anything she wants to do. And she'll face a bit of misogyny and sexist dirtwads, but if you raise her right she'll be able to give them the brush off they deserve as she smashes yet another glass ceiling beneath her heel. It sounds like the person who's most limiting your daughter is you.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

sillysapling said:


> I hope for your daughter's sake that you open your eyes and realize the world isn't that bad. It's crap in a lot of ways- but it's not nearly as misogynist as you're hellbent on believing.
> 
> Your daughter can be anyone she wants to be. She can do anything she wants to do. And she'll face a bit of misogyny and sexist dirtwads, but if you raise her right she'll be able to give them the brush off they deserve as she smashes yet another glass ceiling beneath her heel. It sounds like the person who's most limiting your daughter is you.


I think you're very close to attacking me personally here and I don't appreciate it. Please don't judge me as a mother or act like my daughter needs rescuing from you, she doesn't, we don't. Please respect me even though i disagree with you, and i will endeavor to do the same.

In reality daughter can't do anything she wants. That's a huge line of b-llshit fed to us by the state so that we can believe that we are freer than we are and so that we have no one to blame but ourselves if things don't work out. In reality, my daughter's choices will be limited by her gender. There are certain paths in life that if she chooses to take them, will be made much more difficult, due solely to her gender. And she may flounder from her path as a result. I speak from experience, as a professional woman who has achieved some measure of success. My career path has run parallel to that of a man, my life partner, and his has been so much easier. I WILL NOT pretend that men and women have the same opportunities for advancement here, we don't. Women still have to work twice as hard for half the respect. And we earn far less for the same work, controlling for factors like absenteeism. And i fully intend on educating my daughter in such matters for at least two reasons: 1) so that she knows what she's getting herself into if she decides to pursue a professional career, and 2) so that she knows if it doesn't work out that it might not be because of a personal failing on her part but because of the insane barriers that society puts up to women's full participation.

Some things have gotten better, in some of the ways you describe. But, as you seem to agree, there hasn't been a reduction in the amount of violence that women face nor has there been an increase in the amount of convictions for crimes involving sexual violence against women. Women continue to be abused and violated when they give birth because, as a society, we still don't believe that a woman's right to her body is absolute and without qualification. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

Here's a summary of the findings of a study that support my claim that sexism is still a very significant problem for women today. Our opportunities are affected by our gender, not only because of what we do, and in order to change this we must first acknowledge it as the serious problem that it is. Let's not minimize it.

"Corell and Bernard created a study that looked at the hiring practices and preferences of employers.[4] They created hypothetical job seekers with resumes and other materials. 192 Cornell undergraduates were asked to evaluate them as candidates for a position as marketing director for a start-up communications company. They created two applicant profiles that were functionally equivalent. Their resumes were both very strong; they were very successful in their last jobs. When presenting these resumes, no one preferred one applicant over the other and they were seen as equally qualified. Next, a memo mentioning that the applicant was a mother of two children was added to one of the profiles. The resume was also modified to show that the applicant was an officer in a parent-teacher association. This time when participants were asked if they would hire these applicants, participants said they would hire 84 percent of the women without children, compared with only 47 percent of the mothers. These findings showed that mothers are 79 percent less likely to be hired.[3] In assigning a starting salary to the applicants, given a pay range appropriate for the job, participants offered non-mothers an average of $11,000 more than mothers.[4] An audit study also showed that prospective employers were less likely to call back mothers for interviews than non-mothers."

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...CEeIpOIEnIGrhgx6EwfN4fg&bvm=bv.92189499,d.cGU


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Wow! This debate is really fascinating...I hadn't realized how many comments had been posted here since I got my last notification.

I can see how the current wage and hiring gap between women and men and mothers and non-mothers is very unfair for those mothers who actually DO have the mindset to give their career the same priority that most fathers give to their careers. But in all honesty, I (as well as most of the mothers I know) don't have that mindset.

Most of us actually WANT the primary responsibility for attending to our children's immediate needs, and even when we also want or need to work, we tend to prefer the jobs that mesh the best with the needs of our families. And yes, some fathers are making similar choices, but I think the majority of women and men are somewhat neo-traditional (link below).

The hard part is that employers do tend to be biased based on their previous experiences. From my own experience, of working in a daycare center that went from being staffed solely by childless women to having a couple of mothers on the staff, everything went a lot smoother, and we had a lot fewer days when we weren't fully-staffed, when none of us had any kids.

But as sillysapling pointed out, if huger and huger numbers of dads start taking time off to care for their kids, things will change. In the current reality, most employers assume that a father is a million times more likely to prioritize his career than a man who's not a father, and they kind of assume the reverse about a mother.

http://family-studies.org/the-real-...-married-families-today-tilt-neo-traditional/


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

P.S. Back to the Free Range Kids debate, here's a link to a great post by Lenore Skenazy. I love her thoughts about "Fantasy as Policy."

http://www.freerangekids.com/letting-kids-walk-to-the-park-in-maryland-legal-or-not/


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2015/04/23/the-time-i-was-accused-of-child-abuse/

I read the above article, and found that for once, the CPS acted correctly in this encounter. They got a report (a false one), came and had a look, were respectful, and then left without bothering the family further, as far as we know.

This would not happen in New York. The CPS is required to keep a case open for a mandatory 2 months, and then keep it on file for a range of 5-25 years ( i have seen different reports)


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

mammal_mama said:


> P.S. Back to the Free Range Kids debate, here's a link to a great post by Lenore Skenazy. I love her thoughts about "Fantasy as Policy."
> 
> http://www.freerangekids.com/letting-kids-walk-to-the-park-in-maryland-legal-or-not/


Thanks for this link mammal_mama!

Quoted from the above article-

<<The solution is to forbid what I call "Fantasy as Policy." Just because an authority can _imagine_ something gruesome or terrifying happening to kids, that's not enough justification to find the parents guilty of endangering them. The danger has to be immediate, indisputable and likely.>>

I love it too! Another simple solution.

Permit me to quote from one of the commenters of the above article

 <<Havva - 
........... "What is the law and/or regulation that would give Child Protective Services the authority to hold in goverment care an unaccompanied child who has been encountered in an outside area as opposed to a building, car, or other confined space?
The response:
"If CPS determines that the child under the age of 18 is in serious immediate danger, Family Law 5-709 authorizes CPS to not return the child to his or her parents and place the child in care."
I would be surprised if the "serious immediate danger" standard is a sane one, if applied sanely. But to say two kids walking around Silver Spring at 5pm in spring qualify as being in "serious immediate danger" is absurd. I hope the Meitiv's lawyers can use that to prove that CPS acted illegally. Family Law 5-709(d) also says that if they remove a per that law, CPS has to have the kid "thoroughly examined by a physician." Did CPS do that? 
Also why is CPS making this determination, alone, when it is the officer who has actual eyes on the situation (or alleged situation)? I get saying CPS has to sign off on taking the kid in. But frankly where are the checks in this system? It sounds like once a call is made, a single CPS agent can decide to have the kid taken, on their own accord. Combine that to the answer to question 8, that they have no time frame for when they have to review and decide if the child will continue to be held, or returned to parents. This system is so ripe for one bad decision, from one person, to just keep snow balling.
Best wishes to the Meitivs, I hope they can force a change.>>

I couldnt agree more. There are not enough checks in the system.

<<BL 
"Obviously the problem is that "neglect" is left in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes that eye is wearing "Law & Order" contact lenses that see danger and mayhem where the naked eye sees only sidewalks and trees.">>


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

> The solution is to forbid what I call "Fantasy as Policy." Just because an authority can imagine something gruesome or terrifying happening to kids, that's not enough justification to find the parents guilty of endangering them. The danger has to be immediate, indisputable and likely.


contactmaya, this quote is brilliant so I will repeat it. It fits so much more in our current society of fear porn, than just CPS. We are inundated with fantastical imagination from all areas of our society, especially the media, government, and other institutions with vested interests, that leads to draconian laws, under the guise of 'keeping us safe'.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

mammal_mama said:


> ...Most of us actually WANT the primary responsibility for attending to our children's immediate needs, and even when we also want or need to work, we tend to prefer the jobs that mesh the best with the needs of our families. And yes, some fathers are making similar choices, but I think the majority of women and men are somewhat neo-traditional (link below).
> 
> The hard part is that employers do tend to be biased based on their previous experiences. From my own experience, of working in a daycare center that went from being staffed solely by childless women to having a couple of mothers on the staff, everything went a lot smoother, and we had a lot fewer days when we weren't fully-staffed, when none of us had any kids.


The issue with this line of reasoning is that it seems to presuppose that the obligation is on mothers to modify their behaviours to fit into a male concept of work and work obligations, rather than thinking the obligation should be on society to make work more friendly for parents - fathers included. In so doing it blames the victim - mothers - of the discrimination and totally enables the discrimination to continue.

Plus, factually your hypothesis has been proved false. Yes there is ample anecdotal evidence of mothers being less good workers, but the stats don't support this as fact. As it turns out mothers are more productive than non-mothers. The hypothesis to explain this is that they face so much discrimination in the assumption that they're less committed that they over compensate - despite being paid significantly less.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/shenego...mothers-make-better-employees-but-less-money/

And note that this article is from Forbes - a well respected conservative financial publication.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

And here, the best article on the subject showing that working mothers are generally more productive than anyone:

http://jezebel.com/face-women-with-kids-more-productive-than-literally-ev-1654648743

QED!!


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Those are both very good articles, Viola P. And I remembered that my job in childcare was one of the lower-paying jobs in our society, as are many other caregiving jobs -- so even though showing up every day on time, and being there for the entirety of your shift, play a HUGE part in how your productivity is measured in these jobs, in which you can be the most awesome teacher or caregiver in the world when you're actually THERE, but those depending on you, and others having to pick up your slack (and those depending on them) will suffer if you can't manage to there most of the time...


What defines productivity in caregiving jobs (or, say, line production jobs) is simply NOT the same as what defines productivity in many of the higher-paying and higher-status jobs out there, in which you can often complete the work quite brilliantly without even coming into the office -- i.e. while staying at home with your sick child. So it definitely is silly to measure productivity in all jobs with the same criteria that we measure productivity in jobs such as childcare where you can't do the job without being on-site.


However, one thing I did notice in the Jezebel article was that, even though mothers were more productive overall, mothers with preteens tended to be less so, so this may be a consideration for employers that don't expect an employee to stay there for the entire course of his or her career, because if a mother switched companies when her kids got older, this would mean they'd have her for the less productive years but not get to benefit from having her productivity shoot up when her kids were older and less dependent -- but then, if she left, maybe they could try to replace her with another older mom and benefit from HER increased productivity instead.


But of course, employee loyalty is a two-way street. Many people would be happy to work for the same company all their lives if they felt like their employer truly had their best interests at heart.


Also, just as career-minded mothers face biases, so do the fathers who choose to stay home or make their careers secondary to parenting. Employers tend to be a lot more suspicious of men with gaps in their resumes, and people in general tend to hold SAHDs in low esteem.


And really, the bias against working mothers hurts not just career-minded mothers, but also the partners and children depending on them as the primary breadwinner. 


On a positive note, I believe that we are most definitely transitioning into a society in which more and more employers, and people in general, are approaching each person with an open mind rather than making limiting assumptions based on characteristics like race or gender, but we still have a long way to go. And I think discussions like this will be a tremendous catalyst for increasing humanity's consciousness in this area.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

mammal_mama said:


> Those are both very good articles, Viola P. And I remembered that my job in childcare was one of the lower-paying jobs in our society, as are many other caregiving jobs -- so even though showing up every day on time, and being there for the entirety of your shift, play a HUGE part in how your productivity is measured in these jobs, in which you can be the most awesome teacher or caregiver in the world when you're actually THERE, but those depending on you, and others having to pick up your slack (and those depending on them) will suffer if you can't manage to there most of the time...
> 
> What defines productivity in caregiving jobs (or, say, line production jobs) is simply NOT the same as what defines productivity in many of the higher-paying and higher-status jobs out there, in which you can often complete the work quite brilliantly without even coming into the office -- i.e. while staying at home with your sick child. So it definitely is silly to measure productivity in all jobs with the same criteria that we measure productivity in jobs such as childcare where you can't do the job without being on-site.
> 
> ...


Yes, I especially like this part:

"Mui notes that these are, of course, privileged women. They are highly educated and obviously gainfully employed. Their pregnancies were likely planned, and were made considerably more manageable by maternity leave and paid time off. They probably all have childcare or nannies or systems in place to be able to meet work deadlines and commitments through all the usual inconveniences of young children that force many less privileged working gals to miss hella time off for runny noses and mild fevers, to say nothing of the sheer number of days off the average daycare takes off that parents must scramble to cover throughout the school year."

To me what they're saying here is that the issue isn't mothers in the workplace or mothers working, it's the lack of support for working mothers. I think we tend to put the blame on the shoulders of women, while really the problem is that society should change to accommodate our needs. The fact that the work world is largely still built by men and for men (with men in mind) is strong evidence of ongoing gender based oppression.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I see it more as the world being built by and for the privileged. From an employer's perspective, as long as they can pick and choose among different kinds of workers, they're going to go for the demographic most likely to give them a good return on their investment in the short term. They're not going to think, "Well, in ten years, this mother of two small children is going to be able to largely make up for all the time she had to miss when her kids were small" -- because they'll be assuming that she may be working for a completely different employer by then.


I don't see this as a situation desired by the majority of the world's men -- it's more like something that works out well for those men and women who are in the top one percent. Most men want their wives to enjoy success and be happy in whatever work they're doing -- both because they love them and because that makes their own lives that much more pleasant.


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

I totally disagree with you. I don't think the article was saying women with young children are less productive. And i don't believe that women with young children are less productive. I think that women with children are generally more productive, regardless of the age of the children. I suspect that this is partly because women with children are constantly having to prove that they are productive and worthy of the wage they're earning (since pretty much everyone assumes that they're less productive, regardless of how many statistics that show otherwise, as this conversation has largely proved as well); and also partly because women are generally expected to do more for less because women are less valued. I do believe that if societies were more mother friendly - by which i mean having paid maternity leave for everyone for a year, state funded childcare, etc... then this would go a long way towards leveling the gender playing field in the workforce, and to me that is something that is important. I strongly disagree with the commonly held belief that it comes down to individual choices - especially the choices of individual women. 

Also, academics don't comprise the 1%, just saying. 

Feminism is important and relevant. Please let there be someone else out there who thinks that sexism is real and that feminism is relevant and important.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I was going by where Mui was quoted as saying that the first child resulted in a 9% drop in productivity, and so on...it added up to a total drop of 33% with three preteens.

Also, when I talked about the 1%, I wasn't talking about academics; I was talking about business owners -- but of course, that's a lot more than 1% of the population, too. But the point I was trying to make was that men don't benefit from their wives and partners being discriminated against in the workplace, so this isn't really a "man's world" kind of thing -- it's more of a "rich folks and/or business owners -- granted, more than 1% of the population, but nowhere near the majority -- being focused on short-term profit."

Edited to add the link to the article that I was referring to: http://jezebel.com/face-women-with-kids-more-productive-than-literally-ev-1654648743


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Viola P said:


> Feminism is important and relevant. Please let there be someone else out there who thinks that sexism is real and that feminism is relevant and important.


I think you'll actually find a lot more people agree with you than with me. In my experience, any questioning of the narrative of the most vocal group of feminists is usually viewed as a form of sacrilege.

I think the main reason you're not hearing more about it here is that this thread's about a somewhat different topic -- and yet, it does make sense to look at issues like CPS's involvement in families within the larger societal and historical context in which this involvement is occurring.

For example, we are now at a place where increasing numbers of two-income families means fewer adults are at home to keep an eye on what's going on in the neighborhood, more young children are in after-school daycare programs and are not coming straight home from school and going out to play in the neighborhood, and in some cases, two-income families translates into more and more families being in a position to pay for lots of special classes and activities for their kids -- and, of course, electronic games are fun and can lesson kids' urge to head out that door, too...

Such that the previous norm of kids having tons of free time, and tons of freedom to figure out how they want to spend that free time, can seem extremely alien and even neglectful to your average middle class person.

But I've been greatly heartened by seeing the huge amount of social support for the Meitivs. As this issue makes it through the courts, and also the court of public opinion, I think they'll actually end up blazing a trail into a much better situation for kids.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Without a doubt!

<<Originally Posted by *Viola P*  _Feminism is important and relevant. Please let there be someone else out there who thinks that sexism is real and that feminism is relevant and important.>>

_


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Viola P said:


> The fact that the work world is largely still built by men and for men (with men in mind) is strong evidence of ongoing gender based oppression.


On the issue of feminism, this is the crux of it in my opinion.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

mammal_mama said:


> I see it more as the world being built by and for the privileged.


This is reminiscent of the debates i remember having as an undergraduate- which is the foremost cause of oppression, class or patriarchy? I always argued, patriarchy. Asking the same question today, I believe both can be true. There is no doubt that our modern industrialized culture is based on the concept of autonomous male individual, and women have to work around it. Reforms are made, and things have improved. But the core doesnt change. Thats why there is still the dilemma of the SAHM and the WOHM.

But wealthy women have it better. They have more choices. The very wealthiest, have it best of all. If i were a millionaire, as a woman, i would choose to stay at home, and when i needed a break, I would pay someone to watch the kids. I would set up some kind of business, and establish a successful career at no cost to my motherhood role.

I dont have that choice, so i just do everything myself, and I obviously had to forsake a successful career because of it.

With wealth, comes power, no matter what your gender. But that doesnt change the fact that every society on this planet, has its roots in patriarchy. I always say, patriarchy, been there, done that.

How does this relate to CPS? Poor people are targeted and dont have the means to defend themselves. Those poor people though, are more often than not, poor women. And poverty gets worse and much harder to escape when you bring children into the equation. This is true of rich countries, as much as its true of poor countries.

The poor, are overwhelmingly mothers and their children.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

mammal_mama said:


> But I've been greatly heartened by seeing the huge amount of social support for the Meitivs. As this issue makes it through the courts, and also the court of public opinion, I think they'll actually end up blazing a trail into a much better situation for kids.


Yes, it truly is heartening!


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

I agree that the state taking an increasing interest in parental judgement calls affects women more than anyone since the majority of people that come under its purview are the poor and women and children are a wide majority of the poor.

I get sad when people argue against feminist interpretations/observations/points by alluding to some bigger, more important, oppression or injustice. Then it becomes a competition and women's issues are always last on a very long list. I don't think there needs to be a competition at all. I think ALL of the justice issues are important, and i'm not going to say equally important because i don't want to measure them, especially not in absolute terms. But class based oppression sucks and so does gender based oppression and race based oppression and the war on the environment. These are all very important issues and the fact that i talk about things from a feminist perspective doesn't mean i'm saying that women's issues should win the competition of what's most oppressive. Let's not have a competition at all. Let's acknowledge that things are tougher for women of most (or maybe) every class. Let's acknowledge that this benefits men and works against women. 

Strange times we live in.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I agree with not having a competition. I just don't agree that things are always tougher for women. Men going through a divorce, who want (as any loving parent would want) to remain actively involved in their children's lives, have a much harder time in the courts than women do. 


And yet, some of the most vocal feminists oppose an automatic presumption of shared custody in divorce cases. You can google the National Association for Women's views on shared parenting if you want to know more about that.


Fathers who were never married to their child's mother have an even harder time getting visitation if the mother doesn't want them to have it. Of course, not getting visitation has absolutely no bearing on their obligation to pay child support.


In a nutshell, men who want to be an active presence in their children's lives are pretty much at the mercy of their children's mothers, which works out okay when the mothers want this, too -- but if they'd just like to completely move on and have their kids call their new love "Daddy," bio dads don't have much of a legal leg to stand on -- though they will still be paying, of course.


Anyone who sees this any differently than they would if a man could file for divorce, keep the kids, and relegate the mother to every other weekend visitation -- is not treating all the justice issues as important.


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

Men are at a disadvantage if they want to do traditionally feminine things- which does women a huge disservice. It teaches that female things are beneath men and deserve to be devalued, and puts undo pressure on women to do them. We don't acknowledge this as a disadvantage because "no real man would want to do that anyways, only a lowly woman would debase herself by caring about her kids".

There's a dad in Sweden (which has paid paternity leave and encourages parents to take equal time off) who is documenting the time off for 60 dads. He's trying to provide role models for involded dads. That includes talking about the pressure they get from friends and family not to, and talking about the benefits to women when dads take a more active role.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/this-photographer-wants-to-change-the-way-you-see-116039283462.html


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

I think that men's issues are important but as a woman and as a feminist i'm interested in women's issues. I don't feel the need to do service to men's issues in order to validate talking about women's issues.

Also, as someone who works in the court system I can assure you that it no longer is the case that women are automatically presumed to be the primary care giver. Again, this is like the presumption that mothers are less productive in the workforce, the reality is actually different. How it works where i am is that it is the man's election - if he wants to be involved the courts will strongly prefer 50/50 type arrangements, or, he can get out of it by paying child support. The woman and children are just pulled along and really it isn't up to them. Maybe where you are it's more like it was in the 70's, but not here. We even got rid of the tender years doctrine so men are now arguing successfully to have small babies in their care week on/week off. It's disgusting if you ask me. A baby needs its mother, not just for the biological benefits of milk, but for maternal bonding. We are the only animals on earth that think it's a good idea to take small babies from their mothers.

I think the notion that mothers are the default care providers per the courts is dangerous and antiquated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-helfend-meyer/child-custody-and-the-wor_b_3369173.html

Either way mothers are in a lose-lose situation. Because if we work and he doesn't, then he can argue that he should have the child because he can spend more time with the child. But, if they're both working then statistically he's likely to make more money so then he can argue that he can better provide for the children with his greater income (and this does happen all the time too and there are ample articles on this phenomenon). If the mom is stay at home and he works and makes good money he can again claim that he can provide a better lifestyle, which unfortunately is not an argument that works for working mothers.

http://hers-magazine.com/are-good-mothers-losing-custody-to-rich-men/


----------



## Viola P (Sep 14, 2013)

And this case, which is very interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...rts-took-children-away-Im-working-mother.html


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Finally, some good news:

<<ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) - After an outcry over one family's "free-range" parenting case, Maryland officials on Friday clarified the state's policy on how authorities handle cases of children walking or playing alone outdoors, saying the state shouldn't investigate unless kids are harmed or face substantial risk of harm.>>..........

.............<<"Obviously CPS has an important role to play into protecting children. That role should not supercede the parents' rights and responsibilities to take care of their kids, because frankly I think the overwhelming majority of parents have their children's best interests in mind," Meitiv said. "I think CPS should start from that position.">>

http://news.yahoo.com/free-range-case-maryland-clarifies-solo-kids-policy-130400842.html


----------



## Dude111 (May 10, 2015)

Lets hope this whistleblower HASNT ENDANGERED THIER OWN LIFE!!


----------



## sillysapling (Mar 24, 2013)

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/11-year-old-boy-played-in-his-yard-cps-t

Charged with a felony because an 11 year old got home before his parents and safely played in his yard, with access to water and shelter. That seems perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Dude111 (May 10, 2015)

It seems bloody stupid doesnt it??

I ALSO PLAYED IN MY YARD ALONE WHEN I WAS 11!!!

This world is so messed up now its not funny!


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

See below for some informative comments on this article :

http://news.yahoo.com/officials-mom-lost-custody-kills-kids-services-worker-004928266.html

_
chris _
I am a child service worker and I it disturbs me to see some of the responses on here. First, this is not a money making scheme; the state does not want your child. I am not sure about the state you live in, but we don't have a place for children, we have more children than placement providers. Second, stop using our office as a custody battleground, stop clogging the system with bogus calls, stop doing drugs, stop the molestation/beating/emotional abuses that are bestowed upon our youth like birthday gifts. Guess what, contrary to the apparent popular concencus shared in these posts I do not enjoy seeing the photos, faces of hurt children, or having to bare witness to the atrocities that our set upon our youths shoulders to endure. To bring "the right to bear arms" or arguments against government involvement is ludicrous in this instance; youth need protection because oddly enough perpetrators of crimes against your don't just come out and say hey I am hurting kids. So, make your statements, but remember that I do my, and I would say a majority of workers, do this work for the kids, and as you criticize or condemn realize you only hear about the bad things because that is when situations become publicized; you do not get to hear about the numerous families we work with and that work with us in which positive outcomes are seen and families are brought back together, and find their family unit to be stronger and more aware of their strengths than before.

_ Experienced Professional _
 *
Then start helping change the laws and policies that allow this to happen. Stop funding through the Social Security Act. Stop the mandated reporting scheme. Stop allowing anonymous reporters. Stop sham court procedures. Stop closed courtrooms. Stop blanket treatment plans. Stand up and help fix a broken system rather than work for it!*

_Officer Farva _ 
Not condoning shooting a CPS worker but those agencies are some of the most corrupt power hungry agencies there are. They are immune from prosecution and can take your kids away based on hearsay evidence. All someone has to do is accuse someone and in CPS's mind they are guilty until proven innocent, but there are cases in which people are not even allowed to prove their innocence. There needs to be more accountability for these people who make such an impact on people's lives.

_A _ 
I am actually surprised there haven't been more incidents like this. It's one thing to take a kid away from a drug addled mother that couldn't get the wherewithal to find their way out of a paper bag. But oftentimes DCF oversteps their boundaries these days and takes kids because they don't agree with parental choices. We have seen kids taken by DCF because parents let their kids walk to school alone, live off the grid, or choose to ignore medical advice they don't agree with like vaccinations. There was even a mother in liberal California that just lost her kids because DCF said they were too short and "not thriving"! In cases like those, the parents want their kids, are fully capable of taking care of them and are enraged when DCF takes their kids as they view unjustly. Furthermore, the taking of kids by DCF, is basically the only thing that happens in this country without some sort of due process. Their power and discretion borders on ridiculous and they often abuse it. I am sad for this case worker, but barring a parent being physically or sexually abusive or a down and out drug addict, removing the child should be an absolute last resort.

_Anthony_ 
You couldn't be more right. They have powers that rival a bounty hunter and have you seen a group home? I would care to wager over 50% of these kids were better off at home. I would kill someone for abducting my child too.


----------



## Dude111 (May 10, 2015)

> I am a child service worker and I it disturbs me to see some of the responses on here.


Screw that idiot... THEY HAVE AN OBVIOUS AGENDA AND WILL DEFEND WHAT HAPPEND!!


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

A sensible article on the topic:

*Mother who let her 4-year-old play 120 feet away from her now facing jail*

Is 4 years old too young to play alone outside? It might not matter how you answer that question: Your neighbors and the police might just decide for you. 
That's what happened to Sonya Hendren when she let her 4-year-old son, Tomahawk, play on their gated Sacramento, California, apartment complex playground by himself. She felt her son could handle playing unsupervised 120 feet from her apartment's front door, but her neighbor disagreed. According to local news outlet _CBS8_, the neighbor, Sonja Horrell, reported Hendren to Child Protective Services, and Hendren was arrested for felony child neglect and endangerment.
The charges were later reduced to misdemeanors, and Hendren is hoping to get them dropped completely. If she's found guilty of even misdemeanor neglect and endangerment, that's a charge that can carry up to six months of jail and three years of probation. Alternatively she can take the very attractive offer of just 30 days in jail and a year of probation. So far she has declined that offer.
In the meantime, she has a CPS case open against her and claims she will be in violation if she lets her son out of her line of sight."

Read the rest here-
http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1104363/mom-faces-jail-son-play-outside-alone


----------



## farmermomma (Oct 30, 2012)

That kid has a cool name. Dang nosey neighbors.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Anyway.....
http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/a...estigates-mom-kids-play-in-fenced-in-backyard


----------



## Cheeky-One (Jan 27, 2015)

dalia said:


> Honestly, the video does seem a bit suspect. CPS employees do not get paid per child removed from a home. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this part. CPS people BARELY get paid anything! I think a bigger problem is the underpayment and them being overloaded with cases and thus missing abusive situations.


In some states, the workers do get extra money based on each child they manage in foster care. This is not every state, just some states.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

I thought this article put an intelligent perspective on some of these issues:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-arent-real/?utm_term=.e4e1a41a3826#comments


----------

